AC 2012-3904: CURRICULUM INCUBATION: DATA-DRIVEN INNOVA-

TIVE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Dr. Judith A. Sunderman, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Judith Sunderman is a consultant focusing on program and curriculum development, research, and eval-
uation in education. She has recently served with the Illinois Foundry for Innovation in Engineering
Education (iFoundry) at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, providing technical assistance for
curriculum development. As evaluator with the I-STEM Education Initiative at the University of Illinois,
Sunderman focused on small-scale evaluation using short-cycle, coached-change to increase academic
performance. Other work has included evaluation of faculty training in P-12 career and technical educa-
tion for the Illinois State Board of Higher Education/Illinois State University; research and evaluation for
the Illinois Assessment and Accountability Project (Illinois State Board of Higher Education/University
of Illinois); and the Entrepreneurial Leadership in STEM Teaching and Learning (Project EnLiST - Na-
tional Science Foundation/University of Illinois). Her research focus and area of expertise is personal
development, sustainable transformative learning environments, and curricular change. She has worked
with curriculum/programs in a variety of areas, including teaching centers, engineering, business, honors,
national scholarship advising, animal sciences, human resource development, and education. Sunderman
received her Ph.D. in higher education leadership from the University of Illinois. She has an undergradu-
ate degree in English from DePauw University and an M.B.A. from Eastern Illinois University.

Dr. Raymond L. Price, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Professor Price was appointed to the William H. Severns Chair of Human Behavior in the College of
Engineering in 1998. As the Severns Chair, his primary charter is to provide opportunities for engineering
students to understand and develop skills in human behavior: interpersonal skills, leadership, teamwork,
and management skills.
Currently, Professor Price is the Co-Director of the Illinois Foundry for Innovation in Engineering Edu-
cation (iFoundry). The mission of iFoundry is to change radically the learning experiences of engineering
students.
Dr. Price was the Founding Director of the Illinois Leadership Center from 2002-2006. The Center’s
mission is to encourage leadership development among Illinois students by providing opportunities to
learn and then apply leadership skills.
Dr. Price initiated the Technology Entrepreneur Center in 1999 to support scientist and engineering en-
trepreneurs in the development and growth of new businesses. Through education, the Center prepares
students to start and grow companies. Through a network of support, the Center surrounds entrepreneurs
with a success environment that includes experienced advisors and viable investors.
Prior to joining the College of Engineering, Dr. Price had a career in industry working in management
and organization development and human resources at Allergan, Boeing and Hewlett-Packard.
Dr. Price earned a PhD degree in Organizational Behavior from Stanford University.

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2012
 Curriculum Incubation: Data-driven Innovative Instructional Design

Abstract
The curriculum incubator is a change strategy that nurtures innovative instructional
design. Within the incubator, faculty test ideas outside of the official curriculum. The intention
of this research and development process is to minimize early resistance and demonstrate
methods that work.

This study probed faculty perceptions about incubator characteristics and effectiveness
during the first year of operation. An existing instrument, the Situational Outlook Questionnaire
(SOQ), which measures organizational capacity for innovation, was adapted for use.

Results indicated that faculty perceived high levels of nine characteristics called
dimensions of innovation. Support for New Ideas and Time to Explore Ideas were identified as
the most valuable. Results for the curriculum incubator compared favorably to earlier studies of
organizations with a track record of innovation.

The wider significance of this study is about leadership. Within the secure environment
of the curriculum incubator, individuals had the time and the opportunity to refine their teaching
in ways that made personal sense, and moved the organization forward.

Body of the Paper

The curriculum incubator is an organizational change strategy that nurtures innovative

instructional design and educational improvement. Based on a model for business development,
the curriculum incubator offers a protected environment, a temporal space, in which faculty can
experiment with new approaches to teaching and learning. Curricular alternatives are tested and
refined in an environment free from challenges, criticism, or ridicule. Faculty are encouraged to
work collaboratively bouncing ideas off one another in ways that support dialogue about
teaching and learning. Incubated courses and programs are piloted and student outcomes
documented on a small scale outside the official curriculum.

The purpose of curriculum incubation is to create an environment free from situational

influences and organizational realities known to impede innovation and change. Within the
incubator, faculty test and refine ideas over time in a cyclic research and development process
structured to minimize early resistance to change and demonstrate practices that work. The
incubator relies on voluntary participation at all levels. Faculty who wish to participate opt in to
the incubator by proposing to explore a novel approach to instructional design. Students
volunteer to participate by enrolling in an experimental course or program. Departments review
proposed experimental curriculum, support faculty participation, and allow students to exchange
enrollment in experimental sections with credit for a similar course in the official curriculum.

1
 Because the concept of curriculum incubation is a relatively recent outgrowth of
educational improvement initiatives, the model is still evolving. Little research exists on
incubator effectiveness at producing organizational change, innovative instructional design, or
sustained educational improvement. Data for this study was gathered over a period of 4.5 months
during the second half of the first year of the curriculum incubator. This study relied on
interviews and a survey to examine incubator characteristics and effectiveness from the
perspective of participating faculty. There were two research questions: What are the key
characteristics of the curriculum incubator? What evidence exists of the potential for longer-term
incubator effectiveness?

