Citation
Applicability of change theory to change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments within selected collegiate nursing programs

Material Information

Title:
Applicability of change theory to change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments within selected collegiate nursing programs
Creator:
Parsons, Mary Ann Coward
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 355 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Conformity ( jstor )
Funding ( jstor )
Group facilitation ( jstor )
Ions ( jstor )
Nursing ( jstor )
Nursing students ( jstor )
Observational research ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Resistors ( jstor )
Retraining ( jstor )
Change ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Educational innovations ( lcsh )
Nursing services -- Administration ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 350-354.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Mary Ann Coward Parsons.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator(ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
025552719 ( ALEPH )
03024024 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












APPLICABILITY OF CHANGE THEORY TO
CHANGE-ORIENTED AND NONCIIANGE-ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS
WITHIN SELECTED COLLEGIATE NURSING PROGRAMS













By

MARY ANN COWARD PARSONS


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1976


























In memory of my father, Leon W. Coward (1919-1968)














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The writer wishes to thank her supervisory committee, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Chairperson, Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough, and Dr. Blanche I. Urey, for their assistance in the preparation of this study. The writer also wishes to acknowledge the support given her by the University of Florida College of Nursing throughout her doctoral study, and to George, Nicole, Kent, and her mother, Kay D. Coward, her deepest appreciation for their support which enabled her to realize this goal.


iii















TABLE OF CONTENTS



Page


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - 7--------------------------------iii

ABSTRACT vi------------------------------------------CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION 1-------------------------------1

The Problem--------------------------------Delimitations and Limitations -------------- 4
Justification for the Study ---------------- 7
Assumptions 0--------------------------------10
Definition of Terms ------------------------ 11
Hypotheses -------------------------------13
Procedures ---------------------------------14

II CHANGE THEORY: PROCESS, SELECTED FACTORS
THAT FACILITATE CHANGE AND SELECTED
FACTORS THAT RESIST CHANGE ----------------- 33

Lewin's Concept of Change ------------------ 33
The Process of Planned Change in Individuals and Organizations as Seen
by the Theoreticians ------------------- 39
Facilitators of Change as Determined
by the Literature ---------------------- 43
Resistors of Change as Determined
by the Literature ---------------------- 49
Relationship Between Scholarly Literature
and the Proposed Study -------------------56

III PRESENTATION OF THE THREE CHANGE-ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS -------------------------------- 59

IV PRESENTATION OF THE THREE NONCHANGEORIENTED DEPARTMENTS ----------------------- 193

V ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FIELD
STUDY RESULTS IN RELATION TO THE
THEORETICAL LITERATURE --------------------- 299










Pagze


VI PRESENTATION OF SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 318 APPENDICES -------------------------------------------328

A DEPARTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE -------------------- 329

B PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW GUIDE -----------------333

C DOCUMENT REVIEW AND OBSERVATION GUIDE ------- 342 REFERENCES ------------------------------------------350

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH -5----------------------------------5










Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



TILE APPLICABILITY OF CHANGE THEORY
TO CHANGE-ORIENTED AND NONCHANGE-ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS
WITHIN SELECTED COLLEGIATE NURSING PROGRAMS



By

Mary Ann Coward Parsons August, 1976


Chairperson: James L. Wattenbarger Major Department: Educational Administration


The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent the scholarly literature on change was applicable in departments in collegiate nursing programs. Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought:

1. To what extent do change-oriented and

nonchange-oriented departments differ in

regard to the relative presence or absence

of internal factors identified by change

theorists as facilitators of change?

2. To what extent do change-oriented and

nonchange-oriented departments differ in

regard to the relative presence or absence

of internal factors identified by change

theorists as resistors of change?










Considered in the selection of factors purported to facilitate or resist change in the literature were those which had been incorporated in the literature on nursing theory but had been done so without adequate testing to determine if possible modifications were necessary. The six facilitators studied were

1. Internal support for change

2. Individual members advocating change

3. Presence of a change agent

4. Retraining members for new tasks

6. Adequacy of plan for meeting organization

members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration The six resistors studied were

1. Conformity to norms

2. Systemic and cultural coherence

3. Vested interest

4. The sacrosanct

5. Rejection of "outsiders"

6. Inability to carry out change

Four collegiate nursing programs in the southeastern region of the United States were selected for study. Department chairpersons in each of the four programs responded to a questionnaire which resulted in the selection of three change-oriented and three nonchangeoriented departments.


vii










The case study method was employed to conduct

this investigation. The principle methods used to collect data were (1) personal interviews in the nursing programs represented by the six departments studied with faculty, an administrator, students, and recent graduates, and (2) structured and unstructured observations as well as the analysis of written materials and documents. Frequency distributions were developed to determine the differences in the incidence of the six facilitators and six resistors in the three change-oriented and three nonchange-oriented departments.

Greater incidences of five of the facilitators were found in the three change-oriented departments as compared to the three nonchange-oriented departments. They were Facilitators 1 (internal support for change),

3 (presence of a change agent), 4 (retraining members for new tasks), 5, (adequate funding), and 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration). Facilitator

2 (individual members advocating change) was found in equal numbers in both of the groups. Facilitators 3 (presence of a change agent) and 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration) had sufficient evidence to support their consideration in discussions on change in departments in collegiate nursing programs.


viii










Greater incidence of three of the resistors was found in the three nonchange-oriented departments as compared to the three change-oriented departments. They were Resistor 1 (conformity to norms), 2 (systemic and cultural coherence), and 3 (vested interest). Of the resistors found in the nonchange-oriented departments, Resistor 3 (vested interest) occurred most frequently. Vested interests appeared to develop in the nonchangeoriented departments because of the traditional organizational structure which produced segregation and strong faculty identification with a single department.















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



Many changes were made in nursing education in

the 1960's and early 1970's (Facts about nursing, 1972), but these changes were not being made in isolation. They were seen as a part of other changes in society. Social, industrial, and scientific forces have influenced the delivery of health services and the needs of consumers of health care. Examples of these forces are the knowledge explosion, the impact of science and technology, and the population growth (Schein & Kommers, 1972, p. 39).

Nursing has been affected by these forces (Okunode, 1975, p. 46) as have other professions. Although changes have taken place, Schein and Kommers (1972) have identified three trends in professions that run counter to the needs created by the social, industrial, and scientific forces identified previously. These trends are (a) professions have become more convergent in their knowledge base and standards of practice; (b) professions have become more specialized; and (c) professions have become more bureaucratized and rigid in the career alternatives they allow (Schein & Kommers, 1972, p. 43).










Administrators and faculty members in colleges of nursing must examine nursing education in view of these trends and determine what changes must occur in order to meet the challenges of society. It is evident that as the social problems and consumer needs become more complex, professional nurses must become more skilled in integrating convergent and divergent forms of thinking; be better able to work across professional groups and/or integrate the efforts of many groups; and be able to change in order to meet consumer problems and needs (Bevis, 1973, pp. 56-66).

The classification of clients in segregated services such as medical, surgical, pediatric, and obstetric influenced the work of the nurse in the modern hospital (Spalding, 1959, p. 69) and in the community. The various types of work divisions, therefore, influenced the curriculum and the organization of departments in colleges of nursing. Some examples of traditional departments are (a) fundamentals of nursing; (b) medical-surgical nursing; (c) maternity nursing; (d) pediatrics; (e) community health; and

(f) psychiatric nursing.

The trend developed in the 1970's to define areas of nursing concerns and refer to them as levels or cores. Some examples of core areas that have been identified are

(a) the growing family; (b) the maturing family; (c) the aging family; and (d) special interests. Whether the faculty are organized into departments or identified with










core areas they are a part of an identifiable social system that must respond to a need for change. In spite of this need, little has been documented specifically about the application of change theory to collegiate nursing programs. Bevis (1973) has pointed out that very little attention has been given in the curriculum to studying the change process in nursing (pp. 144-155). Therefore, faculty within departments in collegiate nursing programs must be studied as to their attitudes toward change, for their role is one of preparing practitioners (Bevis, 1973, p. 135) to function in a complex, changing society. Another way of stating the question proposed in this study might be, to what extent does the scholarly literature on change apply in health-related professions such as nursing? The literature on change focuses on the process of change, as well as those factors that facilitate and resist change in various kinds of settings. In this study the writer attempted to advance the knowledge about factors which are offered in the literature as facilitators or resistors based on careful analysis of change as a process in selected nursing programs.


The Problem


The focus of this investigation was to test the applicability of the scholarly literature on change to










reputed change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments within collegiate nursing programs. Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought:

1. To what extent do change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments differ in regard

to the relative presence or absence of internal factors identified by change theorists

as facilitators of change?

2. To what extent do change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments differ in regard

to the relative presence or absence of internal factors identified by change theorists

as resistors of change?



Delimitations and Limitations


For the field portion of this study four colleges of nursing were selected based on the following criteria: National League for Nursing (NLN) accreditation; public support; a minimum enrollment of 75 full-time students; and a stable curriculum since 1973.

The researcher requested each department chairperson in each of the four colleges to respond to an instrument (see Appendix A) that was used to identify changeoriented departments and nonchange-oriented departments (Davis, 1975). The researcher selected the three changeoriented and the three nonchange-oriented departments to





5




be studied based on distributions at least 1 standard deviation above and below the total departments' mean.

The study was confined to an investigation of the following facilitators of change which have been derived from a review of the scholarly literature on change:

(a) internal support for change (Hamann, 1972; Reynolds, 1970) ; (b) individual members advocating change (Benne & Birnbaum, 1969); (c) the presence of a change agent (Eye & Netzer, 1970; Lippitt, Watson & Westley, 1958); (d) retraining of members for new tasks (Katz & Kahn, 1966);

(e) adequate funding (Hefferlin, 1969); and (f) adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problem under consideration (Reynolds, 1970). It was confined to the following resistors of change which have likewise been derived from the literature:

(a) conformity to norms (Lewin, 1951; Purdy, 1974); (b) systemic and cultural coherence (Aceves, 1974; Griffiths, 1964) ; (c) vested interest (Shephard, 1969, Watson, 1969);

(d) the sacrosanct (Aceves, 1974); (e) rejection of "outsiders" (Watson, 1969); and (f) inability to carry out change (Gross, Giacquinta, & Bernstein, 1971).

For the field portion of the study an interview guide and a document review, as well as an observation guide (see Appendices B & C) were used to collect data from administrators, departmental faculty members, nursing students, and department chairpersons in the nursing










programs having the change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments. Data were also-collected by attending various meetings as well as available documents from departments selected for the study. These methods were used to collect data in order to determine the relative presence or absence of factors that facilitate or resist change in the collegiate nursing programs.

Several limitations should also be recognized. The process of change researched in this study occurred in departments in selected nursing programs during the three-year period January 1973 to January 1976. It may be assumed that other factors (i.e., factors occurring before 1973, factors attributed to personality traits and especially the role of the educational institution [i.e., university, college] on the nursing program) have had significant impact on the factors that facilitate or resist change. Due to the sensitive nature of the data collected, reactive arrangements could have posed a threat to the external validity. Therefore it was essential that t.he participants realize that all information would be kept confidential. Another limitation considered was the threat created by maturation. Since recall was only one method of data collection, this threat to the study was greatly reduced.

Instrumentation could have posed a threat to the internal validity since the researcher collected all the










data (interviews, observations, analysis of documents) necessary for the study. The researcher remained aware of this threat of instrumentation and thereby lessened its impact.

Also it is recognized that since only four nursing programs were selected rather than randomly identified, it is impossible to generalize to the total population of collegiate nursing programs. Any findings in this study must be regarded as suggestive and used as hypotheses for further testing in other settings before they can be established as generalizations which are broadly applicable to nursing programs.



Justification for the Study


The literature in the field of nursing education has been essentially characterized as ad hoc, descriptive, in character, and lacking in theoretical orientation (Nellis, 1971; Frerechs, 1971; Jacox, 1974; Notter, 1971; Spalding, 1959, p. 60), and furthermore the documented research on the change process in nursing education is very limited. The intent of the studies that currently exist (Hanna-Boules, 1973, Ketefian, 1973) was not to test or generate either hypotheses or theories about the change process in nursing education, but to report change experiences or to advocate the importance of certain factors in the change process.










Jacox (1974) pointed out that the theories that have been borrowed by nursing have been done so without adequate testing. While there are unquestionably many common dimensions of change theory in nursing and other fields, the theory must be applied to nursing to check factors that may mandate modifications. The position has been taken that nursing is an applied science; therefore the relationship of theory to nursing has not been defined and often not considered. The lack of tested and proven theories important to nursing is a major gap in nursing research (Abdellah, 1970, p. 8; Diers, 1970; Notter, 1971).

Another significant justification for this study is the criticism of the research on the change process found in other areas of education. The research on change has been largely confined to using a single technique for gathering data in investigating the presence or absence of a single factor, as opposed to doing more holistic studies (Gross et al., 1971, p. 31). The attempt to study a change as an isolated event rather than as a process (Ginzberg & Reilley, 1957; Lewin, 1951) that involved an interrelated set of factors that are not static has resulted in a distorted picture of the true situation (Gross et al., 1971, p. 30). This position has been supported by Goldberg (1970) who maintained that the long-term outcomes, including the careful assessment of all factors, are the true indicators of a change process.










Still another justification for studying change in nursing programs lies in the system concept of social organizations; in this case, the social organization is the department. In his theory of social structure, Allport (1962) stated that the structure of social systems "is to be found in an interrelated set of events which return upon themselves to complete and renew a cycle of activities" (p. 4). It is events rather than things which are structured. Therefore the social system can be seen as a dynamic rather than a static structure. In this way a department in a nursing program may be viewed as an open system dependent somewhat on its environment (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 26). The department as a social system and as an open system must respond to its environment (with such pressures as changing societal demands and student needs) or it will not survive. That is to say, if the departments in nursing programs do not change to meet the needs of the students and society, in time they will have no need to exist.

A second characteristic of an open system is the

important concept of "steady-state" or dynamic homeostasis. A steady state is not a true equilibrium or motionless. Because it is a "continuous flow of energy from the external environment and a continuous inflow of energy" (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 23), the internal environment (departments) must respond to external changes and pressures.










In this way the study of factors that facilitate or resist change in departments of nursing is necessary in order to help the internal environment respond more readily to the external environment.



Assumptions


Certain philosophical assumptions (i.e., the

concept of social systems and the necessity for change) have been dealt with in the justification for this study. Beyond this, there are certain procedural assumptions involved in the conduct of this investigation. First, the researcher was capable of deriving from the literature certain factors that proposed to facilitate and resist change which have the probability of being present or absent, whatever the case may be, in reputed changeoriented and nonchange-oriented departments. Furthermore, the researcher was qualified to make judgments involved in the process of interviewing and analyzing data. Second, very critical to the selection of departments, it was assumed that the departments were in fact change-oriented and nonchange-oriented based on the use of the Department Questionnaire. Third, the participants in the study responded to the interviews and other data-gathering methods to the best of their knowledge.










Definition of Terms


Administrator. A chief officer in the nursing program whose function is to manage the affairs of the college.

Collegiate nursing program. A senior college or university based program in nursing that undertakes as its major role the preparation of professional nurses.

Dean. The chief administrative officer in the collegiate nursing program.

Department. An administrative and functional

division, within which faculty are identified, and that provides instruction in specific content areas (cores, groups) such as (a) adult nursing; (b) medical-surgical nursing; (c) fundamentals of nursing; (d) maternal-child nursing; (e) the growing family; (f) pediatrics; (g) community health; (h) mental health and psychiatric nursing;

(i) the aging family; (j) nursing administration; and

(k) distributive nursing.

Department chairperson. "A faculty member who has been designated to preside over departmental meetings and to carry on certain administrative duties involved in managing . . . the department . . . " (Davis, 1975, p. 31). This term is used to include major instructor and coordinator.

Department Questioniaire. An instrument based on









work done by Davis (1975) to select the change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments.

Document Review and Observation Guide. An instrument developed to collect data on the administrators, faculty members, department chairpersons, and nursing students in planned meetings and open discussions and to collect data from the documents of departmental meetings of the change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments, and other relevant material from January 1973 to January 1976.

Facilitator. A specific force which is directed toward the change objective. The following factors are considered as the specific forces in this study: (a) internal support for change; (b) individual members' advocated change; (c) the presence of a change agent; (d) retraining of members for new tasks; (e) adequate funding; and (f) adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problem under consideration.

Faculty member. A full-time person hired by the college including persons representing disciplines outside of nursing which are identified with a department.

Internal factors.. Forces that operate within the department as opposed to the individual. These can include both the facilitators and resistors which are specified operationally in this study. They include the six factors considered facilitators and the six factors considered resistors.









Nursing student. A full-time student in the

collegiate nursing program who has completed the nursing courses or is currently enrolled in the nursing courses offered by the change- or nonchange-oriented departments.

Organizational change. An alteration of the status quo which affects the structure, technology, and personnel of the organization (Lippitt, 1969, p. 2).

Participant Interview Guide. An instrument developed by the researcher to collect data from the administrators, faculty members, department chairpersons, and nursing students in each study setting.

Recent graduate. A person who has completed the requirements of the collegiate nursing program during the time span of January 1973 to December 1975.

Resistor. "A force directed away from the change objective" (Lippitt et al., 1958, p. 86). The following factors are considered as the specific forces in this study: (a) conformity to norms; (b) systemic and cultural coherence; (c) vested interest; (d) the sacrosanct

(e) rejection of "outsiders"; and (f) inability to carry out change.



Iy potheses


The following hypotheses guided the field portion

of the study. They were tested, not by statistical analysis, but by logical inspection; hence, there is no level of










significance involved. The hypotheses tested, which are

stated in directional form consistent with the propositions

derived from the study of change theory, are as follows:

1. Compared to the three nonchange-oriented departments, the three change-oriented departments will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically,
the change-oriented departments will have
present

(a) a greater incidence of internal support
for change
(b) a greater number of individual members
advocating change
(c) a greater incidence of the presence of
a change agent
(d) a greater incidence of retraining members
for new tasks
(e) a greater incidence of an adequate plan
for meeting organizational members' needs
and the organization problem under consideration
(f) a greater incidence of adequate funding.

2. Compared to the three change-oriented departments, the three nonchange-oriented departments will have present a greater number of resistors
of change. More specifically, the nonchangeoriented departments will have present

(a) a greater incidence of conformity to
no rms
(b) a greater incidence of systemic and cultural coherence
(c) a greater incidence of vested interests
(d) a greater incidence of support for the
sacrosanct
(e) a greater incidence of rejection of outsiders
(f) a greater incidence of inability to carry
out change



Procedures


As previously indicated, the basic focus in this

investigation was on the relative presence or absence of










facilitators or resistors of change in reputed changeoriented and nonchange-oriented departments in selected nursing programs. In order to conduct this investigation the case study methodology was employed. The basic rationale for the case study is that processes and interactions, such as aspects of social functioning and interaction, cannot be studied except as they interact and operate in their natural setting (Fox, 1969, p. 427). Moreover, Fox (1969) suggested that answers to the abstract can be found in the characteristics and/or in the pattern of interactions of the individual and the environment. The case study method does allow the researcher to recognize relationships, and particularly to know when the relationships being revealed are consonant with existing theory and research and when they contradict it.

Based on the literature and the focus of this

study, four specifications of a methodology were required. First, since data were obtained from administrators, graduates, faculty, and students, the method should allow for the participants to remain in their natural setting. Second, procedures would have to permit obervations of meetings and activities of individuals as unobtrusively as possible. Third, the method should allow for development of rapport between the observer and the participants. Fourth, the procedure should allow for a variety of techniques for collecting data: conduction of interviews,










observations, and analysis of documents. The5e specifications resulted in the choice of the case study method. This method was designed "to utilize to the full the advantages of seeing the situation as a whole and of attempting to grasp fundamental relationships" (Katz & Festinger, 1953, p. 75).

In order to show how the case study methodology was applied in this specific setting, the procedures involved are discussed under the following headings: study settings, selection of departments for study, study participants, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and organization of the research report.


Study Settings

The four collegiate nursing programs were selected for the field portion of this investigation because of their location in the southeastern region of the United States. The programs' selection were based on the following criteria:

1. NLN accreditation

2. Public support

3. Enrollment range of at least 75 full-time
students

4. Stable curriculum since 1973

The four collegiate nursing programs were Georgia State University Department of Nursing Medical University of South Carolina College of Nursing, University of North











Carolina at Greensboro School of Nursing and Western Carolina University Department of Nursing.

Georgia State University Department of Nursing.

Georgia State was the second largest institution of higher learning in Georgia in May 1976. A public, coeducational institution located in downtown Atlanta, Georgia State had implemented the urban university concept. The Department of Nursing was one of seven departments in the School of Applied Health Services. It offered an NLN accredited program that permitted the student who satisfactorily completed the requirements of the first two years to earn an Associate of Science degree with a major in Nursing. Students who continued in the program and successfully completed the requirements of the third and fourth years received a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Nursing. The total enrollment in 1976 was 278 students. The nursing curriculum had 16 courses that were taught throughout the four-year program. The curriculum framework had not changed since the late 1960's. The faculty were not identified with any one level or content area. Each quarter the faculty were assigned to participate in whatever courses were offered. Each course had a different coordinator appointed by the department head each time the course was taught. Therefore, for the purpose of this study the faculty was treated as one unit.










The department head was the single administrative position in the department. In order to arrive at an accurate score on the Department Questionnaire the researcher requested six of the twenty-six full-time faculty members to respond to the questionnaire. The averaged score of the six completed questionnaires was used to represent the department in the computation to select the change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments.

Medical University of South Carolina College of Nursing. The College of Nursing was one of six colleges in May 1976 that comprised the Medical University of South Carolina, located in Charleston. A public, coeducational institution, the enrollment of the university was 2,020 students. The College of Nursing, accredited by the NLN, had an enrollment of 268 and offered a program of study leading to a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. The program was designed to span four academic years. Students began the nursing major in the freshman year and moved toward specialization and advanced nursing experiences at the upper division level. General education and cognate courses were distributed throughout the program. The nursing major was divided into the following content areas: (a) medical-surgical nursing; (b) fundamentals of nursing; (c) maternity (d) leadership; (e) pediatrics;

(f) community health; and (g) psychiatric nursing. The faculty were identified with one of these content areas.










The curriculum was revised in 1971-1972 and had not changed significantly in 1976. At the time of the study the administration and faculty were undergoing a self-study in preparation for an NLN accredition report.

The organizational structure of the college included the position of dean, assistant dean, and assistant dean for administrative affairs. Each content area had a faculty member designated by the dean as major instructor to serve as coordinator. The major instructor represented her area on the dean's advisory coucil. Each of the seven major instructors completed the Department Questionnaire.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro School of Nursing. In 1976 the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNC-G) was a public, coeducational institution with a total enrollment of 8,759. Located in Greensboro, the second largest city in North Carolina, UNC-G was one of the 16-campus institutions of the University of North Carolina. The School of Nursing was one of eight undergraduate schools in the university. An upper division NLN accredited program with an enrollment figure of 284, the School of Nursing offered an undergraduate curriculum leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Nursing. The first two years of study were concentrated in general education, providing knowledge in the basic science and humanities. The School of Nursing was established in










1966 and the curriculum designed and implemented at that time had not changed significantly in 1976. At the time of the research study the faculty were undergoing curriculum evaluation and planning for major curriculum revision.

The organizational structure of the School of

Nursing included the position of dean and assistant dean. The faculty structure followed the medical model of speciality areas: (a) medical-surgical specialities; (b) psychiatricmental health; (c) pediatrics; (d) maternity; and (e) community health. Each speciality area had a coordinator appointed by the dean whose responsibilities included administrative tasks and membership on the dean's coordinating council. The coordinating coucil was an advisory council only. Each of the five coordinators completed the Department Questionnaire.

Western Carolina University Department of Nursing.

Western Carolina University was a state-supported coeducational institution in May 1976. Located in the mountain ranges of Cullowhee, North Carolina, the University consisted of five schools which offered degrees. The Department of Nursing was associated with the School of Arts and Sciences and offered the Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. The NLN accredited program was an upper division program with an enrollment of 78 students. A total of 12 nursing courses were taught in the junior and senior levels. Faculty members were involved .with








students in both levels during the year. Although both the junior and senior levels had designated coordinators, for the purpose of this study the faculty were treated as one department. Both level coordinators completed the Department Questionnaire and the averaged score of the two was used to represent the department in the computation to select the change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments. The organizational structure of the department consisted of the department head and eight full-time faculty members.

Selection of Departments for Study

The selection of the three change-oriented and the three nonchange-oriented departments was based on the results of the Department Questionnaire. Each department chairperson in the selected colleges was asked to complete the questionnaire. The standard deviation of the mean of the total departments' scores was computed with the departments that fell above the 1 standard deviation considered change-oriented and those that fell below 1 standard deviation considered nonchange-oriented. In other words, the six departments were selected from a pool of the total departments in the four nursing programs selected for study. Study Participants


The study participants included one administrator, faculty members in the selected departments, departmental










chairpersons, groups of nursing students, and recent graduates. The same number of participants was selected from each of the nursing programs represented by the selected change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments.

Administrators. The administrator was interviewed using a modified form of the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B). The dean, assistant dean, or other administrator was selected to be interviewed for information concerning the change-oriented and/or nonchangeoriented departments.

Faculty members. Faculty members from each of

the departments selected as change-oriented or nonchangeoriented were interviewed using the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B).

Department chairpersons. The department chairpersons of the departments selected as change-oriented and nonchange-oriented were interviewed using the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B).

Nursing students. Informal groups of students

were selected to share their perceptions of the selected departments.

Recent graduates. Two recent graduates identified by the administration of the nursing programs as living within a radius of 10 miles of the program were interviewed using the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B).









Instrumentation


Department Questionnaire


To determine change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments in the nursing programs, the researcher modified the instrument, Department Innovation Questionnaire, developed by Davis (1975) to study departments in a university setting. To establish the face validity of this instrument, the researcher conducted a literature review to determine factors in the internal environment of departments in nursing programs that could be used to indicate change (Bevis, 1973; Davis, 1975; Fox, 1969). Items selected for the questionnaire were those judged by the

researcher to indicate change in departments in nursing programs. The items were divided into two sections: those concerned with curricular and instructional changes and those related to perceptions of department chairpersons in relation to the activities of the chairpersons. Also certain demographic items (i.e., sex, rank, length of time in position) were included which seemed to be related to factors that facilitate or resist change. Of the 15 items, 8 were related to curricular and instructional changes and 7 to the perceptions of department chairpersons. Possible responses were on a 0 to 4 scale with the exception of item 15 which asked the department chairperson to rank order all the departments in the









college as to their perception of how change-oriented the departments were.

After the preliminary draft of the instrument was prepared, it was submitted to Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, Professor of Educational Administration, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Chairman of the Department of Educational Administration, and Dr. Blanche Urey, Dean of the College of Nursing, for review to further establish its face validity. Based on the suggested recommendations, the second preliminary draft was completed.

The second draft was tested in the University of Florida College of Nursing to determine whether a changeoriented and nonchange-oriented department could be determined. This was necessary for several reasons. In nursing education, the goal of preparation for a reasonably welldefined career has encouraged a fairly rigid and highly structured curriculum. Requirements are usually heavy and electives are few. Thus, as Dressel (1971) pointed out, new curricula are more likely to be added than new courses (p. 230). Due to these heavy course requirements, as well as additional requirements imposed by the laws of the states and the accrediting bodies, the opportunities to be flexible are much more limited in a college of nursing than, for example, in a college of education. Therefore, it was necessary to test the validity of the questionnaire in nursing programs to determine whether or not









change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments could be determined. It was decided that departments above 1 standard deviation and below 1 standard deviation of the total departments' mean score on the Department Questionnaire would be considered change-oriented and nonchangeoriented departments, respectively.

The preliminary draft was submitted to the six

course coordinators in the college of nursing. The results of the six completed questionnaires revealed one department below 1 standard deviation and one department above

1 standard deviation. These results were further evidence of the content validity and sensitivity of the Department Questionnaire.

The reliability of the instrument was determined by the odd-even reliability procedure after it had been administered to those departments in the pilot study and those departments selected for study. This method was used because it involved only one form of the instrument and only one administration of the instrument. The reliability score of the instrument was .683. The odd-even method was followed by the Spearman-Brown procedure. This procedure was used to estimate what the reliability would be of the full instrument because the number of items in the questionnaire was so small that the odd-even method produced a deflated estimate of the reliability. The final Spearman-Brown estimate was .812.










Participant Interview Guide


To determine the perceptions of study participants as related to factors that facilitate change: internal support for change, individual members' advocated change, the presence of a change agent, retraining of members for new tasks, adequate funding, adequacy of plan for meeting organizational members' needs, and the organizational problem under consideration; and factors that resist change: conformity to norms, systematic and cultural coherence, vested interests, the sacrosanct, and rejection of "outsiders"; the researcher has developed an open-ended interview guide entitled Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B).

To construct this instrument, the researcher conducted a review of the literature related to factors in the internal environment of the organization (department) that facilitate or resist change, and the literature related to the construction of interview guides (Fox, 1969; Goode & Hatt, 1952; Katz & Festinger, 1953; Whyte, 1951). Items selected for the interview guide were those judged by the researcher to be relevant to the problem under study. The guide was designed to have two or three questions elicit information related to each of the six facilitators and six resistors. Certain demographic items (i.e., sex, rank) were included which seemed to be related to factors that facilitate or resist change.










After the preliminary draft of the instrument

was prepared, it was submitted to Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough, Professor of Educational Administrator and Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Chairman of the Department of Educational Administration for review and suggestions. Based on the suggested recommendations the second preliminary draft was completed. This second draft was field tested in the University of Florida College of Nursing with three faculty members. Two of the faculty members selected were unknown to the researcher previous to the field test to provide an environment similar to that anticipated in the study settings. The third faculty member selected was considered an expert in interview techniques and offered suggestions concerning the interview guide as well as the interview skills of the researcher. Based on the results of the field testing procedure, appropriate changes were made in the Participant Interview Guide and a final draft of the instrument was completed.


Document Review and Observation Guide


To determine characteristics and/or patterns in the internal environment of the selected departments, to structure observations of the participants in their natural settings interacting with the environment in planned meetings and open discussions, and to analyze documents and other relevant material, the researcher developed an










instrument entitled Document Review and Observation Guide (see Appendix C). To construct this instrument the researcher conducted a literature review concerning factors in the internal environment that facilitate or resist change and concerning the construction of a document and observation guide (Fox, 1969; Goode & Hatt, 1952; Katz & Festinger, 1953; Whyte, 1951). Certain demographic items (i.e., position, rank) were included which seemed to be related to factors that facilitate or resist change.

After the preliminary draft of the instrument was prepared, it was submitted to Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough, Professor of Educational Administration, and Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Chairman of the Department of Educational Administration for review and suggestions. Based on the suggested recommendations the final draft of the instrument was completed.


Data Collection


A common procedure was followed with each case study: (a) A preliminary contact was made to the Dean of the nursing program to ascertain whether the institution would be willing to participate; (b) The selection of three change-oriented and three nonchange-oriented departments was made based on the results of the Department Questionnaire completed by each department chairperson in the four selected nursing programs; (c) Arrangements










were made for a visit to each of the nursing programs represented by the three change-oriented and three nonchangeoriented departments; (d) During the visit to each location, interviews, observations, and document reviews were conducted to gain an in-depth view of the departments; (e) The departments selected as change-oriented or nonchange-oriented were known only to the researcher. The participants were asked to respond to questions without knowledge of any label applied to the departments.

The field portion of the study was conducted

between March 15, 1976, and April 29, 1976. During this period of time thirty days were actually spent by the researcher in the nursing programs represented by the six departments collecting data.

Formal interviews were conducted in private sessions with the study participants using the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B). There were a total of forty-one interview sessions with each session averaging one hour in length. Each of the sessions were recorded with the permission of the interviewees. Also the interviewees were asked to read and sign the introduction on the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B) to understand the conditions under which the interview was being held. All the participants agreed to the interview being recorded and several waived their right for the information to remain confidential.










Informal conversation was a natural occurrence while the researcher was present in the colleges. The faculty members were very open in their attempts to supply both solicited and unsolicited information. The researcher accepted invitations to lunch with the faculty and participated in conversations with the staff and students.

Observations were a combination of planned and unplanned situations and events. There were specific areas such as the faculty lounge, main office, departmental offices, and cafeteria that were observed at varying times. Some of the formal events observed were faculty meetings and departmental meetings.

The schools were very liberal in supplying written documents. Although only two departments kept minutes of their departmental meetings, the researcher was given copies of course outlines and syllabi from 1973-1975. Personnel handbooks, policy manual, and college catalogs were also part of the written materials used as data sources.


Data Analysis


For the data analysis, each hypothesis has been analyzed by each of the six parts thereof. Frequency distributions were developed from the data. For example, hypothesis 1(a) states: Compared to the three nonchangeoriented departments, the three change-oriented departments










will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically, the change-oriented departments will have present a greater incidence of internal support for change. As suggested by the hypothesis, the researcher has looked for the differences in the incidence of internal support in the three change-oriented and three nonchange-oriented departments. As pointed out in the introduction, there were not enough data to deal with statistical analysis, so it was a matter of determination of frequencies by subsets.



Organization of the Research Study


The research study contains the following five


chapters: Chapter I:







Chapter II: Chapter III Chapter IV:


Chapter V:


Overview of the study which includes the statement of the problem, justification of the study, assumptions, definitions, hypotheses, and procedures. A review of the theoretical literature and research studies on change. A presentation of the results and findings of the three change-oriented departments. A presentation of the results and findings of the three nonchange-oriented departments. An analysis and discussion of the data fro'













Chapter VI:


the field study in relation to the theoretical literature.

Presentation of a summary, conclusions, and implications, with particular emphasis on examining the applicability of the theoretical propositions regarding facilitators and resistors of change to departments within collegiate nursing programs.
















CHAPTER 11

CHANGE THEORY: PROCESS, SELECTED FACTORS THAT
FACILITATE CHANGE AND SELECTED FACTORS THAT RESIST CHANGE



In order to provide a basis for the field portion of this investigation, it was necessary to derive from

the literature on change theory certain propositions regarding those things which appear to facilitate change and resist change in social organizations. In order that a perspective may be provided, the first section of the chapter deals with the work of Kurt Lewin (1951) in general because most of the theoreticians base their work on Lewin's concept. The second section, in order to place the selected factors in perspective, gives attention to the process of change as seen in the literature. The third and fourth sections deal with the facilitators and resistors of change, respectively, and the justification for each of these as determined from scholarly writings and empirical research.



Lewin's Concept of Change

Much of the theory on change has been based on work done by social scientist Kurt Lewin (1951). To










Lewin (1951), the essential nature of the work of the scientist consisted of making a proper translation from phenomena to concepts. Conceptualizing, though highly abstract, must be analyzed in order to understand Lewin's work because it was through the concrete application of these principles that he made his most significant contributions. Lewin (1951) often took popular ideas, such as change and resistance to change, and subjected them to a conceptual analysis which consisted of analyzing their elements (pp. vii-x). As a result, phenomena which had long been thought inaccessible to research became fruitful topics for examination.

Another important fundamental construct to recognize in Lewin's work was that of "field." He described behavior as a change of some state of a field in a given period of time. In the individual, the field was the life space of the individual which consisted of the person and the environment as it existed for the person. The field in a group had the same meaning as that of the individual field. Therefore the life space of a group or institution consisted of the group and its environment (Lewin, 1951, p. xi).

These two constructs are important to the understanding of Lewin's (1951) perceptions of permanent change. lie divided them into seven areas, which are











discussed here briefly, as a basis for the work for many later theoreticians (Lewin, 1951, pp. 224-236).


Change of Force Fields


In his discussion of methods of achieving a desired end, Lewin (1951) suggested that one should not think in terms of the final goal but rather in terms of a change from the existing level to the desired one (p. 224). This discussion implied that a planned change consisted of a decrease in the force of the field that existed at level one and supplanted a stronger force at level two. The decision to bring about an actual change required sufficient consideration of elements. The total circumstances of the situation were examined in light of the groups and subgroups involved, their relationships, and their value systems. The setting of the field as a whole was studied and so reorganized that events flowed differently from the previously established patterns and allowed new patterns to form (Lewin, 1951, p. 224). Quasi-stationary Processes and "Social Habits"


Influencing a group to make a change such as substituting one method of instruction for another has often meant trying to break a well-established habit. Social habits are usually conceived as obstacles to change.










The idea of social habit seemed to imply that, in spite of the application of a force, the level of change was less than complete because of some type of inner resistance to change. An additional force seemed to be required to break the habit (Lewin, 1951, pp. 224-225). Lewin (1951) suggested one could argue that the desired change was not of such magnitude that the added force was sufficient to lead to a change; thereby denying the existence of a resistant force from within. This interpretation does not close the question. It is known that some force tended to resist the change and therefore became an additional force in the process. This added force was important because social habit in an individual is frequently seen as equivalent to the vested-interests pattern observed in organizational institutions (Lewin, 1951, p.

225).


Individual Conduct and Group Standards


In the discussion up to this point the forces

described have been directed at an individual or a group. It is important at this point to consider the relationship between the individual and the social processes in the group that influence him or her. An individual may differ in his personal level of conduct from that which represents group standards. A small amount of difference











has been acceptable, and even encouraged, in some cultures, but a great difference between individuals and group behavior has not been acceptable. Frequently the group standards acquired values and, therefore it became a positive valence for keeping the individual within the acceptable standards (Lewin, 1951, p. 226).


Group Levels With and Without Social Value and the Resistance to Change


Whatever the reason that a certain group standard acquired, or failed to acquire value, the difference has significance in the study of change. Lewin (1951) defined it this way: "the greater the social value of a group standard the greater is the resistance of the individual group member to move away from this level" (p. 227). Many cases of "social habit" seemed to refer to strong group standards with high social value, and resistance to change was explained by the above quote.


Individual Procedures and Group Procedures of Changing Social Contact


If the resistance to change depended partly on the value the individual placed on the group standards, it would follow that the resistance to change should be lessened if one could diminish the strength of the value of the standard, or change the level that the individual











perceived as having value. Perhaps one might expect single individuals to be more pliable than groups. However, experience has indicated that it is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately. The individual will resist change as long as the group standards remain unchanged (Lewin, 1951, pp. 227-228).


Changing as Three Steps: Unfreezing, Moving, and Freezing of Group Standards


In order for a permanent change to have occurred, more than a change from one level to another level must have taken place. A change in behavior is often followed by the group's return to the previous level. Therefore, a successful permanent change must include unfreezing the present level, moving to a new level, and freezing group behavior on a level relatively secure against change (Lewin, 1951, pp. 228-229).


Group D)ecision as a Change Procedure


There are several reasons why group-decision

facilitated change. When change was requested of individuals, the degree of enthusiasm varied according to personal preference for the change; whereas when the group decided to change, the enthusiasm seemed to be independent of personal preference. The group decision











tended to facilitate changing the individual and stabilizing him on a new level (Lewin, 1951, pp. 221-236).



The Process of Planned Change in Individuals
and Organizations as Seen by the Theoreticians


The ultimate term in contemporary rhetoric, the "god term," has been "progress" or "change" (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1969, p. 1). The inevitability of change would appear to be beyond debate; most students of society would agree that the one major invariant is the tendency toward movement, growth process, or change. The contemporary debate has involved the methods employed in controlling and directing forces in change (Bennis et al., 1969, p. 2). Dewey (1935) remarked that, "history in

being a process of change generates change not only in details but also in the method of directing social change" (p. 83). The method that emerged as the best alternative was planned change (Bennis, 1966; Bennis et al., 1969; Lewin, 1951). Bennis (1966) defined planned change as a "change which involves mutual goal setting, an equal power ratio, and deliberateness on the part of both sides" (pp. 83-84).

Other authors (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Lewin, 1951; Lippitt et al., 1958) have agreed that change must be planned in order to be effective in improving organizational










and instructional conditions. It is in this sense that change will be discussed.

One of the first efforts to explain the change process was that made by Lewin (1951) as discussed earlier. His three-step model postulated that opposing forces created varying amounts of pressure on a situation. When the forces are equal, the situation does not change, but change does occur when there is an addition or subtraction of forces, disequalizing the pressure (Lewin, 1951, pp. 234-236). Another classic model of change process was an agricultural one developed by rural sociologist Lionberger (1970) who proposed a model to explain why individuals do or do not adopt changes. He identified five

critical stages in the adoption process as awareness, interest, trial, evaluation, and adoption. He also has added a sixth stage, discontinuance. These were the functional requirements of individuals in adopting new practices and were detailed as follows:

An individual must become aware of
an innovation before he can make decisions
about it. If an interest is aroused, he
can seek additional, detailed information
for decision purposes, presumably in a
rational manner. After the accumulation of
knowledge (and even while this is still in process), evaluation becomes a paramount requirement. This stage very
closely coincides with what has been referred to as the process of becoming convinced. The trial stage approximated a
commonly-imposed local trial period as a
condition for accepting and using innovations.










