This study investigated school innovativeness and a number of variables commonly found to be associated with this phenomenon in similar North American studies. Analysis of data collected from a sample of Victorian Catholic secondary schools revealed that only teacher age and extent of professional reading appeared to be significantly related to innovativeness. Subsequent factor analysis suggested the importance to school innovativeness of a ‘career consolidation’ factor and an ‘awareness’ factor. The concept of organizational inertia, developed as part of the theoretical framework of this study, also emerged as a relatively important concept.
References
1.
Vaughan, Archbishop Roger B. Letter to Alderman O'ConnorJ. G.. October 29, 1881. In FogartyR.Catholic Education in Australia, 1806–1950. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1959, plate 5, p. 262.
2.
See McGrathHelen M. Innovation in Catholic education. Unpublished dissertation, University of New England, 1971.
3.
McGrathHelen M. Innovation in Catholic education. Unpublished dissertation, University of New England, 1971.
4.
LippittG. L.Organization Renewal. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969, 144.
5.
MilesM. B.Innovation in Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Teachers College Press, 1964, 14.
6.
MillerR. I.Perspectives on Educational Change. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967, iv.
7.
CarlsonR. O.Executive Succession and Organizational Change. Chicago: Midwest Administration Centre, University of Chicago, 1962.
8.
A third factor, organizational back bias, was originally considered. By definition, this syndrome represented forces attempting to return a school to a previous level of operation. It was argued that the extent and the outcome of such would be minimal and could therefore be disregarded in the current study.
9.
See, for example, MarxT. F. A factor analytic study of educational innovations and aspects of the adoption process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa, 1970. See also Diss. Abstracts, 31–06A, 2649; Scott, J. L. N. Boards' and superintendents' perceptions of the superintendent as an agent for innovative change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1970. See also Diss. Abstracts, 31–05A, 2077.
10.
See, for example, LeasA. A study to determine the characteristics of innovative and traditional educators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, 1965. See also Diss. Abstracts, 26, 5132–3; Gormley, J. D. Dogmatism and change in teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1969. See also Diss. Abstracts, 31–01A, 63.
11.
RogersE. M.Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1962.
12.
ChamblissE. J.Attitudes of teachers towards adopting innovations and the relationships of these attitudes to other variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1968, Texas Tech. University. See alsoDiss. Abstracts, 29, 4368A.
13.
AbbottM. G.LovellJ. T.Change Perspectives in Educational Administration. Auburn: School of Education, 1965, 40–53.
14.
MillerE. L.Correlation of risk-taking and selected socio-professional variables of public school superintendents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, 1969. See alsoDiss. Abstracts, 29, 3807A.
15.
See, for example, AllenJ. E. The adoption of innovations and the personality of the superintendent of schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1967. See also Diss. Abstracts, 28, 2005A; Hawkins, W. D. Some factors which contribute to successful educational innovation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1968. See also Diss. Abstracts, 28, 4410–1A.
16.
See, for example, HallC. L. Relationships of origin and tenure of superintendents to the organizational climate and adaptability of schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1966. See also Diss. Abstracts, 27, 2027A; Yeager, J. F. An exploratory study to identify characteristics of the social innovator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1969. See also Diss. Abstracts, 30–11A, 4753.
17.
AllenJ. E., op. cit..
18.
LawrenceC. J.Personality characteristics of school superintendents who implement innovation in the public schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, 1968. See alsoDiss. Abstracts, 29, 1397-BA.
19.
CorlS. S. The relationships between student teacher innovative behaviors and selected attitude perceptions and personality characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969. See also Diss. Abstracts, 31–02A, 661.
20.
See, for example, LeasA., op. cit.; Jenkins, J. M. A study of the characteristics associated with innovative behavior in teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1967. Also in Diss. Abstracts, 28, 903–4 A.
21.
See, for example, LeasA., op. cit.; Jenkins, J. M., op. cit.; Peach, S. W. Relationships between certain factors in the role of the school principal and the adoption of innovative instructional practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1970.
22.
CarlsonR. O., op. cit..
23.
See, for example, HannselJ. F. Selected variables relating to the receptivity of curriculum directors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo, 1970; Littleton, V. C. A study of the factors contributing to the predisposition of elementary principals to try selected innovations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, 1970. Also in Diss. Abstracts, 31, 1544 A.
24.
CarlsonR. O.Environmental constraints and organizational consequences: The public school and its clients. In GriffithsD. E. (Ed.) Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. N.S.S.E. Yearbook, LXIII, Part II. Illinois: University of Chicago, 1964, 262–276.
25.
ThomasA. R. Innovativeness and organizational climate in a sample of South Australian primary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New England, 1972. Also Thomas, A. Ross. The innovative school: some organizational characteristics. Australian Journal of Education, 1973, 17, 113–130.
26.
ThomasA. R. Innovativeness and organizational climate in a sample of South Australian primary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New England, 1972. Also Thomas, A. Ross. The innovative school: some organizational characteristics. Australian Journal of Education, 1973, 17, 113–130.
27.
HallC. L., op. cit..
28.
MillerR. I., op. cit., 382.
29.
BlauP.Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random House, 1963.