Literature Review

Over the last 20 years, educational research has generated a significant body of literature
about the effectiveness of various teaching practices and instructional designs.1 Both the number
and variety of available teaching practices and instructional designs have increased along with
empirical evidence documenting successful outcomes from their use. 1,2 In spite of all the
documented practices and evidence in favor of effectiveness, one obstacle remains. Factors
embedded in each unique combination of discipline, content, students, and instructor challenge
the effective application of curricular alternatives across different situations and environments.
Instructional design that may be effective in one situation may not be all effective in another. 3, 4,
5
Recognition of this challenge is inherent in the proliferation of the faculty development
movement which is central to nearly every institutional effort for educational improvement.4
The way faculty development initiatives traditionally address curricular change and educational
improvement is to offer instructional support through educational measures such as workshops,
faculty learning communities, conferences, and colloquium.

Although concentrated emphasis on faculty development programs has yielded some

useful guidance, research has consistently shown that most faculty development programs are
ineffective in creating an environment conducive to curricular change and long-term educational
improvement.6, 7, 8, 9 After learning about alternative instructional designs, faculty need
opportunity to explore and adapt curriculum in ways that are appropriate and effective. Research
and practice confirm that such a broad approach is needed. 10

The curriculum incubator was developed as a protected space and time for faculty to
explore and adapt approaches to teaching and learning. Because the concept of curriculum
incubation is new there is little research or theory to guide development of the incubator or
anticipate its effectiveness. Since educational improvement is an institutional commitment with
outcomes demonstrated over a long period of time, it is important to determine whether the
concept of curriculum incubation has merit, the potential to produce innovative instructional
designs and long-term educational improvement.

Incubation Theory

The idea of incubation as a protected environment for nurturing change began in the
1950’s with the invention of business incubation as a mechanism to attract industry and promote
corporate development. 11, 12 While scholarly interest in business incubators has resulted in the
2
proliferation of empirical studies that examine their competitive and operational environment,13,
development of coherent theories to organize constructs and explain incubator processes has
been limited.14, 15 The knowledge that exists on incubation relates to sheltering new business
ventures as a strategy to overcome marketplace challenges,13 threats to viability,13, 16 accelerate
time to market,17 and support economic development.16, 18 Business incubation is a form of
venture capitalism where entrepreneurs receive opportunity to develop ideas in exchange for
ownership rights 17 and receive funding to launch a fledgling company 19 in the expectation that
profit levels will supply lucrative returns guaranteeing long term viability of the enterprise.17

The concept of incubation as a way to shelter ideas or manage organizational realities that
impede change is relatively new. Maital, Ravid, Seshadri, & Dumanis 19 were among the first
researchers to conceptualize incubation in this broad way. Their grounded theory proposed that
the developmental paths of emerging businesses are tempered by factors in the environment.
Three principles conceptualized business incubation as developmental processes for change: a)
incubators which tend to facilitate successful transitions to self-sustaining enterprises shield
ideas from forces that threaten viability while simultaneously mimicking the sense of urgency
and external pressures that foster independence; b) the most effective incubators are
opportunistic and able to successfully assist in the identification and navigation of environmental
constraints; c) beneficial incubation processes recognize situational influences in the
environment and support alignment to the real world. 19

The theory of Maital, Ravid, Seshadri, & Dumanis 19 is important because incubation is
conceived broadly as an organizational change strategy, a way to develop ideas by managing
situational influences and organizational realities known to impede change. The research of
Maital, Ravid, Seshadri, & Dumanis 19 characterized incubation as a way to nurture ideas, and
not just any ideas, but creative ideas that change the status quo, especially in situations and
environments that do not easily accommodate innovation.19 What remained unknown in
incubation theory was to identify characteristics in the environment that support the development
of new ideas. What exactly are the situational influences and organizational realities that support
innovation in organizations?

Creativity

Research and theory on creativity identify situational influences and organizational

realities that support innovation in organizations.20 Looking at incubation from the vantage of
creativity theory alters the application of incubation from a purely market driven endeavor to one
with the capacity to define the organizational dimensions of innovation. Creativity researchers
have defined a common core of assumptions about situational influences and organizational
realities that support innovation in an organization. Playing off of the thinking and discovery of
each other, creativity scholars frequently differ only in regard to categorical perspective and
application of terminology.

In 1967 Sapolsky, found that discovery of non-technological innovations increased with

decentralization of decision making, diversity of rewards and task structures, but the actual
adoption of innovations decreased.21 In their 1977 review of research on the topic of innovation,

3
Pierce and Delbecq argued that a combination of organizational attributes and member attitudes
increased innovation.22 Situational factors that emerged at the juncture of attributes and
membership included constructive conflict and cross fertilization of ideas to stimulate
innovation. Cummings and O’Connell postulated that innovation was an opportunistic response
to environmental variables such as participative management and worker autonomy.23 In 1989
Kay 24 theorized connections between values, beliefs and assumptions in the environments of
organizations that guide behavior. Amabile later expanded on the idea identifying open
communication as a guiding value while high organizational conformity impeded creativity.25, 26
Amabile developed a model which identified dimensions in the environment that supported
innovation. Those dimensions included organizational encouragement, supervisory
encouragement, organizational barriers, challenging work, supportive work group.27 By 1999
Ekvall & Ryhammar had postulated conditions common to innovative environments and refined
an instrument to measure their presence.28 The work of Ekvall & Ryhammar is particularly
relevant to the current study since initial research was conducted at a university. 28