A case could then be made for considering adoption. (Lionberger, 1970, p. 84)

This model has often been cited in the educational literature (Eicholz & Rogers, 1964; Miles, 1964) as a useful formulation for analyzing the successful introduction of innovations in schools. A similar model, including the following stages: development of innovations, diffusion, legitimation or advocacy, adoption, and adjustment or adaptation, was advanced by Hobbs (1966).

Gross et al. (1971) criticized this conceptualization of the change process due to its assumption of the adoption of change by individuals. They maintained that the diffusion model proposed by Lionberger (1970) was of little use in explaining the successful implementation of change in organizations. One of the basic assumptions was that during any of the intermediate stages between awareness and use, the individual was free to reject it or discontinue the change. This assumption does not apply to major educational changes, for example, those changes in which faculty are required to participate by group decision and/or by the chief administrator. It is also assumed that persons can undertake trials in an either/or fashion and that short trials were sufficient to evaluate the change. Furthermore, most educational changes are so complex that they cannot be an either/or situation, and some have required several years of implementation before an adequate











evaluation could be made (Gross et al., 1971, pp. 20-21). In short, while the adoption models were useful in understanding the adoption of simple changes among groups of individuals, they appeared to be of little value for explaining the implementation of organizational change. Katz and Kahn (1966) attributed the confusion between individual and organizational change, in part, to the lack of precise terminology for distinguishing between behavior determined largely by structured roles within a system, and behavior determined more by personality needs and values. The behavior of people in organizations has a different set of determinants than when they are outside organizational roles. Modifications in organizational behavior must be approached in a different manner than change in individual behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1966, pp. 390-391).

Gross et al. (1971) distinguished three basic

stages in the process that occurred when an attempt was made to alter organizational behavior through the introduction of any change. They depicted the stages as follows:

(a) the period of the initiation of an organizational change; (b) the period of its attempted implementation; and (c) the period during which incorporation has taken place (p. 17). This process was very similar to the view Lewin (.1951) described as unfreezing, changing, and











refreezing. Similarly, Greiner (1967b) who also investigated organizational change, departed from the previous model and depicted a six-step model which included the following: (a) pressure on top management; (b) a newcomer intervening at the top; (c) diagnosis of problem areas; (d) intervention of new solutions; (e) experimentation with new solutions; and (f) reinforcement from positive results. This model has been supported by an earlier study done by Greiner (1967a) of a large petrochemical plant to evaluate the effectiveness of Managerial Grid Training in improving the decision-making performance of 860 managers.

The models of organizational change suggested by Gross et al. (1971) and Greiner (1967b) are only two of many models (Eye & Netzer, 1970; Ginzberg & Reilley, 1957; Katz & Kahn, 1966) found in the literature. The models have proven to be a useful framework for examining the change process in organizations.



Facilitators of Change as
Determined by the Literature


The acceptance or rejection of a new form of behavior or a new item will vary from group to group within a given organization. Generally, the more open a group, the more likelihood there is of new elements being assimilated











into the culture. The acceptance or rejection of change has always been uneven and dependent upon the perceptions, predispositions, and values of the recipients. It was not really a group or organization that "accepted or rejected changes, but rather individual people who shared a common culture" (Aceves, 1974, p. 238).

The selected factors that will be discussed here are those that facilitate change in the internal environmuent of the organization. It is evident from the literature that while change is always occurring there are factors that facilitate the change process. The selections of the following factors to be reviewed were based on their frequent treatment in the literature. Internal Support for Change


In work done by Lippitt et al. (1958, pp. 24-25), the small group (for example, a department) was found to be sensitive to internal disruptions. Because the groups were vulnerable to many threats, they proceeded with great caution. Therefore, when there was evidence that interorganizational change forces (for example, other departments, administrators, students) were present, the small group was particularly susceptible to change. Hamann (1972) and Reynolds (1970) studied factors that brought about change. There was strong evidence that the leadership










of the principal or superintendent in the case of elementary and secondary schools, and the dean in higher education was significant. In general most groups are responsive to what their leaders want. For this reason, it was important that the group members perceived the position of the leader correctly (Ginzberg & Reilley, 1957).

Griffiths' (1964) theory of administrative change suggested that, when change does occur in a group, the initiative for the change was from the suprasystem. He also proposed that the degree of change was directly proportional to the intensity of the stimulus from the surrounding forces (Griffiths, 1964, p. 431). A study by Purdy (1974) supported Griffiths' theory. Purdy (1974) found that teachers' reaction to changes was greatly influenced by their view of the administration's respect of faculty autonomy. The more a teacher felt the administration supported the faculty, the more positive the response to change.


Individual Members Advocating Change


"The behavior of individuals in every sector of life is greatly affected by the actions and reactions of the group to which they belong" (Ginzberg & Reilley, 1957, p. 43). When the dominant members of the group have a










positive attitude toward change, they will often bring the less dominant members along. Benne and Birnbaum (1969) found that once the workers in an institution agreed to make a change the implementation of the change was much easier (p. 328). Participation by those affected by the change increased the chances that new insights were formed and that the change would be accepted.


The Presence of a Change Agent


A change agent was identified as an agent obtained to help implement a planned change. Although organizational change is a continuous process--adaptation, adjustment, reorganization--it does not occur fast enough to keep pace with the rapidly changing world. Since the organization is often unable to change the established patterns, a change agent may be needed (Lippitt et al., 1958, pp. 91-98; Ileiss, 1970, p. 79). Schein and Kommers (1972) defined the change agent as a force operating inside or outside the institution. The agent may be a student, professor, dean, committee, or any group that works to bring about a specific change (Schein & Kommers, 1972, p. 78). McCabe (1967) studied the influence structure in curriculum matters in six junior colleges where he found academic deans and department heads were consistently among the most influentials whereas professional personnel










with more than 10 years of service were predominantly high or low in influence with few in the middle.

Often a change agent must work with individuals, not the entire group. The agent may find that only parts of the group offer resistance and therefore the agent must attempt to enlarge the amount of influence until it reaches all of the system. Eye and Netzer (1970) considered the possibility of a change agent being something other than a person. They defined a change agent as a person or an influence that caused a current status to be altered (Eye & Netzer, 1970, p. 137). For the purpose of this study a change agent will be considered as a person, group, or an influence that operates on the inside or outside of an institution to bring about a planned change. Retraining of Members for New Tasks


Not knowing what is involved in a change, whether it be a course change or a major curriculum change, some people who are less sure of themselves may fear that there will be no job for them in the new structure or one of less importance. It is not necessary for an individual to be singled out for job termination in order for feelings of fear and mistrust to occur. All one has to do is speculate that the change will eliminate a need for his or her type of work (Ginzberg & Reilley, 1957, p. 90).











Katz and Kahn (1966) pointed out that preparation and retTaining for new roles were very significant in measuring the success of change. The research findings of Gross et al. (1971) suggested that members of an organization (department) had the right to expect management to provide retraining if a change was expected to be accepted (p. 201). Retraining members in an industrial organization (Lippitt, 1969, pp. 241-247) has been an understood necessity much longer than it has in educational settings.


Adequate Funding


It was Hefferlin's (1969) position that, in educational change, the key was resources. New courses are offered and new curricula developed because individuals and groups are willing to finance them. In a study by Reynolds (1970), inadequate funds were listed as impeding factors, but adequate funds were mentioned only once by the teachers in the study as a facilitating factor. It may be that many educators plan their changes with the operating budget in mind. Therefore, many changes are not indicative of the needed changes but indicative of a limited budget. However, Hanna-Boules (1973) found that facilitation of educational change correlates particularly and significantly with the number of outside grants.











Adequacy of Plan for Meeting Organization Members' Needs and the Organizational
Problems Under Consideration


There seemed to be agreement between educators and research data (Lippitt & Colleagues, 1967) that the change must be seen as relevant and helpful to the educator in achieving goals. Reynolds (1970) found the greatest resistance to change to be the lack of improvement anticipated by the change. Therefore, a sound plan which meets the members' goals as well as the organization's goals is essential.

Most of the strategies for managing change are

concerned with the goals of the members and the goals of the organization. There are instances in which the organization may be uncertain of the impact of change in the individual. In these instances, sharing information about the organizational goals and seeking help in making decisions have tended to lessen the discrepancy between the two (Mann & Neff, 1961, pp. 23-24).



Resistors of Change as Determined by the Literature


At each stage of change, from its inception to its defense as status quo, wise strategy has required that the nature of resistance be analyzed. Lewin's (1951) concept of "quasi-stationary equilibrium" suggested that resistance










must be reduced if change is to occur with minimal stress (p. 224). The most common strategy to reduce change, persuasion and discussion, seemed to increase stress while strategies that neutralized or transformed resistance utilized the existent forces for change already present in the system to produce movement (Watson, 1969). Therefore, it is important that the factors identified in the literature be supported by research findings. For the purposes of this review, the focus will be on the forces of resistance as they operate within the system (departments). An attempt will be made to examine resistors to change from five forces set forth by Watson (1969) and supported by the literature, as well as one additional force supported by the literature.


Conformity to Norms


Norms in social systems compare with habits in individuals. Organizational members have demanded conformity to the norms of the organization. Whyte (1956) gave the following as examples of organizational norms: manner of dress, acceptable recreational and community participation, and the way in which one member addresses another member as a superior or a subordinate. Faculty members have been expected to conform to acceptable behavior more so than businessworkers. Norms have made it possible for people to work together without constant










disruption due to unusual behavior. It is because norms are shared by many participants that they are difficult to change. Lewin (1951) discussed the unknown force that seemed to keep an individual within the group standards. When one person deviated noticeably from the group, the group attempted to increase communication towards the person, trying to alter his or her attitude. If this failed, he may have been abandoned. Lewin's (1951) experiments on altering norms of eating indicated that changes were better introduced by group decision, than by expecting individuals to pioneer a practice or incorporate a new teaching method not being used or accepted by their associates. Lewin's findings were supported by a study done on acceptance and rejection of innovation by faculty in a community college. The teachers tended to experiment with innovations in groups because the group served as a protection (Purdy, 1974).


Systemic and Cultural Coherence


The Gestalt principle that parts take on characteristics of the whole has implied that a change in one part affects another part. Changes which are helpful in one area may have repercussions in another. Often, the fear of the change and its implications for others, has caused great resistance in a group. The department member










who attempts a new method of instruction, and has been strong enough to succeed, puts pressure on the entire group to change. If the pressure on the group was strong enough and was negatively perceived, the group had enough influence to resist the new method of instruction and cause it to fail. This reaction has been supported in anthropological studies (Aceves, 1974; Arensberg & Niehoff, 1964). Aceves (1974) stated that resistance to change must be conceived of as a "culturally patterned response to a situation, motivated by the prevailing values and beliefs of the respondents' social group" (p. 245). What has appeared to be inactivity or resistance may have been logical activity of the group based on its system and cultural coherence. Berelson and Steiner (1964) have explained the inability of people to change working under such stable conditions in terms of the rigid practices and values held by those being asked to change.

Social conflict is more intense
[when] the less adjustable the goals
are the more fixed the rewards sought by the disputants . . . the less the
contact or openness . . . the more
that ideology is involved. . .
(p. 620)

Griffiths (1964) described the systemic resistance to change in terms of the steady state that has developed when a dean or administrator has stayed in one position










for a long time. Progressive segregation set in and the department became structured, which made change more difficult because the frequence of interaction between departments was decreased (p. 434). Thus, the combination of systemic and cultural coherence quite often results in tension, confusion, and resistance to change.


Vested Interest


"The most obvious source of resistance is some threat to the economic or prestige interest of an individual" (Watson, 1969, p. 495). A vested interest may be in freedom to operate as well as in the level of income, or title on the door. Any change is likely to run counter to certain vested interests, and to violate certain territorial rights. Sentiments of vested interest and traditional rights are viewed as delegation of legitimate authority in traditional organizations, thus assuring quick counteraction against change (Shephard, 1969; Heiss, 1970, p. 79).

In a study conducted by Hefferlin (1969) 234

academic administrators and faculty members were interviewed concerning obstacles to academic change. The external forces (graduate schools, alumni, legislatures, and trustees) were seen more as supporters of change than were internal forces (administrators, faculty and










departments). Among administrators, 46% blamed some fault of the faculty--such as "entrenched departments," "faculty provincialism," "overspecialization," and "inadequate graduate training"--as the major obstacle to academic change (p. 99). Over one-third of the faculty agreed with the administrators' views but 13% of the department chairpersons and professors identified administrators as the major obstacles to academic change. The study suggested that the administrators and the faculty tended to blame themselves less than did the others. Each viewed himself as the defender of the cause. This "polarized provincialism" was suggested to account for some of the endemic antagonism that existed between administrators and faculty over change in the institution (Hefferlin, 1969, pp. 102-103).


The Sacrosanct


Anthropologists (Aceves, 1974; Arensberg & Neihoff, 1964),observed that in any culture some activities are easily changed while others are very resistant to change. The greatest resistance concerned matters which were held to be sacred. Traditional ceremonies were apt to be continued despite doubts as to their educational impact. The closer any reform came to touching some of the rituals in an organization, the more likely it










was to be resisted. Organizations resisted, almost as stubbornly, alterations which altered the realm of ethics. Even when few live by the traditional code, it was still

defended as "ideal" (Aceves, 1974).


Rejection of "Outsiders"


Most change has come into institutions from outside. Griffiths (1964), studying change in schools, concluded that "the major impetus for change in organizations is from outside" (p. 431) but a typical attack on any new proposal has been that it does not fit "our way of doing things." Struggles to improve race relations have often been attributed to "outside agitators," and the history of innovations has been that they are observed but seldom implemented. A common retort is that, "this is fine, but it wouldn't work in our system" (Watson, 1969, p. 496). Differences in students, financial support, and tradition have helped to rationalize the resistance. Therefore, the major problem in change has been to secure enough local input and participation so it will not be seen as an outside-dominated venture.


Inability to Carry Out Change


In their study "Implementing Organizational Innovations," Gross et al. (1971) found that work done on









resistance to change has tended to ignore the resistance

that may be encountered by departments in their efforts to carry out change. Their findings suggested that the
"clarity of an innovation to organizational members needs to be taken into account" as well as the "capability of members of an organization to implement an innovation," the "availability of necessary materials and equipment," and the "compatibility of organizational arrangements" (pp. 196-197). A second major conclusion supported by the research of Gross et al. (1971) was that resistance developed among departments which were positively oriented to change as a consequence of frustrations they experienced while attempting to implement change (p. 198).

These findings showed that not only organizational members' initial resistance or lack of willingness to make efforts to implement a change was important, but in addition, that resistance developed after its introduction and during the implementation. These findings were supported by Boyan (1967) who found that the products of educational change appear in forms which are not fully understood by, or acceptable to, practitioners.



Relationship Between the Scholarly Literature
and the Proposed Study


In order to place the proposed study in perspective, and to derive empirically testable hypotheses, several











propositions from the scholarly literature are presented.

1. The acceptance or rejection of planned change

is uneven and depends on perceptions, predispositions, and values of individual people

who share a common culture

2. The behavior of people in organizations has a

different set of determinants than when they are outside organizational roles. Therefore,

organizational change must be viewed in a

different manner than change in individual behavior

3. The inevitability of change is accepted but

there appear to be factors that facilitate

or resist the change process

4. The incidence of planned change is significantly

increased by the presence of internal support

for change, individual members advocating

change, the presence of a change agent, retraining members for new tasks, adequate funding and an adequate plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational

problems under consideration

5. The incidence of planned change is significantly

decreased by the presence of conformity to





58





norms, systemic and cultural coherence, vested interest, the sacrosanct, rejection of "outsiders" and inability to carry out change.
















CHAPTER III

PRESENTATION OF THE THREE CHANGE-ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS



As discussed previously, the six departments were chosen for case studies on the basis of the total departments' scores on the Department Questionnaire. Three of the departments were below 1 standard deviation of the mean score of the total departments' scores and considered for the purpose of this study as nonchange-oriented departments. Three of the departments were above 1 standard deviation of the mean score of the total departments' scores and considered the change-oriented departments. Table 1 shows the department number and corresponding Department Questionnaire score and indicates the changeoriented and nonchange-oriented departments.

The purpose of this chapter and Chapter IV is

to acquaint the reader with these six departments. The discussion will emphasize the formal structure of the departments, including data about the faculty members, interview data with faculty members, administrators, students, and graduates of the programs represented by the selected departments. Also, observations of faculty meetings, observations of informal groups, and analysis
















Table 1. Department Identification Numbers and Department
Questionnaire Scores


Department Identification
Numbers (N = 14)


Department Questionnaire
Scores (N = 14)


5
6**


9

10*


l1* 23 12 37 13* 25 14 36

*Departments selected as nonchange-oriented departments.

**Departments selected as change-oriented departments.










of documents are provided. The data provide a basis for the analysis of the field study results in relation to the theoretical literature which will follow in Chapter

V.

Chapters III and IV constitute a presentation

of the formal structure of the departments and data from interviews, observations, and documents for the three change-oriented and three nonchange-oriented departments, respectively. The interview guide and the document and observation guide were designed to have two or three questions or statements deal with each of the six facilitators and six resistors in order to elicit information as to the relative presence or absence of these factors. The data presentation will follow the guide's design. That is, for each group of questions and statements, the data are presented by departmental faculty, an administrator, nursing students, recent graduates, documents, and observations. The facilitators and resistors are listed, followed by a brief discussion of the intent of the questions, and finally, the responses concerning the department. The discussion about the intent and content of the questions and statements is presented in the first departmental discussion only but is applicable to all five succeeding departmental discussions.

The data collected from the interview guide and document and observation guide were treated in two ways.










First, the responses were identified by participants or documents and observations. The next step was to put these responses into one of the following categories: positive, mixed, or negative. Positive responses were the type that contained only perceptions of the presence of the facilitators or resistors. Mixed comments were those responses containing both positive and negative elements. The negative responses were those which contained only perceptions of the absence of the facilitators or resistors. The observation and document data were of necessity the researcher's perceptions of happenings and were recorded as such. Likewise, the amount of data collected was not consistent in each department because the departments varied in size. Within each department there was some duplication of responses. A tally of the responses by category is provided after the data on each facilitator and resistor with a summary of the data at the end of Chapters III and IV.



The Change-oriented Departments


The three change-oriented departments were within 1point of having the same score on the Department Questionnaire as shown in Table 1. The change-oriented departments will be discussed in numerical order according to the department identification numbers. The terms used









to describe the departments were used consistently to maintain the anonymity of the nursing programs and departments.


Department 2


The selection of Department 2 as a change-oriented department was supported by the responses to Section B, question 7 on the Department Questionnaire (see Appendix A). Department 2 was scored 3.4 on a 0-4 scale by the department chairpersons in the nursing program represented by Department 2. Department 2 was a division of four faculty members with one person appointed by the dean of the program to act as chairperson. Other members of the faculty taught in the major courses offered by this department when the student enrollment was increased or a faculty member was on leave. In other words, during any academic session the faculty composition may have reflected an additional one or two faculty members from other departments. 'fables 2, 3, 4, and 5 show the distribution of faculty by sex, age group, department years' experience, and academic rank.

As shown in Table 2, the faculty in Department

2 are all female. This was a similar pattern in all the departments studied. The male population of the student body was less than 1%. The department obviously had a predominantly female faculty and student body. The












Table 2. Faculty Distributed by Sex--Department 2


Distribution
(N = 4)


Sex


Female 4 Male 0 Total 4


Table 3. Faculty Distributed by Age Group--Department 2


Age
Group


Distribution
(N = 4)


25 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59


1


Total 4










distribution of faculty by age group is wide; Table 3 contains the numbers. The chairperson appointed by the dean was the oldest member of the department. The 30-39 age group had the majority with a total of 2. Table 4 shows a distribution of the faculty by department years' experience. Those figures must be examined with the knowledge that the college represented by Department 2 had been established only since 1966. The chairperson was also the person with the longest length of service to the department. Table 5 deals with academic rank. Academic rank is a distribution reflecting the program's as wcll as the university system's policies regarding academic position and tenure. All the faculty had taught in other colleges and/or university systems and one of the faculty members was eligible for promotion at the time of this study.

Interviews were conducted with three of the four faculty members in Department 2. The interviews were held in the respective faculty member's office. The interview with the administrator was 1-1/2 hours long and took place in her office. She was very willing to discuss the relationship of Department 2 to the entire program of the college. The nursing students interviewed. were volunteers who were in the last week of the course offered by Department 2. There were five female students in the group. The two graduates interviewed were graduated in 1973 and 1975, respectively.












Table 4. Faculty Distributed by Department Years'
IFxperience- -Department 2


Distribution
(N = 4)


Years


0 -1 1 2 -3 2 4 -5 1 Total 4


Table 5. Faculty Distributed by Academic Rank--Department 2


Distribution
(N = 4)


Instructor 1 Assistant Professor 3 Associate Professor 0 Total 4


Rank









The observational experiences included a faculty meeting, activity in the faculty lounge, informal visits in faculty offices, as well as lunches with faculty. The daily interpersonal contact between the faculty and the researcher was limited because of their respective clinical schedules. The number of clinical hours was curricula mandated but the particular day, the time patterns, and the clinical settings were departmental and individual decisions.

The course outline and objectives were examined for evidence of the facilitators and resistors. The philosophy of the program was also examined. The evidence has been identified as indicative of the relative presence or absence of the facilitators and resistors. The summary of data collected in the case study of Department 2 is presented below.

Atmosphere of change in the nursing program

Each participant was asked to describe the atmosphere of change in the program. The thrust of this statement was threefold; first, to build rapport within the respondents; second, to introduce the subject of change; and finally, to give the researcher a prevailing atmosphere of change in the program according to the participants. Observations and document review were not conducted to elicit information about this factor.

Department 2 interview data. When the topic of change was introduced, the participants were willing to










discuss their perceptions of change in the program. All the participants discussed the question. The researcher tabulated a total of 14 responses. There were 10 positive responses, 3 mixed responses, and 2 negative responses. The positive responses were proportionally higher than the mixed and negative responses. The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates follow.

Positive

1. Open to change (2)*

2. Open, wanting change

3. Political dean, gets things done

4. Push for change has come from individuals

5. As a student I felt the push for change

6. Big emphasis on change (2)

7. Constructive change--not change for change sake

8. Healthy, progressive

Mixed

1. Moves slowly

2. School in the middle of change

3. Authoritarian leader

Negative

1. As a student I felt there was a resistance
to change


*Hereafter, the number in parenthesis will indicate the number of times the response was made.









2. Students should be better informed about
possible changes


The positive responses were supportive of the

seelction of Department 2 as a change-oriented department. While the mixed and negative responses were relatively equal in number, the mixed responses had strong negative elements.

Facilitator 1: Internal support for change

Questions 2, 3, and 4 on the interview guide and statements 1, 2, and 3 on the document and observation guide asked the respondents to comment on the dean's support of the department's ideas and plans for change and the role new faculty and other departments played in affecting change. The sequence of questions provided the respondents the opportunity to express ideas about internal support and gave the researcher adequate data.

Department 2 interview data. All the participants answered the questions on the presence or absence of internal support for change in the department. Using the categories (positive, mixed, and negative), of the 19 responses, 12 were positive, 3 were mixed, and 4 were negative.

The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates follow.

Positive

1. New faculty member's ideas listened to

2. Cohesive group










3. Dean knows what is going on

4. Chairperson suggests ways to implement ideas

5. Try to let faculty initiate change

6. Dean supports this department

7. Sharing atmosphere in department 8. The administrative is supportive

9. Cooperation between departments

10. The dean will raise questions regarding
needed change


Mixed

1. Authoritarian leader, charismatic

2. Power struggle--if you are low key you get
passed over


Negative

1. Hardly see the dean to share individual
viewpoint

2. Change must originate with the dean

3. Faculty get double messages 4. Need more contact with dean


Generally, the interviewee's responses were

positive. The negative responses dealt with the personal relationship between the faculty and dean, whereas there seemed to be no negative responses regarding the dean's support of change in the department. Overall, the participants indicated strong internal support for change. The faculty in Department 2 indicated they









were aware of the dean's concerns and her support for the department.

Department 2 observation and document data.

The evidence for the presence or absence of internal support for change was difficult to determine from the documents (i.e., course outline, faculty policy book), and minutes of departmental meetings were not available to the researcher. The observational data were the best source of evidence about internal support for change. The data are listed below.


Positive

1. New faculty's ideas were listened to

2. Activity in meeting focused on changes made

3. Faculty members supportive of each other

4. Aware of dean's input in department


Mixed

1. Close personal relationships between dean
and some Department 2 faculty


Negative

1. No data


The document and observational data were supportive of the presence of Facilitator 1. The topic of conversations at lunch and in faculty offices was freouently the










strong administrative support for Department 2. Changes were evident in the 1973-1974 course outlines prepared by Department 2.

An examination of the total interview and observation and document responses regarding Facilitator 1 indicated a predominantly positive occurrence. Table 6 shows the distribution of the responses by category.




Table 6. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 1-D)epartment 2





Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 19)


Interview
(N = 14) 8 2 4 Document and
Observation
(N = 5) 4 1 0 Total 12 3 4


Facilitator 2:


Individual members advocating change


The participants were asked to identify faculty

members who were promoters of change and describe how they










influenced other department members. The questions and

statements were intended to discover how the ideas of the individual department members were accepted by other members.

Department 2 interview data. The participants

were able to identify faculty in the department who frequently advocated change. The most frequently mentioned method of influence used by the promoters of change was the person's expertise in the area. Once an idea was shared the members of the department felt they were involved in the planning for the change. The responses from the participants are listed below.


Positive

1. Strong administrative support

2. Each member of our department promotes change

3. We listen to each other

4. Our organizational arrangement allows us to
have input in other courses

5. Students can go to faculty with problems

6. Faculty are open

7. Chairperson is change-oriented

8. Faculty use expertise to influence others


Mixed

I. One must use care in introducing new
ideas










Negative

1. No data


With the exception of the one response categorized as mixed, the other responses were positive. The tendency was toward strong individual promotion of change and sharing of ideas in the department. Although the department chairperson was mentioned as promoting change, the other faculty considered themselves initiators of change also.

Department 2 observation and document data. The informal discussions with the faculty produced evidence of support for individual's ideas for change. One particular change was the topic in two separate discussions with the researcher. The views and suggestions of the faculty were eagerly shared with the researcher. The data are listed below.


Positive

1. The group was small so cooperation was
almost essential

2. The clinical areas reflected the special
interest area of each faculty member


Mixed

1. Ideas seemed to be introduced after the
faculty members made sure they were not out of line with the general plans of the group


Negative

1. No data










The document and observation data supported the presence of Facilitator 2 in the department. Each faculty member had made changes and received support from the other faculty members. The data compiled in Table 7 show the number of positive, mixed, and negative responses.



Table 7. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2-Department 2



Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 12)

Interview
(N = 9) 8 1 0

Document and
Observation
(N = 3) 2 1 0 Total 10 2 0




The summary of the data shows strong support for individuals advocating change in Department 2. The mixed responses tended to have positive elements.


Facilitator 3: The presence of a change agent

Facilitator 3 was explored by the use of two

questions. The respondents were asked to identify persons, groups, or influences inside or outside of the department










who acted as a change agent to bring about a specific change in the department.

Department 2 interview data. All the participants were asked to respond to these questions. These questions required more time for responses than most of the other questions did. The researcher had to define change agent for each of the participants and cite possible examples of situations involving a change agent. The participants were able to answer the questions following a brief explanation.

The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates are listed below.


Positive

1. Grant we have received

2. Faculty rotate between two departments and
these faculty are change agents

3. Clinical areas influence us (2)

4. Programs in the community have influenced
a change in the area


Mixed

1. No data


Negative

1. We have not made any curriculum changes
since the beginning of the program and rightly
so; therefore we haven't brought anyone in
until the present changes were proposed

2. No person or group I can identify










3. I can't think of anyone (2)

4. No (3)


The participants as a whole had difficulty identifying the presence of a change agent. The grant received by the department was mentioned as an influence as well as the policies of some clinical agencies. These factors required some minor changes to be made in the department and therefore were listed.

Department 2 observation and document data. The researcher attempted to seek evidence of a change initiated as a result of an identifiable change agent since the interviews had not been a satisfactory source of this information. The course outlines did reflect evidence of change which could have been the result of the grant awarded to the department but other written materials were inconclusive. The observations made were more successful. It was interesting to see clear indications of changes made as a result of the dean's input in the department although no one identified the dean as a change agent. When the researcher investigated a change, it could often be traced back to the dean. The data are listed below.


Positive

1. The dean was available to two Department 2
faculty members on a personal basis










2. The phrases used to describe a change were
the same phraseology used by the dean in
speaking with the researcher

3. The tendency for ideas to flow down from
the top as reflected in conversations

4. The changes in clinical areas and student
behavior listed in course outlines


M ixed

1. No data


Negative

1. No data


The data are evidence of some influences identified by the researcher of the presence of a change agent. The obvious absence of the evidence of an agent reflects negative response. All the data collected concerning the presence of a change agent in Department 2 are presented in Table 8. A close examination of the interview


Table S. Summary of
Department


Categories for Facilitator 3-2


Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 16)


Interview
(N = 12) 0 7

Document and
Observation
(N = 4) 4 0 0

Total 9 0 7










responses shows the negative responses are higher than the positive ones. The data on the presence of a change agnet in Department 2 was not conclusive.



Facilitator 2: Retraining of members for new tasks


Three questions were designed to determine the attitudes of the participants concerning retraining and support of the faculty during a change in work load or work area. The questions were an avenue for faculty members to discuss leaves with pay, short courses, and support needs when asked to teach in a different clinical area.

Department 2 interview data. Only the faculty and the administrator were asked to respond to these questions. Since some of the faculty were expected to move between Department 2 and another department, this subject generated considerable discussion. The faculty were in agreement that workshops and courses were encouraged, but the time and support to enable faculty to attend meetings were not planned and therefore were not seen as strongly supported as statements indicated.

The responses from the faculty and the administrator follow.


Positive

1. Encouraged to attend short courses and
workshops










2. 1 see a place for everyone in the new curriculum

3. We had adequate money for workshops until
the funding problem in the state


Mixed

1. Some attempt at faculty development

2. 1 received some support from the faculty
in the second department I was in

3. Expected to move from one department to
another

4. When employed a faculty member is expected
to cover two areas


Negative

1. No funds or leave given for summer workshops

2. We are so busy--I wish they would just provide the opportunity to take a course

3. Need for educational leaves


Department 2 observation and document data. The researcher was able to ascertain the number of workshops and short courses the faculty had attended as well as the support given the faculty to make the time off available. Because there seemed to be an equal number of workshops and courses attended by each member, the support system to provide time off appeared to have been present also. All the faculty in Department 2 had expertise in the area and therefore did not experience the need for retraining at that time. The following data










collected from observational experiences and annual reports supported the presence of retraining on a limited basis.


Positive

1. Workshops and courses attended by each faculty member

2. Discussions of clinical expertise

3. Sharing of clinical facilities

4. Sharing of workshop information


Mixed

1. Some faculty development programs

2. Faculty expected to have two areas of expertise


Negative

1. Limited number of faculty 2. Heavy faculty commitments


A total of 18 responses was given from the

four faculty members and administrator (see Table 9). The categories had approximately the same number of responses. Most of the comments in the interviews were assigned to a mixed category; the negative and positive categories had the exact number of responses, 3 each. The researcher categorized her observations and document











review responses in a different manner with 4 in the positive category and 2 each in the mixed and negative categories. The totals in each category were relatively close; therefore, the presence of Facilitator 4 was supported by a marginal number of positive responses.





Table 9. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 4-Department 2




Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 18)


Interview
(N = 10) 3 4 3 Document and
Observation
(N = 8) 4 2 2 Total 7 6 5


Facilitator 5:


Adequate funding


Facilitator 5 was explored by determining the kinds of outside funding available to the department and whether adequate funding was perceived to be available to make the changes the department wanted to make.










The researcher was interested in the perceptions of the faculty concerning the adequacy of funds and did not attempt to document the actual availability of funds. Also, the question dealing with the knowledge of the department's and program's budgets elicited interesting data.

Department 2 interview data. All the participants were asked these questions. The faculty were aware of the grant given to the department but were not concerned about the overall funding and budgeting problems. Considered by most to be the dean's concern, the faculty were not aware of particular problems in the department resulting from inadequate funds. The students were not aware of a grant and they stated there were an adequate number of faculty. The participants gave the following responses to the questions relating to funding.

The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates are listed below.


Positive

1. We have some grant money (2)

2. We have a grant

3. I haven't identified funding as a
problem

4. Dean takes care of that










5. We got some money from a grant but the
dlean supplemented it

6. Grants are available for our area

7. Dean knows what funds are available


Mixed

1. Aware of financial problems in the state
but we have been able to manage


Negative

1. I look at money as being an important component at the top; it has been the big
block to change

2. Needed to attract faculty


Department 2 observation and document data.

The presence of the grant was acknowledged in written documents about the department. There was no evidence of concern because of inadequate funds or a limited budget and clear evidence that the faculty considered funding the dean's concern. The data are listed below.


Positive

1. Governmental grant


Mixed

1. Lack of faculty concern


Negative

1. No data










Table 10 includes the data pertaining to the presence of Facilitator 5. The data are categorized as positive, mixed, or negative.



Table 10. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 5-Department 2



Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 13)

Interview
(N = 11) 8 1 2 Document and
Observation
(N = 2) 1 1 0 Total 9 2 2


A total of 13 responses was collected from the participants, the observations and written documents. Most of the responses in Department 2 were assigned to the positive category, indicating the presence of Facilitator 5 in Department 2.


Facilitator 6: Adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational probleiis under consideration


The participants were asked whether the changes proposed in the department were understood by all the members and whether some changes were instituted that were not an improvement over the present way they were










doing things. The design of the questions was to elicit information about the individual member's needs and the organization's needs and determine if they were both being met.

Department 2 interview data. The students and graduates were not included in the collection of data for the presence or absence of Facilitator 6. The adequacy of the plan for meeting the faculty member's needs and the college's needs was evident from the participants' responses. The majority were overwhelmingly positive. The responses from the faculty and the administrator are listed below.

Positive
1. Most of us know who we are and what we must
do here

2. Been able to introduce ideas

3. We know the goals of the department

4. I understand the reasons changes are made

5. We know the goals of the curriculum 6. Changes are made according to plans

7. We are small in number and decide on
changes together

8. A keen overt interest in faculty development
as shown by the number returning to get
their doctorates

9. I would like to lighten the faculty load

Mixed

1. You don't come here unless you can work
in this structure










Negative

1. You don't get anything in unless the dean
agrees with it

2. I don't think I'll stay here long

3. My freedom is restricted


Department 2 observation and document data. The evidence pertaining to Facilitator 6 was obtained from the observations of structured and unstructured meetings and conversations with faculty. The faculty were generous with unsolicited information. The faculty were generally positive about the ability to meet their own individual goals within the framework of the college. The data collected are presented below.


Positive

I. This is a great place to work

2. I can meet my own goals

3. So many of the original faculty are here

4. I came here to work with this dean


Mixed

1. Evidence that faculty were anxious to please
the dean (3)


Negative

1. Faculty member planning to leave because of
limitations on freedom











Evidence of Facilitator 6's presence was immediately available to the researcher. The faculty's unsolicited information about the positive aspects of the college as well as their own department was added to the faculty's genuine support of the administration. One faculty member did not share this attitude and she saw the problem as her inability to be a part of the "family" atmosphere the others sought to create. Overall, the evidence of an adequate plan for meeting the college's needs and the individual faculty member's needs was overwhelmingly present as seen in the responses in Table 11.





Table 11. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 6-Department 2




Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 21)



Interview
(N = 13) 9 1 3 Document and
Observation
(N = 8) 4 3 1 Total 13 4 4










Summary of the relative presence or absence of facilitators found in Department 2


There was a total of 100 responses from the

participants, observations, and documents collected by the researcher. The responses were categorized and summarized in Table 12. The positive category contains 61 responses or 61% of the total responses and the mixed and negative categories are represented by 17% and 22%, respectively.



Table 12. Total of the Categories of the Six Facilitators-Department 2



Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 100)



Interview
(N = 70) 42 9 19 Document and
Observation
(N = 30) 19 8 3 Total 61 17 22




The indication from these data was the likelihood that the facilitators of change were present in some areas of Department 2 and weak or absent in other areas. These data will be summarized with the data from Departments 6 and 7 at the end of Chapter III.










Resistor 1: Conformity to norms


Information about the norms of the department was elicited by three questions. Question 19 sought information about the amount of flexibility allowed in the department while questions 20 and 21 elicited comments about the department's reaction to a faculty member who attempted to introduce a new teaching method without departmental consensus or who ignored group decisions.

Department 2 interview data. All the participants responded to the questions concerning the norms in the department. There was evidence that the faculty were ambivalent in the acceptance of group norms. Of the 14 responses, 5 were mixed while 4 were categorized as positive and 5 were negative. The responses from faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates are listed below.


Positive

1. Faculty brought in to make changes, but
ideas not accepted

2. Faculty get hung up on group's expectation
of us

3. "We" think the use of first names between
faculty and students can cause problems

4. Faculty present united front


Mixed

1. One faculty member changed her behavior
to work in the system to get her ideas in










2. We bring things to the group and if its reasonable its accepted

3. We did sit down and arrive at some group
decision

4. We are most conservative here

5. No one has said not to call students by first
names, but its generally understood


Negative

1. We can handle our clinical groups as we
wish

2. Faculty make own decisions about clinical
group

3. Very flexible (2)

4. 1 would like to see more sharing between our
department and other departments


From the interviews there seemed to be acceptance of group norms to the extent the department was able to function effectively, and the members had sufficient flexibility to carry out individual plans. In other words, some departmental norms were respected and accepted because there was, in turn, a lack of interference in the the individual's plans in the clinical area.

Department 2 observation and document data. The evidence for the relative presence or absence of conformity to norms in Department 2 was determined from the observation of clinical groups and individual faculty member's clinical behavior. The faculty differences were




Full Text

PAGE 1

APPLICABILITY OF CHANGE THEORY TO CHANGE-ORIENTED AND NONCHANGE -ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS WITHIN SELECTED COLLEGIATE NURSING PROGRAMS By MARY ANN COWARD PARSONS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1976

PAGE 2

In memory of my father, Leon W. Coward (1919-1968)

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to thank her supervisory committee, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger , Chairperson, Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough, and Dr. Blanche I. Urey, for their assistance in the preparation of this study. The writer also wishes to acknowledge the support given her by the University of Florida College of Nursing throughout her doctoral study, and to George, Nicole, Kent, and her mother, Kay D. Coward, her deepest appreciation for their support which enabled her to realize this goal. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 3 The Problem Delimitations and Limitations Justification for the Study Assumptions 10 Definition of Terms H Hypotheses I 3 Procedures 14 II CHANGE THEORY: PROCESS, SELECTED FACTORS THAT FACILITATE CHANGE AND SELECTED FACTORS THAT RESIST CHANGE 33 Lewin's Concept of Change 33 The Process of Planned Change in Individuals and Organizations as Seen by the Theoreticians 3 9 Facilitators of Change as Determined by the Literature 43 Resistors of Change as Determined by the Literature 49 Relationship Between Scholarly Literature and the Proposed Study 56 III PRESENTATION OF THE THREE CHANGE-ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS 59 IV PRESENTATION OF THE THREE NONCHANGEORIENTED DEPARTMENTS 193 V ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FIELD STUDY RESULTS IN RELATION TO THE THEORETICAL LITERATURE 29 9 iv

PAGE 5

Page VI PRESENTATION OF SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 318 APPENDICES 328 A DEPARTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 329 B PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 333 C DOCUMENT REVIEW AND OBSERVATION GUIDE 342 REFERENCES 350 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 355 v

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE APPLICABILITY OF CHANGE THEORY TO CHANGE-ORIENTED AND NONCHANGE -ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS WITHIN SELECTED COLLEGIATE NURSING PROGRAMS By Mary Ann Coward Parsons August, 1976 Chairperson: James L. Wattenbarger Major Department: Educational Administration The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent the scholarly literature on change was applicable in departments in collegiate nursing programs Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought : 1. To what extent do change or iented and nonchange-oriented departments differ in regard to the relative presence or absence of internal factors identified by change theorists as facilitators of change? 2. To what extent do change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments differ in regard to the relative presence or absence of internal factors identified by change theorists as resistors of change? vi

PAGE 7

Considered in the selection of factors purported to facilitate or resist change in the literature were those which had been incorporated in the literature on nursing theory but had been done so without adequate test ing to determine if possible modifications were necessary The six facilitators studied were 1. Internal support for change 2. Individual members advocating change 3. Presence of a change agent 4. Retraining members for new tasks 6. Adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration The six resistors studied were 1 . Conformity to norms 2. Systemic and cultural coherence 3. Vested interest 4. The sacrosanct 5. Rejection of "outsiders" 6. Inability to carry out change Four collegiate nursing programs in the southeastern region of the United States were selected for study. Department chairpersons in each of the four programs responded to a questionnaire which resulted in the selection of three change-oriented and three nonchangeoriented departments. vii

PAGE 8

The case study method was employed to conduct this investigation. The principle methods used to collect data were (1) personal interviews in the nursing programs represented by the six departments studied with faculty, an administrator, students, and recent graduates, and (2) structured and unstructured observations as well as the analysis of written materials and documents. Frequency distributions were developed to determine the differences in the incidence of the six facilitators and six resistors in the three changeor iented and three nonchange-oriented departments. Greater incidences of five of the facilitators were found in the three changeor iented departments as compared to the three nonchange-oriented departments. They were Facilitators 1 (internal support for change), 3 (presence of a change agent) , 4 (retraining members for new tasks), 5, (adequate funding), and 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration). Facilitator 2 (individual members advocating change) was found in equal numbers in both of the groups. Facilitators 3 (presence of a change agent) and 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration) had sufficient evidence to support their consideration in discussions on change in departments in collegiate nursing programs. viii

PAGE 9

Greater incidence of three of the resistors was found in the three nonchange-or iented departments as compared to the three change-oriented departments. They were Resistor 1 (conformity to norms), 2 (systemic and cultural coherence), and 3 (vested interest). Of the resistors found in the nonchange or iented departments, Resistor 3 (vested interest) occurred most frequently. Vested interests appeared to develop in the nonchangeoriented departments because of the traditional organizational structure which produced segregation and strong faculty identification with a single department. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Many changes were made in nursing education in the 1960*s and early 1970's (Facts about nursing, 1972), but these changes were not being made in isolation. They were seen as a part of other changes in society. Social, industrial, and scientific forces have influenced the delivery of health services and the needs of consumers of health care. Examples of these forces are the knowledge explosion, the impact of science and technology, and the population growth (Schein $ Kommers , 1972, p. 39). Nursing has been affected by these forces (Okunode , 1975, p. 46) as have other professions. Although changes have taken place, Schein and Kommers (1972) have identified three trends in professions that run count-er to the needs created by the social, industrial, and scientific forces identified previously. These trends are (a) professions have become more convergent in their knowledge base and standards of practice; (b) professions have become more specialized; and (c) professions have become more bureaucratized and rigid in the career alternatives they allow (Schein 6j Kommers, 1972, p. 43).

