Quantitative data collection

The first phase consisted of a quantitative research design with the self - administered survey, Communication Research Measures: Individual Innovativeness and Organizational Innovativeness (McCroskey, 2006). Self-administered surveys allow for numerous or complex questions to be asked (Fowler, 2009). As Corbetta (2003) states,

“the only way we can explore motivation, attitudes, beliefs, feelings, perceptions and expectations is by asking” (p.117). Survey research is a way to gather information from

participants using a standardized procedure. Accordingly, all participants are asked the same questions and in the same way. Similarly, their answers to the survey are also categorized in a standard format. This ensures that participant responses “can be compared and analyzed statistically” (Corbetta, 2003, p. 118). It also helps the researcher maintain a sense of neutrality during the survey phase.

Corbetta (2003) points out that the study of social phenomena poses a dilemma when viewing survey research design from a “standardized” objective lens. First, “the researcher is ‘in this world; and of this world’ he has his reactions, perceptions, angle of vision and mindset, which will necessarily condition him and prevent him from playing the role of ‘neutral’ recorder” (p. 121). Another criticism of survey research design centers on the issue of it being homogenous in that all participants have similar levels of maturity, sensitivity and poise. Third, that it limits participant responses to the “average” individual, which prohibits an “above or below” response to questions (Corbetta, 2003, p.122).

However, for the purposes of my study the survey approach provided a systematic and standardized form of data that allowed for: 1) statistical analysis and comparisons of principal’s perceptions of innovation, and 2) background information that informed the second qualitative phase of this study.

The survey was distributed to all 47 school principals only of the selected suburban school district through an electronic survey. This included elementary (K- 5), middle (6-8), and secondary levels (9-12) as well as an alternative learning school (Kindergarten to grade 12). Information collected provided general demographic data as well as statistical differences between the participants completing the survey. Results also provided a way of categorizing participants into Rogers’ (2003) five innovativeness adopter categories.

This provided information relating to statistical differences (and similarities) among the

participants. More importantly, the quantitative data collected of principals’ perceptions of innovation provide a cross section of “innovativeness adopter categories” for the second phase of selecting participants for the qualitative research design—personal interviews.

Survey instrument

The survey instrument used in this study to collect data pertaining to principals’

perceptions of innovation was developed by the work of Dr. James McCroskey and other researchers at West Virginia University based on Hurt and Teigen (1977) and Hurt and Cook (1977) communication research measures. They developed a set of communication research measures for a variety of social phenomenon. For the purpose of this study on principals’ perceptions of innovativeness, I used the Communication Research Measures:

Individual Innovativeness (II) & Perceived Organizational Innovativeness Scale (PORGI).

These instruments are permission free for the purposes of research and instruction (http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/).

The premise of the Individual Innovativeness scale was to measure individuals’

orientation to change. According to McCroskey (2006), research indicates that “this orientation is associated with several communication variables” and has high reliability and good predictive validity (Individual Innovativeness, 2006). Similarly, the Perceived Organizational Innovativeness Scale was meant to “measure a member of an organizations perception of the organizations orientations toward change” (Perceived Organizational Innovativeness Scale (PORGI), McCroskey, 2006). McCroskey (2006) adds that this scale is highly reliable with an alpha score of .90 along with good predictive validity. These instruments were adapted to the context of my study with the substitution of “principal” for “superintendent” as the participant (Mitchell, 2008).

The survey was comprised of two sections (See Appendix A, p. 250). First were the sections pertaining to individual innovativeness and organizational innovativeness as perceived by school principals. There were 45 statements in total to measure individual and organizational innovativeness. Using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree, principals recorded their level of agreement. A numerical value was assigned to each answer that corresponds to the number assigned to each category. Both measurements (individual &

organizational innovativeness) have a three step process which calculates the aggregate score that, in turn, is converted to an innovativeness category based on Rogers’ (2003) classifications of: 1) innovative; 2) early adopter; 3) early majority; 4) late majority and 5) laggard or traditionalist.

The last section of the survey instrument pertains to the demographical information of the principal participants. There are four statements and questions for response from participants. Information to statements/questions were related to participants, age, gender, years of experience and professional development practices, (adapted from, Mitchell, 2008 and Williams, 2013 partially replicated studies).

Pilot test of survey

My purpose in the first phase was to partially replicate the previous studies of Mitchell (2008) and Williams (2013) substituting school principals as study participants in place of school superintendents. Thus, it was important to maintain the integrity of the original studies as well as to use the Communication Research Measures: Individual Innovativeness (II) & Perceived Organizational Innovativeness Scale (PORGI) survey instrument, which was deemed to be reliable from the previous studies. Since my survey

was to be administered as a computer based online format it was also important to test it for technical functionality purposes.