Ekvall’s research on situational influences and organizational realities supportive of

innovation dates back to the 1950’s and includes detailed studies of dimensions in the
environment which appeared to support innovation. The dimensions studied by Ekvall were
rooted in individual perceptions that when aggregated became a shared psychology influencing
the way an organization functioned.29 Individual perceptions of the presence of nine
organizational characteristics became the focus of a 50-item instrument. Researchers argued that
the instrument could predict the potential of an organization to innovate.28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

Developed and refined over more than 20 years, Ekvall’s instrument has been the subject
of long-term analysis and reliability testing including multiple large-scale organizational studies
and factor analysis.28, 29, 31, 32, 33 The 9 dimensions identified by Ekvall and others are listed
below along with their operational definitions:

Challenge. A high challenge environment is one in which people experience emotional

involvement, joy and meaningfulness in their work to the degree that time and energy are
invested in accomplishing tasks.

Freedom. High levels of freedom allow people to act independently, take initiative and
make decisions.

Idea Support. Environments with high levels of idea support are characterized by
constructive and positive reception of new ideas. Suggestions are positively received and
considered. People listen to each other and find ways to try new things.

Trust/Openness. Organizations high in trust foster cooperation along with sharing of

ideas and opinions. There is no fear of reprisal in the face of failure.

Dynamism/Liveliness. High levels of dynamism foster stirring and eventful activities.

There is steady alteration in ways of thinking and acting.

4
 Playfulness/Humor. Spontaneity and ease characterize the organization when
playfulness/humor is high. A non-stressful atmosphere pervades.

Debate. Many voices in the organization put forward ideas and many viewpoints are
expressed. Diversity of knowledge and experience is considered beneficial to the
organization.

Conflict. Tension runs high in an organization characterized by conflict. People dislike

each other and political intrigue runs rampant. High levels of conflict are a negative
factor for the institution.

Risk-taking. Experimentation is preferred to detailed analysis. Uncertainty is tolerated

and the organization pounces on opportunity when it arises.

Idea Time. Organizations high in idea time provide opportunities to discuss and test fresh
ideas. Discussions can be impulsive and do not have to be part of an assigned task.

The theory that has developed over time based on Ekvall’s work is that situational influences and
organizational realities can either nourish innovation or deter it.34 Consequently, if policies and
procedures that nourish and provide opportunity for innovation are intentionally put into place,
then innovation should result.

Methods

This analytical study used a mixed methods design 35 including interviews and a
questionnaire to examine characteristics and effectiveness of the curriculum incubator. The
focus of the study was to identify and measure faculty perceptions about incubator functioning
using Ekvall’s 30 nine dimensions of an innovative organization. Then, the aggregated level of
the presence of these 9 dimensions could be compared to levels Ekvall 30 found in organizations
with a history of innovation and, alternatively, in organizations with a history of stagnation.
High levels of Ekvall’s 9-dimensions would indicate that the curriculum incubator had the
potential to create an environment conducive to innovative instructional design and educational
improvement. High levels of Ekvall’s nine dimensions would argue in favor of the potential for
longer-term incubator effectiveness.

The setting for the study was a highly ranked College of Engineering in a large
Midwestern Research University. Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of faculty
and incubator leadership. The sample represented 43.9% (n=18) of participants and 45.45%
(n=10) of college departments. Sampling procedures involved sitting down with an incubator
Co-Director and discussing the organizational structure and variety of faculty participation. It
was clear from listening to the Co-Director that faculty perspectives varied widely depending
upon the focus of participation and level of activity. Participants in the incubator came from 10
departments within the College of Engineering and 12 departments across campus with
engineering multi-disciplinary or cross-disciplinary ties.

5
 Participation in the incubator fell into a 3-tier hierarchy: (a) a central core of faculty were
involved with incubator development and daily operations; (b) a second group taught or worked
directly with incubated courses and programs; (c) a third group of faculty provided moral support
and expert guidance but were not routinely involved with incubator activities. This hierarchy
became the sampling frame for selecting potential candidates for interviews. Six candidates in
each of the three tiers were nominated for interviews by the co-director. This sampling strategy
insured maximal variation in the data; the entire range of perspectives found within the incubator
would be considered. The sample represented 43.9% (n=18) of participants and 45.45% (n=10)
of college departments.

Fifteen semi-structured interviews were ultimately conducted. This represented 83% of

the sample and 39% of the total population. All six of the Tier 1 faculty were interviewed
including two non-teaching engineering administrators; two engineers who shared teaching and
administrative duties, one engineering faculty and one faculty member from a discipline outside
of engineering. Five of the six Tier 2 faculty gave interviews. These included two engineering
faculty, two engineering deans, and one faculty with joint appointments in engineering and
another discipline. Four of the six Tier 3 faculty were interviewed including two engineering
faculty and two faculty from other departments with ties to engineering.

Two interview protocols reflected the nature and level of participation in the incubator,
but it became apparent almost immediately that knowledge of the incubator was bounded by the
duration of association, specific circumstances, and intensity of participation.36 For this reason
interviews varied widely lasting as few as 44 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes. All of the
interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Identifying information was removed; the
transcription was dated, and a code assigned. The transcription code identified the tier and an
interview sequence number. An excel file served as the interview code key. The code key
remained the only identifying link between interviewee and interview data.

Interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative method to determine major
themes.37, 38, 39 Analysis of interview transcripts was conducted prior to surveying faculty in
order to determine if there was a basis for the assumption that faculty would characterize
situational influences and organizational realities in terms applicable to Ekvall’s theory. 30 In
order to determine any similarity to Ekvall’s dimensions of innovation, multiple readings of
interview transcripts were used and comments descriptive of incubator characteristics were
identified. Then, these descriptive comments were compared to the operational definitions of
Ekvall’s 9 dimensions of an innovative organization in order to determine similarity. Once it was
determined that faculty did perceive incubator characteristics in terms that were comparable to
Ekvall’s dimensions, a questionnaire was used to measure the strength of those characteristics
among all faculty participating in the incubator.

All thirty-eight faculty affiliated with the curriculum incubator were potential
respondents for the questionnaire. Incubator faculty represented 22 disciplines within the College
of Engineering and across campus. Twenty-five of the thirty-eight incubator faculty (66%) were
affiliated with departments within the College of Engineering and thirteen faculty had cross-

6
disciplinary relationships with engineering. Cross-disciplinary relationships included direct or
indirect research or teaching affiliations with engineering as a major focus.

Items for the survey were developed from published research on the 9-dimensions of an
innovative organization and a subsequent instrument, the Situational Outlook Questionnaire
(SOQ). 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 Since the SOQ is restricted to commercial use by registered consultants who
pay for the privilege, the actual SOQ was not used in this project. However, because the SOQ
and its predecessor the Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ) have been widely tested and
studied over many years, a substantial body of literature documents their use, reliability, and
utility. Survey items for this study were developed using modified wording from sample SOQ
items in published research and reports as well as the published operational definitions for each
dimension. As with the SOQ, Likert style items asked respondents to rate statements according
to their applicability or importance on a 4-point scale. Each statement related directly to one of
the 9 dimensions identified by Ekvall as important for an innovative organization.

Draft questionnaires were subjected to two forms of pretesting: expert review and
cognitive interviews. Multiple methods of review were considered important to increasing the
likelihood of a high quality instrument.40 Expert review is a process where seasoned
professionals in survey research review and comment on the instrument.40 Expert review has
been found to be effective at finding potential problems, particularly problems that might affect
data analysis.41 In this study, the purpose of expert review was to ensure item clarity; that
respondents would interpret items as intended. Two experts, one from survey research and one
from engineering and human behavior commented on item wording, noted potentially confusing
terminology, and estimated the time needed to complete the questionnaire. Potential problems
were corrected and the new draft was subjected to five cognitive interviews.

Cognitive interviews are the most common form of pretesting for survey research.42
Research has shown that cognitive interviews accurately and consistently identify potential
problems with questionnaires.43 Five educators from the fields of faculty development, survey
research, statistics, engineering, and evaluation participated in cognitive interviews. During
cognitive interviews respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire while thinking out
loud about the choices they would need to make in order to respond; how they would decide
their response; items that were difficult to understand; and possible alternate interpretations of
items. Cognitive interviews were audio recorded. Both recordings and notes were used as
references to modify items. Cognitive interviews were helpful in refining the meaning and intent
of items, making them simple, straightforward, clear and readable. Additional revisions were
made in the instrument and it was tested for the last time on an incubator participant who was
then removed from the respondent pool. The final version of the questionnaire developed for this
study used 36 items, four items for each of the 9 dimensions. As a result of pretesting mentioned
above only one major adjustment to the questionnaire was made.

In the SOQ, 8 of the 9 dimensions are positively correlated to an innovative

organization; one dimension, the Conflict dimension, was negatively correlated. In other words,
less conflict enhanced creativity and innovativeness.31 The Conflict dimension tested by Ekvall,
31, 44
Isaksen, Lauer, & Ekvall, 32 Isaksen, Lauer, Ekvall, & Britz,29 and Isaksen, 33 focused on

7
issues of ego, personal opposition, and turf wars. Items related to Conflict in the SOQ asked
respondents to identify areas of tension, negative use of power including the presence of personal
enmity, hostility, and emotional discord. In answering the items respondents had to think about
high conflict situations; groups and individuals they might dislike. The dimension of conflict
sought to identify the presence of interpersonal warfare, plots, traps, power, and territorial
struggles, personal differences, gossip and slander that may have been part of organizational life.
Low Conflict situations, in which members behaved with emotional maturity, used psychological
insight and control of impulses increased the potential for innovation. 29

During development of the questionnaire, wording of items in the Conflict dimension

proved awkward and the issues addressed seemed inappropriate, antithetic to both incubator
participants and the general incubator environment. Item pretesting consistently bore out the
potential for destructive and detrimental effects from these items. As a result, Conflict was
reconfigured as a positive dimension. A new operational definition was defined, and the
dimension was renamed Emotional Maturity.i There were a couple of reasons this change
seemed to improve the questionnaire. First, the dimension became a positive factor; a high score
was indicative of an innovative organization. This was consistent with the other 8 dimensions
and more in keeping with the positive orientation of the instrument. High mean scores in all
items would consistently identify an organization with the potential for innovation; low mean
scores would indicate organizational stagnation. Second, re-orienting Conflict items to a positive
focus immediately made items user friendly, less threatening to a small group of respondents,
more likely to be answered, and more palatable to participants generally.