PAGE 11

Administrators and faculty members in colleges of nursing must examine nursing education in view of these trends and determine what changes must occur in order to meet the challenges' of society. It is evident that as the social problems and consumer needs become more complex, professional nurses must become more skilled in integrating convergent and divergent forms of thinking; be better able to work across professional groups and/or integrate the efforts of many groups; and be able to change in order to meet consumer problems and needs (Bevis, 1973, pp. 56-66). The classification of clients in segregated services such as medical, surgical, pediatric, and obstetric influenced the work of the nurse in the modern hospital [Spalding, 1959, p. 69) and in the community. The various types of work divisions, therefore, influenced the curriculum and the organization of departments in colleges of nursing. Some examples of traditional departments are (a) fundamentals of nursing; (b) medical -surgical nursing; (c) maternity nursing; (d) pediatrics; (e) community health; and (f) psychiatric nursing. The trend developed in the 1970 's to define areas of nursing concerns and refer to them as levels or cores. Some examples of core areas that have been identified are (a) the growing family; (b) the maturing family; (c) the aging family; and (d) special interests. Whether the faculty are organized into departments or identified with

PAGE 12

core areas they are a part of an identifiable social system that must respond to a need for change. In spite of this need, little has been documented specifically about the application of change theory to collegiate nursing programs. Bevis (1973) has pointed out that very little attention has been given in the curriculum to studying the change process in nursing (pp. 144-155). Therefore, faculty within departments in collegiate nursing programs must be studied as to their attitudes toward change, for their role is one of preparing practitioners (Bevis, 1973, p. 135) to function in a complex, changing society. Another way of stating the question proposed in this study might be, to what extent does the scholarly literature on change apply in health-related professions such as nursing? The literature on change focuses on the process of change, as well as those factors that facilitate and resist change in various kinds of settings. In this study the writer attempted to advance the knowledge about factors which are offered in the literature as facilitators or resistors based on careful analysis of change as a process in selected nursing programs . The Problem The focus of this investigation was to test the applicability of the scholarly literature on change to

PAGE 13

reputed change-oriented and nonchange -or iented departments within collegiate nursing programs. Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought: 1. To what extent do change -or iented and nonchange-oriented departments differ in regard to the relative presence or absence of internal factors identified by change theorists as facilitators of change? 2. To what extent do change -oriented and nonchange-oriented departments differ in regard to the relative presence or absence of internal factors identified by change theorists as resistors of change? Delimitations and Limitations For the field portion of this study four colleges of nursing were selected based on the following criteria: National League for Nursing (NLN) accreditation; public support; a minimum enrollment of 75 full-time students; and a stable curriculum since 1973. The researcher requested each department chairperson in each of the four colleges to respond to an instrument (see Appendix A) that was used to identify changeoriented departments and nonchange -oriented departments (Davis, 1975). The researcher selected the three changeoriented and the three nonchange -oriented departments to

PAGE 14

be studied based on distributions at least 1 standard deviation above and below the total departments' mean. The study was confined to an investigation of the following facilitators of change which have been derived from a review of the scholarly literature on change: (a) internal support for change (Hamann, 1972; Reynolds, 1970); (b) individual members advocating change (Benne $ Birnbaum, 1969); (c) the presence of a change agent (Eye § Netzer, 1970; Lippitt, Watson $ Westley, 1958); (d) retraining of members for new tasks (Katz $ Kahn, 1966); (e) adequate funding (Hefferlin, 1969); and (f) adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problem under consideration (Reynolds, 1970). It was confined to the following resistors of change which have likewise been derived from the literature (a) conformity to norms (Lewin, 1951; Purdy, 1974); (b) systemic and cultural coherence (Aceves, 1974; Griffiths, 1964); (c) vested interest (Shephard, 1969, Watson, 1969); (d) the sacrosanct (Aceves, 1974); (e) rejection of "outsiders" (Watson , 1969); and (f) inability to carry out chang (Gross, Giacquinta, § Bernstein, 1971). For the field portion of the study an interview guide and a document review, as well as an observation guide (see Appendices B $ C) were used to collect data from administrators, departmental faculty members, nursing students, and department chairpersons in the nursing

PAGE 15

programs having the change -or iented and nonchange -oriented departments. Data were alsocollected by attending various meetings as well as available documents from departments selected for the study. These methods were used to collect data in order to determine the relative presence or absence of factors that facilitate or resist change in the collegiate nursing programs. Several limitations should also be recognized. The process of change researched in this study occurred in departments in selected nursing programs during the three-year period January 1973 to January 1976. It may be assumed that other factors (i.e., factors occurring before 1973, factors attributed to personality traits and especially the role of the educational institution [i.e., university, college] on the nursing program) have had significant impact on the factors that facilitate or resist change. Due to the sensitive nature of the data collected, reactive arrangements could have posed a threat to the external validity. Therefore it was essential that the participants realize that all information would be kept confidential. Another limitation considered was the threat created by maturation. Since recall was only one method of data collection, this threat to the study was greatly reduced. Instrumentation could have posed a threat to the internal validity since the researcher collected all the

PAGE 16

data (interviews, observations, analysis of documents) necessary for the study. The researcher remained aware of this threat of instrumentation and thereby lessened its impact. Also it is recognized that since only four nursing programs were selected rather than randomly identified, it is impossible to generalize to the total population of collegiate nursing programs. Any findings in this study must be regarded as suggestive and used as hypotheses for further testing in other settings before they can be established as generalizations which are broadly applicable to nursing programs. Justification for the Study The literature in the field of nursing education has been essentially characterized as ad hoc, descriptive, in character, and lacking in theoretical orientation (Nellis, 1971; Frerechs , 1971; Jacox, 1974; Notter, 1971; Spalding, 1959, p. 60), and furthermore the documented research on the change process in nursing education is very limited. The intent of the studies that currently exist (Hanna-Boules , 1973, Ketefian, 1973) was not to test or generate either hypotheses or theories about the change process in nursing education, but to report change experiences or to advocate the importance of certain factors in the change process.

PAGE 17

Jacox (1974) pointed out that the theories that have been borrowed by nursing have been done so without adequate testing. While there are unquestionably many common dimensions of change theory in nursing and other fields, the theory must be applied to nursing to check factors that may mandate modifications. The position has been taken that nursing is an applied science; therefore the relationship of theory to nursing has not been defined and often not considered. The lack of tested and proven theories important to nursing is a major gap in nursing research (Abdellah, 1970, p. 8; Diers, 1970; Notter, 1971) . Another significant justification for this study is the criticism of the research on the change process found in other areas of education. The research on change has been largely confined to using a single technique for gathering data in investigating the presence or absence of a single factor, as opposed to doing more holistic studies (Gross et al . , 1971, p. 31). The attempt to study a change as an isolated event rather than as a process (Ginzberg § Reilley, 1957; Lewin, 1951) that involved an interrelated set of factors that are not static has resulted in a distorted picture of the true situation (Gross et al., 1971, p. 30). This position has been supported by Goldberg (1970) who maintained that the long-term outcomes, including the careful assessment of all factors, are the true indicators of a change process.

PAGE 18

Still another justification for studying change in nursing programs lies in the system concept of social organizations; in this case, the social organization is the department. In his theory of social structure, Allport (1962) stated that the structure of social systems "is to be found in an interrelated set of events which return upon themselves to complete and renew a cycle of activities" (p. 4). It is events rather than things which are structured. Therefore the social system can be seen as a dynamic rather than a static structure. In this way a department in a nursing program may be viewed as an open system dependent somewhat on its environment (Katz § Kahn, 1966, p. 26). The department as a social system and as an open system must respond to its environment (with such pressures as changing societal demands and student needs) or it will not survive. That is to say, if the departments in nursing programs do not change to meet the needs of the students and society, in time they will have no need to exist. A second characteristic of an open system is the important concept of "steadystate" or dynamic homeostasis. A steady state is not a true equilibrium or motionless. Because it is a "continuous flow of energy from the external environment and a continuous inflow of energy" (Katz § Kahn, 1966, p. 23), the internal environment (departments) must respond to external changes and pressures.

PAGE 19

10 In this way the study of factors that facilitate or resist change in departments of nursing is necessary in order to help the internal environment respond more readily to the external environment . Assumpt ions Certain philosophical assumptions (i.e., the concept of social systems and the necessity for change) have been dealt with in the justification for this study. Beyond this, there are certain procedural assumptions involved in the conduct of this investigation. First, the researcher was capable of deriving from the literature certain factors that proposed to facilitate and resist change which have the probability of being present or absent, whatever the case may be, in reputed changeoriented and nonchange-oriented departments. Furthermore, the researcher was qualified to make judgments involved in the process of interviewing and analyzing data. Second, very critical to the selection of departments, it was assumed that the departments were in fact change -oriented and nonchange-oriented based on the use of the Department Questionnaire. Third, the participants in the study responded to the interviews and other data-gathering methods to the best of their knowledge.

PAGE 20

Definition of Terms Administrator . A chief officer in the nursing program whose function is to manage the affairs of the college . Collegiate nursing program . A senior college or university based program in nursing that undertakes as its major role the preparation of professional nurses. Dean. The chief administrative officer in the collegiate nursing program. Department . An administrative and functional division, within which faculty are identified, and that provides instruction in specific content areas (cores, groups) such as (a) adult nursing; (b) medical -surgical nursing; (c) fundamentals of nursing; (d) maternal -child nursing; (e) the growing family; (f) pediatrics; (g) community health; (h) mental health and psychiatric nursing; (i) the aging family; (j) nursing administration; and (k) distributive nursing. Department chairperson . "A faculty member who has been designated to preside over departmental meetings and to carry on certain administrative duties involved in managing . . . the department. ..." (Davis, 1975, p. 31). This term is used to include major instructor and coordinator. Department Questionnaire. An instrument based on

PAGE 21

12 work done by Davis (1975) to select the change -oriented and nonchange-oriented departments. Document Review and Observation Guide . An instrument developed to collect data on the administrators, faculty members, department chairpersons, and nursing students in planned meetings and open discussions and to collect data from the documents of departmental meetings of the change -oriented and nonchange-oriented departments, and other relevant material from January 1973 to January 1976. Facil itator . A specific force which is directed toward the change objective. The following factors are considered as the specific forces in this study: (a) internal support for change; (b) individual members' advocated change; (c) the presence of a change agent; (d) retraining of members for new tasks; (e) adequate funding; and (f) adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problem under consideration. Faculty member . A full-time person hired by the college including persons representing disciplines outside of nursing which are identified with a department. Internal factors .. Forces that operate within the department as opposed to the individual. These can include both the facilitators and resistors which are specified operationally in this study. They include the six factors considered facilitators and the six factors considered resistors.

PAGE 22

13 Nursing student . A full-time student in the collegiate nursing program who has completed the nursing courses or is currently enrolled in the nursing courses offered by the changeor nonchange -oriented departments. Organizational change . An alteration of the status quo which affects the structure, technology, and personnel of the organization (Lippitt, 1969, p. 2). Participant Interview Guide . An instrument developed by the researcher to collect data from the administrators, faculty members, department chairpersons, and nursing students in each study setting. Recent graduate . A person who has completed the requirements of the collegiate nursing program during the time span of January 1973 to December 1975. Res istor . "A force directed away from the change objective" (Lippitt et al. , 1958, p. 86). The following factors are considered as the specific forces in this study: (a) conformity to norms; (b) systemic and cultural coherence; (c) vested interest; (d) the sacrosanct (e) rejection of "outsiders"; and (f) inability to carry out change. Hypotheses The following hypotheses guided the field portion of the study. They were tested, not by statistical analysis, but by. logical inspection; hence, there is no level of

PAGE 23

significance involved. The hypotheses tested, which are stated in directional form consistent with the propositions derived from the study of change theory, are as follows: 1. Compared to the three nonchange -oriented departments, the three change -oriented departments will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically, the change -oriented departments will have present of internal support individual members of the presence of of retraining members (a) a greater incidence for change (b) a greater number of advocating change (c) a greater incidence a change agent (d) a greater incidence for new tasks (e) a greater incidence of an adequate plan for meeting organizational members' needs and the organization problem under consideration (f) a greater incidence of adequate funding. 2. Compared to the three change -or iented departments, the three nonchange-oriented departments will have present a greater number of resistors of change. More specifically, the nonchangeoriented departments will have present (a) a greater incidence of conformity to norms (b) a greater incidence of systemic and cultural coherence (c) a greater incidence of vested interests (d) a greater incidence of support for the sacrosanct (e) a greater incidence of rejection of outsiders (f) a greater incidence of inability to carry out change Procedures As previously indicated, the basic focus in this investigation was on the relative presence or absence of

PAGE 24

15 facilitators or resistors of change in reputed changeoriented and nonchange -oriented departments in selected nursing programs. In order to conduct this investigation the case study methodology was employed. The basic rationale for the case study is that processes and interactions, such as aspects of social functioning and interaction, cannot be studied except as they interact and operate in their natural setting (Fox, 1969, p. 427). Moreover, Fox (1969) suggested that answers to the abstract can be found in the characteristics and/or in the pattern of interactions of the individual and the environment. The case study method does allow the researcher to recognize relationships, and particularly to know when the relationships being revealed are consonant with existing theory and research and when they contradict it. Based on the literature and the focus of this study, four specifications of a methodology were required. First, since data were obtained from administrators, graduates, faculty, and students, the method should allow for the participants to remain in their natural setting. Second, procedures would have to permit obervations of meetings and activities of individuals as unobtrusively as possible. Third, the method should allow for development of rapport between the observer and the participants. Fourth, the procedure should allow for a variety of techniques for collecting data: conduction of interviews,

PAGE 25

16 observations, and analysis of documents. These specifications resulted in the choice of the case study method. This method was designed "to utilize to the full the advantages of seeing the situation as a whole and of attempting to grasp fundamental relationships" (Katz § Festinger, 1953, p. 75). In order to show how the case study methodology was applied in this specific setting, the procedures involved are discussed under the following headings: study settings, selection of departments for study, study participants, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and organization of the research report. Study Settings The four collegiate nursing programs were selected for the field portion of this investigation because of their location in the southeastern region of the United States. The programs' selection were based on the following criteria : 1. NLN accreditation 2. Public support 3. Enrollment range of at least 75 full-time students 4. Stable curriculum since 1973 The four collegiate nursing programs were Georgia State University Department of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina College of Nursing, University of North

PAGE 26

17 Carolina at Greensboro School of Nursing and Western Carolina University Department of Nursing. G eorgia State University Department of Nursing . Georgia State was the second largest institution of higher learning in Georgia in May 1976. A public, coeducational institution located in downtown Atlanta, Georgia State had implemented the urban university concept. The Department of Nursing was one of seven departments in the School of Applied Health Services. It offered an NLN accredited program that permitted the student who satisfactorily completed the requirements of the first two years to earn an Associate of Science degree with a major in Nursing. Students who continued in the program and successfully completed the requirements of the third and fourth years received a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Nursing. The total enrollment in 1976 was 278 students. The nursing curriculum had 16 courses that were taught throughout the four-year program. The curriculum framework had not changed since the late 1960 's-. The faculty were not identified with any one level or content area. Each quarter the faculty were assigned to participate in whatever courses were offered. Each course had a different coordinator appointed by the department head each time the course was taught. Therefore, for the purpose of this study the faculty was treated as one unit.

PAGE 27

The department head was the single administrative position in the department. In order to arrive at an accurate score on the Department Questionnaire the researcher requested six of the twenty-six full-time faculty members to respond to the questionnaire. The averaged score of the six completed questionnaires was used to represent the department in the computation to select the change-oriented and nonchange -oriented departments. Medical University of South Carolina College of Nurs ing . The College of Nursing was one of six colleges in May 1976 that comprised the Medical University of South Carolina, located in Charleston. A public, coeducational institution, the enrollment of the university was 2,020 students. The College of Nursing, accredited by the NLN, had an enrollment of 268 and offered a program of study leading to a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. The program was designed to span four academic years. Students began the nursing major in the freshman year and moved toward specialization and advanced nursing experiences at the upper division level. General education and cognate courses were distributed throughout the program. The nursing major was divided into the following content areas: (a) medical surgical nursing; (b) fundamentals of nursing; (c) maternity (d) leadership; (e) pediatrics; (f) community health; and (g) psychiatric nursing. The faculty were identified with one of these content areas.

PAGE 28

19 The curriculum was revised in 1971-1972 and had not changed significantly in 1976. At the time of the study the administration and faculty were undergoing a self-study in preparation for an NLN accredition report. The organizational structure of the college included the position of dean, assistant dean, and assistant dean for administrative affairs. Each content area had a faculty member designated by the dean as major instructor to serve as coordinator. The major instructor represented her area on the dean's advisory coucil. Each of the seven major instructors completed the Department Questionnaire . University of North Carolina at Greensboro School of Nursing . In 1976 the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNC-G) was a public, coeducational institution with a total enrollment of 8,759. Located in Greensboro, the second largest city in North Carolina, UNC-G was one of the 16-campus institutions of the University of North Carolina. The School of Nursing was one of eight undergraduate schools in the university. An upper division NLN accredited program with an enrollment figure of 284, the School of Nursing offered an undergraduate curriculum leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Nursing. The first two years of study were concentrated in general education, providing knowledge in the basic science and humanities. The School of Nursing was established in

PAGE 29

20 1966 and the curriculum designed and implemented at that time had not changed significantly in 1976. At the time of the research study the faculty were undergoing curriculum evaluation and planning for major curriculum revision. The organizational structure of the School of Nursing included the position of dean and assistant dean. The faculty structure followed the medical model of speciality areas: (a) medical surgical specialities; (b) psychiatricmental health; (c) pediatrics; (d) maternity; and (e) community health. Each speciality area had a coordinator appointed by the dean whose responsibilities included administrative tasks and membership on the dean's coordinating council. The coordinating coucil was an advisory council only. Each of the five coordinators completed the Department Questionnaire. Western Carolina University Department of Nursing . Western Carolina University was a state supported coeducational institution in May 1976. Located in the mountain ranges of Cullowhee, North Carolina, the University consisted of five schools which offered degrees. The Department of Nursing was associated with the School of Arts and Sciences and offered the Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. The NLN accredited program was an upper division program with an enrollment of 78 students. A total of 12 nursing courses were taught in the junior and senior levels. Faculty members were involved .with

PAGE 30

students in both levels during the year. Although both the junior and senior levels had designated coordinators, for the purpose of this study the faculty were treated as one department. Both level coordinators completed the Department Questionnaire and the averaged score of the two was used to represent the department in the computation to select the changeoriented and nonchangeoriented departments. The organizational structure of the department con sisted of the department head and eight full-time faculty members . Selection of Departments for Study The selection of the three change-oriented and the three nonchange-oriented departments was based on the results of the Department Questionnaire. Each department chairperson in the selected colleges was asked to complete the questionnaire. The standard deviation of the mean of the total departments' scores was computed with the depart ments that fell above the 1 standard deviation considered change-oriented and those that fell below 1 standard devia tion considered nonchange-oriented. In other words, the six departments were selected from a pool of the total departments in the four nursing programs selected for study. Study Participants The study participants included one administrator, faculty members in the selected departments, departmental

PAGE 31

chairpersons, groups of nursing students, and recent graduates. The same number of participants was selected from each of the nursing programs represented by the selected change-oriented and nonchange-or iented departments Adm in i strators . The administrator was interviewed using a modified form of the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B) . The dean, assistant dean, or other administrator was selected to be interviewed for information concerning the changeor iented and/or nonchangeoriented departments. Faculty members . Faculty members from each of the departments selected as change-oriented or nonchangeor iented were interviewed using the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B) . Department chairpersons . The department chairpersons of the departments selected as changeoriented and nonchange-oriented were interviewed using the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B) . Nursing students . Informal groups of students were selected to share their perceptions of the selected departments . Recent graduates . Two recent graduates identified by the administration of the nursing programs as living within a radius of 10 miles of the program were interviewed using the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B) .

PAGE 32

Instrumentation Department Questionnaire To determine changeor iented and nonchangeoriented departments in the nursing programs, the researcher modified the instrument, Department Innovation Questionnaire, developed by Davis (1975) to study departments in a university setting. To establish the face validity of this instrument, the researcher conducted a literature review to determine factors in the internal environment of departments in nursing programs that could be used to indicate change (Bevis, 1973; Davis, 1975; Fox, 1969). Items selected for the questionnaire were those judged by the researcher to indicate change in departments in nursing programs. The items were divided into two sections: those concerned with curricular and instructional changes and those related to perceptions of department chairpersons in relation to the activities of the chairpersons. Also certain demographic items (i.e., sex, rank, length of time in position) were included which seemed to be related to factors that facilitate or resist change. Of the 15 items, 8 were related to curricular and instructional changes and 7 to the perceptions of department chairpersons. Possible responses were on a 0 to 4 scale with the exception of item 15 which asked the department chairperson to rank order all the departments in the

PAGE 33

college as to their perception of how change or iented the departments were. After the preliminary draft of the instrument was prepared, it was submitted to Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, Professor of Educational Administration, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Chairman of the Department of Educational Administration, and Dr. Blanche Urey, Dean of the College of Nursing, for review to further establish its face validity. Based on the suggested recommendations, the second preliminary draft was completed. The second draft was tested in the University of Florida College of Nursing to determine whether a changeoriented and nonchangeoriented department could be determined. This was necessary for several reasons. In nursing education, the goal of preparation for a reasonably welldefined career has encouraged a fairly rigid and highly structured curriculum. Requirements are usually heavy and electives are few. Thus, as Dressel (1971) pointed out, new curricula are more likely to be added than new courses (p. 230). Due to these heavy course requirements, as well as additional requirements imposed by the laws of the states and the accrediting bodies, the opportunities to be flexible are much more limited in a college of nursing than, for example, in a college of education. Therefore, it was necessary to test the validity of the questionnaire in nursing programs to determine whether or not

PAGE 34

change-oriented and nonchange-or iented departments could be determined. It was decided that departments above 1 standard deviation and below 1 standard deviation of the total departments' mean score on the Department Questionnaire would be considered change-oriented and nonchangeoriented departments, respectively. The preliminary draft was submitted to the six course coordinators in the college of nursing. The results of the six completed questionnaires revealed one department below 1 standard deviation and one department above 1 standard deviation. These results were further evidence of the content validity and sensitivity of the Department Quest ionnaire . The reliability of the instrument was determined by the odd-even reliability procedure after it had been administered to those departments in the pilot study and those departments selected for study. This method was used because it involved only one form of the instrument and only one administration of the instrument. The reliability score of the instrument was .683. The odd-even method was followed by the SpearmanBrown procedure. This procedure was used to estimate what the reliability would be of the full instrument because the number of items in the questionnaire was so small that the odd-even method produced a deflated estimate of the reliability. The final SpearmanBrown estimate was .812.

PAGE 35

Participant Interview Guide To determine the perceptions of study participants as related to factors that facilitate change: internal support for change, individual members' advocated change, the presence of a change agent, retraining of members for new tasks, adequate funding, adequacy of plan for meeting organizational members' needs, and the organizational problem under consideration; and factors that resist change conformity to norms, systematic and cultural coherence, vested interests, the sacrosanct, and rejection of "outsiders"; the researcher has developed an open-ended interview guide entitled Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B) . To construct this instrument, the researcher conducted a review of the literature related to factors in the internal environment of the organization (department) that facilitate or resist change, and the literature related to the construction of interview guides (Fox, 1969; Goode $ Hatt, 1952; Katz § Festinger, 1953; Whyte, 1951). Items selected for the interview guide were those judged by the researcher to be relevant to the problem under study. The guide was designed to have two or three questions elicit information related to each of the six facilitators and six resistors. Certain demographic items (i.e., sex, rank) were included which seemed to be related to factors that facilitate or resist change.

PAGE 36

After the preliminary draft of the instrument was prepared, it was submitted to Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough, Professor of Educational Administrator and Dr. James L. Wattenbarger , Chairman of the Department of Educational Administration for review and suggestions. Based on the suggested recommendations the second preliminary draft was completed. This second draft was field tested in the University of Florida College of Nursing with three faculty members. Two of the faculty members selected were unknown to the researcher previous to the field test to provide an environment similar to that anticipated in the study settings. The third faculty member selected was considered an expert in interview techniques and offered suggestions concerning the interview guide as well as the interview skills of the researcher. Based on the results of the field testing procedure, appropriate changes were made in the Participant Interview Guide and a final draft of the instrument was completed. Document Review and Observation Guide To determine characteristics and/or patterns in the internal environment of the selected departments, to structure observations of the participants in their natural settings interacting with the environment in planned meetings and open discussions, and to analyze documents and other relevant material, the researcher developed an

PAGE 37

instrument entitled Document Review and Observation Guide (see Appendix C) . To construct this instrument the researcher conducted a literature review concerning factors in the internal environment that facilitate or resist change and concerning the construction of a document and observation guide (Fox, 1969; Goode $ Hatt, 1952; Katz 5 Festinger, 1953; Whyte, 1951). Certain demographic items (i.e., position, rank) were included which seemed to be related to factors that facilitate or resist change. After the preliminary draft of the instrument was prepared, it was submitted to Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough, Professor of Educational Administration, and Dr. James L. Wattenbarger , Chairman of the Department of Educational Administration for review and suggestions. Based on the suggested recommendations the final draft of the instrument was completed. Data Collection A common procedure was followed with each case study: (a) A preliminary contact was made to the Dean of the nursing program to ascertain whether the institution would be willing to participate; (b) The selection of three change-oriented and three nonchange -oriented departments was made based on the results of the Department Questionnaire completed by each department chairperson in the four selected nursing programs; (c) Arrangements

PAGE 38

were made for a visit to each of the nursing programs represented by the three change-oriented and three nonchange oriented departments; (d) During the visit to each location, interviews, observations, and document reviews were conducted to gain an in-depth view of the departments; (e) The departments selected as change-oriented or nonchange -oriented were known only to the researcher. The participants were asked to respond to questions without knowledge of any label applied to the departments. The field portion of the study was conducted between March 15, 1976, and April 29, 1976. During this period of time thirty days were actually spent by the researcher in the nursing programs represented by the six departments collecting data. Formal interviews were conducted in private sessions with the study participants using the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B) . There were a total of forty-one interview sessions with each session averaging one hour in length. Each of the sessions were recorded with the permission of the interviewees. Also the interviewees were asked to read and sign the introduction on the Participant Interview Guide (see Appendix B) to understand the conditions under which the interview was being held. All the participants agreed to the interview being recorded and several waived their right for the information to remain confidential.

PAGE 39

Informal conversation was a natural occurrence while the researcher was present in the colleges. The faculty members were very open in their attempts to supply both solicited and unsolicited information. The researcher accepted invitations to lunch with the faculty and participated in conversations with the staff and students. Observations were a combination of planned and unplanned situations and events. There were specific areas such as the faculty lounge, main office, departmental offices, and cafeteria that were observed at varying times. Some of the formal events observed were faculty meetings and departmental meetings. The schools were very liberal in supplying written documents. Although only two departments kept minutes of their departmental meetings, the researcher was given copies of course outlines and syllabi from 1973-1975. Personnel handbooks, policy manual, and college catalogs were also part of the written materials used as data sources . Data Analysis For the data analysis, each hypothesis has been analyzed by each of the six parts thereof. Frequency distributions were developed from the data. For example, hypothesis 1(a) states: Compared to the three nonchangeoriented departments, the three change -oriented departments

PAGE 40

will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically, the change -oriented departments will have present a greater incidence of internal support for change. As suggested by the hypothesis, the researcher has looked for the differences in the incidence of internal support in the three change -oriented and three nonchange-oriented departments. As pointed out in the introduction, there were not enough data to deal with statistical analysis, so it was a matter of determination of frequencies by subsets. Organization of the Research Study The research study contains the following five chapters : Chapter I: Overview of the study which includes the statement of the problem, justification of the study, assumptions, definitions, hypotheses, and procedures. A review of the theoretical literature and research studies on change. A presentation of the results and findings of the three change -oriented departments. A presentation of the results and findings of the three nonchange-oriented departments, An analysis and discussion of the data from" Chapter II: Chapter III: Chapter IV: Chapter V:

PAGE 41

32 the field study in relation to the theoretical literature. Chapter VI: Presentation of a summary, conclusions, and implications, with particular emphasis on examining the applicability of the theoretical propositions regarding facilitators and resistors of change to departments within collegiate nursing programs.

PAGE 42

CHAPTER II CHANGE THEORY: PROCESS, SELECTED FACTORS THAT FACILITATE CHANGE AND SELECTED FACTORS THAT RESIST CHANGE In order to provide a basis for the field portion of this investigation, it was necessary to derive from the literature on change theory certain propositions regarding those things which appear to facilitate change and resist change in social organizations. In order that a perspective may be provided, the first section of the chapter deals with the work of Kurt Lewin (1951) in general because most of the theoreticians base their work on Lewin 's concept. The second section, in order to place the selected factors in perspective, gives attention to the process of change as seen in the literature. The third and fourth sections deal with the facilitators and resistors of change, respectively, and the justification for each of these as determined from scholarly writings and empirical research. Lewin' s Concept of Change Much of the theory on change has been based on work done by social scientist Kurt Lewin (1951). To 33

PAGE 43

Lewin (1951), the essential nature of the work of the scientist consisted of making a proper translation from phenomena to concepts. Conceptualizing, though highly abstract, must be analyzed in order to understand Lewin' s work because it was through the concrete application of these principles that he made his most significant contributions. Lewin (1951) often took popular ideas, such as change and resistance to change, and subjected them to a conceptual analysis which consisted of analyzing their elements (pp. vii-x). As a result, phenomena which had long been thought inaccessible to research became fruitful topics for examination. Another important fundamental construct to recognize in Lewin' s work was that of "field." He described behavior as a change of some state of a field in a given period of time. In the individual, the field was the life space of the individual which consisted of the person and the environment as it existed for the person. The field in a group had the same meaning as that of the individual field. Therefore the life space of a group or institution consisted of the group and its environment (Lewin, 1951, p. xi) . These two constructs are important to the understanding of Lewin' s (1951) perceptions of permanent change. He divided them into seven areas, which are

PAGE 44

discussed here briefly, as a basis for the work for many later theoreticians (Lewin, 1951, pp. 224-236). Change of Force Fields In his discussion of methods of achieving a desired end, Lewin (1951) suggested that one should not think in terms of the final goal but rather in terms of a change from the existing level to the desired one (p. 224). This discussion implied that a planned change consisted of a decrease in the force of the field that existed at level one and supplanted a stronger force at level two. The decision to bring about an actual change required sufficient consideration of elements. The total circumstances of the situation were examined in light of the groups and subgroups involved, their relationships, and their value systems. The setting of the field as a whole was studied and so reorganized that events flowed differently from the previously established patterns and allowed new patterns to form (Lewin, 1951, p. 224). Quasi-stationary Processes and "Social Habits" Influencing a group to make a change such as substituting one method of instruction for another has often meant trying to break a well-established habit. Social habits are usually conceived as obstacles to change.

PAGE 45

The idea of social habit seemed to imply that, in spite of the application of a force, the level of change was less than complete because of some type of inner resistance to change. An additional force seemed to be required to break the habit (Lewin, 1951, pp. 224-225). Lewin (1951) suggested one could argue that the desired change was not of such magnitude that the added force was sufficient to lead to a change; thereby denying the existence of a resistant force from within. This interpretation does not close the question. It is known that some force tended to resist the change and therefore became an additional force in the process. This added force was important because social habit in an individual is frequently seen as equivalent to the vestedinterests pattern observed in organizational institutions (Lewin, 1951, p. 225) . Individual Conduct and Group Standards In the discussion up to this point the forces described have been directed at an individual or a group. It is important at this point to consider the relationship between the individual and the social processes in the group that influence him or her. An individual may differ in his personal level of conduct from that which represents group standards. A small amount of difference

PAGE 46

37 has been acceptable, and even encouraged, in some cultures, but a great difference between individuals and group behavior has not been acceptable. Frequently the group standards acquired values and, therefore it became a positive valence for keeping the individual within the acceptable standards (Lewin, 1951, p. 226). Group Levels With and Without Social Value and the Resistance to Change Whatever the reason that a certain group standard acquired, or failed to acquire value, the difference has significance in the study of change. Lewin (1951) defined it this way: "the greater the social value of a group standard the greater is the resistance of the individual group member to move away from this level" (p. 227). Many cases of "social habit" seemed to refer to strong group standards with high social value, and resistance to change was explained by the above quote. Individual Procedures and Group Procedures of Changing Social Contact If the resistance to change depended partly on the value the individual placed on the group standards, it would follow that the resistance to change should be lessened if one could diminish the strength of the value of the standard, or change the level that the individual

PAGE 47

38 perceived as having value. Perhaps one might expect single individuals to be more pliable than groups. However, experience has indicated that it is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately. The individual will resist change as long as the group standards remain unchanged (Lewin, 1951 , pp. 227228) . Changing as Three Steps: Unfreezing, Moving, and Freezing of Group Standards In order for a permanent change to have occurred, more than a change from one level to another level must have taken place. A change in behavior is often followed by the group's return to the previous level. Therefore, a successful permanent change must include unfreezing the present level, moving to a new level, and freezing group behavior on a level relatively secure against change (Lewin, 1951, pp. 228-229) . Group Decision as a Change Procedure There are several reasons why group-decision facilitated change. When change was requested of individuals, the degree of enthusiasm varied according to personal preference for the change; whereas when the group decided to change, the enthusiasm seemed to be independent of personal preference. The group decision

PAGE 48

39 tended to facilitate changing the individual and stabilizing him on a new level (Lewin, 1951, pp. 221-236). The Process of Planned Change in Individuals an d Organiz ation s as Seen by the Theoreticians The ultimate term in contemporary rhetoric, the "god term," has been "progress" or "change" (Bennis, Benne, § Chin, 1969, p. 1). The inevitability of change would appear to be beyond debate; most students of society would agree that the one major invariant is the tendency toward movement, growth process, or change. The contemporary debate has involved the methods employed in controlling and directing forces in change (Bennis et al., 1969, p. 2). Dewey (1935) remarked that, "history in being a process of change generates change not only in details but also in the method of directing social change" (p. 83). The method that emerged as the best alternative was planned change (Bennis, 1966; Bennis et al., 1969; Lewin, 1951). Bennis (1966) defined planned change as a "change which involves mutual goal setting, an equal power ratio, and del iberateness on the part of both sides" (pp. 83-84). Other authors (Katz § Kahn, 1966; Lewin, 1951; Lippitt et al., 1958) have agreed that change must be planned in order to be effective in improving organizational

PAGE 49

40 and instructional conditions. It is in this sense that change will be discussed. One of the first efforts to explain the change process was that made by Lewin (1951) as discussed earlier. His three-step model postulated that opposing forces created varying amounts of pressure on a situation. When the forces are equal, the situation does not change, but change does occur when there is an addition or subtraction of forces, disequal iz ing the pressure (Lewin, 1951, pp. 234-236). Another classic model of change process was an agricultural one developed by rural sociologist Lionberger (1970) who proposed a model to explain why individuals do or do not adopt changes. He identified five critical stages in the adoption process as awareness, interest, trial, evaluation, and adoption. He also has added a sixth stage, discontinuance. These were the functional requirements of individuals in adopting new practices and were detailed as follows: An individual must become aware of an innovation before he can make decisions about it. If an interest is aroused, he caii seek additional, detailed information for decision purposes, presumably in a rational manner. After the accumulation of knowledge (and even while this is still in process) , evaluation becomes a paramount requirement. This stage very closely coincides with what has been referred to as the process of becoming convinced. The trial stage approximated a commonlyimposed local trial period as a condition for accepting and using innovations.

PAGE 50

A case could then be made for considering adoption. (Lionberger, 1970, p. 84) This model has often been cited in the educational literature (Eicholz § Rogers, 1964; Miles, 1964) as a useful formulation for analyzing the successful introduction of innovations in schools. A similar model, including the following stages: development of innovations, diffusion, legitimation or advocacy, adoption, and adjustment or adaptation, was advanced by Hobbs (1966). Gross et al. (1971) criticized this conceptualization of the change process due to its assumption of the adoption of change by individuals. They maintained that the diffusion model proposed by Lionberger (1970) was of little use in explaining the successful implementation of change in organizations. One of the basic assumptions was that during any of the intermediate stages between awareness and use, the individual was free to reject it or discontinue the change. This assumption does not apply to major educational changes, for example, those changes in which faculty are required to participate by group decision and/or by the chief administrator. It is also assumed that persons can undertake trials in an either/or fashion and that short trials were sufficient to evaluate the chang Furthermore, most educational changes are so complex that they cannot be an either/or situation, and some have required several years of implementation before an adequate

PAGE 51

evaluation could be made (Gross et al . , 1971, pp. 20-21). In short, while the adoption models were useful in understanding the adoption of simple changes among groups of individuals, they appeared to be of little value for explaining the implementation of organizational change. Katz and Kahn (1966) attributed the confusion between individual and organizational change, in part, to the lack of precise terminology for distinguishing between behavior determined largely by structured roles within a system, and behavior determined more by personality needs and values. The behavior of people in organizations has a different set of determinants than when they are outside organizational roles. Modifications in organizational behavior must be approached in a different manner than change in individual behavior (Katz 5 Kahn, 1966, pp. 390-391) . Gross et al. (1971) distinguished three basic stages in the process that occurred when an attempt was made to alter organizational behavior through the introduction of any change. They depicted the stages as follows (a) the period of the initiation of an organizational change; (b) the period of its attempted implementation; and (c) the period during which incorporation has taken place (p. 17). This process was very similar to the view Lewin (1951) described as unfreezing, changing, and

PAGE 52

43 refreezing. Similarly, Greiner (1967b) who also investigated organizational change, departed from the previous model and depicted a six-step model which included the following: (a) pressure on top management; (b) a newcomer intervening at the top; (c) diagnosis of problem areas; (d) intervention of new solutions; (e) experimentation with new solutions; and (f) reinforcement from positive results. This model has been supported by an earlier study done by Greiner (1967a) of a large petrochemical plant to evaluate the effectiveness of Managerial Grid Training in improving the decision-making performance of 860 managers. The models of organizational change suggested by Gross et al. (1971) and Greiner (1967b) are only two of many models (Eye $ Netzer, 1970; Ginzberg § Reilley, 1957; Katz $ Kahn, 1966) found in the literature. The models have proven to be a useful framework for examining the change process in organizations. Facilitators of Change as Determined by the Literature The acceptance or rejection of a new form of behavior or a new item will vary from group to group within a given organization. Generally, the more open a group, the more likelihood there is of new elements being assimilated

PAGE 53

44 into the culture. The acceptance or rejection of change has always been uneven and dependent upon the perceptions, predispositions, and values of the recipients. It was not really a group or organization that "accepted or rejected changes, but rather individual people who shared a common culture" (Aceves, 1974, p. 238). The selected factors that will be discussed here are those that facilitate change in the internal environment of the organization. It is evident from the literature that while change is always occurring there are factors that facilitate the change process. The selections of the following factors to be reviewed were based on their frequent treatment in the literature. Internal Support for Change In work done by Lippitt et al. (1958, pp. 24-25), the small group (for example, a department) was found to be sensitive to internal disruptions. Because the groups were vulnerable to many threats, they proceeded with great caution. Therefore, when there was evidence that interorganizational change forces (for example, other departments, administrators, students) were present, the small group was particularly susceptible to change. Hamann (1972) and Reynolds (1970) studied factors that brought about change. There was strong evidence that the leadership

PAGE 54

of the principal or superintendent in the case of elementary and secondary schools, and the dean in higher education was significant. In general most groups are responsive to what their leaders want. For this reason, it was important that the group members perceived the position of the leader correctly (Ginzberg § Reilley, 1957) . Griffiths' (1964) theory of administrative change suggested that, when change does occur in a group, the initiative for the change was from the suprasystem. He also proposed that the degree of change was directly proportional to the intensity of the stimulus from the surrounding forces (Griffiths, 1964, p. 431). A study by Purdy (1974) supported Griffiths' theory. Purdy (1974) found that teachers' reaction to changes was greatly influenced by their view of the administration's respect of faculty autonomy. The more a teacher felt the administration supported the faculty, the more positive the response to change . Individual Members Advocating Change "The behavior of individuals in every sector of life is greatly affected by the actions and reactions of the group to which they belong" (Ginzberg § Reilley, 1957, p. 43). When the dominant members of the group have a

PAGE 55

46 positive attitude toward change, they will often bring the less dominant members along. Benne and Birnbaum (1969) found that once the workers in an institution agreed to make a change the implementation of the change was much easier (p. 328). Participation by those affected by the change increased the chances that new insights were formed and that the change would be accepted. The Presence of a Change Agent A change agent was identified as an agent obtained to help implement a planned change. Although organizational change is a continuous process-adaptation , adjustment, reorganizationit does not occur fast enough to keep pace with the rapidly changing world. Since the organization is often unable to change the established patterns, a change agent may be needed (Lippitt et al . , 1958, pp. 91-98; Heiss, 1970, p. 79). Schein and Kommers (1972) defined the change agent as a force operating inside or outside the institution. The agent may be a student, professor,, dean, committee, or any group that works to bring about a specific change (Schein $ Kommers, 1972, p. 78). McCabe (1967) studied the influence structure in curriculum matters in six junior colleges where he found academic deans and department heads were consistently among the most influentials whereas professional personnel

PAGE 56

47 with more than 10 years of service were predominantly high or low in influence with few in the middle. Often a change agent must work with individuals, not the entire group. The agent may find that only parts of the group offer resistance and therefore the agent must attempt to enlarge the amount of influence until it reaches all of the system. Eye and Netzer (1970) considered the possibility of a change agent being something other than a person. They defined a change agent as a person or an influence that caused a current status to be altered (Eye $ Netzer, 1970, p. 137). For the purpose of this study a change agent will be considered as a person, group, or an influence that operates on the inside or outside of an institution to bring about a planned change. Retraining of Members for New Tasks Not knowing what is involved in a change, whether it be a course change or a major curriculum change, some people who are less sure of themselves may fear that there will be no job for them in the new structure or one of less importance. It is not necessary for an individual to be singled out for job termination in order for feelings of fear and mistrust to occur. All one has to do is speculate that the change will eliminate a need for his or her type of work (Ginzberg § Reilley, 1957, p. 90).

