Teacher Education, Educational Leadership & Policy ETDs

Publication Date

1-28-1976

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between the structure of knowledge of academic disciplines and the social structures of their associated university departments. It was designed to generate propositions which could be ordered into a theory to explain and predict departmental processes of decision making and influence in curriculum planning. Initially two concepts guided selection of departments for study and classification of data. Kuhn's (1962, 1970) concept of paradigm calls attention to several conditions of knowledge in a discipline, including: (1) the number of symbolic generalizations (expressions which can be used without question or dissent); (2) the extent of shared beliefs in particular models which define the criteria both for selection of research problems and for evaluation of their solutions; and (3) shared values. The French and Raven (1968) typology of social power was used to categorize data on intra-departmental influence. French and Raven use the perceptions of the influenced individual to define five types of social power: (1) reward power; (2) coercive power; (3) legitimate power; (4) referent power; and (5) expert power. Three departments of similar size and degree of complexity in a midwestern university of approximately 20,000 students were selected for study. Chemistry and political science were selected as representatives of fields at the extremes of high and low paradigm development respectively. Mechanical engineering was selected as a discipline in a professional school. The primary data source was a series of lengthy unstructured interviews with faculty in the three departments. Additional data were obtained from questionnaires, various documents, e.g., departmental reports to the Graduate Committee, and minutes of department meetings. As the data were analyzed, Homans' (1950) social systems theory emerged as the conceptual framework within which the major elements identified in the study could best be explained and interrelated. From Homans' basic theory, a model of the development of departmental social structures as a function of paradigm development was derived. This model links disciplinary paradigm development to departmental decision making, influence processes, elaboration of external and internal systems, and the crystallization of norm structures. Research on the effects of task clarity on task groups supported this model (Anderson, 1975; Raven & Rietsma, 1960). The study found that if the discipline exhibits a high degree of paradigm development, the potential for intra-departmental conflict over curriculum is low, and the perceived desirability of group decision making relative to curriculum planning is high. As a result, the external system is elaborated as faculty interact frequently in the formal decision making process. The elaboration of the external system in turn promotes the elaboration of the internal system of informal interactions. The extensive interactions promote the development of a highly crystallized norm structure which governs the exercise of influence. Departmental decision making tends to be time consuming because all members tend to participate in all decisions. Conversely, the study found that if the discipline exhibits a low degree of paradigm development, the potential for intra-departmental conflict over curriculum is high, and the perceived desirability of group decision making in curriculum planning is low. As a result, the external system remains unelaborated as faculty interact as little as possible in the formal decision making process. The internal system also remains unelaborated. The low interaction rate prevents the growth of a crystallized norm structure. Factors other than group norms limit the exercise of influence. Members of the department attempt to avoid situations in which influence might be exercised. With few normative controls, junior faculty may be especially vulnerable when senior faculty choose to exert influence. A pluralistic pattern of decision making, in which only those faculty affected by the outcome participate in decisions, develops. The discipline's structure of knowledge is a significant aspect of the department's technological environment. It determines both the clarity of the department's teaching tasks and the degree of consensus about those tasks. The extent of task clarity and departmental consensus determine the degree of elaboration of the social system, the nature of departmental decision making processes, and the exercise of influence among faculty members.

Document Type

Dissertation

Language

English

Degree Name

Educational Leadership

Level of Degree

Doctoral

Department Name

Teacher Education, Educational Leadership & Policy

First Committee Member (Chair)

Ronald Eugene Blood

Second Committee Member

Paul Arnold Pohland

Third Committee Member

Richard Lee Holemon

Download

Share

COinS