This study claims theoretical support for survey items based on the history and research
of the SOQ,45 but because the survey is not the same as the original instrument, reliability testing
was important to credibility. Using SPSS, three reliability tests were conducted to verify the
overall scale and subscale internal consistency for the questionnaire: (a) Each item was tested
against the sum of all items; (b) Groups of 4 items in a subscale measuring each dimension of the
SOQ were tested against each other; (c) Finally, each group of 4 items in the subscales
measuring one dimension was tested against the sum of all items. Reliability testing using
Cronback’s Alpha revealed acceptable (.70 and higher) or good (.80) inter-item correlations.46

When each item was tested against the sum of all items, alpha coefficient indicated
acceptable internal consistency at .734. Overall, the scale was approximately 73% reliable at
measuring the intended constructs. It should be noted that lack of variability in the responses to
one item caused SPSS to exclude it. Groups of four items measuring one dimension were tested
against other groups of 4 items. This yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .814 indicating that each
group of 4 items was a relatively cohesive measurement of the same dimension. Lastly, groups
of 4 items were tested against the sum of all items to determine if each group of four contributed
equally to the scale. This test yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .757.

The survey, which targeted all participating faculty, had an acceptable rate of return
(61%; n=23). Sixteen (70%) of the 23 faculty who returned questionnaires were affiliated with
engineering disciplines and seven represented other departments or organizations on campus.
Respondents indicated the level of agreement with items on a 4-point scale from weak (1) to

8
strong (4). Eighteen items in section one asked faculty to rate the applicability of 9 dimensions of
innovation to the curriculum incubator. Nine items in section 2 asked faculty to rate the
importance of 9 dimensions of innovation to incubator activities. Section three asked faculty to
rate the evidence that dimensions of innovation influenced incubator activities. Data was
analyzed in 4 stages. Each section was analyzed separately, and then all three sections were
aggregated for a final analysis.

Procedures for analysis included first recording individual responses to each item on a
spread sheet. Then, spread sheet data was loaded into SPSS. The SPSS software was used to
calculate descriptive statistics for single items, then the group of items within each section of the
questionnaire. Finally, descriptive statistics were calculated for the aggregated data. The
resulting mean scores identified the magnitude of the presence for each of the 9 dimensions in
Ekvall’s theory. Finally, an Analysis of Variance (One-way ANOVA) was run for each section
and for the sections combined to test for significant differences in means among sub-groups in
the population. Comparisons were made between subgroups of engineers, non-engineers, and the
governing advisory group. Although the underlying assumptions for using ANOVA were met,
the sample size was small and the findings were not robust. As a result only aggregated data was
considered meaningful. Mean responses were plotted on a spider chart indicating graphically
faculty perceptions of the presence of Ekvall’s nine dimensions in the curriculum incubator.
Finally, mean responses for incubator participants were plotted on a spider chart along with
mean responses for organizations with a history of innovation and responses for organizations
with a history of stagnation.

Results

Other research has shown with a high degree of certainty a strong relationship between
the ability of an organization to implement new ideas and the perceptions of organizational
members of the presence of certain organizational characteristics that promote innovation. The
curriculum incubator revealed these characteristics in a curricular change process that challenged
traditional planned change models of curricular change.

What are the key characteristics of the curriculum incubator?

Key characteristics of the curriculum incubator were identified in a two stage process
first using qualitative data from interviews then using a survey to determine the strength of their
presence among faculty. Interview data resulted in the identification of 24 themes perceived by
faculty as characteristic of the curriculum incubator. Figure 1 below lists characteristics of the
curriculum incubator identified in interviews.

Using operational definitions of Ekvall’s 30 nine dimensions of innovation it was possible

to compare characteristics generated by interviews to dimensions of innovation and determine
that some relationship likely existed. But, it was not possible to determine the strength of
perceptions relating to dimensions of innovation or if any of the characteristics would be
considered more applicable to the incubator than others without looking at data from the
questionnaire.

9
 Table 1, below, identifies each of the 9 dimensions of innovation and indicates the mean
level of their perceived rating in the incubator. Mean ratings are noted along with a short

Collaboration & Cooperation Permeable Boundaries

Voluntary Participation Safe Supportive Environment
Respect for Faculty Governance Experimentation & Evaluation
Administrative & Departmental Support Entrepreneurial
Student Involvement Multiple & Diverse Perspectives
Strategic Partnerships Exploration & Risk-taking
Transparent & Inclusive Processes Inspiring
Leverage Research & Existing Knowledge High energy
Climate of Trust Humanistic
Conversations & Debate Chaotic
Adaptive & Opportunistic Responses Interdisciplinary
Cross Pollination of Ideas Thoughtful, reflective

Figure 1 Incubator attributes based on qualitative analysis of interviews (N=24)

definition of the characteristic and the standard deviation. When these scores are plotted on a
spider chart to illustrate relative magnitude, a picture begins to emerge of an organization where
members believe innovation is possible. (See Figure 2 below)

Data from the questionnaire indicated that participating faculty perceived high levels of
all nine dimensions of innovation in the incubator. Ratings ranged from a mean of 3.70/4.0 for
Idea Support to 3.33/4.0 for Trust & Openness. The fact that Idea Support resonated most with
incubator faculty is no surprise. Idea Support is defined as openness to new ideas; exploration of
new ideas; diversity of perspectives. In interviews faculty generally recognized the value of
support for innovative instructional design and educational improvement at all levels of the
organization. Faculty had great faith in the talents and abilities of their colleagues to discover
innovative new ways to approach teaching and learning if they were given the opportunity.