PAGE 57

Katz and Kahn (1966) pointed out that preparation and retraining for new roles were very significant in measuring the success of change. The research findings of Gross et al. (1971) suggested that members of an organization (department) had the right to expect management to provide retraining if a change was expected to be accepted (p. 201) . Retraining members in an industrial organization (Lippitt, 1969, pp. 241-247) has been an understood necessity much longer than it has in educational settings. Adequate Funding It was Hefferlin's (1969) position that, in educational change, the key was resources. New courses are offered and new curricula developed because individuals and groups are willing to finance them. In a study by Reynolds (1970) , inadequate funds were listed as impeding factors, but adequate funds were mentioned only once by the teachers in the study as a facilitating factor. It may be that many educators plan their changes with the operating budget in mind. Therefore, many changes are not indicative of the needed changes but indicative of a limited budget. However, Hanna-Boules (1973) found that facilitation of educational change correlates particularly and significantly with the number of outside grants .

PAGE 58

Adequacy of Plan for Meeting Organization Members' Needs and the Organizational Problems Under Consideration There seemed to be agreement between educators and research data (Lippitt ^ Colleagues, 1967) that the change must be seen as relevant and helpful to the educator in achieving goals. Reynolds (1970) found the greatest resistance to change to be the lack of improvement anticipated by the change. Therefore, a sound plan which meets the members' goals as well as the organization' goals is essential. Most of the strategies for managing change are concerned with the goals of the members and the goals of the organization. There are instances in which the organization may be uncertain of the impact of change in the individual. In these instances, sharing information about the organizational goals and seeking help in making decisions have tended to lessen the discrepancy between the two (Mann § Neff, 1961, pp. 23-24). Resistors of Change as Determined by the Literature At each stage of change, from its inception to its defense as status quo, wise strategy has required that the nature of resistance be analyzed. Lewin's (1951) concept of "quasi-stationary equilibrium" suggested that resistance

PAGE 59

must be reduced if change is to occur with minimal stress (p. 224). The most common strategy to reduce change, persuasion and discussion, seemed to increase stress whil strategies that neutralized or transformed resistance utilized the existent forces for change already present in the system to produce movement (Watson, 1969). Therefore, it is important that the factors identified in the literature be supported by research findings. For the purposes of this review, the focus will be on the forces of resistance as they operate within the system (departments) . An attempt will be made to examine resistors to change from five forces set forth by Watson (1969) and supported by the literature, as well as one additional force supported by the literature. Conformity to Norms Norms in social systems compare with habits in individuals. Organizational members have demanded conformity to the norms of the organization. Whyte (1956) gave the following as examples of organizational norms: manner of dress, acceptable recreational and community participation, and the way in which one member addresses another member as a superior or a subordinate. Faculty members have been expected to conform to acceptable behavior more so than businessworkers . Norms have made it possible for people to work together without constant

PAGE 60

51 disruption due to unusual behavior. It is because norms are shared by many participants that they are difficult to change. Lewin (1951) discussed the unknown force that seemed to keep an individual within the group standards. When one person deviated noticeably from the group, the group attempted to increase communication towards the person, trying to alter his or her attitude. If this failed, he may have been abandoned. Lewin 1 s (1951) experiments on altering norms of eating indicated that changes were better introduced by group decision, than by expecting individuals to pioneer a practice or incorporate a new teaching method not being used or accepted by their associates. Lewin' s findings were supported by a study done on acceptance and rejection of innovation by faculty in a community college. The teachers tended to experiment with innovations in groups because the group served as a protection (Purdy, 1974). Systemic and Cultural Coherence The Gestalt principle that parts take on characteristics of the whole has implied that a change in one part affects another part. Changes which are helpful in one area may have repercussions in another. Often, the fear of the change and its implications for others, has caused great resistance in a group. The department member

PAGE 61

52 who attempts a new method of instruction, and has been strong enough to succeed, puts pressure on the entire group to change. If the pressure on the group was strong enough and was negatively perceived, the group had enough influence to resist the new method of instruction and cause it to fail. This reaction has been supported in anthropological studies (Aceves, 1974; Arensberg § Niehoff, 1964). Aceves (1974) stated that resistance to change must be conceived of as a "culturally patterned response to a situation, motivated by the prevailing values and beliefs of the respondents' social group" (p. 245). What has appeared to be inactivity or resistance may have been logical activity of the group based on its system and cultural coherence. Berelson and Steiner (1964) have explained the inability of people to change working under such stable conditions in terms of the rigid practices and values held by those being asked to change. Social conflict is more intense [when] the less adjustable the goals are the more fixed the rewards sought by the disputants . . . the less the contact or openness . . . the more that ideology is involved. . . . (p. 620) Griffiths (1964) described the systemic resistance to change in terms of the steady state that has developed when a dean or administrator has stayed in one position

PAGE 62

for a long time. Progressive segregation set in and the department became structured, which made change more difficult because the frequence of interaction between departments was decreased (p. 434). Thus, the combination of systemic and cultural coherence quite often results in tension, confusion, and resistance to change. Vested Interest "The most obvious source of resistance is some threat to the economic or prestige interest of an individual" (Watson, 1969, p. 495). A vested interest maybe in freedom to operate as well as in the level of income, or title on the door. Any change is likely to run counter to certain vested interests, and to violate certain territorial rights. Sentiments of vested interest and traditional rights are viewed as delegation of legitimate authority in traditional organizations, thus assuring quick counteraction against change (Shephard, 1969 ; Heiss , 1970 , p. 79) . In a study conducted by Hefferlin (1969) 234 academic administrators and faculty members were interviewed concerning obstacles to academic change. The external forces (graduate schools, alumni, legislatures, and trustees) were seen more as supporters of change than were internal forces (administrators, faculty and

PAGE 63

departments). Among administrators, 461 blamed some fault of the facultysuch as "entrenched departments," "faculty provincialism," "overspecialization," and "inadequate graduate training" -as the major obstacle to academic change (p. 99). Over one-third of the faculty agreed with the administrators' views but 13% of the department chairpersons and professors identified administrators as the major obstacles to academic change. The study suggested that the administrators and the faculty tended to blame themselves less than did the others. Each viewed himself as the defender of the cause. This "polarized provincialism" was suggested to account for some of the endemic antagonism that existed between administrators and faculty over change in the institution (Hefferlin, 1969, pp. 102-103). The Sacrosanct Anthropologists (Aceves, 1974; Arensberg § Neihoff, 1964) observed that in any culture some activities are easily changed while others are very resistant to change. The greatest resistance concerned matters which were held to be sacred. Traditional ceremonies were apt to be continued despite doubts as to their educational impact. The closer any reform came to touching some of the rituals in an organization, the more likely it

PAGE 64

was to be resisted. Organizations resisted, almost as stubbornly, alterations which altered the realm of ethics. Even when few live by the traditional code, it was still defended as "ideal" (Aceves, 1974). Rejection of "Outsiders" Most change has come into institutions from outside. Griffiths (1964), studying change in schools, concluded that "the major impetus for change in organizations is from outside" (p. 431) but a typical attack on any new proposal has been that it does not fit "our way of doing things." Struggles to improve race relations have often been attributed to "outside agitators," and the history of innovations has been that they are observed but seldom implemented. A common retort is that, "this is fine, but it wouldn't work in our system" (Watson, 1969, p. 496). Differences in students, financial support, and tradition have helped to rationalize the resistance. Therefore, the major problem in change has been to secure enough local input and participation so it will not be seen as an outs ide -dominated venture. Inability to Carry Out Change In their study "Implementing Organizational Innovations," Gross et al. (1971) found that work done on

PAGE 65

56 resistance to change has tended to ignore the resistance that may be encountered by departments in their efforts to carry out change. Their findings suggested that the "clarity of an innovation to organizational members needs to be taken into account" as well as the "capability of members of an organization to implement an innovation," the "availability of necessary materials and equipment," and the "compatibility of organizational arrangements" (pp. 196-197). A second major conclusion supported by the research of Gross et al. (1971) was that resistance developed among departments which were positively oriented to change as a consequence of frustrations they experienced while attempting to implement change (p. 198). These findings showed that not only organizational members' initial resistance or lack of willingness to make efforts to implement a change was important, but in addition, that resistance developed after its introduction and during the implementation. These findings were supported by Boyan (1967) who found that the products of educational change appear in forms which are not fully understood by, or acceptable to, practitioners. Relationship Between the Scholarly Literature and the Proposed Study In order to place the proposed study in perspective, and to derive empirically testable hypotheses, several

PAGE 66

57 propositions from the scholarly literature are presented . 1. The acceptance or rejection of planned change is uneven and depends on perceptions, predispositions, and values of individual people who share a common culture 2. The behavior of people in organizations has a different set of determinants than when they are outside organizational roles. Therefore, organizational change must be viewed in a different manner than change in individual behavior 3. The inevitability of change is accepted but there appear to be factors that facilitate or resist the change process 4. The incidence of planned change is significantly increased by the presence of internal support for change, individual members advocating change, the presence of a change agent, retraining members for new tasks, adequate funding and an adequate plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration 5. The incidence of planned change is significantly decreased by the presence of conformity to

PAGE 67

norms, systemic and cultural coherence, vested interest, the sacrosanct, rejection of "outsiders" and inability to carry out change .

PAGE 68

CHAPTER III PRESENTATION OF THE THREE CHANGE-ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS As discussed previously, the six departments were chosen for case studies on the basis of the total departments' scores on the Department Questionnaire. Three of the departments were below 1 standard deviation of the mean score of the total departments' scores and considered for the purpose of this study as nonchange-oriented departments. Three of the departments were above 1 standard deviation of the mean score of the total departments' scores and considered the change-oriented departments. Table 1 shows the department number and corresponding Department Questionnaire score and indicates the changeoriented and nonchange-oriented departments. The purpose of this chapter and Chapter IV is to acquaint the reader with these six departments. The discussion will emphasize the formal structure of the departments, including data about the faculty members, interview data with faculty members, administrators, students, and graduates of the programs represented by the selected departments. Also, observations of faculty meetings, observations of informal groups, and analysis 59

PAGE 69

60 Table 1. Department Identification Numbers and Department Questionnaire Scores Department Identification Department Questionnaire Numbers Scores (N = 14) (N = 14) 1 1 3 5 2** 40 3 39 4 34 5 31 6** 41 y A * 41 8 35 9 25 10* 25 11* 23 12 37 13* 25 14 36 *Departments selected as nonchange-oriented departments. **Departments selected as change-oriented departments.

PAGE 70

of documents are provided. The data provide a basis for the analysis of the field study results in relation to the theoretical literature which will follow in Chapt V. Chapters III and IV constitute a presentation of the formal structure of the departments and data from interviews, observations, and documents for the three change-oriented and three nonchange-or iented departments respectively. The interview guide and the document and observation guide were designed to have two or three questions or statements deal with each of the six facili tators and six resistors in order to elicit information as to the relative presence or absence of these factors. The data presentation will follow the guide's design. That is, for each group of questions and statements, the data are presented by departmental faculty, an administrator, nursing students, recent graduates, documents, and observations. The facilitators and resistors are listed, followed by a brief discussion of the intent of the questions, and finally, the responses concerning the department. The discussion about the intent and content of the questions and statements is presented in the first departmental discussion only but is applicable to all five succeeding departmental discussions The data collected from the interview guide and document and observation guide were treated in two ways.

PAGE 71

62 First, the responses were identified by participants or documents and observations. The next step was to put these responses into one of the following categories: positive, mixed, or negative. Positive responses were the type that contained only perceptions of the presence of the facilitators or resistors. Mixed comments were those responses containing both positive and negative elements. The negative responses were those which contained only perceptions of the absence of the facilitators or resistors. The observation and document data were of necessity the researcher's perceptions of happenings and were recorded as such. Likewise, the amount of data collected was not consistent in each department because the departments varied in size. Within each department there was some duplication of responses. A tally of the responses by category is provided after the data on each facilitator and resistor with a summary of the data at the end of Chapters III and IV. The Change-oriented Departments The three change-oriented departments were within 1 point of having the same score on the Department Questionnaire as shown in Table 1. The change-oriented departments will be discussed in numerical order according to the department identification numbers. The terms used

PAGE 72

63 to describe the departments were used consistently to maintain the anonymity of the nursing programs and departments . Department 2 The selection of Department 2 as a change -or iented department was supported by the responses to Section B, question 7 on the Department Questionnaire (see Appendix A). Department 2 was scored 3.4 on a 0-4 scale by the department chairpersons in the nursing program represented by Department 2. Department 2 was a division of four faculty members with one person appointed by the dean of the program to act as chairperson. Other members of the faculty taught in the major courses offered by this department when the student enrollment was increased or a faculty member was on leave. In other words, during any academic session the faculty composition may have reflected an additional one or two faculty members from other departments. Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 show the distribution of faculty by sex, age group, department years' experience, and academic rank. As shown in Table 2, the faculty in Department 2 are all female. This was a similar pattern in all the departments studied. The male population of the student body was less than 1% . The department obviously had a predominantly female faculty and student body. The

PAGE 73

64 Table 2. Faculty Distributed by Sex-Department 2 Distr ibut ion Sex (N 4) Female 4 Male _0_ Total 4 Table 3. Faculty Distributed by Age Group-Department 2 Age Distribution Group (N = 4) 25 29 0 30 39 2 40 49 1 50 59 1 Total 4

PAGE 74

distribution of faculty by age group is wide; Table 3 contains the numbers. The chairperson appointed by the dean was the oldest member of the department. The 30-39 age group had the majority with a total of 2. Table 4 shows a distribution of the faculty by department years' experience. These figures must be examined with the knowledge that the college represented by Department 2 had been established only since 1966. The chairperson was also the person with the longest length of service to the department. Table 5 deals with academic rank. Academic rank is a distribution reflecting the program's as well as the university system's policies regarding academic position and tenure. All the faculty had taught in other colleges and/or university systems and one of the faculty members was eligible for promotion at the time of this study. Interviews were conducted with three of the four faculty members in Department 2. The interviews were held in the respective faculty member's office. The interview with the administrator was 1-1/2 hours long and took place in her office. She was very willing to discuss the relationship of Department 2 to the entire program of the college. The nursing students interviewed, were volunteers who were in the last week of the course offered by Department 2. There were five female students in the group. The two graduates interviewed were graduated in 1973 and 1975, respectively.

PAGE 75

66 Table 4. Faculty Distributed by Department Years' Experience-Department 2 Distribution Years (N = 4) 0 1 1 2 3 2 4 5 1 Total 4 Table 5. Faculty Distributed by Academic Rank-Department 2 Distribution Rank (N = 4) Instructor 1 Assistant Professor 3 Associate Professor 0 Total 4

PAGE 76

67 The observational experiences included a faculty meeting, activity in the faculty lounge, informal visits in faculty offices, as well as lunches with faculty. The daily interpersonal contact between the faculty and the researcher was limited because of their respective clinical schedules. The number of clinical hours was curricula mandated but the particular day, the time patterns, and the clinical settings were departmental and individual decisions . The course outline and objectives were examined for evidence of the facilitators and resistors. The philosophy of the program was also examined. The evidence has been identified as indicative of the relative presence or absence of the facilitators and resistors. The summary of data collected in the case study of Department 2 is presented below. Atmosphere of change in the nursin g program Each participant was asked to describe the atmosphere of change in the program. The thrust of this statement was threefold; first, to build rapport within the respondents; second, to introduce the subject of change; and finally, to give the researcher a prevailing atmosphere of change in the program according to the participants. Observations and document review were not conducted to elicit information about this factor. Department 2 interview data . When the topic of change was introduced, the participants were willing to

PAGE 77

discuss their perceptions of change in the program. All the participants discussed the question. The researcher tabulated a total of 14 responses. There were 10 positive responses, 3 mixed responses, and 2 negative responses. The positive responses were proportionally higher than the mixed and negative responses. The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates follow. Pos itive 1. Open to change (2)* 2. Open, wanting change 3. Political dean, gets things done 4. Push for change has come from individuals 5. As a student I felt the push for change 6. Big emphasis on change (2) 7. Constructive change-not change for change sake 8. Healthy, progressive Mixed 1. Moves slowly 2. School in the middle of change 3. Authoritarian leader Negat ive 1. As a student I felt there was a resistance to change ^Hereafter, the number in parenthesis will indicate the number of times the response was made.

PAGE 78

2. Students should be better informed about possible changes The positive responses were supportive of the seelction of Department 2 as a change-oriented department. While the mixed and negative responses were relatively equal in number, the mixed responses had strong negative elements . Facilitator 1: Internal support for change Questions 2, 3, and 4 on the interview guide and statements 1, 2, and 3 on the document and observation guide asked the respondents to comment on the dean's support of the department's ideas and plans for change and the role new faculty and other departments played in affecting change. The sequence of questions provided the respondents the opportunity to express ideas about internal support and gave the researcher adequate data. Department 2 interview data . All the participants answered the questions on the presence or absence of internal support for change in the department. Using the categories (positive, mixed, and negative), of the 19 responses, 12 were positive, 3 were mixed, and 4 were negative . The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates follow. Pos itive 1. New faculty member's ideas listened to 2. ' Cohesive group

PAGE 79

5. Dean knows what is going on 4. Chairperson suggests ways to implement ideas 5. Try to let faculty initiate change 6. Dean supports this department 7. Sharing atmosphere in department 8. The administrative is supportive 9. Cooperation between departments 10. The dean will raise questions regarding needed change Mixed 1. Authoritarian leader, charismatic 2. Power struggle--i£ you are low key you get passed over Negative 1. Hardly see the dean to share individual viewpoint 2. Change must originate with the dean 3. Faculty get double messages 4. Need more contact with dean Generally, the interviewee's responses were positive. The negative responses dealt with the personal relationship between the faculty and dean, whereas there seemed to be no negative responses regarding the dean's support of change in the department. Overall, the participants indicated strong internal support for change. The faculty in Department 2 indicated they

PAGE 80

71 • were aware of the dean's concerns and her support for the department. Department 2 observation and document data . The evidence for the presence or absence of internal support for change was difficult to determine from the documents (i.e., course outline, faculty policy book), and minutes of departmental meetings were not available to the researcher. The observational data were the best source of evidence about internal support for change. The data are listed below. Positive 1. New faculty's ideas were listened to 2. Activity in meeting focused on changes made 3. Faculty members supportive of each other 4. Aware of dean's input in department Mixed 1. Close personal relationships between dean and some Department 2 faculty Negat ive 1. No data The document and observational data were supportive of the presence of Facilitator 1. The topic of conversations at lunch and in faculty offices was freouently the

PAGE 81

strong administrative support for Department 2. Changes were evident in the 1973-1974 course outlines prepared by Department 2. An examination of the total interview and observation and document responses regarding Facilitator 1 indicated a predominantly positive occurrence. Table 6 shows the distribution of the responses by category. Table 6. Summary of Catej Tories for Fac il itator 1-Department 2 Responses Pos itive Mixed Negative (N = 19) Interview (N = 14) 8 2 4 Document and Observation (N = 5) 4 1 0 Total 12 3 4 Facilitator 2: Individual members advocating change The participants were asked to identify faculty members who were promoters of change and describe how they

PAGE 82

influenced other department members. The questions and statements were intended to discover how the ideas of the individual department members were accepted by other members . Department 2 interview data . The participants were able to identify faculty in the department who frequently advocated change. The most frequently mentioned method of influence used by the promoters of change was the person's expertise in the area. Once an idea was shared the members of the department felt they were involved in the planning for the change. The responses from the participants are listed below. Pos itive 1. Strong administrative support 2. Each member of our department promotes change 3. We listen to each other 4. Our organizational arrangement allows us to have input in other courses 5. Students can go to faculty with problems 6. Faculty are open 7. Chairperson is change-oriented 8. Faculty use expertise to influence others Mixed 1. One must use care in introducing new ideas

PAGE 83

Negat i ve 1. No data With the exception of the one response categorized as mixed, the other responses were positive. The tendency was toward strong individual promotion of change and sharing of ideas in the department. Although the department chairperson was mentioned as promoting change, the other faculty considered themselves initiators of change also. Department 2 observation and document data . The informal discussions with the faculty produced evidence of support for individual's ideas for change. One particular change was the topic in two separate discussions with the researcher. The views and suggestions of the faculty were eagerly shared with the researcher. The data are listed below. Positive 1. The group was small so cooperation was almost essential 2. The clinical areas reflected the special interest area of each faculty member M i xe d 1. Ideas seemed to be introduced after the faculty members made sure they were not out of line with the general plans of the group Negative 1. No data

PAGE 84

75 The document and observation data supported the presence of Facilitator 2 in the department. Each faculty member had made changes and received support from the other faculty members. The data compiled in Table 7 show the number of positive, mixed, and negative responses. Table 7. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2-Department 2 Responses (N = 12) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 9) 8 1 0 Document and Observation (N = 3) 2 1 0 Total 10 2 0 The summary of individuals advocating the data shows strong change in Department 2 support for The mixed responses tended to have positive elements. Facilitator 3: The presence of a change agent Facilitator 3 was explored by the use of two questions. The respondents were asked to identify persons, groups, or influences inside or outside of the department

PAGE 85

who acted as a change agent to bring about a specific change in the department. Department 2 interview data . All the participants were asked to respond to these questions. These questions required more time for responses than most of the other questions did. The researcher had to define change agent for each of the participants and cite possible examples of situations involving a change agent. The participants were able to answer the questions following a brief explanation. The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates are listed below. Positive 1. Grant we have received 2. Faculty rotate between two departments and these faculty are change agents 3. Clinical areas influence us (2) 4. Programs in the community have influenced a change in the area Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. We have, not made any curriculum changes since the beginning of the program and rightly so; therefore we haven't brought anyone in until the present changes were proposed 2. No person or group I can identify

PAGE 86

3. I can't think of anyone (2) 4. No (3) The participants as a whole had difficulty identi fying the presence of a change agent. The grant received by the department was mentioned as an influence as well as the policies of some clinical agencies. These factors required some minor changes to be made in the department and therefore were listed. Department 2 observation and document data . The researcher attempted to seek evidence of a change initiated as a result of an identifiable change agent since the interviews had not been a satisfactory source of this information. The course outlines did reflect evidence of change which could have been the result of the grant awarded to the department but other written materials were inconclusive. The observations made were more successful. It was interesting to see clear indications of changes made as a result of the dean's input in the department although no one identified the dean as a chang agent. When the researcher investigated a change, it could often be traced back to the dean. The data are listed below. Positive 1. The dean was available to two Department 2 faculty members on a personalbasis

PAGE 87

2. The phrases used to describe a change were the same phraseology used by the dean in speaking with the researcher 3. The tendency for ideas to flow down from the top as reflected in conversations 4. The changes in clinical areas and student behavior listed in course outlines Mixed 1. No data Negat i ve 1. No data The data are evidence of some influences identified by the researcher of the presence of a change agent. The obvious absence of the evidence of an agent reflects negative response. All the data collected concerning the presence of a change agent in Department 2 are presented in Table 8. A close examination of the interview Table 8. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 3-Department 2 Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 16) Interview (N = 12) 5 0 7 Document and Observat ion (N = 4) ' 4 0 Total 9 0 7

PAGE 88

responses shows the negative responses are higher than the positive ones. The data on the presence of a change agnet in Department 2 was not conclusive. Facilitator 2: Retraining of members for new tasks Three questions were designed to determine the attitudes of the participants concerning retraining and support of the faculty during a change in work load or work area. The questions were an avenue for faculty members to discuss leaves with pay, short courses, and support needs when asked to teach in a different clinical area . Department 2 interview data . Only the faculty and the administrator were asked to respond to these questions. Since some of the faculty were expected to move between Department 2 and another department, this subject generated considerable discussion. The faculty were in agreement that workshops and courses were encouraged, but the time and support to enable faculty to attend meetings were not planned and therefore were not seen as strongly supported as statements indicated. The responses from the faculty and the administrator follow. Pos itive 1. Encouraged to attend short courses and workshops

PAGE 89

2. I see a place for everyone in the new curriculum 3. We had adequate money for workshops until the funding problem in the state Mixed 1. Some attempt at faculty development 2. I received some support from the faculty in the second department I was in 3. Expected to move from one department to another 4. When employed a faculty member is expected to cover two areas Negat ive 1. No funds or leave given for summer workshops 2. We are so busy--I wish they would just provide the opportunity to take a course 3. Need for educational leaves Department 2 observation and document data . The researcher was able to ascertain the number of workshops and short courses the faculty had attended as well as the support given the faculty to make the time off avail able. Because there seemed to be an equal number of workshops and courses attended by each member, the support system to provide time off appeared to have been present also. All the faculty in Department 2 had exper tise in the area and therefore did not experience the need for retraining at that time. The following data

PAGE 90

collected from observational experiences and annual reports supported the presence of retraining on a limited basis . Posit ive 1. Workshops and courses attended by each faculty member 2. Discussions of clinical expertise 3. Sharing of clinical facilities 4. Sharing of workshop information Mixed 1. Some faculty development programs 2. Faculty expected to have two areas of expertise Negat ive 1. Limited number of faculty 2. Heavy faculty commitments A total of 18 responses was given from the four faculty members and administrator (see Table 9) . The categories had approximately the same number of responses. Most of the comments in the interviews were assigned to a mixed category; the negative and positive categories had the exact number of responses, 3 each. The researcher categorized her observations and document

PAGE 91

82 review responses in a different manner with 4 in the positive category and 2 each in the mixed and negative categories. The totals in each category were relatively close; therefore, the presence of Facilitator 4 was supported by a marginal number of positive responses. Table 9. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 4-Department 2 Responses (N = 18) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 10) 3 4 3 Document and Observat ion (N = 8) 4 2 2 Total 7 6 5 Facilitator 5: Adequate funding Facilitator 5 was explored by determining the kinds of outside funding available to the department and whether adequate funding was perceived to be available to make the changes the department wanted to make.

PAGE 92

The researcher was interested in the perceptions of the faculty concerning the adequacy of funds and did not attempt to document the actual availability of funds. Also, the question dealing with the knowledge of the department's and program's budgets elicited interesting data . Department 2 interview data . All the participants were asked these questions. The faculty were aware of the grant given to the department but were not concerned about the overall funding and budgeting problems. Considered by most to be the dean's concern, the faculty were not aware of particular problems in the department resulting from inadequate funds. The students were not aware of a grant and they stated there were an adequate number of faculty. The participants gave the following responses to the questions relating to funding. The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates are listed below. Positive 1. We have some grant money (2) 2. We have a grant 3. I haven't identified funding as a problem 4. Dean takes care of that

PAGE 93

5. We got some money from a grant but the dean supplemented it 6 . Grants are available for our area 7. Dean knows what funds are available Mixed 1. Aware of financial problems in the state but we have been able to manage Negative 1. I look at money as being an important component at the top; it has been the big block to change 2. Needed to attract faculty Department 2 observation and document data . The presence of the grant was acknowledged in written documents about the department. There was no evidence of concern because of inadequate funds or a limited budget and clear evidence that the faculty considered funding the dean's concern. The data are listed below. Pos itive 1. Governmental grant Mixed 1 . Lack of faculty concern Negat i ve 1 . No data

PAGE 94

Table 10 includes the data pertaining to the presence of Facilitator 5. The data are categorized as positive, mixed, or negative. Table 10. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 5-Department 2 Responses (N = 13) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 11) 8 1 2 Document and Observat i on (N = 2) 1 1 0 Total 9 2 2 A total of 13 responses was collected from the participants, the observations and written documents. Most of the responses in Department 2 were assigned to the positive category, indicating the presence of Facilitator 5 in Department 2. Facilitator 6: Adequacy of plan for meeting o rganization members' needs and the organiza tional problems under consideration The participants were asked whether the changes proposed in the department were understood by all the members and whether some changes were instituted that were not an improvement over the present way they were

PAGE 95

doing things. The design of the questions was to elicit information about the individual member's needs and the organization's needs and determine if they were both being met. Department 2 interview data . The students and graduates were not included in the collection of data for the presence or absence of Facilitator 6. The adequacy of the plan for meeting the faculty member's needs and the college's needs was evident from the participants' responses. The majority were overwhelmingly positive. The responses from the faculty and the administrator are listed below. Positive 1. Most of us know who we are and what we must do here 1. Been able to introduce ideas 3. We know the goals of the department 4. I understand the reasons changes are made 5. We know the goals of the curriculum 6. Changes are made according to plans 7. We are small in number and decide on changes together 8. A keen overt interest in faculty development as shown by the number returning to get their doctorates 9. I would like to lighten the faculty load Mixed 1. You don't come here unless you can work in this structure

PAGE 96

Negative 1. You don't get anything in unless the dean agrees with it 2. I don't think I'll stay here long 3. My freedom is restricted Department 2 observation and document data . The evidence pertaining to Facilitator 6 was obtained from the observations of structured and unstructured meetings and conversations with faculty. The faculty were generous with unsolicited information. The faculty were generally positive about the ability to meet their own individual goals within the framework of the college. The data collected are presented below. Positive 1. This is a great place to work 2. I can meet my own goals 3. So many of the original faculty are here 4. I came here to work with this dean Mixed 1. Evidence that faculty were anxious to please the dean (3) Negative 1. Faculty member planning to leave because of limitations on freedom

PAGE 97

88 Evidence of Facilitator 6's presence was immediately available to the researcher. The faculty's unsolicited information about the positive aspects of the college as well as their own department was added to the faculty's genuine support of the administration. One faculty member did not share this attitude and she saw the problem as her inability to be a part of the "family" atmosphere the others sought to create. Overall, the evidence of an adequate plan for meeting the college's needs and the individual faculty member's needs was overwhelmingly present as seen in the responses in Table 11. Table 11. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 6-Department 2 Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 21) Interview (N = 13) 9 1 3 Document and Observation (N = 8) 4 3 1 Total 13 4 4

PAGE 98

Summary of the relative presence or absence of facilitators found in Department 2 There was a total of 100 responses from the participants, observations, and documents collected by the researcher. The responses were categorized and summarized in Table 12. The positive category contains 61 responses or 61 ? s of the total responses and the mixed and negative categories are represented by 11% and 22%, respective ly . Table 12. Total of the Categories of the Six Faci litators Department 2 Responses (N = 100) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 70) 42 9 19 Document and Observation (N = 30) 19 8 5 Total 61 17 22 The indication from these data was the likelihood that the facilitators of change were present in some areas of Department 2 and weak or absent in other areas. These data will be summarized with the data from Departments 6 and 7 at the end of Chapter III.

PAGE 99

Resistor 1: Conformity to norms Information about the norms of the department was elicited by three questions. Question 19 sought information about the amount of flexibility allowed in the department while questions 20 and 21 elicited comments about the department's reaction to a faculty member who attempted to introduce a new teaching method without departmental consensus or who ignored group decisions. Department 2 interview data . All the participants responded to the questions concerning the norms in the department. There was evidence that the faculty were ambivalent in the acceptance of group norms. Of the 14 responses, 5 were mixed while 4 were categorized as positive and 5 were negative. The responses from faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates are listed below. Pos it ive 1. Faculty brought in to make changes, but ideas not accepted 2. Faculty get hung up on group's expectation of us 3. "We" think the use of first names between faculty and students can cause problems 4. Faculty present united front Mixed 1. One faculty member changed her behavior to work in the system to get her ideas in

PAGE 100

2. We bring things to the group and if its reasonable its accepted 3. We did sit down and arrive at some group decis ion 4. We are most conservative here 5. No one has said not to call students by first names, but its generally understood Negat ive 1. We can handle our clinical groups as we wi sh 2. Faculty make own decisions about clinical group 3. Very flexible (2) 4. I would like to see more sharing between our department and other departments From the interviews there seemed to be acceptance of group norms to the extent the department was able to function effectively, and the members had sufficient flexibility to carry out individual plans. In other words, some departmental norms were respected and accepted because there was, in turn, a lack of interference in the the individual's plans in the clinical area. Dep artment 2 observation and document data . The evidence for the relative presence or absence of conformity to norms in Department 2 was determined from the observation of clinical groups and individual faculty member's clinical behavior. The faculty differences were

PAGE 101

seen clearly in the methods used in the clinical settings One faculty member in particular was observed to ignore group norms, but this behavior was not seen when the group was together. The written course material given to students obtained specific requirements for all the students but the individual clinical faculty made some limited adjustments to suit her student group. The obser vation and document evidence obtained by the researcher is presented below. Pos it ive 1. Attempt to justify to the researcher the reasons the faculty did so many things alike (i.e., conferences, testing) 2. Attempt to gain group approval, for seemingly simple changes in individual's plan for students 3. Faculty member in line for department chairperson position skipped; same person not willing to be member of "family" Mixed 1. It's easier on students if we do things alike 2. Changes made by individual done in a manner so as not to let other faculty know Negat ive 1. Clinical groups were handled differently 2. The faculty are individuals so I should expect them to act that way

PAGE 102

93 3. Students are individuals so faculty have to respond to them in an individual way 4. As long as the students learn, the groups don't have to look alike The observation and document data presented a similar picture to the interview data. The total responses on the conformity to norms seen in Department 2 are presented in Table 13. Table 13. Summary of Categories for Resistor 1-Department 2 Responses (N = 24) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 14) 4 5 5 Document and Observation (N = 10) 3 3 4 Total 7 8 9 Although the negative category had the most responses, the evidence for conformity to norms in Department 2 was very strong. The frequent statement that the students benefited from a united front was observed to be a way to justify the group's norms.

PAGE 103

94 Resistor 2: Systemic and cultural coherence The sequence of questions and statements relating to systemic and cultural coherence was designed to identify the presence of group pressure to maintain cohesion. The researcher sought to elicit data concerning the behaviors and/or factors that were present in the department that identified the group and to elicit the participants' ideas about a relationship between the length of time a person stayed in one position and the kinds and number of change made by that person. Department 2 interview data . The data collected by the researcher indicated the systemic and cultural coherence present in Department 2 originated and was maintained by careful adherence to the college administration's pressures and policies. Therefore, the coherence to systemic and cultural patterns was observed in other departments in the college. Some systemic coherence in the department was seen in the department chairperson's attempt to support the dean's policies and decisions completely in the researcher's presence. The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates are listed below. Pos itive 1. There is a parent-child relationship here 2. Group decisions very strong

PAGE 104

3. Some may be threatened because tradition is being changed 4. We are a family with some sibling rivalry 5. We are going to do it the way we want to here and not the way its being done in New York or Florida Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. The department chairperson has changed twice so no one had a chance to become too settled 2. We exchange course outlines with other institutions in order to allow students to take our courses 3. There are no patterns that identify us as faculty members in Department 2 (2) The relative presence of Resistor 2 was supported in Department 2 interview data. The reference to the faculty as a family was used several times and it gave the researcher clues to observe for in the structured and unstructured observational settings to be discussed next . Department 2 observational and document data . The researcher used observations of informal sessions and informal discussions to obtain data relating to the relative presence or absence of systemic and cultural coherence

PAGE 105

96 in the department. The loyalties expected of the faculty were observed in the faculty meeting and social time that followed. In conversations with the researcher, the faculty used similar words to express the positive relationship of the dean and the "family" (faculty). The researcher questioned whether the faculty were trying to present a united front, but after careful observation and informal discussions the researcher concluded the faculty did believe and accept the "family" concept that existed in the program. The data collected are presented be low . Positive 1. The way the dean was addressed depended on the position and length of time in the "family" 2. The solid support by the faculty of the dean' s position 3. The use of terms "family" and "parent-child" Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. No patterns observed that identified the department 2. The department chairpersonship had changed twice in 6 years 3. Faculty in Department 2 did not sit together in faculty meetings or eat lunches together on a regular basis

PAGE 106

97 The researcher found evidence in Department 2 to indicate the relative presence of Resistor 2. Although the number in the positive category was higher, the number in the negative category was high enough to indicate some systemic and cultural coherence. Table 14 summarizes the data. Table 14. Summary of Categories for Resistor 2-Department 2 Responses (N = 15) Pos itive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 9) 5 0 4 Document and Observation (N = 6) 3 0 3 Total 8 0 7 Resistor 3: Vested interest The participants were asked to answer three questions concerning their attitudes about transfer students and freedoms (i.e., instructional methods and clinical areas) each would be unwilling to give up if a new course or curriculum design was planned. The questions allowed

PAGE 107

the respondents to discuss these areas of particular significance and therefore suggest possible areas of vested interest. Department 2 interview data . The participants answered the questions and expressed their willingness to examine new ideas and make changes if the new method proved itself. The researcher probed for special inter est areas of the participants but each seemed to be involved in many areas and was not committed to one project or teaching method. There was 1 response categorized as positive, no mixed responses, and 5 negative responses, indicating little evidence of vested intereest especially in the areas of curriculum design and teaching methodology. The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates are listed below. Pos it ive 1. Team teaching is being suggested whereas some faculty have put in considerable time with their individual approaches and don't want to give it up Mixed 1 . No data Negative 1. There has been a great deal of rigidity in baccalaureate programs about transfer

PAGE 108

99 students; we have made some attempts to overcome this 2. One faculty member has worked with a visiting student during the summer to allow the student the chance to enter our program in the fall 3. We would like to enrich the RN's learning experience; they have special needs 4. I'm willing to try new things 5. There is nothing I value so much in doing my work that I wouldn't be, willing to listen to suggestions of other ways of doing it Department 2 observational and document data . The data collected in discussions and informal meeting areas supported the data gathered from the interviews. The course outlines indicated changes in teaching methodology and in teaching responsibility. Changes in responsibility for course content were evident in the outlines. Faculty members in other departments also commented on the new ideas tried in Department 2. The observational and document data are presented below. Positive 1. No data Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. Evidence of rotating course responsibilities

PAGE 109

100 2. Faculty often teach in different department 3. Evidence of experimenting with different teaching methods The data collected concerning Resistor 3 are presented in Table 15. The data collected were minimal. Table 15. Summary of Categories for Resistor 3-Department 2 Responses (N = 9) Pos itive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 6) 1 0 5 Document and Observation (N = 3) 0 0 3 Total 1 0 8 The 8 negative responses support a relative absence of vested interests as a resistor in Department 2. In other words, the responses elicited from the participants, observations, and documents did not support the presence of Resistor 3. Resistor 4: The sacrosanct Data were elicited from the participants, observations, and documents to determine the relative presence

PAGE 110

101 or absence of the resistor, the sacrosanct. Attitudes of the participants concerning some of the traditions in nursing (i.e., white uniforms and caps) were explored. Department 2 interview data . All the participants were asked to discuss these questions. The faculty and the administrator reflected the openness of Department 2. Traditional ceremonies were carried out because the students requested them although one participant stated it was the dean's idea to have the ceremonies when the college was begun and had continued to encourage it. The responses from the faculty, the administrator, nursing students, and graduates are listed below. Pos it i ve 1. No data Mixed 1. The dress code says students must wear caps but most of the faculty don't wear them 2. The dean wanted the pinning ceremony and faculty support it because of the students 3. It's important to the parents and students to have ceremonies Negative 1. The faculty aren't hung up on tradition 2. The faculty was open and do their own thing 3. This faculty are the most open of all the departments

PAGE 111

102 Department 2 observation and document data . The researcher could not find any evidence of the faculty in Department 2 being concerned about traditional dress or codes. The faculty were observed to be inconsistent in wearing a cap themselves, although the students continued to wear a uniform and cap that designated them as students. The students had a dress code committee comprised of students and faculty. The data observed are listed below. Positive 1. No data Mixed 1. Faculty wore caps on some days and not on other days 2. Faculty indicated support of traditional ceremony because of student request Negat ive 1. When not in the clinical area each faculty member dressed as she wished; the age range of the faculty was reflected in the type of clothing they wore The data presented above supported the interview data. The lack of importance placed on traditions in nursing was evident in Department 2. Table 16 presents the summary of categories for Resistor 4 in Department 2.