My first step was to send an email to four school principals in two neighbouring school districts explaining the purpose of my study and asking if they would be willing to participate in a pilot test. The sample consisted of four male elementary school principals with varying years of principal experience ranging from three to over ten years. The main reason for choosing this sample was that I had known them as colleagues from previous principal positions that I had held in their respective school districts. Two of the four principals agreed to participate in the pilot test.

The next step consisted of emailing instructions along with a website link needed to complete the survey. As part of the instructions I included a brief “Pilot Survey Letter &

Critique” (see Appendix D, p. 257) document to be completed in order to provide me with feedback regarding the survey. The first statement of the critique requested information regarding the amount of time needed to complete the survey. The choices ranged from

“less than 5 minutes” to “more than 15 minutes”. This would be important in regard to a potential drawback if the survey was too lengthy to complete time wise. The second statement was related to whether the directions for completing the survey were clear and easy to follow. Again, this was important to know so that the appropriate understanding of the statements would be critical to the final analysis of the actual findings from my study with principals in District X. The third question of the critique asked if the survey accurately reflected the views of the survey pilot principal. This information is important in terms of obtaining a sense of whether the principal was forthright with their responses. Lastly, the fourth question provided principals an opportunity to add any further comments or suggestions.

The two principals who participated and completed the survey responded that: a) they found it took approximately 20 - 25 minutes to complete b) they did not have any difficulties understanding the questions and statements, and c) they found that the survey was interesting and caused them to reflect on their perceptions of the innovation process.

I later confirmed the feedback with one of the principals when I discussed it with him in person.

Instrument reliability and validity

Campbell and Russo (2001) ask, “When measuring an unseen attitude or

personality trait, then, how can the social scientist be sure that the measure actually reflects the trait?” (p. 1). What they are saying in effect is how can a newly created measure such as a survey be deemed to be valid? Researchers have constructed several methods to test for or establish validity over the years. One of these is face validity better known as content validity. This is described as when an instrument gathers data that appears to measure the trait (Campbell & Russo, 2001). The original instrument design used by Hurt and Teigen (1977), and Hurt, Joseph and Cook (1977) was tested and demonstrated to have good validity. In addition, the previous two studies that I am replicating indicated similar results. I used Microsoft Office Excel 2016 statistical functions to test for relationships regarding innovativeness.

According to Juni (2007), reliability of instrument has two primary aspects: it is “(a) a reliable tool [that] will give similar results when applied by different users (such as technicians or psychologists). (b) It will also yield similar results when measuring the same object (or person) at different times” (p. 834). For the purposes of my study I will be using the survey instrument that Mitchell (2008) and Williams (2013) used in their studies. As previously mentioned researchers (Hurt & Teigen, 1977, and McCroskey et al., 2006)

established an alpha of .90 suggesting the instrument was internally reliable. Due to the small sample of my application I did not try to establish reliability within this context.

Data analysis

The first stage of this mixed-method research was to compile and analyze the data collected from the survey instrument. I used descriptive statistics for this process utilizing Microsoft Office Excel for Windows. This software is suitable for analysing data obtained by surveys. A p-value of .05 was used for statistical significance analysis. (adapted from Mitchell, 2008)

Research question 1: What are public school principals’ perceptions of their own individual innovativeness? Survey items 1 - 45 were calculated based on the responses from public school principals. Items 1 - 20 of the survey provided information on their perception of individual innovativeness. Composite means were calculated to determine central tendency and standard deviations were calculated to determine the dispersion of data.

Research question 2: What are public school principals’ perceptions of their organization’s innovativeness? Items 21 - 45 of the survey provided information on principals’ perceptions of organizational innovativeness for their schools. Composite means were calculated to determine central tendency and standard deviations were calculated to determine the dispersion of data.

Research question 3: Is there a difference between individual perceptions toward innovation and organizational perceptions toward innovation? Composite mean scores and standard deviations for the principals’ perceptions of individual and organizational

innovativeness were calculated for each respondent. The t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances was used to determine if a difference existed between individual perceptions toward innovation and organizational perceptions toward innovation.

Research question 4: Are differences in perceptions of public school principals’

regarding innovations related to organizational variables including school enrolment, financial resources, and professional development capacity? A t-test was used to determine if there were differences in the perceptions of public school principals regarding individual and organizational innovativeness related to school enrolment, financial resources and professional development capacity.

Research question 5: Are differences in perceptions of public school principals’

regarding innovation related to demographic factors including age, gender, professional development practices? T-tests were computed to determine if there were differences in the perceptions of public school principals regarding individual and organizational innovativeness related to age, gender, and professional development practices. (adapted from Williams, 2013, pp. 62-65)