That’s why I always from day one I was convinced that the curriculum incubator had a
future in this college. Given the creativity of my colleagues in this college; I was very
optimistic about the fact that once we established [the environment] it would develop a

10
 life of its own and different ideas and different opinions would mature to something
much more – even much more creative than what we originally had in mind.

Table 1
Ranked Perceptions of Aggregated Data Ratings on Incubator Attributes (Scale 1-4),(p< .05)

Ekvall (1996)/ Isaksen (2007) Mean Standard

Dimensions Deviation

IDEA SUPPORT
Openness to new ideas; exploration
Of new ideas; diversity of perspectives 3.70 .30

IDEA TIME
Opportunity to explore
and develop new ideas;
atmosphere of flexibility 3.68 .48

CHALLENGE/INVOLVEMENT
Intrinsic motivation, commitment, joy,
& meaningfulness 3.67 .48

EMOTIONAL MATURITY
Psychological insight; emotional maturity 3.62 .50

PLAYFULNESS/HUMOR
Atmosphere of spontaneity,
light-heartedness 3.60 .50

RISK-TAKING
Tolerance of uncertainty, ambiguity;
willingness to gamble on new ideas 3.55 .51

FREEDOM
Individual freedom to pursue interests 3.52 .68

DEBATE
Sharing different experiences
and knowledge 3.45 .67

TRUST/OPENNESS
Trust, mutual respect & support 3.33 .80

(p< .05)

11
Figure 2 Aggregated Means for Nine Dimensions of Innovation

What evidence exists of the potential for longer-term incubator effectiveness?

Evidence in support of the long-term potential effectiveness of the curriculum incubator

was addressed by plotting the aggregated mean ratings for each dimension of innovation on a
spider chart and comparing the means to other organizations studied by Ekvall.30, 31 The
aggregated data indicated a strong presence of 9 characteristics relating to the dimensions of
innovation in the curriculum incubator environment. The relative strength of faculty perceptions
seemed to indicate that faculty perceived the incubator as having the potential to produce
innovative instructional design and sustainable instructional improvement. Research shows that
perceptions are powerful indicators for organizational change and, more importantly, strong
perceptions that change is possible indicate the potential for sustainable change.33 Since mean
ratings of faculty perceptions indicated a strong presence of characteristics supportive of
innovation, the next step was to determine if the magnitude of their presence compared favorably
to other organizations with a demonstrated capacity for innovation.

Examples of scoring for other organizations were available from the work of Ekvall and
others.29, 47 As a result of his work with organizations, Ekvall 47 calculated aggregate means
along dimensions for innovation that were parallel to the research conducted on the curriculum
12
incubator. For his studies Ekvall used 10 organizations with a long-term track record of
innovation and compared them to 5 organizations with a long-term record of stagnation.

For his study Ekvall 47 sorted companies based on criteria established by Nystrom &
Edvardsson.48 The following criteria were used: Innovative organizations invested in new
products that increased the probability for their longer term survival. Stagnated organizations
were unsuccessful in creating new products and experienced difficulties in their markets that
marginalized their longer term viability.48 Once organizations were sorted, the aggregated means
of each type of organization were compared. In order to compare Ekvall’s findings with the
results of current research several hurdles needed to be overcome. The process for overcoming
each of these hurdles is discussed below.

Three differences between the studies in the 1980’s and the current project complicated
the comparison of these data sets. The primary difference between those earlier studies and the
current study is that Ekvall’s 1986 research used the Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ). The
CCQ was an earlier instrument developed by Ekvall 49 used to analyze organizations along 10
dimensions of organizational creativity. Later research by Ekvall and others replicated the
earlier research but used only 9 dimensions of organizational creativity. The reason that later
studies used only 9 dimensions is that research subsequent to Ekvall’s 1983 and 1986 studies 47,
49
indicated that issues of reliability and content validity justified a reduction from 10 to 9 items.
50
Based on Lauer’s (1994) work, 50 a dimension, called dynamism, was omitted from the
instrument and the newer instrument was named the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ).
Both instruments have been reported to perform similarly and with consistent validity and
reliability.29 The CCQ and the revised and updated SOQ provided the conceptual foundation for
this study. For purposes of comparison in this study, the 1986 data is presented with the
dimension of dynamism omitted.

Another difference between the earlier studies of organizations and the current research
on the curriculum incubator involves the calculations Ekvall used to map the data from
organizations. Although Ekvall’s original studies and the current research both used 4-point
Likert-style scales to assess dimensions of innovation, Ekvall’s scoring range was 0 to 3. As part
of his data mapping protocol Ekvall’s aggregated means were multiplied by 100 creating a score
with a theoretical range of 0-300. Comparisons of scores involved mapping two sets of scores on
a spider chart to compare the pattern differential between types of organizations.

The 4-point Likert-style scale used for this project ranged from 1-4. In order to overlay
the results of Ekvall’s research on the findings for the curriculum incubator the original 1986
scores were converted to a range of 100-400 by adding 100 points to each score. Then the
aggregated averages for the curriculum incubator were converted to Ekvall’s scale by
multiplying the aggregated mean by 100. This process converted all scores to a defined range of
100-400. This scoring profile created a single scale allowing for comparisons across Ekvall’s
original study and the current research.