PAGE 112

103 Table 16. Summary of Categories for Resistor ^-Department 2 Responses (_ in y j Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 6) 0 3 3 Document and Obscrvat ion (N = 3) 0 2 1 Total 0 5 4 The mixed category has 5 of the 9 total responses and the negative category has 4. There was no evidence to support the relative presence of the importance of traditional codes held by the faculty in Department 2. Resistor 5: Rejection of "outsiders" The participants were asked to discuss changes that had been suggested by persons outside the college and to discuss the reasons they were or were not incorporated in the goals of the department. The questions were designed to determine the department's attitudes toward "outside" persons having input into the department's plans.

PAGE 113

104 Department 2 interview data. The data collected concerning Resistor 5 were minimal. Outside consultants had not been brought into the department nor had persons in the clinical settings been instrumental in making or suggesting changes. The lack of effort to seek outside consultation may suggest a positive response to the fifth resistor, rejection of "outsiders." The data are given below . Posit ive 1. One has to be willing to fit in or they could not stay here 2. When the position of assistant dean was open the faculty didn't want anyone from the outside Mix ed 1. No data Negative 1. No data Department 2 observation and document data . The researcher was not able to observe any behavior to suggest how the faculty would receive an outsider. The faculty were very open and generous with their time to the researcher but the researcher was not viewed as a change agent. The data are limited.

PAGE 114

105 Positive 1. No data Mixed 1. Since the college was begun all administrative personnel (i.e., department chairpersons, assistant dean, graduate program coordinator) have been promoted from within 2. New faculty (including experienced persons) are not given theory class responsibilities until they have been on the faculty and see how it is handled by the present faculty Negative 1. No data Table 17 gives results of the data collected on the relative presence or absence of Resistor 5 in Department 2. The 2 mixed responses have very definite positive overtones for the rejection of "outsiders." Table 17. Summary of Categories for Resistor 5--Department 2 Responses (N = 4) Pos itive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 2) 2 I) 0 Document and Observation (N = 2) 0 2 0 Total 2 2 0

PAGE 115

106 Resistor 6: Inability to carry out change Resistor 6 was explored in two ways. Participants were asked to cite instances where the department focused on change but was unable to carry it out. They were also asked whether the lack of necessary equipment and materials had prevented the department from following through on a change they had planned. Department 2 interview data . The faculty and other participants were able to identify many instances where the department was prevented from making changes due to factors they were unable to control. The limiting factors did not seem to be materials and equipment but other factors. They are given below. Positive 1. Clinical restrictions 2. Not enough faculty 3. Lack of clinical facilities 4. Limitations set by clinical facilities 5. Faculty loads Mixed 1. No data Neg at i ve 1. No data

PAGE 116

107 Department 2 observation and document data . Frequent conversations in the faculty lounge and informal discussions centered on the inability to carry out change due to faculty loads and lack of clinical facilities. Several of the faculty drove 60 miles on each clinical day. Faculty schedules were another limiting factor on carrying out change. The faculty had very little time that was not scheduled with clinical experiences or meetings. The data are presented here. Posit ive 1. Faculty schedules 2. Lack of faculty 3. Limitations set by clinical facilities Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. No data The observed data and document analysis data supported the presence of Resistor 6. The summary of data is given in Table 18. The total responses categorized as positive are evidence to support the presence of Resistor 6. The inability of faculty members in Department 2 to carry out changes they would like to

PAGE 117

108 Table 18. Summary of Categories for Resistor 6--Departme n t 2 I)nc T"\ i~\ 71 C A C KLb pUIlb cb (N = 8) i Ubl LI vt pi 1ACU N CT £1 1~ 1 VP IN C £ Ci L -L V C Interview (N = 5) 5 0 0 Document and Observation (N = 3) 3 0 0 Total 8 0 0 have made were hindered by the factors given above. No responses were categorized as mixed or negative. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, Resistor 6 was found to be present in Department 2. Summary of the relative presence or absence of resistors found in Department 2 A total of 69 responses was collected to determine the relative presence or absence of the six resistors to change in Department 2. The responses are categorized in Table 19. The number of positive responses and the number of negative responses were close, with 37.7% and 40.6%, respectively.

PAGE 118

109 Table 19. Total of the Categories of the Six Resistors-Department 2 Responses ^ in — o y j Pos iti ve Mixed Negative Interview (N = 42) 17 8 17 Document and Observat ion (N = 27) 9 7 11 Total 26 15 28 The data presented in Table 19 do not conclude the relative presence or absence of the six resistors in Department 2. Resistors 2, 5, and 6 had more positive responses, indicating the relative presence of these resistors, and Resistors 1, 3, and 4 had more negative responses, indicating the relative absence of these resistors in the department. Department 6 Department 6 was the largest of the three changeoriented departments. It was scored 1.8 on a 0-4 scale by the department chairpersons responding to Section B, question 7 of the Department Questionnaire (see Appendix A). There were eight full-time faculty members at the instructor level or above including the chairperson. The

PAGE 119

110 deanappointed department chairperson had been in the posi tion for two years. Tables 20, 21, 22, and 23 show the distribution of faculty by sex, age group, department years' experience, and academic rank. Table 20 shows the faculty in Department 6 were all female. There was only one male on the faculty in the program and ten male students in the program. The female/male ratio was typical of nursing programs in 1976. Table 20. Faculty Distributed by SexDepartment 6 Sex Distribut ion (N = 8) Female Male Total 8 0 The age ranges of the faculty are given in Table 21. The 30-39 year range had the majority with a total of 4. The age of the younger faculty corresponded with the least number of years' experience in the department. The years' experience of the faculty was distributed over a 5-year period. Table 22 presents the distribution. The length of time in the department indicated

PAGE 120

Ill Table 21. Faculty Distributed by Age Group -Department 6 Age Group Distribution (N = 8) 2 5-29 0 30-39 4 40-49 2 50-59 _2 L _ Total 8 Table 22. Faculty Distributed by Department Years' Experience-Department 6 Years Distribution (N = 8) 0-1 3 2-3 2 4-5 _J5__ Total r a frequent turnover of faculty, thus supporting the possible input of new ideas in the department. Table 23 shows the academic rank of the faculty in Department 6. None of the faculty were tenured and the lack of

PAGE 121

faculty at the associate professor level was reflected in all the departments in the nursing program. The faculty in Department 6 represented many years of teaching experience at other colleges and years in nursing service. Table 23. Faculty Distributed by Academic Rank-Department 6 Rank Distribution (N = 8) Instructor 4 Assistant Professor 4 Associate Professor 0 Total 8 Five of the eight faculty in Department 6 were interviewed in their respective offices. The interviews were approximately 1 hour in length and took place over a period of 5 days. The administrator was generous with her time and shared her perceptions of Department 6. Five female students and one male student were interviewed to gain insight about Department 6 as perceived by students. They were volunteers who had completed the course taught by the faculty in Department 6. Two

PAGE 122

graduates (classes of 1973 and 1975, respectively) were interviewed to determine changes made in the department over the 3-year period 1973-1975. The structured and unstructured observations occurred during the researcher's 5-day stay in the college. Included in the formal meetings observed were a faculty meeting, departmental meeting, and a meeting of the researcher, assistant dean, and Department 6 chairperson. Informal gatherings that provided information were in the faculty lounge, faculty offices and staff offices. Course outlines and other relevant department materials were shared with the researcher in order to substantiate the interview and observational data. College materials were also available for demographic data on the faculty. The department chairperson was receptive to the researcher's correspondence, indicating Department 6 as one of the departments to be included in the study. The faculty were informed of the researcher's plans at a department meeting and interviews were planned around faculty schedules and commitments. The data collected on the relative presence or absence of the facilitators and resistors in Department 6 are presented here. The facilitator or resistor

PAGE 123

114 is stated, followed by the interview, observation, and document data. Atmosphere of change in the nursing program Department 6 interview data . All the participants shared their ideas about the atmosphere of change in the program. The discussion allowed the researcher an opportunity to determine the participants' general attitude toward the administration and the role of the nursing program. The interview data are categorized as positive, mixed, or negative. Pos itive 1. Healthy atmosphere 2. Increased enrollment 3. Faculty are clinical based and theory based 4. Progressive 5. Openness (2) 6. We change often Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. No data The results of the responses indicated a positive attitude toward change in the program as viewed by the

PAGE 124

115 participants. This atmosphere supported the selection of Department 6 as a change-oriented department. The discussion about change provided a basis for the data collected on the relative presence or absence of the facilitators and resistors in Department 6. Facilitator 1: Internal support for change Department 6 interview data . The participants were asked to discuss the department's reaction to internal disruptions (i.e., loss of faculty and new faculty) to determine the sensitivity of the group toward change. The department had experienced turnover in faculty as well as in the chairperson position in the previous 6 years. The faculty were aware of the dean's support of Department 6 and attributed her understanding of some of the department's problems to the fact that her specialty area was the same as the faculty in Department 6. The interview responses are categorized below. Positive 1. Very definite support from dean (2) 2. Dean brought faculty together for brainstorming to plan new curriculum 3. Flow of ideas from dean to faculty and back again 4. New faculty are encouraged to participate in plans 5. Wc are democratic

PAGE 125

6. Dean has same clinical expertise as the faculty and she understands our problems (2) 7. Dean wants people with new ideas Mixed 1. New faculty are encouraged to work their way in 2. The new faculty have to have time to figure out how the group works 3. A lag has occurred between the groups sharing what they are doing Negat ive 1. No data The interview data supported the strong presence of Facilitator 1 in Department 6. Responses were categorized as 9 positive and 3 mixed. No comments were categorized as negative. The responses clearly indicated the mechanism which the dean used to share her goals and plans for the department and the faculty's support of the dean and her position. The observation and document data follow. D epartment 6 o bservation and document data . The department meeting and informal discussions with the faculty in Department 6 were sources of data concerning internal support for change. The plans and ideas of the dean were shared with the* group through reports and discussions and the department chairperson was a

PAGE 126

117 strong supporter of the dean's policies. The data collected on Facilitator 1 are presented below. Positive 1. Dean very visible in department through the chairperson 2. Activities of department shared with other chairpersons in coordinators' meeting 3. Chairperson actively sought to make changes 4. Faculty involved in discussions on changes 5. Close personal relationship between some faculty and the dean Mixed 1. New faculty were given classroom responsibility when the leadership decided they were ready Negat ive 1. No data The internal support for change was evident in the observations made by the researcher. The faculty were well aware of the dean's goals for the department and overall program and responded to them. One method used to maintain the support for the changes suggested by the leadership was the slow involvement of new faculty in the mainstream of responsibility and leadership. In this way, the leadership appeared to control the input of ideas of new faculty.

PAGE 127

118 The positive responses, a total of 14, were an indication of the presence of internal support for change in Department 6. Table 24 presents the categorized responses from the interviews, observations, and documents. Table 24. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 1-Department 6 Responses (N = 18) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 12) 9 3 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 6) 5 1 0 Total 14 4 0 Facilitator 2: Individual members advocated change Department 6 interview data The interviews gave positive evidence that the department had individual members who influenced the less dominant members. The most influential members were the chairperson and the members who had been in the department the longest. The methods used most often by the influentials to get support were expertise in the area and a wide knowledge

PAGE 128

base of the proposed change. The responses are categoriz below. Positive 1. Some faculty are promoters of change 2. We use the sharing approach 3. The chairperson tries to involve everyone (2) 4. The promoters of change introduce ideas in a positive way 5. Some people are involved in so many things and they bring ideas in (2) 6. As faculty we will be heard when we speak Mixed 1. Not all faculty are involved in changes and there is some resistance 2. Pass ive acceptance of ideas 3. Used small groups to implement plans of chairperson and then shared with the other faculty 4. I don't want to be involved in all decisions 5. If you get too democratic, nothing will get done Negat ive 1. No data The use of small groups to implement a change was not successful in gaining support for the idea from the other faculty members. The group selected to try

PAGE 129

the change were supporters of the idea initially and therefore the nonsupporters were not involved in the plans and were not very accepting of the change. The evicence did support the attempt of the department to try to involve all the members at some point in time . Department 6 observation and document data . The researcher was able to observe the faculty in a department meeting and see intradepartmental interaction. There was some free-exchange among the faculty but the chairperson kept the group focused on the items on the agenda. The dominant members were obvious to the researcher as they shared plans and ideas for the next school year. The data collected are presented be 1 ow . Pos itive 1. The chairperson presented facts to the group regarding a change that had been implemented 2. The faculty were encouraged to ask quest ions 3. Task groups were assigned Mixed 1. Because all the faculty were not knowledgeable about a change, their understanding and full support was not evident

PAGE 130

121 Negative 1 . No data The above data supported the presence of Facilitator 2 in Department 6. These data and the data from the interviews are presented in Table 25. Table 25. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2-Department 6 Responses (N = 17) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 13) 8 5 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 4) 3 1 0 Total 11 6 0 The positive responses totaled 11, the mixed 6, and the negative 0. The evidence was present in Department 6 to support the presence of Facilitator 2. Facilitator 3: The presence of a change agent Department 6 interview data . Facilitator 3 was the most difficult factor for the participants to discuss. Some of the participants were not comfortable using the term because they perceived a change agent to

PAGE 131

122 be one who dictated a change to them. The discussions did lead to the data presented below. Positive 1. The dean is the greatest change agent 2. The community has influenced changes we've made Mixed 1. Changes suggested by a consultant to another department filtered down into our department Negative 1. I can't think of anyone (3) The discussion on the presence of a change agent in Department 6 was limited. The absence of a person, group, or influence recognized as a change agent was supported by the data that were collected. Department 6 observation and document data . The dean's role in the department was observed by the researcher to be strong and to serve as a change agent, but this observation was supported by only one of the participants. The influences of clinical facilities and other persons were considered minimal. The data are categorized below.

PAGE 132

Positive 1. The dean was the initiator of the new curriculum 2. The goals of the dean are strongly supported by all the faculty interviewed 3. The dean kept the department informed about national trends in nursing 4. Changes made in the department reflected the dean's views Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. Clinical facilities were not seen as an influence in the department All the evidence collected by the researcher supported the dean as a change agent. The dean herself supported this perception by her responses to the interview guide. The responses are presented in Table 26. The data concerning the presence of a change agent in Department 6 were inconclusive. The researcher's observations were the major documentation of the dean's role as a change agent. The mixed and negative categories had 1 and 4 responses, respectively.

PAGE 133

Table 26. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2-Department 6 Responses (N = 11) Pos itive Mixed Negative Interview CN = 6) V ^ J 2 1 3 Document and Observat ion CN = 5) 4 0 1 Total 6 1 4 Facilitator 4: Retraining of members for new tasks Department 6 interview data. Only the f acul ty and the administrator were asked to discuss Facilitator 4. Since faculty were expected to move between two departments, it appeared to be an individual faculty member's responsibility to gain confidence and expertise in the secondary department. The faculty development program within the department and program was almost nonexistent and several stated there was not participation when programs were offered. The interview data are given below. Pos it ive 1. We try to support a new faculty member in our department by being available in the clinical area

PAGE 134

2. Workshops are available to faculty 3. I had been out of nursing for many years and I received a lot of support in Department 6 Mixed 1. Faculty responsibility for professional self -growth 2. If funds were available, some money would have been offered to faculty who are financing their own retraining 3. Poor participation at faculty development programs 4. Difficult to get time off to attend workshops Neg ative 1. I wished I had been given more support by Department 6 because it was a new area Department 6 observation and document data . The researcher observed little evidence of importance placed on retraining or support of faculty in new experiences. The attitude seemed to be one of individual faculty responsibility. There was no evidence that a faculty member felt that a change in the department would eliminate the need for her expertise but changes were being suggested that had prompted several faculty members to finance their own retraining. The faculty appeared to want financial and emotional support but because it was not given them, they were hesitant to ask for it.

PAGE 135

P ositive 1. Faculty encouraged to work toward advanced degrees 2. Faculty do attend conferences and workshops Mixed 1. Two faculty were financing summer workshops 2. Faculty development was not a priority of the department or the college 3. Faculty schedules are heavy with little time for workshops Negat ive 1. No data The researcher was aware of a double message the faculty thought they were getting. On the one hand they were encouraged to select and attend a workshop or conference, but on the other they felt they were not given the support necessary to allow them to miss class or clinical experience. Again, the faculty were not vocal about the situation and appeared, for the most part, to accept it. The data presented in Table 27 do not support the presence of a priority concern for the retraining of members by Department 6. The faculty assumed most of the cost and time for retraining on an individual basis .

PAGE 136

Table 27. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 4-Department 6 Responses Pos it ive Mixed Negative (N = 13) Interview (N = 8) 3 4 1 Document and Observation (N 5) 2 3 0 Total 5 7 1 Facilitator 5: Adequate funding Department 6 interview data. All the participants were asked to discuss funding as a factor in the changes made in Department 6. The faculty saw funding as a concern that the dean was responsible for and they were not aware of any set amount budgeted for their own departments. At the same time, faculty stated they did not make large requests because they felt monies would be given to them as they were available. The chairperson was aware of limited funds and made requests with this fact in mind. Students were not aware of limitations caused by funding problems. The data are given below. Pos itive 1. We have not been turned down when we asked for anything

PAGE 137

2. We have adequate faculty to meet the student needs Mixed 1. Limited amount for software 2. Faculty are aware of limited budget 3. We don't have large requests Negative 1. Plans for tutorial lab but no money is avai lable Department 6 observation and document data . The analyses of written documents in Department 6 did not result in any evidence that adequate funding was considered a facilitator of the changes made in the department. The requests for new equipment and materials by Department 6 were judged by the researcher to be minimal in number and cost. In conversations with faculty, the researcher found they were accustomed to functioning with the money allotted to them and left the concerns of budgeting to the dean. The data collected are presented below. Positive 1. Faculty did not mention funds as an impeding factor for changes they planned 2. Faculty salaries were competitive with other nursing programs in the southeast

PAGE 138

129 3. Faculty/student ratio 1 to 8 in most clinical areas Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. Limited software and hardware in learning lab The participants' responses and the observations made by the researcher were consistent in the evidence they produced. The responses, as shown in Table 28, were categorized as follows: 5 positive, 3 mixed, and 2 negative. The data were marginal on the relative presence of adequate funds in Department 6. Table 28. Summary of Department Categories for 6 Facilitator 5-Responses (N = 10) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 6) 2 3 1 Document and Observation (N = 4) 3 0 1 Total 5 3 2

PAGE 139

130 Facilitator 6: Adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organiza tional problems under consideration" Department 6 interview data . The adequacy of the plan for meeting the department's goals and the individual faculty member's goals was definitely present in Department 6. Overall department goals and objectives were shared among the faculty and each had the freedom to work toward her individual goals. The faculty expressed for the most part satisfaction with their jobs and planned to stay on the faculty for an undetermined length of time. The data are presented below. Pos itive 1. I understand the goals of the department and I am in agreement with them (3) 2. I have the opportunity to meet my own professional needs in this department 3. The chairperson looks out for the faculty person that doesn't speak for herself 4. The chairperson makes the decision where the faculty are placed in the clinical areas and it's fine with me Mixed 1. No data

PAGE 140

131 Negat ive 1. No data Department 6 observation and document data . The researcher found strong evidence of the adequacy of the plan for meeting the department's goals and' the individual faculty member's goals. The faculty were accepting of decisions from the chairperson concerning matters the faculty members could have decided for themselves, but the faculty appeared to be satisfied with the situation. Also the faculty for the most part appeared to be conformers and expressed few ideas that went against the group norms. The data are presented be low . Pos itive 1. The chairperson made the clinical assignments for the faculty and the faculty did not object 2. Faculty were active in professional nursing organizations on a national leve 1 3. Faculty were satisfied with their jobs Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. No data

PAGE 141

132 Table 29 presents the summary of responses on the relative presence or absence of Facilitator 6 in Department 6. The positive responses were strong evidence of the adequacy of the plan in the department for meeting both the individual faculty member's needs and the department's needs. Table 29. Summary of categories for Facilitator 6-Department 6 Responses (N = 9) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 6) 6 0 0 Document and Observation (N 3) 3 0 0 Total 9 0 0 Summary of the relative presence or absence of facilitators found in Department 6 A total of 78 responses was recorded from the interviews with participants, observations, and the analysis of documents and written materials relating to the relative presence or absence of the facilitators in Department 6. Table 30 summarizes the data according to categories.

PAGE 142

133 Table 30. Total of the Categories of the Six FacilitatorsDepartment 6 Responses (N 78) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 51) 30 16 5 Document and Observat ion (N = 27) 20 5 2 Total 50 21 7 As shown in Table 30, the 50 positive responses represent 64.1% of the total responses. The mixed and negative categories are represented by 26.9% and 9%, respectively. The percentage of positive responses indicated the relative presence of the facilitators in Department 6. Resistor 1: Conformity to norms Department 6 interview data . The established patterns of the faculty in Department 6 appeared to be flexible enough to allow each person to meet the goals of the department in different ways. This flexibility was most evident in the methods used by the faculty in teaching the clinical groups. Each clinical group

PAGE 143

134 was different but used the objectives set forth by the entire group. The department did have one faculty member who tended to go outside of the department norms and she was often ignored by the group. Positive 1. Some agree to changes just so they won't be the "odd man" 2. One person doesn't go along with our decis ions -she is ignored 3. Most successful changes are made by the group Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. We believe we should allow as much individuality in our faculty as possible 2. We each handle our groups differently 3. We have a lot of flexibility 4. Planning groups prevent a lot of conformity in our program Department 6 observation and document data . The data obtained from observations and written materials supported the flexibility the individual faculty member had in meeting the goals of the department. The group norms seemed to be adhered to in meetings and discussions but the individuality of the faculty was evident in the

PAGE 144

ways they managed their clinical groups. The data are presented in categories. Posit ive 1. The use of pronoun "we" to describe activities of individual faculty members 2. Faculty members tended to seek group approval for seemingly unimportant changes 3. Members tended to ignore one member's report given at meeting; same person identified as unable to gain support for her ideas for change Mixed 1. Chairperson tended to expect conformity from the department members Negative 1. Clinical experiences were planned by each faculty member 2. The faculty are treated as individuals 3. If we want students to be treated as individuals, we must treat faculty the same way The observation and document data supported the interview data. As shown in Table 31, the total positive and negative responses are within 1 point of the other. The department's norms were apparently

PAGE 145

136 a method of allowing the members to carry out many of their responsibilities without conflict. Table 31. Summary of Categories for Resistor 1-Department 6 Responses (N = 14) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 7) 0 4 Document and Observat ion (N = 7) 3 1 3 Total 6 1 7 Resistor 2: Systemic and cultural coherence Department 6 interview data To determine the relative presence or absence of systemic and cultural coherence in Department 6, the researcher observed how Department 6 related to the program as a whole, and the frequency of interaction with other departments. The short history of the program had not allowed many patterns to set. Also the organizational structure had encouraged communication between departments and it did not have the progressive segregation that has often occurred in longestablished departments.

PAGE 146

Pos itive 1. The dean is a traditional dean 2. We are like a "family" here 3. Group decisions are very strong 4. We do things here the way we want them done Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. The chairperson has changed twice in the last 4 years 2. Planning groups allow for input by other departments into the courses taught by Department 6 3. The organizational structure encourages communication between departments Department 6 observation and document data . The dean had a great impact on the department and the individual faculty members. She shared her views and ideas with the faculty and made sure they were carried out. The traditional picture of coherence to the leadership was present in the department and other faculty. The planning groups were composed of representatives from each department and tended to decrease the tension, confusion, and resistance to change that segregation of departments can produce.

PAGE 147

138 Positive 1. The dean's position of authority was well established among the faculty 2. The chairperson was a strong supporter of the dean in each discussion with the researcher 3. The use of term "family" to describe faculty 4. The importance placed on the length of time in the department Mixed 1 . No data Negat ive 1. No patterns were observed that identified the faculty as members of Department 6 2. The chairperson had not been in the position for a long period of time The evidence produced 8 responses categorized as positive and 5 responses as negative. There were no data to support the mixed category. Table 32 presents the data. Table 32. Summary of Categories for Resistor 2 — Department 6 Responses (N = 13) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interviews (N = 7) 4 0 3 Document and Observat ion (N = 6) 4 0 2 Total 8 0 5

PAGE 148

139 The data provide support for the relative presence of systemic and cultural coherence in Department 6. The 5 negative responses were gathered from interviews and observational data. Resistor 3: Vested interes t Department 6 interview data . The relative presence or absence of vested interests in Department 6 was discussed with all the participants. Changes that had been made did not seem to run counter to vested interests or violate territorial rights of the faculty. Although students identified the relationship of faculty offices to the dean's office as significant in the hierarchy of the program, the faculty did not place significance on this matter. The relationship between the faculty and dean was such that endemic antagomism did not appear to exist between the dean and faculty over changes in the department. The faculty support for the dean was strong. Positive 1. No data Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. We are working to admit transfer students into our nursing courses

PAGE 149

2. We change clinical areas frequently 3. I'm willing to try new ideas Department 6 observation and document data . The discussions in the department meeting and the frequent changes in the placement of faculty in the clinical settings were evidence of the relative absence of vested interests as a resistant to change in Department 6. The faculty appeared to be more concerned about fulfilling the objectives of the department than individual interests . Positive 1. The newly appointed chairperson did not state any plans to change any of the department's policies; when pressed, she expressed contentment with the present way things were handled Mixed 1 . No data Negative 1. Evidence of experimenting with new teaching methods 2. Faculty teach in different areas The amount of data collected was minimal. The faculty were willing to try new ideas and they did not favor one teaching method or express a desire to stay

PAGE 150

141 in one specific clinical area. The total data are presented in Table 33. Table 33. Summary of Categories for Resistor 3-Department 6 Responses (N = 6) Posit ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 3) 0 0 3 Document and Observation (N = 3) 1 0 2 Total 1 0 5 Table 33 shows the relative absence of Resistor 3 in Department 6 based on the instruments developed for this study. The amount of information was limited. Resistor 4: The sacrosanct Department 6 interview data . The pinning ceremony where graduating nursing students were awarded a symbolic pin designating the program of nursing from which they had graduated was supported by the faculty in Department 6. Other traditional ceremonies and rituals in nursing (i.e., capping and reciting the Nightingale pledge) have essentially disappeared in the

PAGE 151

142 4-year nursing programs. Many of the participants, students included, did not see the relevance of the pinning ceremony but the practice has continued. One of the participants indicated the dean had strongly encouraged the initiation of the pinning ceremony when the program was begun. Another tradition in nursing has been the wearing of white uniforms and caps. This tradition has also begun to change in some areas. The data collected on Resistor 4 are presented below. Positive 1. Faculty think we should wear caps 2. As a student I don't care about the pinning ceremony but the faculty in Department 6 support it Mixed 1. I've undergone a change--the white uniforms have their place; I was an old traditional graduate-the white starched uniformsthe whole bit 2. I support pinning for the students' sake 3. As a faculty member I don't wear a cap Negat ive 1. No data Department 6 observation and document data . The researcher observed many situations when the traditions in nursing were supported by the faculty in Department 6.

PAGE 152

143 For example, the dress code for the students included uniform, white shoes, and cap and was adhered to by the students although the faculty wore only lab coats. The inconsistency was noted by students, but they tended to accept the situation. The faculty did not see the difference in dress codes of faculty and students as significant. Pos i tive 1. Pinning ceremony supported by dean and departments 2. Traditional student uniforms Mixed 1. Dress code for students determined by faculty and student group Negative 1. No data The positive and mixed responses number 4, as shown in Table 34. There were no responses categorized as negative. There is support for the relative presence of Resistor 4 in Department 6. Resistor 5: Rejection of "outsiders" Department 6 interview data . The participants were unable to cite changes that had been suggested by outside sources. The faculty indicated they were influenced by reports of changing national trends, but they

PAGE 153

Table 34. Summary of Categories for Resistor 4Department 6 Responses (N = 8) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 5) 2 5 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 3) 2 1 0 Total 4 4 0 would be the ones to decide if a change would be appropriate for their department and program and not someone else. Positive 1. We do things here that are right for this area; we don't copy other programs just to be like them 1. Promotions were consistently made from within the department Ne gative 1 . No data Department 6 observation and document data. The researcher did not observe or determine from the written materials any evidence that "outside" sources had suggested any changes. Mixed

PAGE 154

145 Posit ive 1. No data Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. No data Table 35 presents the results of the data collected on the relative presence or absence of Resistor 5. The amount of data collected was minimal and therefore any judgments on the data would be inconclusive. Table 35. Summary of Categories for Resistor 5-Department 6 Responses (N = 2) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 2) 1 1 0 Document and Observation (N = 0) 0 0 0 Total 1 1 Q

PAGE 155

146 Resistor 6: Inability to carry out change Department 6 interview data . The major blocks to changes the department wanted to make were heavy faculty schedules, lack of clinical facilities, and limited number of faculty. These blocks were cited by both the faculty and the administrator. Lack of materials and equipment were not mentioned as obstacles to change by the participants. The interview responses are categorized below. Pos i t ive 1. Heavy faculty schedules 2. Restrictions set by clinical agencies 3. Limited faculty Mixed 1 . No data Negat ive 1. No data Dep_a rtment 6 observation and document data . The researcher observed the heavy faculty schedules and the lack of faculty that could have contributed to the inability of the faculty to carry out a change. Also, it was noted that the program competed for clinical experi ences with three other nursing programs in the area.

PAGE 156

147 Therefore, lack of clinical facilities was a major block to faculty in carrying out some changes. Data are presented below. Pos i t ive 1. Heavy faculty schedules 2. Lack of adequate clinical facilities 3. Lack of faculty Mixed 1 . No data Ncgat ivc 1. No data The interview, observation, and document data supported the presence of Resistor 6 in Department 6. The data are categorized in Table 36. Table 36. Summary of Categories for Res i stor 6-Depn rtment (> Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 6) Interview (N = 3) 5 0 0 Document and Observa t ion (N = 3) 3 0 0 Total 6 0 0

PAGE 157

148 The data summarized in Table 36 support the presence of Resistor 6 in Department 6. No responses were categorized as mixed or negative. Summary of the relative presence or absence of resistors found in Department 6 A total of 49 responses was collected to determine the relative presence or absence of the six resistors to change in Department 6. Table 37 summarizes the data. The positive responses comprised over half of the total, indicating the presence of the six resistors in the department. The mixed and negative categories had 12.21 and 34. 7%, respectively. Table 37. Total of the Categories of the Six Res istors Department 6 Responses Pos itive Mixed Negative (N = 49) Interview (N = 27) 13 4 10 Document and Observation (N = 22) 13 2 7 Total 26 6 17

PAGE 158

The presence of the six resistors in Department 6 was established by the data collection instruments used in this study. Although each of the resistors was not found to be present to the same degree, the results indicate! that the summary of data pertaining to the six resistors supported the presence of the resistors. Department 7 Department 7 was the third change-oriented department studied. No score was tabulated on Section B, question 7 of the Department Questionnaire (see Appendix A) for Department 7 because the question was not appropriate for the organizational structure in the nursing program represented by Department 7. There were eight full-time faculty members at the instructor level or above, including the department chairpersons. Within the department two persons were appointed by the dean to act as chairpersons for the courses taught by the department. Each of the chairpersons had been on the faculty for three years. The distributions of faculty by sex, age group, department years' experience, and academic rank are presented in Tables 38, 39, 40, and 41. Table 38 presents the distribution of faculty by sex. The all-female department followed the pattern found in other programs of nurs ing -pr edom inant ly female

PAGE 159

150 Table 38. Faculty Distributed by Sex-Department 7 Sex Distribution (N = 8) 8 0_ 8 student body and faculty. The student body of the nursing program had a female/male ratio of 12 to 1. The age ranges of the faculty are presented in Table 39. The table indicates a faculty ranging between 30 and 59 years. The faculty's experience in the department spanned a 7-year period, as shown in Table 39. Faculty Distributed by Age Group-Depart ' ment 7 Age Group Distribution (N = 8) 25-29 1 30-39 6 40-49 1 50-59 0 Total 8 Female Male Total

PAGE 160

Table 40. The distribution within the 7-year period was wide with six of the faculty having been in the department less than 4 years. Table 41 shows the majority of the faculty at the academic rank of assistant professor. Table 40. Faculty Distributed by Department Years' Experience-Department 7 Years Distribution (N = 8) 0-1 2 2-3 4 4-5 1 6-7 1 Total 8 Table 41. Faculty Distributed by Academic Rank-Department Rank Distribution CN = 8) 1 6 1_ 8 Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Total

PAGE 161

Of the eight faculty members including the chairperson, six were interviewed. The interviews were approx imately 45 minutes to 1 hour in length and took place in the respective faculty member's offices. The interview with the administrator was held in her office and lasted 45 minutes. A group of students, three female and two male, volunteered to be interviewed about their perceptions of Department 7. These students were completing one of the courses taught by the faculty in Department 7 and had completed several others offered in the department. Two 1975 graduates of the nursing program consented to be interviewed for the purpose of this study. A total of 12 interviews were held during the researcher's visit in the school. The atmosphere in Department 7 was one of openness. The researcher visited faculty in their offices and joined in informal discussions about the department. Other unstructured observations occurred at lunch with the faculty and at informal gatherings. Course outlines and other materials about the department and nursing program were made available to the researcher. The interviews, observations, and document review occurred during a 4-day visit. The data collected in Department 7 are presented next.

PAGE 162

153 Atmosphere of change in the nursing program Department 7 interview data . The participants were asked to describe the atmosphere of change in the program. All the participants were positive in their responses to this program. The program had presented an open atmosphere of change during the 1973-1975 period as evidenced by the participants' responses. They are given below. Posit ive 1. Open (2) 2. We are taught a lot about how to promote change 3. We can change things without any difficulty 4. Receptive to change (3) Mixed 1 . No data Negat ive 1. Change is difficult in this department The responses about change in the program facilitated the discussion of change in Department 7. It also supported the selection of the department as a change-oriented department.

PAGE 163

154 Facilitator 1: Internal support for change Department 7 interview data . The participants' responses were positive in their discussion of internal support for change. The support was stronger among the faculty and the department chairperson than between the faculty and dean. The size of the department was a significant factor in the open exchange of ideas and changes. The ideas of new faculty were listened to and supported. The faculty expressed that a strong determination to suceed had been present in the faculty during the frequent changes in leadership of the program. Positive 1. The faculty are open and receptive to what new faculty have to offer (2) 2. Most faculty are very cooperative and share ideas 3. Because we want the program to succeed we put a lot of energy into our work (3) 4. New faculty have brought new ideas 5. Dean is supportive of our department 6. Working with different groups facilitates change 7. Cohesive group Mixed 1. Sometimes new faculty without prior teaching experience are not listened to 2. Some new faculty went along with what the others wanted

PAGE 164

Negative 1. The dean is inexperienced as an administrator 2. I'm not sure whether the dean supports the faculty or the university administration 3. Faculty get double messages from dean Department 7 observation and document data . The faculty in Department 7 worked well together. There were frequent exchanges between the faculty and the department chairpersons and the communication channels appeared to be beneficial to both. The dean was the third person to fill her position in a 6-year period, but the frequent change in leadership did not prevent the department from being actively involved in change. The internal support for change was strong among the faculty but limited between the faculty and dean as shown below. Positive 1. The faculty seemed to work well together 2. Course outlines indicated that changes made in one department were followed through in another department 3. Frequent exchanges between the faculty members Mixed 1. The support for the dean by the faculty was limited but had not prevented change from occurring in the department (2)

PAGE 165

156 Negat ive 1. Faculty indicated lack of confidence in leadership (2) In some ways the frequent change in leadership had produced a strong intradepartmental relationship. The faculty had been able to carry out their plans despite changes in the leadership. Therefore the problems encountered between the present dean and the faculty had not been allowed to interfere with the department's growth. Nevertheless, the researcher was aware of the impact this conflict could have on the proposed curriculum change. The data collected are presented in Table 42. Table 42. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 1-Department 7 Responses (N = 22) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 15) 10 2 3 Document and Observation (N = 7) 3 2 2 Total 13 4 5 The positive responses were an indication of the presence of internal support for change in Department 7.

PAGE 166

157 The faculty were receptive to change and worked together to improve the program. The mixed and negative categories had 4 and 5 responses each. Facilitator 2: Individual members advocating change Department 7 interview data . Department 7 had several faculty members considered promoters of change. These faculty members were able to gain the confidence of the other members because of their ability to support their reasons for suggested changes. All the faculty were involved in making the decisions. One person was described as a "negative" force in the department. Although she was included in discussions about proposed changes she often disagreed with the other members. The data are categorized and presented below. Pos i t ive 1. Some members are promoters of change (2) 2. One member is helpful in explaining what she wants and offers concrete ways to implement it 3. All the faculty are involved in change because we are so small in number 4. Students go to certain faculty members when they want to discuss a change 5. The faculty work well together 6. The department chairperson listens to students (2) 7. We have supported each other in changes

PAGE 167

Mixed 1. Each person has such an individual idea of what the curriculum is about Negative 1. One person is very resistant to change 2. There is no consensus; everyone ends up doing it her way Department 7 observation and document data . The researcher observed several faculty members who were mentioned as promoters of change by the participants. These faculty members appeared open to suggestions by the other faculty and they were knowledgeable about changes they proposed. The frequent rotation of the leadership in the department and the rotation of faculty between departments were positive indications that faculty were flexible. All the faculty were involved in discussions about change and appeared eager to try new methods. The data are presented here. Positive 1. The size of the department allowed frequent exchanges between faculty 2. The faculty supported other members of the department Mixed 1. Some faculty differ in goals

PAGE 168

159 Negative 1. One faculty member was not supported by the other members The responses collected from the interviews , observations, and document review were overwhelmingly positive. The small size of the department and the faculty's determination to make the program successful were given as the strength of the department. Table 43 presents the summary of data. Table 43. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2-Department 7 Responses Pos itive Mixed Negative (N = 16) Interview (N = 12) 9 1 2 Document and Observation (N = 4) 2 1 1 Total 11 2 3 The majority of the positive responses indicating the relative presence of Facilitator 2 were col lected from the interview data. The mixed and negative categories had approximately the same number of responses .

PAGE 169

160 Facilitator 5: The presence of a change agent Department 7 interview data . The participants were able to identify several persons or influences that had made an impact on the department. State Board of Nursing examination scores were considered very significant in the evaluation of students' learning and the department's goals. Out-of-state consultants had been available to the department and influenced some of the changes made in the department. Pos it ive 1. State Board scores 2. Curriculum consultants (3) 3. The students' evaluations of the courses taught by Department 7 faculty 4. Grants have influenced our department Mixed 1. No data Negat i ve 1 . No data Department 7 observation and document data . The researcher was aware of the concern of the faculty about the recent graduates* State Board examination scores. This influence was significant in that methods and content

PAGE 170

in courses were changed. The presence of consultants had made an impact on the department also. The faculty incorporated some of the ideas into the department and anticipated another visit from the consultant. The data are presented below. Pos itive 1. Changes in course outlines reflected the consultant's ideas and concern for State Board scores 2. Student evaluations of the courses were reflected in changes made in the department 3. Grant money had been used for equipment Mixed 1. The dean was observed to be a change agent but the faculty did not recognize the changes that strongly reflected the dean's ideas Negat ive 1. No data A total of 10 responses was collected from the interviews, observations, and documents. Most of the responses (9) were assigned to the positive category indicating a change agent had made some impact in Department 7. Table 44 shows the summary of categories for Facilitator 3.

