A STUDY OF THE INNOVATION PROCESS AND ADAPTATION OF FACULTY GROWTH CONTRACTING

This study examines the innovation process of an educational innovation called faculty growth contracting within a five-stage framework developed by Eveland and Rogers. One stage of the model involves "redefining" the innovation to address specific conditions in the organization. This research considers the applicability of the Eveland/Rogers model and the issue of adaptation during the innovation process. In addition, a framework developed by Munson and Pelz is used to classify growth contracting as a software innovation of relatively low technological and embedding complexity, thus allowing for generalizations to similar innovations.;The data support the applicability of the Eveland/Rogers stages. Criteria established for each stage were evident in the settings under study. Several Eveland/Rogers premises were also supported: (1) One premise suggests that innovations are composed of numerous components, any of which may be included in the innovation process. Seven elements of the Gordon College model were identified and traced through the model stages. (2) Eveland and Rogers develop the concept of "specification" as the gradual shaping of an innovation rather than a single adoption decision. The data supported the concept of specification through a series of small-scale decisions in each setting. (3) Another premise identifies a distinction between decisions related to "tool" (the innovation itself) and "use" (how that tool is used). The data revealed a variety of tool and use decisions as the model was modified in different settings. (4) The data support the Eveland/Rogers suggestion that an innovation will vary in its forms of adoption. Because elements of growth contracting could be adopted, adapted, or rejected, variations in the model emerged.;While the data support the applicability of the Eveland/Rogers model and its underlying premise, several concerns emerged in applying the framework to growth contracting: (1) The Eveland/Rogers conclusions were drawn from research on two complex technological innovations. The implementation of growth contracting required little of the technological expertise, coalition building, and restructuring of the organization which are suggested within stages of the Eveland/Rogers model. (2) Although the distinction between tool and use was evident, the software nature of growth contracting in which the "tool" involved the behavior of participants resulted in a rather nebulous distinction between the tool and its use. (3) The model does not address the impact of the nature of the innovation on the stages of the innovation process. The subsequent Munson/Pelz framework discusses that issue; several relevant propositions are considered in this study.;The issue of adaptation is studied within the framework of the Eveland/Rogers model. Trends in the adaptation of the Gordon College model were primarily toward simplification of the model. Written long-range planning and the use of advisory committees were frequently rejected. The core element of the model involves the use of annual goal-setting, which appeared in 19 of the 20 settings.;The sample was comprised of participants from 49 institutions who attended a 1977 conference on growth contracting at Gordon College (Wenham, Massachusetts). A contact person from each institution provided data on subsequent activity through two mail surveys and two telephone interviews over a 17 month period. Eight institutions at various stages of the innovation process were selected for subsequent site visits.;The implications of these findings for future research and for higher education are discussed.