The third issue with comparison of data between 1986 and the present involves the
dimension of Emotional Maturity. Both the CCQ and SOQ utilized a dimension called Conflict.

13
A low score on that dimension was a positive indication of an organization exhibiting high
dimensions of innovation. In the current study, the dimension of Conflict was redefined as
Emotional Maturity to positively correlate with innovation. A high score would be indicative of
an innovative organization. In order to make the aggregate score for conflict from the 1983
study comparable to the definition for Emotional Maturity used in the current research, a process
was used to convert the score. The 1983 aggregated score for conflict in the 10 innovative
organizations was 78. That score was converted to a positive score for emotional maturity by
subtracting 78 from 300, the upper limit of Ekvall’s score range. That difference is 222. Then, to
convert the aggregated mean to a score ranging from 0-300 to a score ranging from 1-400, 100
points were added. The final score for Emotional Maturity based on Ekvall’s (1983) research is
322. The same process was followed for aggregated data from the Conflict dimension of the
group of stagnated organizations. The original aggregated data from Ekvall’s (1986) study of
organizational types is shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Ekvall’s CCQ Data Comparing Innovative and Stagnant Organizations*

Innovative Organizations (n=10 Stagnated Organizations (n=5)

Dimension M SD Range M SD Range

Challenge/Involvement 238 27 219-300 163 10 154-176

Freedom 210 19 185-240 153 32 114-192
Trust/Openness 178 36 90-212 128 29 89-168
Idea Time 148 13 123-168 97 53 70-130
Playfulness/Humor 230 31 148-260 140 21 105-158
Emotional Maturity** 322 31 344-250 260 14 274-238
Idea Support 183 14 166-200 108 23 80-132
Conversation/Debate 158 31 110-204 105 6 98-112
Risk-taking 195 27 153-240 53 15 34-70

*From Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., Ekvall, G., & Britz, A. (2001). Perceptions of the best and
worst climates for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the Situational Outlook
Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 171-184, p. 178.
**Recalibrated from Conflict

Figure 3 below compares the mean scores for the curriculum incubator to mean scores for
Ekvall’s 10 innovative organizations and 5 stagnant organizations. The relative strength of
faculty perceptions in this study compared favorably to earlier studies and appeared consistent
with an organizational environment ready to innovate and willing to make changes.

Organizations that exhibit high scores on dimensions of innovation have been shown to
demonstrate an ability to support change, innovation, and creative problem solving 33 (Isaksen,
2007).The resulting comparisons provide evidence that incubator activities are capable of

14
establishing an environment conducive to sustained curricular change. Using an incubator as a
change mechanism, one that creates a protected time and space for curricular research and
experimentation, has the potential to encourage durable and sustainable curricular change.

Figure 3 Comparative scores on 9-dimensions of innovation among organizational types

Conclusions & Wider Significance

Curricular change efforts often fail because even after prolonged effort, people revert to
old practices. The salient characteristic of the curriculum incubator was the ability to nurture a
temporal space and psychological environment in which organizational members were ready,
willing, and able to create and sustain change.

The wider significance of this study is for leadership. Incubator leadership created an
insulated environment, opportunities to test and to document results. Such environments do not
happen without the guided intent of leadership. Within the secure environment of the curriculum
incubator, individuals had the time and the opportunity to chart their own course, to do what felt
right at the most elemental level, and to adapt to change in a way that fulfilled their needs, made
sense, and moved the organization forward.

15
 Bibliography

1 Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. How College Affects Students, volume 2, A third
decade of research, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2005.

2 Lindholm, J. A., Szelenyi, K., Hurtado, S., & Korn, W. S. The American College
Teacher: National Norms for the 2004–2005 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA; 2005.

3 Guskey, T. R. Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational

Researcher, 1986; 15(5): 5–12.

4 Guskey, T. R. Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and

Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2002; 8(3/4): 381–391.

5 Sykes, G. Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 1996; 77(7):
464-468.

6 Cohen D. K., & Hill, H. C. State Policy and Classroom Performance: Mathematics
Reform in California, CPRE Policy Briefs (RB-23-May) Philadelphia, PA, Consortium
for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), Graduate School of Education, University of
Pennsylvania; 1998

7 Cohen D. K., & Hill, H. C. Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The
Mathematics Reform in California. Teachers College Record, 2000; 102(2): 294-343.

8 Kennedy, M. Form and Substance in Teacher Inservice Education, Research

Monograph No. 13 Madison, WI, National Institute for Science Education, Madison WI:
University of Wisconsin; 1998.

9 Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Haudenschild, M. T. Using activity systems analysis to

identify inner contradictions in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 2009; 25(3): 507-517. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.014
10 O’Sullivan, P. S. & Irby, D. M. Reframing research on faculty development.
Academic Medicine, 2011; 85(40): 421-428.

11 Atkins, D. A Brief History of Business Incubation in the United States. Athens,

OH: National Business Incubation Association; 2002.

12 National Business Incubator Association. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nbia.org/.

13 Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. A real options-driven theory of business

incubation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2004a; 29(1): 41-54.

16
14 Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. A systematic review of business incubation
research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2004b; 29(1): 55-82.

15 Hannon, P. D. A qualitative sense-making classification of business incubation

environments. Qualitative Market Research, 2004; 7(4): 274- 283.

16 Campbell, C., Kendrick, R. C., & Samuelson, D. S. Stalking the latent

entrepreneur: Business incubators and economic development. Economic Development
Review, 1985; 3(2): 43-49.