PAGE 171

Table 44. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 3-Department 7 Responses (N = 10) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 6) 6 0 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 4) 3 1 0 Total 9 1 0 Facilitator 4: Retraining of members for new tasks Department 7 interview data. Since the faculty were expected to teach in several clinical areas, the support for faculty retraining was crucial to the department's survival. Faculty were encouraged to attend workshops and conferences to gain additional expertise and knowledge. The data are categorized below. Posit ive 1. School and individual have equal responsibility for professional growth 2. We attend workshops (3) 3. The dean supports our attending workshops (2) 4. We use our money for workshops

PAGE 172

Mixed 1. We don't have enough time to take off for workshops 2. Faculty know they will be expected to move about when they come here Negat ive 1. Faculty are asked to move into other departments without enough support from other faculty members 2. It is left up to the individual and the department should do more 3. We offer very little support outside workshops Department 7 observation and document data . The researcher did not observe any evidence of the presence of Facilitator 4 other than that given by the participants. Records did indicate that each faculty member attended at least one workshop or conference of her choosing each year. Positive 1. Attendance at workshops and conferences Mixed 1 . No data Negative 1. Ab sence of ongoing faculty development programs

PAGE 173

164 The presence of Facilitator 4 was supported by the data collected. The researcher categorized the 14 total responses as shown in Table 45. Table 45. Summary of Categories for Department 7 Facilitator 4-Responses Positive ( N = 14) Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 12) 7 2 3 Document and Observa t ion (N = 2) 1 0 1 Total 8 2 4 Facilitator 5: Adequate funding Department 7 interview data. A large port ion of the nursing program's budget was outside funds and grants. Monies were available for workshops, transportation of students to clinical facilities, and other needs. Faculty salaries had not been supported by soft money previo-us to 1976 but the expectation was to increase the number of faculty by use of soft money for salaries. The data are presented below.

PAGE 174

Pos itive 1. We have all sorts of grants 2. We know the school receives large amounts of Federal money 3. There seems to be a lot of money around 4. We have the advantage of attending workshops 5. We have adequate funds 6. All our faculty are on state money Mixed 1. Minimal state funds outside of faculty lines 2. I would hope the state would support us if Federal monies were cut 3. We will hire one full-time faculty member on soft money 4. We had what we thought we needed Negat ive 1. No data Department 7 observation and document data . The lack of funds was not perceived as a problem to the faculty in Department 7. The salary scale was competitive with the other nursing programs within the state and money was available for software and hardware. The researcher did not observe a great abundance of software for student use. The faculty were aware of the unstable situation the dependence on federal monies put the program in. Since the program had operated on the use of

PAGE 175

166 outside monies since its beginning, the faculty appeared to not be too concerned about the situation. Pos i t i vc 1. Competitive salaries 2. Funds for workshops 3. Faculty/student ratio of 1 to 10 Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. No data The participants' responses were supported by the researcher's observations. The data are summarized in Table 46. The data indicate the faculty's perceptions concerning the adequacy of funds were positive. Table 46. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 5-Department 7 Responses (N = 13) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interviews (N =10) 6 4 0 Document and Observations (N = 3) 3 0 0 Total 9 4 0

PAGE 176

167 Facilitator 6: Adequacy of plan for meeting organiza tion members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration Department 7 interview data . The participants' responses were positive on the relative presence of an adequate plan in the department for meeting their own individual needs and the department's problems. Changes made in the department were understood by the faculty and accepted by them. The responses are categorized below . Pos itive 1. I didn't agree with the changes and I did have an opportunity to express my views 2. I understand the changes we make (2) 3. The goals of the department are clear and I can meet my own goals here 4. The faculty are determined to make this program go (2) 5. The faculty here accept the fact they will have to move into different departments Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. We have been able to make changes but the leadership here now will make the working here more difficult in the future

PAGE 177

168 Department 7 observation and document data . The researcher observed strong evidence that the faculty in Department 7 were able to meet their own goals and at the same time meet the department's goals. In other words, the goals of the faculty and the department were compatible. The frequent change in the leadership (two acting deans and two permanent deans including the present one in 6 years) seemed to produce a very cohesive faculty group. The attitude was one of commitment to the program and the students. Pos it ivc 1. Faculty had contracted for another year 2. Faculty encouraged to meet individual goals 3. Faculty involved in projects outside of departmental commitments Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. No data Evidence of Facilitator 6 in Department 7 was supported by the interviews and documents and observations. The faculty had a mechanism for meeting their own individual needs within the framework of the nursing program. The data are categorized in Table 47.

PAGE 178

169 Table 47. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 6-Department 7 Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 11) Interview (N = 8) 7 n i U 1 Document and Observat ion (N = 3) 3 0 0 Total 10 0 1 Summary of the relative presence or absence of facilitators found in Department 7 A total of 8 7 responses was collected from interviews, documents, and observat ions . The responses are summarized in Table 48 The positive category contains 60 responses or 69.1% of the total responses . Table 48. Summary of Categories of Fac il itators Department 7 Responses Pos it ive Mixed Negative (N = 87) Interview (N = 64) 45 9 10 Document and Observat ion (N = 23) 15 4 Total 60 13 14

PAGE 179

170 The mixed and negative categories had relatively the same number of responses. The presence of the facilitators in Department 7 was supported by the data presented in Table 48. Resistor 1: Conformity to change Department 7 interview data . The participants stated that the department allowed them flexibility in meeting the goals of the department. The turnover in faculty and the short period of time the nursing program had been in existence had not produced the environment for strong patterns to become established. Positive 1. Some faculty won't do anything until all the faculty agree--a "wait and see" att itude 2. Some new faculty hang on to traditional ideas Mixed 1. Sometimes we have too much freedom in the clinical area (2) Negat ive 1. I can do with my clinical group pretty much as I please (3) 2. We have a lot of flexibility here (3)

PAGE 180

171 Department 7 observation and document data . The researcher observed no evidence of adherence to norms in Department 7. The faculty appeared to allow each other freedom and flexibility in meeting the goals of the department. No established patterns were identified in the department. The data are presented below. Pos it ive 1. No data Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. Clinical activities varied between faculty members Table 49 shows the summary of the responses collected concerning the norms in Department 7. The data supported the absence of Resistor 1. Of the total responses, 7 were categorized as negative. Resistor 2: Systemic and cultural coherence Department 7 interview data . The brief existence of the nursing program had not allowed strong systemic coherence to occur. The system was open with faculty reflecting at least eight different nursing programs across the country. The varying backgrounds and

PAGE 181

172 Table 49. Summary of Categories for Resistor 1-Department 7 Responses Positive Mixed r\] i i "\ 1 1 J Negat ive Interview (N = 10) 2 2 6 Document and UUbcl Vcl L1UI1 (N = 1) 0 0 1 Total 2 2 7 educational preparation of the faculty were not conducive to systemic and cultural coherence. Positive 1. Faculty member graded paper based on own stated philosophy of subject her Mixed 1. There is nothing wrong with some tradition in nursing 2. The new dean will probably give some stability to this faculty group Negat ive 1. Faculty's basic nursing preparation represented different philosophies Department 7 observation and document data. The researcher observed limited behavior that would indicate

PAGE 182

173 the relative presence or .absence of systemic and cultural coherence. The frequent change in leadership in the nursing program resisted the steady state that has developed when a dean has stayed in one position for an extended time. Posit ive 1. No data Mixed 1 . No data Negat ive 1. Frequent change in leadership 2. Faculty teach in at least two areas 3. Chairpersons rotate frequently The data produced 4 responses categorized as negative, 3 as mixed, and 2 as positive. The summary (see Table 50) provides limited support for the relative absence of Resistor 2. Table 50. Summary of Categories for Resistor 2Department 7 Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 9) Interview (N = 4) 1 2 1 Document and Observation (N = 5) 1 1 3 Total 2 3 4

PAGE 183

174 Resistor 3: Vested interest Department 7 interview data . The relative presence or absence of vested interest as a resistant to change in Department 7 was discussed with all the participants. The changes that had been made did not appear to violate any territorial rights established by any faculty, although the new curriculum would have an impact on the faculty's specialty areas. Size of office, relationship with the dean, or appointment as chairperson did not appear to be indices of status to the faculty. The collection of data is presented below. Positive 1. The new curriculum will require people to give up specialty areas and it is hard to do 2. I have an investment in the old curriculum and I think some changes are made without enough consideration Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. We are working toward a time that nursing students can transfer into our courses 2 . We move between groups and therefore don't have the time to spend in one area 3. One transfer student may be admitted into our senior-level courses next year

PAGE 184

175 Department 7 observation and document data . The frequent movement of faculty between clinical areas was some indication of the relative absence of vested interest in the faculty. Also it was not evident that the faculty's freedom to operate in the clinical area and in the organizational structure had changed significantly between 1973 and 1976. The dean and faculty were supporters of the proposed changes and prevented the "polarized provincialism" that has accounted for some of the antagonism between administrators and faculty in some educational settings. The data collected are presented below. Positive 1. No data Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. Faculty rotate between two specialty areas Table 51 presents the data concerning Resistor 3. The limited amount of data does not provide strong support for the relative absence of vested interest in Department 7.

PAGE 185

176 Table 51. Summary of Categories for Resistor 3-Department 7 Responses (N = 7) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 6) 2 1 3 Document and Observation (N = 1) 0 0 1 Total 2 1 4 Resistor 4: The sacrosanct Department 7 interview data . All the participants were asked to discuss their attitudes concerning traditions in nursing. The majority of the faculty supported the pinning ceremony because the students wanted it. The dean even avoided the use of the word "pinning." The students had a specified uniform and cap but the faculty were inconsistent in their requirements that students wear caps. The interview responses are categorized below. Pos i t ive 1. The pinning ceremony is for the parents and T support it for that reason 2. This is a traditional community 3. I do think some tradition helps to identify a group

PAGE 186

Mixed 1. Pinning is a public relations ceremony, to please parents Negn t ivc L. J would like to get rid of uniforms, caps; I'm just not a ceremonytype person 2. I think capping has gone by the way (2) 3. The students have a recognition ceremony; I wouldn't dare call it a pinning ceremony 4. It doesn't matter to me Department 7 observation and document data . The researcher observed most of the faculty in Department 7 to be very open and devoid of tradition. One faculty member saw some relevance for tradition in nursing, but most of the faculty did not support this viewpoint. The observed data are presented below. Pos i t ive 1. No data Mixed 1. Some faculty and students wore caps and some did not Negat ive 1. No data The data are presented in Table 52. The number of responses in the positive and the negative categories

PAGE 187

178 are 3 and 5, respectively, and do not adequately support the absence of the sacrosanct in the department. Table 52. Summary of Categories for Resistor 4-Department 7 Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 10) Interview (N = 9) 3 1 5 Document and Observat ion (N = 1) 0 10 Total 3 2 5 Resistor 5: Rejection of "outsiders" Department 7 interview data. The data collected concerning Resistor 5 were minimal. Curriculum consultants had been brought in to conduct workshops for the faculty. Since the new curriculum was being modeled after the program the dean had just completed, some of the faculty did not feel it was their curriculum. Therefore, some of the consultants' suggestions were not carried out. The data are presented in categories. Pos i t iv e 1. No data

PAGE 188

Mixed 1. Suggestions of the consultants were not carried out Negative 1. No data Department 7 observation and document data . The researcher observed only one incident concerning the department's reaction to "outsiders." The dean had been in the position 2 years, but the faculty appeared to think of her as an outsider at times. The curriculum being proposed was based on the dean's philosophy and the faculty were not sure it was going to be successfully implemented in their program. The data were inconclusive but reflected some of the faculty's feeling The data are presented here . Pos it ive 1. The curriculum change was the dean's idea 2. The dean will be surprised when she receives her evaluation Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. No data

PAGE 189

180 The data (see Table 53) collected on the reaction of faculty in Department 7 to "outsiders" were minimal. Therefore any judgment based on the data would be inconclusive. Table 53. Summary of Categories for Resistor 5-Department 7 Responses (N = 3) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 1) 0 1 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 2) 2 0 0 Total 2 1 0 Resistor 6: Inability to carry out change Department 7 interview data . The faculty were not able to identify blocks to change outside the faculty's own energy level. Monies were available for equipment and supplemental learning materials and although many faculty members and students had to travel as much as 60 miles per day for clinical experience, money was available to cover the cost of transportation. The data follow.

PAGE 190

181 Positive 1. Lack of energy is the only reason we have for not making changes Mixed 1. Sometimes we are so involved in all the aspects of the department we may not see changes that need to be made Negat i ve 1. Money and equipment have not prevented changes from being made Department 7 observation and document data . The researcher observed the limitation of clinical facilities as a major block to some changes the faculty had expressed a desire to make. No other factors were observed to block changes. Posit ive 1. Lack of clinical facilities Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. No data The amount of data (see Table 54) collected on the inability of faculty to carry out change was minimal. No conclusion could be reached on the relative presence or absence of Resistor 6 in Department 7.

PAGE 191

Table 54. Summary of Categories for Resistor 6Department 7 Response Positive Mixed Negative (N = 4) Interview (N = 3) 1 1 1 Document and Observat ion (N = 1) _J_ _0_ _0_ Total 2 1 1 Summary of the relative presence or absence of resistors found in Department 7 The responses from the interviews, observations and documents totaled 42. Table 55 summarizes the data on the resistors in Department 7. The positive responses account for 311 of the total and the negative responses (indicating the relative absence of the resistors in the department) , 50% . The data indicate the relative absence of the resistors in Department 7. For the purpose of this study the total of each category will be summarized with the data collected on the resistors in the other changeoriented departments to determine the relative presence or absence of the six resistors.

PAGE 192

183 Table 55. Total of the Categories of the Six Resistors-Department 7 Responses (N = 42) Positive Mixed Negative Interv iew (N = 31) 9 6 16 Document and Observat ion (N = 11) 4 2 5 Total 13 8 21 Summary of Data on the Three ChangeOriented Departments In order to facilitate the analysis of data in Chapter V, summaries of the data on the relative presence or absence of the facilitators and resistors in the three change-oriented departments are given in Tables 56-67. Each of the six facilitators (see Tables 56-61) had a majority of the total responses categorized as positive. By definition of the categories the mixed responses contained both positive and negative elements and were not included as data to determine the relative presence or absence of the facilitators and resistors. With the exception of data pertaining to Facilitators 3 and 4 (see Tables 58 and 59), the number of negative responses was less than 1/4 of the positive responses.

PAGE 193

184 Table 56. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 1 (internal support for change) in the Three Change-oriented Departments Responses (N 59) Pos itive Mixed Negative Department (N = 19) 2 12 3 4 Department (N = 18) 6 14 4 0 Department (N 22) 7 13 4 5 Total 39 11 9 Table 57. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2 (individual members advocating change) in the Three Change -or iented Departments Responses (N = 45) Positive Mixed Negative Department (N = 12) 2 10 2 0 Department (N = 17) 6 11 6 0 Department (N = 16) 7 11 2 3 Total 32 10 3

PAGE 194

185 Table 58. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 3 (presence of a change agent) in the Three Change-oriented Departments Responses (N = 37) Positive Mixed Negat ive Department (N = 16) 2 9 0 7 Department (N = 11) 6 6 1 4 Department (N = 10) 7 9 1 0 Total 24 2 11 Table 59. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 4 (retraining members for new tasks) in the Three Change -oriented Departments Responses (N = 45) Pos itive Mixed Negat ive Department (N = 18) 2 7 6 5 Department (N = 13) 6 5 7 1 Department (N = 14) 7 8 2 4 Total 20 15 10

PAGE 195

186 Table 60. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 5 (adequate funding) in the Three Change-oriented Dcp artments Responses (N 36) Positive Mixed Negative Department (N = 13) 2 9 2 2 Department (N = 10) 6 5 3 2 Department (N = 13) 7 9 4 0 Total 23 9 4 Table 61. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration) in the Three Change-oriented Departments Responses (N = 41) Pos itive Mixed Negat ive Department (N = 21) 2 13 4 4 Department (N = 9) 6 9 0 0 Department (N = 11) 7 10 0 1 Total 3 2 4 5

PAGE 196

187 The summaries of data pertaining to Facilitators 1-6 show evidence of the relative presence of the facilitators in the three changeor iented departments. Tables 62-67 present the summaries of data on the relative presence or absence of the resistors in the three change-oriented departments. Three of the resistors (see Tables 63, 66, and 67) were determined to be relatively present in the change-oriented departments because the number of positive responses was greater than that of negative responses. In the case of resistors, the negative responses indicated the relative absence of the resistor. Resistors 1, 3, and 4 (see Tables 62, 64, and 65) were concluded to be relatively absent in the three change-oriented departments. Table 62. Summary f ormity oriented of Categories for to norms) in the Departments Resistor 1 Three Change (conResponses (N = 53) Pos itive Mixed Negative Department (N = 28) 2 7 8 9 Department (N = 14) 6 6 1 7 Department (N = 11) 7 2 2 7 Total 15 11 23

PAGE 197

188 Table 63. Summary of Categories for Resistor 2 (systemic and cultural coherence) in the Three Changeoriented Departments Respons es (N = 37) Positive Mixed Negat ive Department -CN = 15) 2 8 0 7 Department (N = 13) 6 8 0 5 Department (N = 9) 7 2 3 4 Total 18 3 16 Table 64. Summary of Categories for Resistor 3 (vested interest) in the Three Change-oriented Departments Responses (N = 22) Pos itive Mixed Negative Department (N = 9) 2 1 0 8 Department (N = 6) 6 1 0 5 Department CN = 7) 7 2 1 4 Total 4 1 17

PAGE 198

189 Table 65. Summary of Categories for Resistor 4 (the sacrosanct) in the Three Change-oriented Departments IVtwJ p u H O J (N = 32) Po s i t i ve Mixed Negat ive Department (N = 9) 2 0 5 4 Department (N = 13) 6 4 4 0 Department (N = 10) 7 3 2 5 Total 7 11 9 Table 66. Summary of Categories for Resistor of "outsiders") in the Three Change Departments 5 (rejection or iented Responses (N = 9) Positive Mixed Negative Department (N = 4) 2 2 2 0 Department (N = 2) 6 1 1 0 Department (N = 3) 7 2 1 0 Total 5 4 0

PAGE 199

190 Table 67. Summary of Categories for Resistor 6 (inability to carry out change) in the Three Change -oriented Departments i
PAGE 200

191 Table 69. Faculty Distributed by Age Group-Departments 2 , 6 , and 7 Age Group Distribution (N = 20) 2 5-29 1 30-39 12 40-49 4 50-59 3 Total 20 Table 70. Faculty Distributed by Experience-Departments Department Years' 2 . 6 and 7 Years Distribut ion (N = 20) 0-1 6 2-3 8 4-5 5 6-7 1 Total 20

PAGE 201

192 Table 71. Faculty Distributed by Academic Rank-Departments 2 , 6 , and 7 Rank Distr ibut ion (N 20) Instructor 6 Assistant Professor 13 Associate Professor 1 Total 20 Based on these data, the profile of a faculty member in the change-oriented departments included the following data: female, between 30 and 39 years old, with approximately 3 years' experience in the department, and at the Assistant Professor rank. These data will be compared with the profile of a faculty member in the nonchangeoriented departments.

PAGE 202

CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF THE THREE NONCHANGE -ORIENTED DEPARTMENTS The Nonchange or iented Departments The three nonchange-or iented departments scored 23, 25, and 25, respectively, on the Department Questionnaire as shown in Table 1. Department 9 also scored 25 on the Department Questionnaire but it was not chosen for study because the faculty were conducting a workshop and were unavailable to the researcher. The nonchangeoriented departments will be discussed in numerical order according to the department identification numbers. The terms used to describe the departments were used consistently to maintain the anonymity of the nursing programs and departments. Department 10 Department 10 was scored 1.26 on a 0-6 scale on Section B, question 7 of the Department Questionnaire (see Appendix A) by five of the chairpersons in the nursing program represented by Department 10. Five faculty including the chairperson were in the department. 193

PAGE 203

194 The dean-appointed chairperson had been in the position 5-1/2 years. Tables 72, 73, 74, and 75 show the distribution of faculty by sex, age group, department years' experience, and academic rank. The faculty members in Department 10 were all female (see Table 72) with a wide distribution in age groups (see Table 73). The 30-39 range had three faculty members. As shown in Table 74, the distribution of faculty by years' experience in the department covered an 8-year period. The department chairperson had been in the department the longest--8 years. The distribution by years' experience indicated a turnover in faculty in the department. This turnover suggested the possibility of new ideas being put into the department. Table 75 presents the academic rank of the faculty. The absence of faculty at the assistant professor level indicated Table 72. Faculty Distributed by Sex-Department 10 bex Distribution (N = 5 ) Female 5 Male 0 Total c

PAGE 204

195 Table 73. Faculty Distributed by Age Group -Department 10 Age Group Distribution (N = 5) 25-29 1 30-39 3 40-49 1 50-59 0 Total 5 Table 74. Faculty Distributed by Department Years' Experience-Department 10 Years Distribution (N = 5) 0-1 2 2-3 1 4-5 1 6-7 0 8-9 1 Total 5

PAGE 205

196 Table 75. Faculty Distributed by Academic Rank-Depar tment 10 Rank Distribution CM C ^ Instructor 3 Assistant Professor 0 Associate Professor 2 Total 5 a wide margin in experience and possibly authority between the three instructors and the two associate professors in Department 10. All five of the faculty members in the department were interviewed. The administrator was interviewed in her office and a group of students, all female, volunteered to share their ideas and perceptions about Department 10. Two 1975 graduates were interviewed also. A total of nine interviews was held to collect data concerning Department 10. Unstructured observations occurred at lunch with faculty, in faculty offices, and in the faculty lounge. Conversations were open and discussions often centered on the problems in the department. The researcher briefly observed a class taught by the faculty in Department 10 and was generally included in the

PAGE 206

197 activities in Department 10. Course outlines and other written materials for the academic years 19731975 were made available to the researcher. The data collected from the interviews, observations, and document reviews are presented in the next section. Atmosphere of change in the nursing program Department 10 interview data . All the participants discussed the atmosphere of change as they perceived it. The responses indicated a negative atmosphere of change in the program. The responses are categorized below as positive, mixed, or negative. Pos it ive 1. Lots of changes are being planned 2. Accreditation has mandated some planning for change (2)* 3. Faculty receptive to change Mixed 1. Slow, steady, based on identifiable problems 2. Dean makes it clear what she wants 3. Comfortable *Hereaf ter , the number in parentheses will indicate the number of times the response was made.

PAGE 207

198 Negat ive 1. Difficult to get people to agree on change 2. It takes a long time to implement change here 3. Not enough communication among faculty 4. Consistent, stable 5. Even though the faculty come from different areas it is still something here that causes changes to occur slowly 6. Change has been stimulated only by external forces as accreditation 7. The dean is not visible to students The responses about change in the nursing program were essentially negative. The discussions about change provided a basis for the collection of data in the department . Facilitator 1: Internal support for change Department 10 interview data . The participants varied in their perceptions of the internal support for change in Department 10. The faculty members in the department supported each other, but the support of other departments was lacking. The approach to change was a slow, deliberate process that seemed to block change itself. The responses from the participants follow.

PAGE 208

199 Posit ive 1. Dean has supported this department (2) 2. New faculty have been positive additions to our department Mixed 1. Frequent change in faculty membership 2. I'm conservative and want to know outcomes before jumping into a change 3. The dean is not fully aware of what is going on Negat ive 1. Other departments questioned a change one department made (2) 2. It takes more to change than merely wanting it 3. There is not a lot of sharing between departments (2) 4. The lack of a stable, consistent faculty has interfered with changes being made 5. Lack of leadership has caused problems (3) Depa rtment 10 observation and document data . The researcher observed faculty interaction in their offices and at informal gatherings. The lack of departmental consensus on the objectives of the course made problems for the group. This problem was compounded by the apparent lack of leadership from the administration. The faculty were not sure of the dean's goals and plans for the department or the program. The responses are categorized below.

PAGE 209

Positive 1. Presented united front 2. New faculty's ideas listened to Mixed 1. Lack of guidance for changes from admini stration Negative 1. Internal power struggle 2. Tendency of faculty to by-pass the chairperson when some issues discussed 3. Dean was not visible to faculty and students 4. Lack of clearly defined departmental goals 5. Little sharing between departments The negative responses, as shown in Table 76, were an indication of the relative absence of internal support for change in Department 10. The support that was present appeared to be based on new faculty members' attempts to make positive changes. Strong leadership was absent from the department and the department appeared to function without long-range goals. Facilitator 2: Individual members advocati ng change Department 10 interview data . The participants were able to identify promoters of change in the department. The most influential members were the ones who

PAGE 210

201 Table 76. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 1-Department 10 Responses (N = 23) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 15) 3 3 9 Document and Observat ion (N = 8) 2 1 5 Total 5 4 14 had been in the department the longest. Once ideas were shared with all the members, they were all involved in implementing the change. One person was mentioned most often as a promoter of change because of her expertise in the area and her broad experience base. The responses are categorized below. Pos i t ive 1. The promoters of change are the ones that have been here the longest and are sure of their roles (3) 2. All the faculty are involved in changes in our department (4) 3. The faculty work closely together 4. New faculty are accepted (2) 5. Sharing of ideas 6. Members sell their ideas because of expertise and convincing argument

PAGE 211

202 Mixed 1 . No data Negative 1. A lot of conflict between departments 2. The chairperson frequently makes decisions that I feel we all should be involved in Department 10 observation and document data . The researcher observed the faculty in Department 10 in two informal situations. The dominant members were obvious to the observer as they interacted with the other members. The less dominant members were knowledgeable and made suggestions that were accepted although their input was less frequent. The observed data are presented below. Pos it ive 1. The group was small 2. The group members shared ideas 3. Dominant member presented plans for change she proposed Mixed 1. Infrequent meetings 2. Written materials indicated only minor changes Negat ive 1. Little interaction between departments

PAGE 212

203 The summary of the responses from the interviews, observations, and written materials were supportive of individual promoters of change in Department 10 as shown in Table 77. The mixed and negative categories had relatively few responses indicating the relative presence of Facilitator 2. Table 77. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2-Department 10 Responses (N = 20) Posit ive Mixed Negative Interv iew IN = 14) 12 0 2 Document and Observation (N = 6) _3_ 2 1 Total 15 2 3 Facilitator 3: The presence of a change agent Department 10 interview data. The data col lected on Facilitator 3 were limited. The department tended to rely on its own membership for changes and no significant forces outside the department were utilized as change agents. It did not appear that any other department or faculty member had any significant input into the department. The data follow.

PAGE 213

204 Positive 1. We look at where our graduates are going and tli is influences what we do in our department 2. The department is very concerned about State Board scores and they make changes in order that students will score higher Mixed 1. The university administration has some direct influence on the total program Nega t ive 1. I can't identify any person or anything (2) 2. No one outside the department has direct influence over us Department 10 observation and document data . The researcher observed only one situation that produced evidence of an influence which had an impact on the department—State Board scores. Definite changes were made in content areas and clinical situations because of concern about the scores. This observation was validated by one of the participants when posed by the researcher. Positive 1. State Board scores Mixed 1. No data Negat i v e 1. No data

PAGE 214

205 Table 78 shows the data collected on the relative presence or absence of a change agent in Department 10. The evidence was limited to 7 responses. The lack of data could be an indication of the relative absence of a change agent in the department. Table 78. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 3-Department 10 Responses (N = 7) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 6) 2 1 3 Document and Observation (N = 1) 1 0 0 Total 3 1 3 Facilitator 4: Retraining of members for new tasks Department 10 interview data. The administrator and the faculty in Department 10 were asked to comment on their attitudes toward retraining for members. New faculty were given time to become acquainted with their clinical area but no other supports were given. Money was not available for workshops or conferences and some attempts at faculty development programs had not been

PAGE 215

206 successful. The faculty expressed a desire for more administrative support in the form of money for workshops, short courses, and freedom from responsibilities in order to participate in sel f -development . Positive 1. Person can attend in-service programs and have time without responsibility for students and lecture to become familiar with area (2) 2. I expect faculty to be provided time and opportunity to learn new skills Mixed 1. The stimulation for learning new skills has not come from the dean 2. We are encouraged to do things that don't cost any money 3. We are not consistent in our in-service 4. We don't give any support outside of time Negat ive 1. Little time or money for workshops or conferences 2. Some people are uncomfortable about the new curriculum because they aren't sure what will be expected of them (3) D epartment 10 observation and document data . The researcher observed a lot of tension in the faculty resulting from a proposed curriculum change in the program. The faculty in Department 10 anticipated change i

PAGE 216

207 their courses and were making some plans for them which included retraining. The faculty did not feel the administration provided money or adequate time for retraining or faculty development. The observed data are presented in categories. Positive 1. Department provides new faculty time to learn clinical setting without responsibility for students Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. Money not available for workshops and conferences 2. No planned faculty development programs The data presented in Table 79 do not support the presence of a priority concern for the retraining of members by Department 10 or the total nursing program. Some effort was made by individuals to seek retraining and self-improvement. The mixed responses had very strong negative elements and coupled with the negative responses the overall concern for retraining was not evident .

PAGE 217

208 Table 79. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 4 Department 1 0 Responses (N = 14) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 11) Document and Observat ion (N = 3) Total 1 4 0_ 4 Facilitator 5: Adequate funding Department 10 interview data . The data collected on the availability of funds were inconsistent. The faculty stated there were adequate funds but the lack of money for travel, workshops and teaching aids was not attributed to inadequate funds until it was mentioned by the researcher. One participant stated that the availability of funds had not been tested by the faculty in Department 10. Therefore, for the most part, faculty perceived there to be adequate funds for the department. Positive 1. We have some grant money to buy specified sof tware 2. We have a departmental budget for books and software; its limited

PAGE 218

209 3. We make changes without considering funding so I guess we perceive we have adequate funding 4. This program has a strong funding basis Mixed 1. We have money for some things but it's limited for travel, workshops 2. I don't think we have tested the availability of funds Negat ive 1. I think we are limited in funds Department 10 observation and document data . The observations by the researcher supported the interview data. The overall program budget was stated to be stable by one participant but the evidence of such a budget was not seen on the individual departmental level. The departmental changes that had been made during January 1973 and to January 1976 required little or no additional funds. The data are presented below. Positive 1. Grant for some software 2. Faculty salaries very competitive 3. Lack of faculty concern for funds Mixed 1. Changes appeared to be made with a limited budget in mind

PAGE 219

210 Negat ive 1. Limited funds for workshops, conferences 2. Few teaching aids The summary of the positive category is shown in Table 80. The responses indicated that the faculty in Department 10 perceived their funds to be adequate. Table 80. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 5-Department 10 Responses (N = 13) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interv iew (N = 7) 4 2 1 Document and Observation (N = 6) 3 1 2 Total 7 3 3 Facilitator 6: Adequacy of plan for meeting organizational member s' needs and the organizational problems under cons iderat ion Department 10 interview data, The lack of an adequate plan for meeting the department's goals was clearly stated by the participants. Departmental goals and objectives were not clear to all the members. Although faculty expressed freedom to handle teaching

PAGE 220

211 responsibilities on an individual basis they were not particularly encouraged to meet their own professional goals. The data are categorized below. Positive 1. I understand the changes that are proposed in our department (2) 2. When we make a change we all agree to it 3. Each faculty member is respected Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. No one agrees on what our product should be 2. There is no organized plan for our department 3. Faculty are hired without considering the needs of the department; several faculty in the department have the same specialty area 4. The goals of our department are not clear 5. There are no overall clear goals for the department or the program 6. There is a gap between the faculty and the dean as to what is expected of the faculty Department 10 observation and document data . The researcher observed situations that supported the interview data. The department had several faculty with the same

PAGE 221

212 specialty which meant some were not able to meet their professional goals. Also there was disagreement about the overall program goals and objectives. The observed data are presented below. Positive 1. No data Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. Several faculty with the same specialty; two were not able to pursue individual goals and teach in her specialty area fable 81 presents the summary of categories for Facilitator 6. The relative lack of an adequate plan for meeting the individual's needs and the department or program's needs was supported by the data. Table 81. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 6-Department 10 Responses (N = 11) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 10) 4 0 6 Document and Observat ions (N = 1) 0 0 1 Total 4 0 7

PAGE 222

213 Summary of the relative presence or absence of facilitators found in Department 10 A total of 88 responses was collected from the interviews, observations, and written documents on the relative presence or absence of the facilitators in Department 10. The responses categorized as positive accounted for 43.2% of the total while the negative responses represented 40.91. The mixed category accounted for 15.9%. Table 82 presents the summary of the categorized data. Table 82. Total of the Categories of the Six Facilitators -Department 10 Responses (N = 88) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 63) 28 10 25 Document and Observat i on (N = 25) 10 4 11 Total 38 14 26 Resistor 1: Conformity to norms Department 10 interview data . The participants expressed flexibility in the way each faculty member

PAGE 223

planned for her clinical group but outside of the clinical area the faculty were bound by strong departmental norms. The newer faculty were able to discuss the conformity expected by the group whereas the older faculty, in terms of years' experience, did not perceive the department to have strong departmental norms. Pos it ive 1. For the students' sake our department has developed a great deal of internal consistency 2. The department is very traditional in the way we teachlectures and everything centered on the medical model 3. New faculty are expected to fall into the patterns set by the department. 4. There are some traditions being maintained by the faculty (2) Mixed 1. Our department can listen to suggestions and take a look at change 2. We are a cohesive group 3. I'm trying to work my way into the way they do things here 4. One can be too democratic Nega t ive 1. In the clinical area we have a lot of flexibility 2. We have too much flexibility at times

PAGE 224

215 Department 10 observation and document data . The researcher was aware that a program had existed previous to the present collegiate program as a hospital -based 3-year diploma program. The change to a collegiate nursing program had produced many immediate changes but some of the traditions and departmental norms of the original school still existed. Even with a turnover in faculty the strong forces that maintained the conformity and departmentalization of the diploma program were still observed to be present. The observation and document data are presented in categories below. Positive 1. Frequent use of "That's the way it's done here" 2. Course outlines have not changed significantly over the last 3 years Mixed 1. Two faculty members are tenured and seem to maintain the norms as necessary in order for the department to function Negat ive 1. Faculty use different teaching methods The observation and document data supported the interview data. As shown in Table 83, the category of positive responses accounted for a majority of the

PAGE 225

216 responses. The department norms were strong and served as a guard against disruptions in the department. Table 83. Summary of Categories for Resistor 1-Department 10 Responses (N = 15) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 11) 5 4 2 Document and Observat ion (N = 4) 2 1 1 Total 7 5 3 Resistor 2: Systemic and cultural coherence Department 10 interview data. The tendency toward strong syst emic and cultural coherence expressed by the participants was not a reflection of the dean's ideas and philosophy, but her lack of visibility and communication with the faculty did little to prevent the strong systemic coherence from continuing. The responses from the participants are categorized below. Positive 1. The manner in which the dean is addressed depends on whether it is business or not

PAGE 226

217 2. New people would make a rapid succession of changes, but the dean and chairperson have been here and try to make changes that are needed 3. I wouldn't call the dean by her first name unless she gave me permission 4. We are very departmentalized here (2) 5. Students see us a demanding department 6. Some of the faculty are traditional and conservative (2) Mixed 1. Students are addressed by last names as are the faculty 2.. Outside of work we have very different lives 3. Rotating chairpersons would prevent the power struggle that tends to occur with one person in a position for a long time Negat ive 1. No patterns that identify us as a department Department 10 observation and document data . The researcher made many observations to support the interview data. The background data on the two tenured faculty revealed one with a long nursing service background in traditional conservative facilities and one with little work experience outside of her present position. The history of the school itself had allowed many patterns to set. Strong individual departments modeled after the medical model of specialty areas maintained the

PAGE 227

218 closed communication between the faculty. The data are presented below in categories. Posit ive 1. A change made in Department 10 was questioned because it was not presented to facultylack of trust between departments 2. Frequent turnover in faculty prevents new faculty from blocking the tenured faculty 3. Traditional view of nursing in the medical model Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. No data The positive responses (see Table 84) provide strong support for the relative presence of systemic and cultural coherence in Department 10. Only 4 responses were categorized as mixed and negative. Resistor 3: Vested interest Department 10 interview data . The participants were able to identify several areas of vested interest in Department 10. The departmental structure was an important aspect of the prestige interest of some of the faculty. The chairperson liked the status she

PAGE 228

219 Table 84. Summary of Categories for Resistor 2Department 10 Responses Pos it ive Mixed Negative (N = 15) I nterview (N = 12) S 3 1 Document and Observat ion (N = 3) 3 0 0 Total 11 3 1 associated with the position. The data are presented below. Positive 1. We have to pay back clinical time if the instructor decides to let her group attend a conference 2. There are certain aspects of the present curriculum that we are going to hang onto for dear 1 i f e 3. Some of the faculty see the curriculum change as having to give up their territory 4. Our chairperson finds security in her position Mixed 1. I think I am willing to accept any change if it's well thought out

PAGE 229

220 Negative 1. As long as transfer students' entry-level knowledge is adequate, there is no problem for them to enter our course 2. Transfer students are accepted into our department and they do well Department 10 observation and document data . The researcher observed the strong faculty commitment to the medical model as a basis for teaching. The number of hours spent in the clinical areas were counted very carefully so as to maintain the specified time. The data are categorized below. Pos i t ive 1. Faculty are very clinically oriented and adamant about students' time in the clinical setting 2. Strong adherence to medical model as basis for teaching nursing Mixed 1 . No data Negative 1. No data The 6 positive responses elicited from the participants, observations, and documents supported the relative presence of Resistor 3 in Department 10 as shown in Table 85. Some areas o I' vested interest were very strong in the department.

PAGE 230

221 Table 85. Summary of Department Categories for 10 Resistor 3Responses (N = 9) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 7) 4 1 2. Document and Observat ion (N = 2) 2 0 0 Total 6 1 2 Resistor 4: The sacrosanct Department 10 interview data . The faculty in Department 10 were divided on the importance placed on traditional wearing apparel (i.e., white uniforms, hose, and cap). The impact of the faculty's beliefs on the students was tempered by a school dress code for students. The dress code reflected a strong conservation atmosphere. The data are categorized below. Positive 1. Contrast a hospital which requires white uniforms and cap with one that does not; I think nurses should look professional 2. Looking professional does say that one has an appearance of confidence 3. Some of the faculty are so professional looking

PAGE 231

222 Mixed 1. Caps may be something students need for ident ity 2. Pins are given out at a senior luncheon Negat ive 1. I don't think caps, pins, pinning ceremony are necessary (2) 2. I never wear a cap Department 10 observation and document data . The setting of the nursing program represented by Department 10 was conducive to maintaining tradition in nursing as wel 1 as the past history of the program itself. The overall trend in this department as well as other nursing programs was away from the traditional ceremonies in nursing. The data are categorized below. Posit ive I. Traditions of diploma school maintained Mixed I. No data Negative 1. New faculty representing different educational preparations 2. Most of faculty didn't wear traditional white uniform, shoes and caps in clinical areas

PAGE 232

223 The amount of data concerning the relative presence or absence of Resistor 4 in Department 10 was limited. The responses are categorized in Table 86. Table 86. Summary of Categories for Resistor 4-Department 10 Responses (N = 11) Posit ive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 8) 3 2 3 Document and Observat ion (N = 3) 1 0 2 Total 2 5 Resistor 5: Re j ection of "outsiders" Department 10 interview data. The department tended to be closed to "outsiders." The input from persons outside the department was limited. Positive 1 . No data Mixed 1. No one has put pressure on us in our department 2. If a major problem existed the head nurse would have a means to bring it to our attent ion

PAGE 233

224 Negative 1. No data Department 10 observation and document data . The researcher observed one situation that related to Resistor 5. The dean had tried to implement some changes that reflected her own educational preparation and the faculty resisted her idea because "it wouldn't work here." They seemed to consider her an "outsider" at times. The data are presented below. Positive 1. The organizational structure of the departments was modeled after the dean's former school-some of the faculty didn't think it was right for their program 2. Lack of "input" from sources outside the department Mixed 1. No data Negative 1 . No data Table 87 presents the data concerning the relative presence or absence of Resistor 5 in Department 10. The data were limited and inconclusive.

PAGE 234

225 Table 87. Summary of Categories for Resistor 5-Department 10 Responses fN = 4) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview fN = 2) V 11 J 0 2 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 2) • 2 0 0 Total 2 2 0 Resistor 6: Inability to carry out change Department 10 interview data The participants were able to identify instances where the department was unable to carry out a change due to factors they were unable to control. The factors were lack of time, money, and restrictions set by outside factors as clinical settings and educational institutions. The data are presented below. Posit ive 1. We just don't have the time to develop the learning modules we would like to 2. Money has been a problem but I don't want a salary cut to add to our departmental budget 3. Limited faculty 4. Restricted clinical facilities

PAGE 235

226 5. Restricted by educational institution offering general education courses for nursing students Mixed 1 . No data Negative 1. We need some materials but we haven't ordered them Department 10 observation and document data . The obstacles that interfered with the faculty's ability to carry out changes were observed by the researcher. The lack of flexibility in setting clinical time for the students due to the priority given general education courses affected some of the changes the faculty wanted to make. The lack of time cited by several faculty was not observed to be a block by the researcher. The data are given below. Posit ive 1. Courses taken by students at the educational institution were priority over nursing courses; therefore, the general education courses mandated the available clinical times Mixed 1. Most of the faculty's schedules were relatively light Negat ive 1. No data

PAGE 236

227 The relative presence of Resistor 6 was supported by the positive responses from the interviews, observations, and document data. Table 88 shows the distribution of responses. Table 88. Summary of Categories for Resistor 6-Department 10 Responses (N = 8) Pos itive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 6) 5 0 1 Document and Observat ion (N = 2) 1 1 0 Total 6 1 1 Summary of the relative presence or absence of resistors found in Department 1 (T ~ A total of 60 responses was collected from the participants, observations, and documents regarding the resistors in Department 10. Table 89 summarizes the data. The responses categorized as positive represented 58.1% of the total responses, indicating the relative presence of the combined resistors in Department 10. The mixed and negative categories had 22.61 and 19.31, respectively .

PAGE 237

228 Table 89. Total of the Categories of the Six Resistors-Department 10 Responses (N = 62) Pos i t i ve Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 46) 25 12 9 Document and Observat ion (N = 16) 11 2 3 Total 36 14 1 2 Department 11 Department 11 was scored 1.25 on a 0-6 scale on Section B, question 7 of the Department Questionnaire (see Appendix A) by five of the chairpersons in the nursing program represented by Department 11. Only three faculty including the chairperson were in the department. The chairperson, appointed by the dean, had been in the position for 6 years. The distribution of faculty by sex, age group, department years' experience, and by academic rank are presented in Tables 90-93. As shown in Table 90, the faculty in Department 11 are all female. This was a similar pattern in all the departments in the nursing program. The age range was wide (see Table 91), spanning all four age groupings.

PAGE 238

229 Table 90. Faculty Distributed by Sex-Department 11 Sex Distr ibut ion (N = 3) Female 3 Male 0 Total 3 Table 91. Faculty Distributed by Age Group-Department 11 Age Group Distribution (N = 3) 25-29 1 30-39 0 40-49 1 50-59 1 Tot a 1 3 The distribution by years' experience in the department is presented in Table 92. Two of the faculty in the department were older and more experienced than the third member. The younger member had graduated from the same program several years previously. Table 93 presents the academic rank of the faculty. The lack of faculty at

PAGE 239

230 Table 92. Faculty Distributed by Department Years' Experience-Department 11 Years Distr ibut ion (N = 3) 0-1 1 2-3 1 4-5 0 6-7 1 Total 3 Table 93. Faculty Distributed by Academic Rank-Department 11 Rank Distribution (N = 3) Instructor 1 Assistant Professor 2 Associate Professor 0 Total 3 the associate professor level was found to be somewhat significant as the researcher observed the internal power struggle between the department and the administration of the program.

PAGE 240

231 The three faculty members in Department 11 were interviewed as well as an administrator, a group of female nursing students, and two recent graduates. A total of seven interviews were held to collect data concerning Department 11. The observational experiences included activity in the faculty lounge, informal visits in faculty offices and lunch with the faculty. Course outlines were made available to the researcher for the academic years 1973-1976. The data collected from the interviews, observations, and documents are presented in the next section. Atmosphere of change in the nursing program The participants presented a picture of erratic change that was initiated by the dean. The faculty were viewed as open to change but resistant to the method used by the dean to introduce it. The data are presented below. Pos it ive 1. Faculty receptive to change (2) Mixed 1. Change, but no planned change (2) 2. Dean creates the change Negat ive 1. Changes are made from the top 2. Difficult to get consensus

PAGE 241

232 The responses indicated a nonchange atmosphere in the program. The discussions about change provided a basis for the collection of data in Department 11. Facilitator 1: Internal support for change Department 11 interview data . The support among faculty in Department 11 was strong but this was not sufficient to overcome the lack of support from the dean and the other departments. The faculty were not receptive to what the dean wanted and the strong departmentalization of the faculty prevented other departmental support for Department 11. The data are presented below. Pos i tive 1. All the faculty worked well together (2) 2. The chairperson sets the pace for change in the department 3. New faculty's ideas are accepted Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. As a student I never felt the dean's input into our courses 2. The dean does not support this department (3) 3.. Very little cooperation between departments (2)

PAGE 242

233 4. Dean doesn't understand the changes in our department 5. Dean doesn't know the new faculty and what we think Department 11 observation and document data . The lack of internal support for change in Department 11 was observed by the researcher. The faculty in other departments verbalized some support for the department but did not represent sufficient strength to help maintain the department. The department members and the dean did not perceive the other as supportive. The data are presented here. Positive 1. The small department was cohesive 2. The chairperson attempted to initiate a change to gain support of dean Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. Dean not visible to faculty 2. Inadequate mechanism for sharing departmental concerns with other departments 3. Dean rejected attempts by department to make internal changes The responses categorized as negative (see Table 94) were evidence of the relative absence of Facilitator

PAGE 243

234 1 in Department 11. The positive responses represented the intradepartment support for change. Table 94. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 1-Department 11 Responses (N = 17) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 12) 4 0 8 Document and Observat ion (N = 5) 2 0 3 Total 6 0 11 Facilitator 2: Individual members advocated change Department 11 interview data . The participants indicated that all the members in the department promoted change. The newer faculty member was encouraged to participate in the activities of the department. The department members worked closely together and the lack of support from outside sources seemed to produce a more cohesive department. The data are categorized below. Positive 1. The faculty were open and worked well together

PAGE 244

235 2. New faculty's ideas are accepted (3) 3. The chairperson promotes change (2) 4. All the members work together on change 5. Due to the chairperson's experience, I value her judgment Mixed 1 . No data Negative 1. Conflict between departments Department 11 observation and document dat a. The department was so small that cooperation and sharing were almost essential. The newer faculty member had been recruited by the chairperson and she helped maintain the patterns that had been established. Few changes made in the department were reflected in the course outlines between 1973 and 1975. The data are presented below. Pos it ive 1. Held weekly departmental meetings 2. Faculty worked well together Mixed 1. No data Negative 1 . No data

PAGE 245

236 Table 95 shows the summary of categories for the data collected on the relative presence or absence of Facilitator 2. The positive responses were supportive of the relative presence of members in the department that advocated change. Table 95. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2-Department 11 Responses (N = 11) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 9) 8 0 1 Document and Observat ion (N = 2) 2 0 0 Total 10 0 1 Facilitator 3: The presence of a change agent Department 11 interview data. The participants were able to identify one person and one influence that had made an impact on the department. The dean's role was discussed but the members felt her influence had been negative. The interview data are categorized below. Positive 1. A faculty member in another department has worked with us and acted as a change agent

PAGE 246

237 2. One of the clinical settings has influenced the content of our courses Mixed 1. The dean has had a definite influence on us; it was negative Negat ive 1. No one I can think of Department 11 observation and document data . The researcher did not make any observations that reflected the influence of a change agent. Posit ive 1. No data Mixed 1 . No data Negative 1. No data The amount of data available on the presence of a change agent in Department 11 was minimal. Of the 4 responses, 2 were positive and the mixed and negative categories had 1 each (see Table 96). Facilitator 4: Retraining of members for new tasks Department 11 interview dat a. The department offered some support to new faculty by giving them time

PAGE 247

238 Table 96. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 3-Department 11 Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 4) Interview (N = 4) 2 1 1 Document and Observation (N = 0) _0_ _0_ _0_ Total 2 1 1 to become acquainted with their assigned clinical areas. Also, the chairperson was with the new member on the clinical unit for 1 week. The majority of the responses centered on the proposed curriculum change and the implications it had for Department 1.1. Discussions about the new curriculum had included the absorption of Department 11 into another department. The responses below reflect the resulting mistrust. Positive 1. When one faculty member assumes additional responsibilities in other courses we relieve her of some of our course responsibilities 2. New faculty spend some time with the chairperson in order to become familiar with the clinical area Mixed 1. No data

PAGE 248

239 Negat ive 1. Faculty may feel threatened with the new change 2. One person may have difficulty working in the new curriculum if this department is eliminated (2) 3. Faculty are not supported in retraining or acquisition of new skills (2) 4. Time is not available to attend workshops Department 11 observation and document data . The mistrust and speculation resulting from the proposed curriculum change were observed in Department 11. The dean had not supported the individual members in the department with workshops, retraining, or other supports. Others felt the chairperson did not encourage attendance at workshops because it interfered with the clinical experience for the students. Pos i t ive 1. New faculty given limited time to become comfortable in new setting Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. Faculty had attended few workshops and conferences 2. The persons in the department were concerned about where they would be in the new curriculum

PAGE 249

240 The responses were categorized as shown in Table 97. The negative responses supported the relative absence of a priority for retraining as perceived by the faculty in Department 11. Table 97. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 4-Department 11 Responses (N = 11) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 8) 2 0 6 Document and Observat ion (N = 3) 1 0 2 Total 3 0 8 Facilitator 5: Adequate funding Department 11 interview data . The participants perceived adequate funds to be available for the kinds of changes they wanted to make. The department budget was used for software and was adequate for their needs. The interview data are categorized below. Posit ive 1. We have funds for the kinds of changes we want to make (3)

PAGE 250

241 2. We have a limited amount for our department (2) Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1 . No data Department 11 observation and document data . The changes the department had made during January 1973January 1976 were not based on the availability of funds. Money budgeted to the department had been used to buy books, journals and other reading materials. Therefore, the observation and document data are supportive of the interview data which were positive for the relative presence of adequate funds as perceived by faculty. The data are presented below. Positive 1. The department was content with the funds available Mixed 1. Changes made during January, 1 97 3 -January , 1976 were not based on availability of funds Negative 1. No data

PAGE 251

242 Table 98 presents the summary of data from the interviews, observations, and documents. The positive responses were supportive of adequate funds as perceived by the participants and available data. Table 98. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 5-Department 11 Responses (N = 7) Posit ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 5) 5 0 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 2) 1 1 0 Total 6 1 0 Facilitator 6: Adequacy of plan for meet ing organi zation members' needs and the organizational pr oblems under consideration Department 11 interview data . The plan in the department was adequate to meet the individuals' needs and the department's needs, but the department's goals and the nursing program's goals were inconsistent and were the basis of many problems. These problems were revealed in the responses categorized below.

PAGE 252

243 Positive 1. We understand what we are trying to do in our department 2. Changes are discussed within our department and I understand the changes Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. Some things seem to be kept secret and no one knows what is going on in the program 2. Each department wants to protect its territory 3. Personal growth in faculty members is impeded here 4. No one agrees on the product Department 11 observation and document data . The discontentment of the faculty was evident to the researcher the first day in the program. The lack of understanding by the faculty of the nursing program's objectives and how Department 11 related to them was another indication of the lack of an adequate plan to meet the faculty's goals and the department's and program's goals. The data are presented here. Pos it ive 1. The department had clearly defined objectives written by the faculty

PAGE 253

244 Mixed 1. Question whether Department 11 's objectives were consistent with the program's goals Negative 1. Unhappiness and discontentment in the faculty 2. Lack of support for the dean 3. Lack of communication between departments The responses indicated that the plan in Department 11 was not adequate to meet the individual's needs and the department's and nursing program's problems. Table 99 presents the summary of data. Table 99. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 6-Department 11 Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N = 11) Interview (N = 6) 2 0 4 Document and Observat ion (N = 5) 1 1 3 Total 3 1 7

PAGE 254

245 Summary of the relative presence or absence of facilitators found in Department 11 A total of 61 responses was collected from the interviews, observations, and documents. The positive and negative responses together accounted for 95.1% of the total. The mixed responses totaled 3 and accounted for 4.9 9 u of the total responses. Table 100 presents the data collected on the facilitators in Department 11. Table 100. Total of the Categories of the Six Facilitators -Department 11 Responses (N = 61) Posit ive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 44) 23 1 20 Document and Observation (N 17) 7 2 8 Total 30 5 28 Resistor 1: Conformity to norms Department 11 interview data . The participants stated that although faculty had the freedom to handle each clinical situation differently, they chose to maintain a similar pattern. The changes suggested by the

PAGE 255

246 newer faculty member were accepted but they did not change the overall format of the course in any way. The older faculty members were similar in their professional background and maintained the norms of the group. The data are presented below in categories. Positive 1. The faculty had similar backgrounds and they were always together 2. The faculty's clinical groups were handled in the same way (2) 3. Because I'm new, I have a tendency to go along with the others Mixed 1. All of us think pretty much alike 2. I would be willing to try anything new if I could be shown it would work Negative 1. We can handle our clinical areas as we please (2) 2. The chairperson doesn't want to stagnate but do things differently each academic session 3. We have made changes in order to reflect the new curriculum without being mandated to do so Department 11 observation and document data . The size of the department put pressure on the members to conform to similar patterns. The members shared similar interests and maintained a close working relat ionship .

PAGE 256

247 The norms made it possible to work together without internal conflict. The data are categorized below. Pos itive 1. The department refused to allow students to utilize settings other than the hospital for clinical experience 2. The faculty's behaviors were predictable 3. No evidence of any member deviating from the group Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. The chairperson encouraged suggestions from the members 2. Some attempt to rethink the department's goals Table 101 summarizes the categories pertaining to the relative presence or absence of conformity to norms in Department 11. The data were not weighed heavily in the positive category but did represent the majority of responses. The department did exhibit some conformity to norms that could have accounted for some of the behavior of the member. Resistor 2: Systemic and cultural coherence Department 11 interview data . The strong systemic coherence evident in the nursing program was reflected in

PAGE 257

248 Table 101. Summary of Categories for Resistor 1-Department 11 Responses (N = 15) Pos itive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 10) 4 2 4 Document and Observat ion (N = 5) 3 0 2 Total 7 2 b Department 11. The communication between departments was minimal and the loyalty to each individual department was strong. With the exception of one, all the department chairpersons had been in the program for at least 6 years The data are given below. Pos it ive 1. Strong departmentalization (2) 2. Traditional background influences chairperson's attitude 3. Power struggle between departments 4. Traditional faculty Mixed 1. No data

PAGE 258

2 49 Negative 1. Task forces have been formed that include faculty from each department 2. Young faculty bring in new ideas and help keep the change process going (2) Department 11 observation and document data . The inactivity that had occurred before the self-study mandated by an accreditation visit was the logical activity of the department and nursing program based on its history. Change was always being planned but the implementation was not followed through on. The observation and document data are presented in categories. Positive 1. Traditional view of the course format 2. Strong individual departments M ixed 1 . No data Negat ive 1. Faculty are willing to listen to proposed changes The positive responses (see Table 102) provide some evidence of the relative presence of systemic and cultural coherence in Department 11. Four responses were categorized as negative and no responses were categorized as mixed.

PAGE 259

250 Table 102. Summary of Categories for Resistor 2-Department 11 Responses fN = 111 Positive Mixed Negative Interview 5 U J Document and Observat ion (N = 3) 2 0 1 Total 7 0 4 Resistor 4: Vested interest Department 11 interview data. The participants were able to ident ify one area that was an obvious source of resistance in Department 11. The likelihood of a merger of the department with another department was pressing. This action was considered a threat to the chairperson as well as the other departmental members. Pos i t i ve 1. The department is upset due to the possible merger 2. No one knows who will be chairperson of the combined departments Mixed 1 . No data

PAGE 260

251 Negat ive 1. Transfer students have no problems doing well in our courses (3) Depar tment 11 observation and document data . Endemic antagonism existed between the faculty in the department and the dean over change in the program. The philosophies of the dean and the chairperson were different and this caused dissension. The data are presented below. Pos i t ive 1. The chairperson would lose her position 2. Faculty saw administration as obstacle to change 3. The course would lose its identity Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. The faculty were flexible in the course and did not have any obstacles to prevent transfer students from doing well in the course The responses categorized in Table 103 represent the data collected concerning Resistor 3. Some areas of vested interest were very strong in the department as indicated by the responses.

PAGE 261

252 Table 103. Summary of Categories for Resistor 3-Department 11 Responses Pos itive Mixed Negative Interview (N 5) 2 0 3 Document and Observat ion (N = 4) 3 0 1 Total 5 0 4 Resistor 4: The sacrosanct Department 11 interview data . The participants could not identify any traditions or ceremonies in nursing that were of any importance to the faculty in Department 11. One participant stated, however, that the faculty were very professional looking (whites shoes, uniforms, caps) and that their dress did have an influence on the students. The data are presented below. Pos it ive 1. No data Mixed 1. Some recognition is needed by students 2. I see a practical need for white uniforms

PAGE 262

253 Negat ive 1. No strong feelings about caps, pins, white uniforms for nurses Department 11 observation and document data . The faculty were not interested in maintaining the traditions in nursing for the students, but they all wore white uniforms, shoes, and caps when they were in the clinical areas. The data on Resistor 4 were limited. They are presented below. Positive 1. No data Mixed 1. The faculty did not feel strongly about traditional dress for the nurses in the clinical areas but the traditional dress was significant to them Negat ive 1. No data The data on the relative presence or absence of the sacrosanct in Department 11 were limited to 4 responses. Table 104 presents the summary of the categories . Resistor 5: Rejection of "outsiders" Department 11 interview data . The department tended to depend on input from the faculty. There was

PAGE 263

254 Table 104. Summary of Categories for Resistor 4-Department 11 Responses fN = 41 Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview fN = 3] 0 2 1 Document and Observat ion (N = 1) 0 1 0 Total 0 3 1 no evidence to support that persons outside the school had attempted to have input into Department 11. Posit ive 1 . No data Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. No data Department 11 observation and document data . The researcher did not observe any evidence of the rejection of "outsiders" by the department members. Positive 1 . No data

PAGE 264

255 Mixed 1. No data Neg at ive 1. No data Table 105 indicates the lack of data concerning Resistor 5 found in Department 11. These results may indicate some of the closed attitudes that may be present in many nursing programs. Table 105. Summary of Categories for Resistor 5-Department 11 Responses (N = 0) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 0) 0 0 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 0) 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 Resistor 6: Inab i 1 ity to carry out change Department 11 interview data. The participants were able to ident if y c ircumstanc es where the department favored a change but was unable to carry it out. The factors mentioned were lack of space and facilities.

PAGE 265

256 Lack of equipment and materials was not considered a problem. The data are presented below. Positive 1. Lack of. space and facilities Mixed 1. Dean's interference (2) Negative 1. No data Department 11 observation and document data . The faculty in Department 11 were bound by the organizational structure which caused some interference with changes they would liked to have made. The facilities in which the students were placed prevented some changes. Positive 1. The restrictions placed by clinical sett ings Mixed 1. No data Negat ive 1. We can make the changes we want The data collected on the relative presence or absence of Resistor 6 in Department 11 are presented in

PAGE 266

257 Table 106. The data were based on the interviews, observations, and documents. Table 106. Summary of Categories for Resistor 6-Department 11 Responses N = 5) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 3) 1 2 0 Document and Observation (N = 2) 1 0 1 Total 2 2 1 Summary of the relative presence or absence of resistors found in Department 11 A total of 45 responses was collected on the resistors in the department. Table 107 summarizes the data. The responses categorized as positive accounted for 46.71 of the total responses and the mixed and negative for 15. 5 % and 37.7%, respectively. These responses are summarized with the data from the other nonchangc-oriented departments at the end of Chapter IV.

PAGE 267

258 Table 107. Total of the Categories of the Six Resistors-Department 11 Rcspons es (N = 45) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N 30) 12 6 12 Document and Observat ion (N = 15) 9 1 5 Total 21 7 17 Departm ent 13 Department 13 was scored 2.2 on a 0-6 scale on Section B, question 7 of the Department Questionnaire (see Appendix A) by five of the chairpersons in the nursing program represented by Department 11. Five persons including the chairperson were in the department; one faculty member was on leave of absence. The deanappointed chairperson had been in the position 2-1/2 years. Tables 108-111 present the distribution of faculty by sex, age group, department years' experience and academic rank. The faculty in Department 13 were female as shown in Table 108. This distribution was typical of the nursing programs used as settings in this study.

PAGE 268

259 Table 108. Faculty Distributed by Sex-Department 13 Sex Distribution (N = 4) Female 4 Male 0 Total 4 Table 109 presents the distribution of faculty by age group. The 30-39 age group had three faculty listed. The distribution by years' experience in the department is presented in Table 110; the distribution is wide, ranging from 7 months to 6-1/2 years. Department 13 had one faculty member at each academic level (see Table 111). The chairperson was at the associate Table 109. Faculty Distributed by Age Group-Department Age Group Distribution (N = 4) 25-29 0 30-39 3 40-49 0 50-59 1 Total 4

PAGE 269

260 Table 110. Faculty Distributed by Department Years' Experience-Department 13 Years Distribution (N 4) 0-1 1 2-3 1 4 5 1 6-7 1 Total 4 Table 111. Faculty Distributed by Academic Rank-Department 13 Rank Distribution (N = 4) Teaching Assistant 1 Instructor 1 Assistant Professor 1 Associate Professor 1 Total 4

PAGE 270

261 professor level and had been in nursing education for only 2-1/2 years but had spent many years in nursing service administration. The wide distribution in experience, age, and rank may have attributed to some of the lack of communication that existed in the department. Interviews were held with the four faculty members that were teaching at the time of the study. Additional information was gathered from an administrator, a group of four female nursing students, and two recent graduates. The observational experiences in Department 13 were limited because of the faculty's clinical schedules. Some conversations were held with the faculty members in the faculty lounge and in faculty offices. Course outlines and other written materials were made available to the researcher. The data collected from the interviews, observations, and documents are presented in the next section. Atmosphere of change in the college Department 13 interview data . The participants responded to the topic of change in the college in different ways. The perceptions varied from an atmosphere of openness to one of resistance. This dichotomy in perceptions was evident in this department in many of the discussions concerning the facilitators and resistors. The data are presented below.

PAGE 271

262 Pos it ive 1. Some faculty receptive to change 2. The dean is 5 years ahead of the faculty Mixed 1. Some open--some resistant Negat ive 1. Tense 2. Some resistance to change 3. Change because its mandated 4. Sporadic change 5. Faculty's own inertia is main problem The discussions were evidence of the unsteady atmosphere of change. This atmosphere was seen throughout the program and was seen to have its effects on the departments selected for study. Facilitator 1: Internal support for change Department 13 interview data . The responses on the internal support for change in the department are categorized below. The dean's support of the department was felt to be strong whereas the support from other departments was not particularly strong nor felt to be too important by Department 13. Since the department taught a senior course the faculty seemed to feel less of a need to get input from the other departments.

PAGE 272

263 Positive 1. The dean supports this department (3) 2. The dean saw changes before we did 3. The dean relates well to our chairperson (2) 4. Our group process has changed and allows input from new faculty 5. I think the dean has pushed for change 6. New faculty bring in ideas Mixed 1. Departments are moving in the direction of supporting each other 2. Some of the other faculty saw Department 13 as different from the rest of the departments Negative 1. I never saw the dean's input in what we were doing 2. The chairperson was not very changeoriented 3. New faculty cause tension until we get to know each other 4. There is a lot of resistance 5. Conflict in approach to curriculum 6. Lack of communication among departments Department 13 observation and document data . The researcher observed Department 13 to be removed from the mainstream of internal conflict in the program.

PAGE 273

264 The curriculum changes being discussed were said to have the least effect on the present way Department 13 operated. This appeared to compound the already present state of complacency observed in the department. The internal support was for a slow, systematic approach to change. The data are presented here in categories. Posit ive 1. The faculty were supportive of each other 2. New faculty member was accepted into the department Mixed 1. The department appeared to remove itself from the internal conflict present in the general faculty Negative 1. It was difficult for faculty to see the dean to share what they were doing The responses categorized as positive were indicative of the intradepartmental support. The degree of change was not viewed to be significant because the stimulus from the surrounding forces was not great. Table 112 presents the summary of the categories. There was more evidence to indicate the relative presence of some internal support for change in Department 13 than the absence of it.

PAGE 274

265 Table 112. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 1-Department 13 Responses (N = 21) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 17) 9 2 6 Document and Observation (N = 4) 2 1 1 Total 11 3 7 Facilitator 2: Individual members advocated change Department 13 interview data . The participants were able to identify faculty who frequently promoted change in the department. These persons were faculty with experience in service and education. All the faculty felt they had input into most of the decisions in the department and could make suggestions to the group. The data are given below. Pos itive 1. The faculty member.s other than chairperson have promoted change 2. The promoters brainstorm with the other members of the department 3. Experience base is broad and the person is able to work with the group

PAGE 275

4. Better communication in department now 5. The faculty are supportive of each other Mixed 1. We have had difficulty getting consensus Negative 1. There are decisions made that do not involve everyone (2J 2. We suggest changes that we are sure we can handle 3. I don't think the course has changed in years Depa rtment 13 observation and document data . The size of the department was conducive to sharing and planning. The faculty were observed to be comfortable in their relationship in the department. The data from observations and documents are presented below. Pos it ive 1. The faculty visited each other in their respective offices 2. The faculty with less academic rank were included in discussions and decisions Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. No data

PAGE 276

267 Table 113 presents the data collected on the relative presence or absence of Facilitator 2 in the department. Individual members identified as promoters of change were present in Department 13. Table 113. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2 Department 13 Responses (N = 12) Positive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 10) Document and Observat ion (N = 2) Total 1 4 Facilitator 3: The presence of a change agent Department 13 interview data . Several outside change agents were identified as having an impact on the department. The changing job market had brought about a change in the kinds of clinical facilities the department used. The response from the faculty, the administrator, students, and recent graduates are presented below. Pos it ive 1. The proposed accreditation visit has influenced us

PAGE 277

268 2. The chairperson worked to add a new clinical setting to our course 3. The funding clinical agencies have influenced what we do 4. The state agency Mixed 1. Minor changes are made because of staff in the clinical settings Negat ive 1. We need some change agents to get this place going Department 13 observation and document data . The significance of t lie impact of the change agents identified by the participants was questionable when the written materials of the department were reviewed. The content of some of the course reflected some change but it was not seen demonstrated in the overall goals of the department. The data are presented below. Pos it ive 1. Some content areas of the course outline reflected changes Mixed 1 . No data Negat ive 1. The department appeared to teach its course using the same materials and audiovisuals in the same method it had for several years

PAGE 278

269' The summary of responses is given in Table 114. The data were limited to 8 responses but they did not indicate the influence of some change agents in the department . Table 114. Summary of Department Categories for 13 Facilitator 3-Responses (N = 8) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 6) 4 1 1 Document and Observat ion (N = 2) 1 0 1 Total 5 1 2 Facilitator 4: Retraining of members for new tasks Department 15 interview data . The participants agreed that it was the department's and the entire nursing program's responsibility to provide retraining and continuing education for the faculty. Most indicated that money was available for workshops and conferences, but some felt the time was not available to participate. The data follow.

PAGE 279

270 Pos it ive 1. The philosophy of the program includes continuing education for the faculty 2. We have money for workshops (2) Mixed 1. We have workshops here but there is no follow-up Negat ive 1. We have not been given the time for faculty development 2. Time and money are not available for sel f -development 3. Retraining is not a priority here 4. Time is not available to attend workshops Department 13 observation and document data . The researcher observed some of the lack of faculty involvement in workshops, sel fdevelopment , and faculty development as complacency on the part of the faculty. Faculty schedules were observed to be reasonable compared with the other nursing programs included in the study. The observed data are below. Positive 1. Workshops were available 2. Some faculty development programs offered Mixed 1 . No data

PAGE 280

271 Negative 1. Retraining or faculty development was not a priority in the program The responses were categorized as 5 positive and 5 negative (see Table 115). Some attempt had been made by the department to participate in faculty development but the results were not clear. Table 115. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 4-Department 13 Responses (N = 10) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 7) 3 1 4 Document and Observat ion (N = 3) 2 0 1 Total 5 1 5 Facilitator 4: Adequate funding Department 13 interview data . The participants perceived adequate funds to be available for the kinds of changes they wanted to make. This perception was identified in the interview with the administrator. The data are categorized below.

PAGE 281

272 Positive 1. We have money for what we need (2) 2. We have money Mi xed 1. We haven't explored all the opportunities 2. I am not informed about the funding 3. We are limited by our lack of expertise Negat ive 1. Funds haven't been available for materials we have wanted to develop (video-taping) 2. No outside sources of funding in our department Department 15 observation and document data . The researcher observed the changes made by the department not to be related to funding. Self-paced learning packages and faculty-produced audio-visuals were discussed but not investigated as to costs. Adequate funds were perceived to be adequate because their availability was not tested. The data are categorized below. Pos itive 1. Figures indicated sound budget Mixed 1. Changes made did not require use of additional funds

PAGE 282

273 Negat ive 1. No data Table 116 presents the summary of data from the interviews, observations, and documents. The positive responses were supportive of adequate funds as perceived by the participants and other data. Table 116. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 5-Department 13 Responses (N = 10) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 8) 3 2 Document and Observat ion (N = 2) 1 1 0 Total 4 4 2 Facilitator 6: Adequacy of plan for meeting organi zational members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration Department 13 interview data . The plan in the department was adequate to meet the individual's needs and the department's needs but this plan was not viewed in terms of the overall plan of the nursing program. This situation tended to produce greater departmentalization within the program. The data are categorized below.

PAGE 283

274 Pos itive 1. I understand the reasons why changes are made in the department 2. Changes are discussed in our department Mixe d 1. No data Negat ive 1. The goals of the nursing program are unclear so our department has not reflected them 2. We don't see any relevance between what we are doing and the goals of the department D epartment 13 observation and document data . The department appeared to have a wait-and-see attitude as to its place in the overall curriculum change. The faculty were content with their present plan to meet their goals and the department's goals. The data are presented be 1 ow . Positive 1. Faculty contentment 2. Support of the dean 3. Defined departmental goals Mixed 1. No data

PAGE 284

275 Negat ive 1. Some confusion about the overall program goals The responses were divided among the three categories (see Table 117). The positive category indicated some evidence of an adequate plan in the department to meet its goals and the individual goals of the faculty. Table 117. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 6-Department 13 Responses (N = 9) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 5) 2 1 2 Document and Observat ion (N = 4) 3 0 1 Total 5 1 5 Summary of the relative presence or absence of facilitators found in Department 13 A total of 76 responses was collected from the interviews, observations, and documents. The responses categorized as positive accounted for 51.3% of the total while the mixed and negative categories had 15.81 and 32.9%, respectively (see Table 118). The data indicate

PAGE 285

276 the relative presence of evidence that the facilitators were present in some degree in Department 13. Table 118. Total of the Categories of the Six FacilitatorsDepartment 13 Responses (N = 7 6) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 54) 26 9 19 Document and Observation (N = 22) 13 3 6 Total 39 12 25 Resistor 1: Conformity to norms Department 13 interview data . The conformity to norms was evident in the interviews with the participants. Some flexibility was evident in the faculty's individual clinical groups but the department's patterns were obviously important and maintained even with a turnover in faculty. The data are presented below. Posit ive 1. We have gotten less flexible 2. Some of the older faculty are resistant and want to do things the way they have always done them

PAGE 286

277 3. We have to do what all the students do even if it's not relevant 4. I get a lot of "that's the way we do it" 5. That standardization bothers me Mixed 1 . No data Negat ive 1. We have a lot of flexibility (2) 2. We have a lot of autonomy in our groups Department 13 observation and document data . The size of the department put additional pressure on the members to conform to set patterns. The members shared similar interests and were removed from the problems of the other clinical faculty. The norms made it possible for them to work together despite the wide variation in age and experience.. Positive 1. Not involved in problems with other faculty 2. New faculty are expected to fall into established patterns Mixed 1. No data N egat ive I . No data

PAGE 287

278 As shown in Table 119, the category of positive responses accounted for the majority of the responses. The department norms served as a guard against disruptions in the department. Table 119. Summary of Categories for Resistor 1-Department 13 Responses (N = 10) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 8) 5 0 3 Document and Observa t i on IN = 2) 2 0 0 Total 7 0 3 Resistor 2: Systemic and cultural coherenc e Department 13 interview data . The interviews with participants gave strong evidence of the relative presence of systemic and cultural coherence in Department 13. Communication was minimal between the departments in the programs and this situation tended to increase systemic coherence. The data follow.

PAGE 288

279 Pos itive 1. Chairperson was always discussing her past experiences as to how things should be done 2. Strong departmentalization (2) 3. Traditional background influences decisions (2) 4. Resistance is caused by time and position 5. Chairperson tends to ignore group decisions if they differ from her expectations 6. Chairperson tends to think it is important for the department to be close-knit 7. I think we educate our students into a mold Mixed 1. No data Negativ e 1. New faculty's ideas are incorporated Department 13 observation and document data . The background data on the chairperson revealed a long nursing service background with little teaching experience. Her influence in the department was strong and she tended to rely on her experiences to guide the changes the department made. The data are categorized below. Pos i t i ve 1. Chairperson's service background influenced her administrative style 2. Strong departmentalization

PAGE 289

280 Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. No data The positive responses (see Table 120) provide strong support for the relative presence of systemic and cultural coherence in Department 13. Only 1 response was categorized as negative. Table 120. Summary of Categories for Resistor 2-Department 13 Responsew (N = 11) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 9) 9 0 1 Document and Observat ion (N = 2) 2 0 0 Total 10 0 1 Resistor 3: Vested interest Department 13 interview data . The relative presence of vested interest was supported by the interview data. The role of the department was not threatened

PAGE 290

by the proposed curriculum change but the faculty were still protective of their course. There were few indices of faculty crossing departmental lines between the seniorlevel departments of which Department 13 was one. The data are given below. Pos it ive 1. Some faculty were not willing to talk about anything but their department's ways of doing something 2. I would be threatened if one of the clinical faculties was dropped 3. Faculty member must be with students at all times 4. We keep a tight hand on the students that come here * Mixed 1. No data Negative 1. No data Department 13 observation and document data . The researcher did not observe any data to support the relative presence or absence of Resistor 3 in Department 13. Pos it ive 1. No data Mixed 1. No data

PAGE 291

282 Negat ive 1 . No data The responses categorized in Table 121 represent the data collected concerning Resistor 3 in Department 13. The data supported the relative presence of some areas of vested interest in the department. Table 121. Summary of Categories for Resistor 3-Department 13 Responses Positive Mixed Negative (N 4) Interview (N = 4) 4 0 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 0) _0_ _0_ _0_ Total 4 0 0 Resistor 4: The sacrosanct Department 13 interview data . The participants could not associate any traditions or ceremonies in nursing that were of any significance to the faculty in Department 13. One member expressed a desire for some kind of identity for nurses but did not care that

PAGE 292

it be a traditional white uniform, shoes, and cap. The data are below. Posit ive 1. I wish we could have some kind of identity Mixed 1. I would support whatever the students want Negative I . The caps are unnecessary 2. I don't really have any feelings one way or the other Department 13 observation and document data . The researcher did not observe any evidence to support the relative presence or absence of the importance of traditions and ceremonies in Department 13. P ositive 1. No data Mixed 1. No data Nega t ive 1. No data The data on the sacrosanct in Department 13 were limited to 4 responses. The summary of categories is presented in Table 122.

PAGE 293

284 Table 122. Summary of Department Categories for 13 Res istor 4-Responses (N = 4) Pos it ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 4) 1 1 2 Document and Observat ion (N = 0) 0 0 0 Total 1 1 2 Resistor 5: Rejection of "outsiders" Department 13 interview data . The participants could not identify any attitudes about the input of persons from outside the department. The department tended to depend on its own faculty although one member recognized the need for input from resource people outside the department. The limited data are presented. Pos it ive 1. No data Mixed 1. We need someone from the outside to come in with the physical assessment skills that we want to teach our students

PAGE 294

285 Negative 1. No data. Department 13 observation and document data . The researcher did not observe any evidence of the rejection of "outsiders" by the department members. Positive 1. No data Mixed i . No data Negat ive 1. No data Table 123 indicates the lack of data concerning the relative presence or absence of Resistor 5 in Department 13. Table 123. Summary of Categories for Resistor 5-Department 13 Responses (N = 1) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = L) 0 1 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 0) 0 0 0 Total 0 1 0

PAGE 295

286 Resistor 6: Inability to carry out change Department 13 interview data . The faculty were able to identify instances where the department favored a change but was unable to carry it out. Factors mentioned were limited faculty time, scheduling, and lack of expertise to implement a change. The data are categorized below. Positive 1. Faculty time limited 2. Schedules with other departments 3. No equipment for videotaping 4. Lack of faculty expertise to carry out change Mixed 1. We didn't explore all the possibilities before we called a stop to the proposed change Negative 1. No data Department 13 observation and document data . The faculty were bound by schedules imposed by other departments, clinical, and educational institutions as well as lack of faculty expertise in areas of curriculum and audiovisuals . The data are presented below.

PAGE 296

287 Pos i t ive 1. Schedules imposed by clinical facilities 2. Schedules imposed by educational institutions Mixed 1. Faculty schedules did not appear to limit what the faculty could have done if they had wanted to Negativ e 1. Adequate faculty/ student ratio The relative presence of Resistor 6 was supported by the positive responses from the interviews, observations, and documents. Table 124 presents the summarized data . Table 124. Summary of Categories for Resistor 6-Department 13 Responses (N = 9) Positive Mixed Negat ive Interview (N = 5) 4 1 0 Document and Observat ion (N = 4) 2 1 1 Total 6 2 1

PAGE 297

288 Summary of the relative presence or absence of resistors found in Department 13 A total of 39 responses was collected on the six resistors in the department. Table 12S summarizes the data. The responses categorized as positive accounted for 11.1% of the total responses and the mixed' and negative for 10.41 and 17.9%, respectively, indicating the relative presence of the resistors in Department 13. Table 125. Total of the Categories of the Six Resistors-Department 13 Responses (N = 39) Posit ive Mixed Negative Interview (N = 31) 22 3 6 Document and Observat ion (N = 8) 6 1 1 Total 28 4 7 Summary of Data on the Three Nonchange -oriented Depart ment s In order to facilitate the analysis of data in Chapter V, summaries of the data on the relative presence or absence of the facilitators and resistors in the three

PAGE 298

289 nonchangeoriented departments are given in Tables 126-137. Facilitators 2, 3, and 5 had a majority of the responses categorized as positive, indicating the relative presence of the facilitators in the nonchange-oriented departments (see Tables 127, 128, and 130). Since the mixed category by definition contained both positive and negative elements, the responses placed in the mixed category were not included as data to determine the relative presence or absence of the facilitators and resistors. Facilitators 1, 4, and 6 had a majority of the responses categorized as negative, indicating the relative absence of these facilitators in the nonchange-oriented departments (see Tables 126, 129, and 131). Table 126. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 1 (internal support for change) in the Three Nonchange-oriented Departments Responses (N = 61) Pos it i ve Mixed Negative Department (N = 23) 10 5 4 14 Department (N = 17) 11 6 0 11 Department (N = 21) 13 11 3 7 Total 22 7 32

PAGE 299

290 Table 127. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2 (individual members advocating change) in the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments Responses Positive Mixed Nega l lve (N = 43) Department 10 (N = 11) 15 2 3Department 11 (N = 20) 10 0 1 Department 13 (N = 12) 7 1 4 Total 32 3 8 Table 128. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 3 (presence of a change agent) in the Three None hang eoriented Departments Responses Positive Mixed Negat ive (N = 19) Department 10 (N = 7) 3 1 3 Department 11 (N = 4) 2 1 1 Department 13 (N = 8) 5 1 2 Total 10 3 6

PAGE 300

291 Table 129. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 4 (retraining members for new tasks) in the Three Nonchange-oriented Departments Responses (N = 36) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Department (N = 14) 10 4 4 6 Department (N = 11) 11 3 0 S Department (N = 11) 13 5 1 5 l o ta l 12 r b 1 Q Table 130. Summary of Categories quate funding) in the Departments for Facilitator Three Nonchange 5 (ade-oriented Responses (N = 30) Positive Mixed Negative Department (N = 13) 10 7 3 5 Department (N = 7) 11 6 1 0 Department (N = 10) 13 4 4 2 Total 17 8 5

PAGE 301

292 Table 131. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration) in the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments Responses /'XT *7 1 "\ (N = 31) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Dcpa rtinent (N = 11) 10 4 0 7 Department (N = 11) 11 3 1 7 Department CN = 9) 13 5 1 3 Total 12 2 17 Tables 132-137 present the summaries of data on the relative presence or absence of the resistors in the three nonchangeor iented departments. Resistors 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (see Tables 132-134 and 136-137) were determined to be present in the nonchange -oriented departments because the number of positive responses was greater than the number of negative responses. Resistor 4 was determined to be relatively absent in the three nonchange-or iented departments (see Table 135). The demographic data collected on the faculties in Departments 10, 11, and 13 are summarized in Tables 138-141 .