17 Finer, B., & Holberton, P. Incubators: There and back. The Journal of Business
Strategy, 2002; 23(3): 23-25.

18 Lewis, D. A. Does technology incubation work? A critical review of the

evidence. 2001. U. S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration,
Washington DC. Retrieved from www.eda.gov/.

19 Maital, S., Ravid, S., Seshadri, D. V. R., & Dumanis, A. Toward a grounded theory of
effective business incubation. Vikalpa: Journal for Decision Makers, 2008a; 33(4): 1-
13.

20 Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. (Ed.). Organizational Creativity Research: A Historical

Overview. New York City, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.

21 Sapolsky, H. M. Organizational structure and innovation. The Journal of Business. 1967:

40(4): 497-510.

22. Pierce, J. L., & Delbecq, A. L. Organization structure, individual attitudes and
innovation. Academy of Management Review. 1977; 2(1): 27-37.

23 Cummings, L. L., & O’Connell, M. J. Organizational innovation: A model and needed

research. Journal of Business Research. 1978; 6: 33-50.

24 Kay, R. Managing Creativity in Science and High Tech. New York City, NY: Springer-
Verlag; 1989.

25 Amabile, T. M. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1996.

26 Amabile. T. M. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M.

Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 10. (pp. 123-
167). Greenwich, CN.: J.A.I. Press, 1988.

17
27 Amabile, T. M. Within you, without you: Towards a social psychology of
creativity and beyond. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.) Theories of Creativity (pp.
61-91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1990.

28 Ekvall, G., & Ryhammar, L. The creative climate: Its determinants and effects at
a Swedish University. Creativity Research Journal. 1999; 12(4): 303-310.

29 Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., Ekvall, G., & Britz, A. (2001). Perceptions of the best and
worst climates for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the Situational Outlook
Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal. 2001; 13(2): 171-184.

30 Ekvall, G. The organizational culture of idea management: A creative climate for

the management of ideas. In J. Henry & D. Walker (Eds.) Managing Innovation (pp. 73-
79). London, UK: Sage; 1991.

31 Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal
of Work & Organizational Psychology. 1996; 5: 105–124.

32 Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Situational Outlook Questionnaire: A
measure of the climate for creativity and change. Psychological Reports. 1999; 85: 665-
674.

33 Isaksen, S. C. (2007). The climate for transformation: Lessons for leaders. Creativity and
Innovation Management. 2007; 16(1): 3-15.

34 Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organsational creativity: A literature review.

Management Decision. 2001; 39(10): 834-840.

35 Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003.

36 Strauss, G. An overview. In F. Heller, E. Pusic, G. Strauss, and B. Wilpert, B.

(Eds), Organizational Participation: Myth and Reality (pp. 8-39). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1998.

37 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing; 1967.

38 Strauss, G. An overview. In F. Heller, E. Pusic, G. Strauss, and B. Wilpert, B.

(Eds), Organizational Participation: Myth and Reality (pp. 8-39). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1998.

39 Glaser, B. G. Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill

Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1992.

18
40 Hughes, K. A. Comparing pretesting methods: Cognitive interviews, respondent
debriefing, and behavior coding (U. S, Bureau of the Census Research Report Series
#2004-02). Washington DC: Statistical Research Division; 2004.

41 Presser, J., and Blair, J. Survey pretesting: Do different methods produce

different results?, in P.V.Marsden (ed.), Sociological Methodology, Vol. 24, (pp. 73-
104). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell; 1994.
42 Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. The Psychology of Survey Response.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

43 Willis, G. B., S. Schechter, and K. Whitaker A Comparison of Cognitive

Interviewing, Expert Review, and Behavior Coding: What do They Tell Us? American
Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods;
Indianapolis, IN; 2000.

44 Ekvall, G. (1997). Organizational conditions and levels of creativity. Creativity and

Innovation Management. 1997; 6(4): 195–205.

45 Isaksen, S.G. and Ekvall, G. Assessing your Context for Change: A Technical
Manual for the Situational Outlook Questionnaire – Enhancing Performance of
Organizations, Leaders and Teams. Buffalo NY: The Creative Problem Solving Group;
2006.

46 Gliem, J. A. & Gliem, R. R. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s

Alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-style scales. Proceedings from the 2003 Midwest
Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University; 2003. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/.../Gliem+&+Gliem.pdf?...1

47 Ekvall, G. The current status of research on the creative climate questionnaire.

Buffalo, New York City, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity; 1986.

48 Nystrom, H., & Edvardsson, B. Technological and marketing strategies for product
development: A study of 20 Swedish food-processing companies. Uppsala, Sweden,
Innovation Research Group - Institute for Economics and Statistics; 1980.
49 Ekvall, G. Climate, structure and innovativeness of organizations: A theoretical
framework and an experiment. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council for
Management and Organizational Behavior; 1983.

50 Lauer, K. J. The assessment of creative climate: An investigation of Ekvall's

Creative Climate Questionnaire. Unpublished master's thesis, State University College at
Buffalo, New York; 1994.

19
 Endnotes

i
Emotional Maturity. The organization is characterized by emotional safety and low conflict. High trust and
openness supplant suspicion and cautiousness. People like each other and work together well. There is little political
intrigue. Members rely on psychological insight and manage emotional responses rather than create conflict.

20