PAGE 302

29 3 Table 132. Summary of Categories for Resistor 1 (conformity to norms) in the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments Responses (N = 40) Pos it ive Mixed Negat ive Department (N = 15) 10 7 5 3 Department (N = 15) 11 7 2 6 Department (N = 10) 13 7 0 3 Total 21 7 12 Table 153. Summary of Categories for Resistor 2 (systemic and cultural coherence) in the Three Nonchangeor i en ted Departments Responses (N = 37) Positive Mixed Negative Department (N = 15) 10 1 1 3 1 Department (N = 11) 1 1 7 0 4 Department (N = 11) 13 10 0 1 Total 28 3 6

PAGE 303

Table 134. Summary of Categories for Resistor 3 (vested interests) in the Three Nonchange-oriented Departments Responses (N = 22) Positive Mixed Negative Department (N = 9) 10 6 1 2 Department (N = 9) 11 5 0 4 Department (N = 4) 13 4 0 0 Total 15 1 6 Table 135. Summary of sac rosanct ) Departments Categories for in the Three Resistor Nonchange 4 (the -oriented Responses (N = 19) Pos it i ve Mixed Negative Department (N = 11) 10 4 2 5 Department (N = 4) 11 0 3 1 Department (N = 4) 13 1 1 2 Total 5 6 8

PAGE 304

295 Table 136. Summary of Categories for Resistor 5 (rejection of "outsiders") in the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments Responses (N 5) Positive Mixed Negative Department (N = 4) 10 2 2 0 Department (N = 0) 1 1 0 0 0 Department (N = 1) 13 0 1 0 Total 2 3 0 Table 137. Summary of Categories for Resistor 6 (inability to carry out change) in the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments Responses (N = 22) Positive Mixed Negat ive Department (N = 8) 10 6 1 1 Department (N = 5) 11 2 2 1 Department (N = 9) 13 6 2 1 Total 14 5 3

PAGE 305

296 Table 138. Faculty Distributed by Sex-Departments 10, 11, and 13 Sex Distribution (N = 12) Female 12 Male 0 Total 12 Table 139. Faculty Distributed by Age Group-Departments 10, 11, and 13 Age Group Distribution (N = 12) 25-29 2 30-39 6 40-49 2 50-59 2 Total 12

PAGE 306

297 Table 140. Faculty Distributed by Department Years' Experience -Departments 10, 11, and 13 Years Distribution (N = 12) 0-1 4 2-3 3 4-5 2 6-7 2 8-9 1 Total 12 Table 141. Faculty Distributed by Academic Rank-Depart ments 10, 11, and 13 Rank Teaching Assistant Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Total Distribution (N = 12) 1 5 3 3 12

PAGE 307

298 Based on these data, the profile of a faculty member in the nonchange-oriented departments included the following data: female, between 30 and 39 years old, approximately 3 years' experience in the department, and approaching the Assistant Professor level.

PAGE 308

CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FIELD STUDY RESULTS IN RELATION TO THE THEORETICAL LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to analyze and discuss the field portion of the study in relation to the scholarly literature on change. In order that a perspective may be provided, each hypothesis is stated, followed by the field data. Each hypothesis has been analyzed by each of its six parts. The researcher has looked for a difference in incidence of the facilitators and resistors in the three change-oriented and three nonchange-oriented departments. Hypothesis 1. Compared to the three nonchangeoriented departments, the three change-oriented departments will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically, the change-oriented departments will have present (a) a greater incidence of internal support for change The incidence of internal support for. change was greater in the change-oriented departments (39 positive responses) than the nonchange-oriented departments (22 positive responses) as indicated in Table 138. The hypothesis was accepted. 299

PAGE 309

300 Table 138. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 1 (internal support for change) in the Three Changeor iented and the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments Responses Pos it ive Mixed Negative Change -or iented Departments 29 4 9 Nonchangeor iented Department s 22 12 32 These data supported the work done by Lippitt et al. (1958, pp. 24-25) where small groups were sensitive to internal disruptions. The change-oriented departments were influenced by the interorganizational change forces (i. e., other departments, administrators and students) that existed in their respective nursing programs where there was little evidence of these forces influencing the nonchange-oriented departments. These data also supported the work done by Hamann (1972) and Reynolds (1970) that recognized the influence of the dean in higher education institutions. The dean in each of the nursing programs represented by the changeoriented department was perceived as very, supportive of the individual departments. Two of the change-oriented departments were particularly sensitive to what the dean wanted whereas the third department had functioned without

PAGE 310

301 a stable leader for much of the 3-year period included in this study. The three nonchangeoriented departments were generally not responsive to what the deans wanted nor perceived the deans to be supportive of these changes. The results support the applicability of Facilitator 1 as described in the literature in the change-oriented departments of this study. Hypothesis 1. Compared to the three nonchangeoriented departments, the three change or iented departments will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically, the change or iented departments will have present (b) a greater number of individuals advocating change The incidence of individual members advocating change was the same (32 positive responses) for the changeoriented and nonchange-oriented departments (see Table 139). The hypothesis was rejected. Table 139. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 2 (individual members advocating change) in the Three Change or iented Departments and the Three Nonchange-oriented Departments Responses Positive Mixed Negat ive Changeor iented Department s 32 10 5 Nonchange-oriented Departments 32 3 8

PAGE 311

These data did not support the hypothesis that the change-oriented departments would have a greater num ber of individual members . advocat ing change. Each of the six departments identified dominant members in the groups who initiated change and influenced other members of the group to participate in implementing the change. The sizes of the departments, ranging from three to eight members, were conducive to sharing and planning together From these data the presence of individual faculty members who promoted change were found in all the depart ments in relatively equal numbers. Hypothesis 1. Compared to the three nonchangeoriented departments, the three change-oriented departments will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically, the change-oriented departments will have present (c) the presence of a change agent The incidence of a change agent's presence was greater in the change-oriented departments than in the nonchangeor iented departments, showing a difference of 14 responses (see Table 140). The hypothesis was accepted . These data supported the literature that the presence of a change agent was able to break established patterns. The three changeoriented departments were able to identify persons and influences that caused

PAGE 312

303 Table 140. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 3 (presence of a change agent) in the Three Change-oriented and the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments Responses Pos itive Mixed Negat ive Change -oriented Departments 24 2 11 Nonchange or ient ed Departments 10 3 6 current methods to be changed in the departments These data further supported a study by McCabe (1967) where deans were among the most influential in curriculum changes. In two of the change-oriented departments the deans of the nursing programs were extremely influential. This was also found to be the case in some of the nursing programs represented by the nonchange-oriented departments. Although some of the nonchange-oriented departments were able to identify change agents, they were significantly less in number. Hypothesis 1. Compared to the three nonchangeoriented departments, the three change-oriented departments will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically, the change -or iented departments will have present (d) retraining of members for new tasks

PAGE 313

304 The incidence of retraining members for new tasks was greater in the three changeor iented departments than in the three nonchange-oriented departments. There were 20 and 12 positive responses, respectively (see Table 141). The hypothesis was accepted. Table 141. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 4 (retraining members for new tasks) in the Three Change-oriented Departments and the Three Nonchange-oriented Departments Responses Positive Mixed Negative Change -or iented Departments 20 15 10 Nonchange-oriented Department s 12 5 19 Retraining of faculty for new clinical areas or for little-used skills was supported in the changeoriented departments through workshops, conferences, and faculty development seminars. These same methods were used by the nonchange-oriented departments but to a lesser degree. Evidence was present in the nonchangeoriented departments that members were not supported when a departmental or program change necessitated a move of a faculty member. However, in the change -oriented departments the faculty appeared to be secure in their

PAGE 314

305 roles. These findings supported Katz and Kahn's (1966) study that pointed out the necessity of preparation and retraining for new roles in measuring successful changes. Hypothesis 1. Compared to the three nonchangeoriented departments, the three change-oriented departments will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically, the change or iented departments will have present (e) adequate funding The incidence of adequate funding as perceived by the participants was greater in the three changeoriented departments than in the three nonchange-oriented departments. There were 23 positive responses elicited in the change-oriented departments and 17 in the nonchangeoriented departments as shown in Table 142. The hypothesis was accepted. Table 142. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 5 (adequate funding) in the Three Changeoriented Departments and the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments Responses Pos it ive Mixed Negative Change -oriented Departments 23 9 4 Nonchangeor iented Department s 17 S 5

PAGE 315

306 The data collected in the six departments supported the study done by Reynolds (1970). Inadequate funds were mentioned as blocks to changes the faculty wanted to make but the availability of funds was not frequently mentioned as a facilitating factor. In these six departments funds were perceived to be present and as the data in Table 142 show, both the change -or iented and the nonchangeoriented departments had a greater number of positive responses than negative ones. These data also supported the Hanna-Boules (1970) study that educational change correlated positively with the number of outside grants. The change-oriented departments had more outside grants as well as the nursing programs represented by these departments and accounted for the slight increase in positive responses found in the change or iented departments. Hypothesis 1. Compared to the three nonchangeoriented departments, the three change or i ent ed departments will have present a greater number of facilitators of change. More specifically, the change-oriented departments will have present (f) adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration The incidence of an adequate plan for meeting the faculty members' needs and the department's problems was greater in the three change-oriented departments

PAGE 316

307 (32 positive responses) than in the three nonchangeoriented departments (12 positive responses) as shown in Table 143. The hypothesis was accepted. Table 143. Summary of Categories for Facilitator 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration) in the Three Change-oriented and the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments Responses Pos itive Mixed Negative Change-oriented Department s 32 4 5 Nonchange -oriented Departments 12 2 17 These data supported the literature findings on the need for a sound plan for achieving goals. The changeor iented departments had clearly defined goals which helped the members understand the reasons for proposed changes. Also, in those instances where goals were being formulated, the faculty were kept informed and involved in the process, whereas the goals in the nonchange-oriented departments were often not clear to the faculty, and the faculty felt they were not included in the planning. These attitudes were also reflected in the programs represented by the nonchange-oriented

PAGE 317

308 departments. The faculty in the change -or iented departments saw the department's role in the overall nursing program whereas the faculty in the nonchange-oriented departments were less sure of their department's role in the total organizational plan. Hypothesis 2. Compared to the three changeoriented departments, the three nonchange-oriented departments will have present a greater number of resistors of change. More specifically, the nonchangeoriented departments will have present (a) a greater incidence of conformity to norms The incidence of conformity to norms was greater in the three nonchange-oriented departments (21 positive responses) than in the three change -oriented departments (15 positive responses), as shown in Table 144. The hypothesis was accepted. Table 144. Summary of Categories for Resistor 1 (conformity to norms) in the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments and the Three Changeoriented Departments Responses Positive Mixed Negat ive Nonchange-oriented Departments 21 7 12 Changeor iented Departments 15 11 23

PAGE 318

The data collected in the six departments were supportive of the literature findings on the conformity to norms found in educational settings. In the nonchange oriented departments particularly, the expectation was that changes were better introduced by group decisions. Little evidence was available to support an individual's attempt to pioneer a new practice. The data collected on the change-oriented departments were less supportive on conformity to norms, but the departments were small and evidence of some departmental norms contributed to the faculty's ability to work together without constant d isrupt ion . Hypothesis 2. Compared to the three changeoriented departments, the three nonchange-oriented departments will have present a greater number of resistors of change. More specifically, the nonchangeoriented departments will have present (b) a greater incidence of systemic and cultural coherence The incidence of systemic and cultural coherence was greater in the three nonchange-oriented departments than in the three change-oriented departments. There were 28 positive responses in the nonchange-oriented departments and 18 positive responses in the changeoriented departments, as shown in Table 145. The hypothesis was accepted.

PAGE 319

310 Table 145. Summary of Categories for Resistor 2 (systemic and cultural coherence) in the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments and the Three Changeoriented Departments Responses Positive Mixed Negat ive Nonchange -oriented Departments 28 3 6 Change -oriented Departments 18 3 16 These data supported the literature findings on the role of systemic and cultural coherence as a resistor to change. The nonchangeor iented departments particularly supplied data to indicate systemic coherence. The length of time the chairpersons had been in the positions and their work experiences were conducive to systemic coherence. The history of the nursing programs represented by the nonchange-or iented departments was another reason to support strong systemic coherence. They were organized in such a manner as to encourage segregation. The resultant decrease in frequency of interaction between departments supported the findings of Griffiths' (1964) work where departmental structure produced progressive segregation and decreased communication. The changeoriented departments were a part of a nontraditional organizational structure which increased possibilities of interaction and decreased segregation.

PAGE 320

311 Hypothesis 2. Compared to the three changeoriented departments, the three nonchange-oriented departments will have present a greater number of resistors of change. More specifically, the nonchangeoriented departments will have present (c) vested interest The incidence of vested interest was greater in the three nonchange-oriented departments (15 positive responses) than in the three change-oriented departments (4 positive responses) as shown in Table 146. The hypothesis was accepted. Table 146. Summary of Categories for Resistor 3 (vested interest) in the Three Nonchange-oriented Departments and the Three Change or iented Department s Responses Pos it ive Mixed Negative Nonchange-oriented Departments 15 1 6 Change -or iented Department s 4 1 17 The data supported the literature and the hypothesis on the resistance to change brought about by vested interest. The faculty in the nonchange-oriented departments taught only in their department and their teaching assignment remained fairly stable for each academic year.

PAGE 321

312 The length of time two of the department chairpersons had been in the position in the nonchange or iented departments was the longest of any faculty member in all the departments. The goals of these departments had not changed significantly during the past 3 years included in the study. Hypothesis 2. Compared to the three changeoriented departments, the three nonchange -or iented departments will have present a greater number of resistors of change. More specifically, the nonchangeoriented departments will have present (d) the sacrosanct The incidence of the sacrosanct in the three nonchange-oriented departments was less than in the three changeoriented departments. The nonchange-oriented departments had 5 positive responses whereas the changeoriented departments had 7 positive responses (see Table 147). The hypothesis was rejected. Table 147. Summary of Categories for Resistor 4 (the sacrosanct) in the Three Nonchange-oriented Departments and the Three Change-oriented Departments Responses Positive Mixed Negative Nonchange-oriented Departments 5 6 8 Change -or iented Departments 7 11 9

PAGE 322

313 These data produced evidence that the sacrosanct was somewhat significant in the change-oriented and the nonchange-oriented departments. The negative responses were greater than the positive responses (see Table 147) in both groups of departments. The traditional ceremonies that were maintained were found in all the departments irrespective of the label change-oriented or nonchangeor iented. Likewise, many of the traditional ceremonies that were significant in the diploma nursing programs have received less importance in the collegiate nursing programs represented by the six departments included in this study. The rituals and traditional ceremonies appeared to be more indicative of the type of nursing programs rather than individual departmental activities. Hypothesis 2. Compared to the three changeoriented departments, the three nonchange-oriented departments will have present a greater number of resistors of change. More specifically, the nonchangeoriented departments will have present (e) rejection of "outsiders" The incidence of the rejection of "outsiders" was less in the nonchange-oriented departments (total of 2 positive responses) than in the change-oriented departments (total of 5 positive responses), as shown in Table 148. The hypothesis was rejected.

PAGE 323

314 Table 148. Summary of Categories for Resistor 5 (rejection of "outsiders") in the Three Nonchangeoriented Departments and the Three Change oriented Departments Responses Positive Mixed Negative Nonchangeor i ent ed Departments 2 3 0 Change or ien ted Departments 5 4 0 The data collected on the rejection of "outsiders were limited, but the available data rejected the hypothesis that the nonchange or iented departments would have a greater incidence of rejection of "outsiders." Both the change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments' curricula reflected input from outside sources, particularly the national trends in the health care system, but it appeared that the nonchange-oriented departments had been able to incorporate enough local input and participation to prevent changes from appearing as an outs ide -dominated venture. The changeoriented departments' data substantiated the reason found by Watson (1969, p. 496) that has often been used to reject "out s ider s" " it wouldn't work in our system."

PAGE 324

315 Hypothesis 2. Compared to the three changeoriented departments, the three nonchange -or iented departments will have present a greater number of resistors of change. More specifically, the nonchangeoriented departments will have present (f) inability to carry out change The incidence of the inability to carry out change was less in the nonchange-oriented departments (14 positive responses) than in the change-oriented departments (lb positive responses), as shown in Table 149. The hypothesis was rejected. Table 149. Summary of Categories for Resistor 6 (inability to carry out change) in the Three Nonchange-oriented Departments and the Three Change-oriented Departments Responses Positive Mixed Negative Nonchange -oriented Departments 14 5 3 Change -or iented Department s 16 1 1 These data supported the literature (Boyer, 1967; Gross et al., 1971) that resistance may be encountered by departments in their efforts to carry out change, although the hypothesis was rejected because the incidence

PAGE 325

of Resistor 6 was greater in the change-oriented departments than in the nonchange-oriented departments. Gross et al. (1971) concluded that resistance often developed among departments that were positively oriented to chang as a result of incompatibility of organizational arrange ments. The lack of clinical facilities and the organiza tional arrangements in the three change-oriented departments supported these findings by Gross et al . (1971). Summary of the Field Study Results These data showed that of the six facilitators that were analyzed to determine their relative presence or absence in the change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments, five were found in greater incidence in the change-oriented departments. It was also found that of the six resistors that were . analyzed to determine their relative presence or absence in the nonchange-oriented and the change-oriented departments, three were found in greater incidence in the nonchange-oriented departments than in the change-oriented departments. Profile of the Faculty Members in the Change-or iented Departments and" the Nonchange-oriented Departments The total faculty in the change or iented departments numbered 16, whereas there were 12 faculty in the

PAGE 326

317 nonchange-oriented departments. The distribution of the faculty in both groups according to sex, age group, department years' experience, and academic rank was not significant to the relative presence or absence of the facilitators or resistors in the six departments.

PAGE 327

CHAPTER VI PRESENTATION OF SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent the scholarly literature on change was applicable in departments in collegiate nursing programs. The development of the study began by reducing the various factors purported to facilitate or resist change in the literature to a manageable number of factors for study. Considered in the selection of factors were those which had been incorporated in the literature on nursing theory but had been done so without adequate testing to determine if possible modifications were necessary. Twelve factors, six discussed in the literature as facilitators of change and six discussed in the literature as resistors of change, were selected. A valid and practical means was developed to determine the changeor iented and the nonchange -oriented departments. The Department Questionnaire (Appendix A) was tested and proved to be valid and reliable. Two other instruments (Appendices B § C) were designed to elicit data concerning the relative presence or absence 318

PAGE 328

319 of the six facilitators and six resistors in the departments . Four collegiate nursing programs in the southeastern region of the United States were selected using the following criteria: 1. NLN accreditation 2. Public support 3. Minimum enrollment of 75 full-time students 4. Stable curriculum since 1973 Department chairpersons in each of the four programs responded to the Department Questionnaire (Appendix A). From these data the change-oriented and nonchangeor iented departments were identified. The selection of three change-oriented departments for study was based on scores above 1 standard deviation of the total departments' mean score. The selection of three nonchangeor iented departments for study was based on scores below 1 standard deviation of the total departments' mean score. The principles methods used for collecting data were (1) personal interviews in the nursing programs represented by the six departments studied with faculty, an administrator, students, and recent graduates, using the Participant Interview Guide (Appendix B) , and (2) structured and unstructured observations as well as the analysis of written materials and documents using the Document and Observation Guide (Appendix C) . In order

PAGE 329

320 to analyze the data, frequency distributions were developed to determine the differences in the incidence of the six facilitators and six resistors in the three change-oriented and three nonchange-or iented departments. The six ' facilitators studied were 1. Internal support for change 2. Individual members advocating change 3. Presence of a change agent 4. Retraining members for new tasks 5. Adequate funding 6. Adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration The six resistors studied were 1. Conformity to norms 2. Systemic and cultural coherence 3. Vested interest 4. The sacrosanct 5. Rejection of "outsiders" 6. Inability to carry out change Greater incidences of five of the facilitators were found in the three change-oriented departments as compared to the three nonchangeor iented departments. They were Facilitators 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (listed above). Facilitator 2 (individual members advocating change) was found in equal numbers in both of the groups. It is important to note that Facilitators 3 (presence of a

PAGE 330

321 change agent) and 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration) had sufficient evidence to support their consideration in discussions on change in departments in collegiate nursing programs. The changeor iented departments had 24 of the 34 total positive responses (73.6%) collected on the incidence of Facilitator 3 (presence of a change agent) and had 32 out of 42 total positive responses (72.71) collected on the incidence of Facilitator 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration). The change agents (Facilitator 3) found in the change-oriented departments included persons and influences that had sufficient impact on the departments to produce change. The presence of Facilitator 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration) was strongly evident in the change-oriented departments. Clearly stated goals for these departments and the nursing programs represented by them were accepted by the faculty. The overall program objectives allowed the faculty adequate freedom to meet their own goals. It was obvious that the plan for meeting the individuals' goals and the organizational problems was adequate to facilitate planned change.

PAGE 331

Also strongly represented in the changeoriented departments as compared to the nonchange or iented depart ments were Facilitators 1 (internal support for change) and 4 (retraining members for new tasks). The internal support for change (Facilitator 1) was particularly evident by the deans' actions in two of the nursing programs represented by the change-oriented departments. The sizes of departments (3 to 8 members in this study) in many collegiate nursing programs are small and sensitive to internal disruptions. Internal support from deans, other departments, and students was suggested to have had a role in the changes made by these departments Incidence of adequate funds (Facilitator 5) perceived to be present in the change-oriented departments by the respective faculty members accounted for 23 of the 50 total positive responses (57.5%). The faculties in both groups of departments appeared to make changes that were relatively inexpensive. Although they perceived adequate funds to be available, they continued to make minimal budget requests. The implications are that changes in departments may not be indicative of desired changes but indicative of changes made to remain within a given amount of money. Greater incidence of three of the resistors was found in the three nonchangeor iented departments as compared to the three change-oriented departments. They

PAGE 332

were Resistors 1 (conformity to norms), 2 (systemic and cultural coherence), and 3 (vested interest). Resistors 4 (the sacrosanct), 5 (rejection of "outsiders"), and 6 (inability to carry out change) were found to have greater incidence in the change or iented departments. Of the resistors found in the nonchange-oriented departments, Resistor 3 (vested interest) occurred most frequently. It accounted for 15 out of the 19 total responses (78.9%) collected in both groups of departments. Vested interests appeared to develop in the nonchange-oriented departments because of the traditional organizational structure. These structures produced segregation and strong faculty identification with a single department. These particular factors were relatively absent in the change-oriented departments because of a nontraditional departmental structure and the identification of faculty with more than one department. Resistors 1 (conformity to norms) and 2 (systemic and cultural coherence) in the nonchange oriented departments accounted for 21 of 36 (58.3%) and for 28 of 46 (60.9%) total positive responses collected from both groups of departments, respectively. The conformity to norms and the incidence of systemic and cultural coherence appeared greater in the nonchangeoriented departments because of the long history of the programs. Although the incidences of Resistors 4 (the

PAGE 333

324 sacrosanct) and 5 (rejection of "outsiders") were found in greater numbers in changeor iented departments, the total responses collected from both groups of departments were small and therefore greatly limited the inferences that could be made from these data. Resistor 6 (inability to carry out change) was found in greater incidence in the change-oriented departments although the differences was only 6.71 of the total positive responses. The change-oriented departments and the nonchange-oriented departments reported similar factors that inhibited change. The incidence of Resistor 6 in both groups of departments suggested the great impact outside facilities have on departments in collegiate nursing programs. The conclusions are summarized below. 1. Facilitator 1 (internal support for change) was strongly represented in the changeoriented departments. 2. Facilitator 2 (individual members advocating change) was found to be equally present in the change-oriented and nonchange-oriented departments . 3. Facilitator 3 (presence of a change agent) was strongly supported in the changeoriented departments .

PAGE 334

325 4. Facilitator 4 (retraining members for new tasks) was strongly represented in the change-oriented departments. 5. Facilitator 5 (adequate funding) was perceived to be present in the change-oriented departments and accounted for 57.51 of the 50 total positive responses. 6. Facilitator 6 (adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration) was strongly represented in the change-oriented departments . 7. Resistor 1 (conformity to norms) was present in the nonchange-oriented departments in greater numbers than in the change-oriented departments . 8. Resistor 2 (systemic and cultural coherence) was strongly represented in the nonchangeoriented departments. 9. Resistor 3 (vested interest) was found in the nonchange-oriented departments in greater percentage (78.9%) than the other five resistors. 10. Resistor 4 (the sacrosanct) was found in greater number in the changeor iented departments than in the nonchange-oriented

PAGE 335

326 departments, but the total responses collected were small and therefore the results were inconclusive . 11. Resistor 5 (rejection of "outsiders") was found in the changeor iented departments in greater number than in the nonchangeoriented departments but the total number of positive responses was minimal and inconclus ivc. 12. Resistor 6 (inability to carry out change) was found in greater incidence in the changeoriented departments than in the nonchangeoriented departments although the difference was only 6.71. Recommendations for Further Study Four collegiate nursing programs were selected for this study; therefore it is not possible to generalize to the total population of collegiate nursing programs, and the findings in this study must be regarded as preliminary to further work. Since this study focused upon the application of change theory to departments within collegiate nursing programs, other studies should be conducted to introduce the five facilitators (internal support for change, presence of a change agent, retraining

PAGE 336

members for new tasks, adequate funding, and adequacy of plan for meeting organization members' needs and the organizational problems under consideration) found to be present in change-oriented departments into a collegiate nursing department to determine the effect of these facilitators on producing change. Likewise, the three resistors (conformity to norms, systemic and cultural coherence, and vested interest) found to be present in the nonchangc-or iented departments should be studied by decreasing their impact in a collegiate nursing department to observe the effect on changes produced. Finally, because the results of this study had significant implications for the total nursing programs represented by the six departments studied, further study should be carried out to determine the effect that the nursing program administration may have upon the facilitators and/or resistors found in individual nursing departments.

PAGE 337

.APPENDICES

PAGE 338

APPENDIX A DEPARTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE As a part of my research on the applicability of change theory to nursing education, some information is needed from the department chairpersons in your college of nursing. All information given will be kept completely confidential . Names will not be used in the research report and your personal responses will be available only to the researcher. Your open and frank opinions about the department are needed and will be essential to this research pro j ect . Department Chairperson: Department: College: If someone other than the department chairperson completed the questionnaire, please state name and position: 329

PAGE 339

330 In the following questionnaire, you are asked to circle the appropriate number that best describes your department. YOUR RESPONSES SHOULD REFLECT CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE PAST THREE (3) YEARS (1973January, 1976) Section A : This section of the questionnaire is concerned with changes which have occurred in the department. 1. This department has added 0 1 2 3 4 or more course (s) as a result of faculty requests. Comments 2. This department has participated in the development of 0 1 2 3 4 or more interdisciplinary program(s) or course(s). Comments 3. This department has added 0 1 2 3 4 or more new topics of content in one course as a result of student requests. Comments . 4. This department has been represented in team teaching by 0 1 2 3 4 or more faculty member(s). Comment s

PAGE 340

331 5. This department has added 0 12 3 4 or more new topics of content in one course as a result of a changing job market. Comments 6. This department has used 0 1 2 3 4 or more modules or learning packets in at least one course. Comments 7. This department has participated in the development of 0 1 2 3 4 or more remedial course(s), seminar(s) or program(s) for selected students. Comments 8. This department has developed 0 1 2 3 4 or more new field experiences in one or more of its courses. Comments

PAGE 341

332 Section B: This section of the questionnaire is concerned with your perceptions of your department and your performance of certain administrative duties and activities. Please indicate your choice by circling the appropriate number using the following scale: 0 = never 1 = seldom 2 = sometimes 3 = usually 4 = almost always 0 12 3 4 1. This department has adequate freedom in establishing the goals and priorities of the department. 0 12 3 4 2. This department has adequate freedom in selecting and hiring new faculty. 3. The faculty members in this department do a good job in keeping abreast of developments and trends in their fields . 4. The faculty members in this department are innovative in their work. 5. As department chairperson, I encourage innovativeness in the faculty. 6. As department chairperson, I have instigated important changes in the educational offerings (such as programs, courses, or instruction) of this department. 7. Please rank order your department with the other departments in the program as how change -or iented you perceive the various departments to be. (Use 0 as the least changeoriented and list all the departments.) 5 6

PAGE 342

APPENDIX B PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW GUIDE As a part of my research on the applicability of change theory to nursing education, some information is needed from a number of people like yourself who are or have been actively involved in the nursing program. All information given will be kept completely confidential . Names will not be used in the research report and your personal responses will be available only to the researcher. Your open and frank opinions about the departments in the program are needed and will be essential to this research project. Name Department No. of years in this department Position No. of years in this position 333

PAGE 343

334 1. Describe the atmosphere of change in the college. 2. Do you feel the Dean of the College has supported the department's ideas and plans for change? Explain. 3. Has your department experienced internal disruptions (i.e., changes in department chairpersons, new faculty) in the last three years? If yes, how did these disruptions affect the rate of change? 4. Do the various departments support each other in their plans for change? Explain.

PAGE 344

335 Are certain faculty members in the department promoters of change? If yes, how do they influence the remaining members of the department? Are all the members of the department involved in changes made in the department? Explain. Are there person(s), group(s) or influence(s) in the department that acted as a change agent to bring about a specific change in the department?

PAGE 345

336 9. Are there person(s), group(s) or influences (s) outside the department that acted as a change agent to bring about a specific change in the department? 10. Are there situations (s) where a faculty member has felt a change in the department would eliminate the need for his/her type of expertise? Describe. 11. When a major change occurs in the work load of a faculty member in the department (i.e., new teaching assignment, new clinical area, decreased teaching load), what kind of retraining or support is given the faculty member? 12. Do you feel the faculty have a right to expect the department to provide retraining if a change demands a new or little used skill?

PAGE 346

337 13. Does the department have adequate funding to support the changes the department has or wishes to make? 14. Does your department have any funds from outside sources (i.e., grants, gifts)? If yes, how does this type of funding affect the changes made in the department? 15. Does your department plan for changes (i.e., change in instructional methods, audio visuals) based on your own department budget? 16. Are some changes proposed that are not relevant and helpful to achieving the goals of the department?

PAGE 347

338 17. Are some changes instituted that are not an improvement over the present way of doing the job? 18. Have some changes been instituted in the department that you did not understand the necessity for? 19. Does the department allow for flexibility in meeting the goals of the department? Explain. 20. Have the changes (i.e., different instructional methods, rotation schedules) that have occurred in the department been introduced by group decisions or by an individual promoting a new practice area or teaching method? Explain.

PAGE 348

339 21. Are there or have there been faculty members in the department that ignored group decisions? If yes, discuss how the dissenting faculty member is accepted by the group. 22. How do the faculty within the department address each other? The Dean? Students? 23. What behaviors and/or factors identify your department (i.e., social patterns)? 24. What relationship do you see between the length of time the department chairperson has been in the position and the kind of changes the department makes?

PAGE 349

340 25. What are your attitudes about students transferring into your course without having the basic courses from your program? 26. Is it difficult for a transfer student to do well in your department? 27. Are there certain freedoms (i.e., instructional methods) you now have that you are unwilling to give up if a new course format was planned? 28. What role should the administration of the college play in changes made in the department?

PAGE 350

341 29. What are your attitudes toward capping, pinning, white uniforms, caps for nurses? 30. Have there been changes that have been suggested by outside sources? What are "reasons" they were or were not incorporated? 31. Are there instances where the department favored a change but was unable to carry it out? 32. Are there instances where the department was unable to carry out a change because necessary materials and equipment were unavailable?

PAGE 351

342 APPENDIX C DOCUMENT REVIEW AND OBSERVATION GUIDE Observation Place Date Participants Document Date Participants

PAGE 352

343 Internal Support for Changes Evidence of internal disruptions ( i . e. , changes in chairpersons, dean) that may have caused the department to resist change at that time. Evidence of interorganizat ional change forces (i.e., other departments, administrators, students) that moved the department toward change. Evidence of Dean's leadership in discussion of change Individual Members Advocated Change Evidence of strong group behavior that influenced individual members' attitudes toward change. Evidence of dominant members of the group that bring less dominant members along.

PAGE 353

344 Evidence of group compatibility and agreement once a change is decided upon. The Presence of a Change Agent Evidence of a person working to bring about a planned change Evidence of a group working to bring about a planned change. Evidence of influence moving the group toward a change. Retraining of Members for New Tasks Evidence of time allowed for faculty development. Evidence of support for retraining. i

PAGE 354

345 Evidence of changes that have occurred that would require retraining of some faculty members. Adequate Funding Evidence of concern for adequate funding when discussions of changes are held. Evidence that inadequate funds were considered as impeding change. Evidence that adequate funds were considered as a facilitating factor of change. Evidence of change occurring based on outside grants.

PAGE 355

346 Adequac y of Plan for Meeting Organization Members Needs and the Organizational Problems Under Consideratio n Evidence that changes were seen as relevant to the individual faculty member. Evidence that individual members did not anticipate an improvement by the change. Evidence that information was shared about the organizational goals and input in decision making was supported. Conformity to Norms Evidence that individuals were expected to conform to department's expectations (i.e., lunch times, clinical hours, vacation times). Evidence of exclusion by the department of members, who ignore departmental norms.

PAGE 356

Indications of how the faculty within the department address each other. The Dean. Students. Systemic and Cultural Coherence Evidence that patterns of nonchange are present. Indications that prevailing values and beliefs of the departments are carried on by the members. Indications that the length of time the department chairperson lias been in the position lias influenced the changes made . Vested Interest Indications that changes were made based on economic or prestige interest of individual members.

PAGE 357

348 Indications that proposed changes were hindered by fear of loss of freedom (i.e., set own hours, choice of clinical setting) . Indications of how department members react to transfer students (i.e., different basic preparations). The Sacrosanct Indications that traditional ceremonies and articles (i.e capping, pinning, white uniform, caps) are important despite doubts as to their education impact. Rejection of "Outsiders" Evidence that "reasons" are found not to incorporate change that has come from the outside. Inability to Carry Out Change Indications that the department members may have favored the change but were unable to carry it out.

PAGE 358

349 Indications that the department members did not understand how to carry out the innovation.

PAGE 359

REFERENCES Abdellah, F. G. Overview of nursing research 1955-1968. Nu rsing Research , 1970, 19, 6-17. Acevcs, J. B. Exploring social/cultural anthropology . Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1 9 7 4. Allport, F. H. A structuring of events: Outline of a general theory with applications to psychology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1962, 64, 3-30. Arensberg, C. M. , $ Niehoff, A. H. Introducing social change . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1964 . ~~ Benne , K. L). , § Birnbaum, M. Principles of changing. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, § R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change . New York: Holt, Rinehart 5 Winston, Inc. , 1969. Bennis, W. G. Changing organizations . New York: McGrawHill, 1966": Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D. , § Chin, R. Introduction. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, $ R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change . New York: Holt, Rinehart § Winston, Inc. , 1969 . Bcrelson, B., § Steiner, G. A. Human behavior: An in ventory of scientific findings . New York: Ha r court, Brace $ World, 1964. Bcvis, E. 0. Curriculum building in nursing . Saint Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1973 . Boyan, N. J. Problems and issues of knowledge production and utilization in educatio nal admin i strat ion . UTS . Department of Health, Education ^ Welfare, Olti c e of Education, 1967. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 016 278) 350

PAGE 360

351 Davis, J. Selected perceptions of chairmen in high inno vative and low innovative departments . Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1975. Dewey, J. Liberalism and social action. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1935. Diers, D. This I believe . . . about nursing research. Nu rsing Outlook , 1970 , 1_8 , 5054. Dressel, P. L. College and university curriculum . Berkeley McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1971. Eicholz, G. , $ Rogers, E. M. Resistance to the adoption of audiovisual aids by elementary school teachers: Contrasts and similarities to agricultural innovation. In M. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in educa t ion . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Eye, G. G., § Netzer, L. A. The tension-penetration interaction model. In L. A. Netzer $ G. G. Eye (Eds.), Education, administration, and change . New York: Harper f. Row , 1970 . Facts about nursing . Kansas City, Missouri: American Nurses Association, 1974. Fox, D. J. The research process in education . New York: Molt , Rinehart § Winston, Inc., 1969. Frerechs, M. Generalizations in nursing instruction. Journal of Nursing Education , 1971, 9(1), 35-38. Ginzberg, E., $ Reilley, E. Effective change in large organizations . New York! Columbia University Press, 1957. Goldberg, M. L. Evaluation of innovation. In M. Lawler (Ed.), Strategies for planned curricula innovation . New YorFi Teachers College Press, 1970 . Goode, W. J., £ Hatt, P. K. Methods in social research . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952. Greiner, L. Antecedents of planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 1967, 3, 51-85. (a)

PAGE 361

352 Greiner L. Patterns of organizational change. Harvard Business Revie w, 1967, 45, 119128. (b) Griffiths, D. E. Administrative theory and change in organizations. In M. Miles (Ed.), Innovation m ed ucation . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Gross, N., Giacquinta, J., § Bernstein, M. Im plement ing organizational innovations . New York: Basic, Inc. , 1971. Hamann, J. A. A survey of innovations, factors that bring about innovation, and strategies for change (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1972, 32, 4285A. (University Microfilms No. 72-5535, 197) Hanna-Boules , N. E. Organizational variables and innovativeness in collegiate nursing institutions: A comparative study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1973, 33, 5514A-5515A. (University Microfilms No. 73-6814, 444) Hefferlin, J. B. Dynamics of academic reform . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass , Inc., 1969. Heiss, A. M. Ch allenge to graduate schools . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass , Inc . , 1970 . Hobbs, D. The study of change as a concept in rural sociology. Theory Into Practice , 1966, 5_, 20-24. Jacox, A. The research component in the nursing service administration master's program. The Journal of Nursing Administration , 1974, 4(2), 35-38. Katz, D., 5 Festinger, L. (Eds.). Research methods in the behavior sciences . New York: Dryden Press, 1953. Katz, D. , f, Kahn, R. L. The social psychology of organiza tions . New York: John Wiley sons, Inc . , 1966 . Ketefian, S. Knowledge utilization in the process of accepting selected innovations in baccalaureate education in nursing (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1972). Dissert at ion Abstracts International , 1973 , 3_3 , 2695A. (University Microfilms No. 72-30, 331)

PAGE 362

353 Lcwin, K. Field theory in social science . New York: Harper $ Brothers, 1951. Lionberger, H. F. Strategy implications for planned curricular changes in education: Inferences from diffusion research. In M. Lawler (Ed.), St rategies for pla nned curricula innovations . New York : Teachers College Press, 1970. Lippitt, G. L. Or ganizational renewal . New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts , 1969. Lippitt, R. , § Colleagues. The teacher as innovator, seeker, and sharer of new practices. In R. I. Miller (Ed.), Perspectives on educational change . New York: ApplctonCenturyCrofts , 1967 . Lippitt, R. , Watson, J., $ Westley, B. The dynamics of planned change . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 19 58. Mann, F. C, $ Neff, F. W. Managing major change in or ganization s . Ann Arbor , Michigan : The Foundation for Research in Human Behavior, 1961. McCabe, R. N. The influence structures in curriculum matters within six southeastern junior colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1964). Dissertation Abstracts Internationa l , 196 7, 28 , 433A-436A. (University Microfilms No. 66-6932, 282) Miles, M. Innovation in education: Some generalizations. In M. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in education . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Nellis, R. Training for research. The Journal of Nursing Education , 1971, 10(2), 27-36. Notter, L. E. Nursing research January 1971. Nursing Research , 1971 , 20_, 3. Okunode, B. The nurse within the health team. Internat ional Nursing Review , 197 5 , 2/2, 46-49. Purdy, L. N. A case study of acceptance and rejection of innovation by faculty in a community college (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1973). D issertation Abstracts International , 1974 , 34_, 7006A-70077C (University Microfilms No. 74-11, 563)

PAGE 363

354 Reynolds, J. J. A study of factors affecting the adoption of educational innovations in selected secondary schools (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1970), Dissertation Abstracts International , 1970, 31, 2659A2660A. (University Microfilms No. 7 023 ,377). Schein, E. II. , Kommers, D. W. Professional education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 197T: Shephard, H. A. Innovation-resisting and innovationproducing organizations. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, $ R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change . New York: Holt, Rinehart $ Winston , Inc . , 1969 . Spalding, E. K. Professional nursing . Philadephia : J. B. Lippincott Company, 1959. Watson, G. Resistance to change. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, $ R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change . New York: Holt, Rinehart, $ Winston, Inc., 1969. Whyte, W. F. Observational field-work methods. In M. Jahoda, M. Deutsch, ^ S. Cook (Eds.), Research methods in social relations . New York": The Dryden Press, 1951 . Whyte, W. H. The organizational man. New York: Simon 5 Schuster, Inc., 1956. Zander, A. Resistance to change— its analysis and prevention. Advanced Management, 1950, 1_5, 9-11.

PAGE 364

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mary Ann Coward Parsons was born in Columbia, South Carolina, where she attended Eau Claire High School. She received a diploma from the Medical College of South Carolina School of Nursing in Charleston, South Carolina, and a B. S. degree in Nursing from the University of South Carolina. In 1971, she completed the M. A. in Teaching degree from the Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina . She held nursing faculty appointments at the Medical University of South Carolina (1969-1972) and at the University of Florida (1973-1974). In 1975, she began full-time doctoral study in Higher Education Administration at tbc University of Florida. She holds memberships in the American Nurses Association, Sigma Theta Tau (National Honor Society for Nursing), and Kappa Delta Pi (Honor Society in Education). She is married to George Sterling Parsons and has a daughter, Nicole Coward, and a son, Kent Sterling. 355

PAGE 365

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. lames L. Wattenbarger , Chairperson Professor of Educational Administration I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ralph B. Kimbrough Professor of Educational Administration I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Blanche I . Urey Dean and Professor of Nurs ing This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August, 1976 Dean, College of Education Dean, Graduate School