O -AZb2 066

NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge

Diffusion Research Project

NASA Technical Memorandum 102774

Report Number 6

The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government

Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and

Scientists and Selected Institutional and Sociometric Variables

DTIC

Thomas E. Pinelli ELEC

NASA Langley Research Center 0 ELECTE

Hampton, Virginia JUN 2 4 1992

C

OW'ThMuMoN ST-A-TMSM A

Appro'vod for public relecmei

Distribution Unmnlted

92-16492

9 2 6 02>

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

WD Department of Defense

INDIANA UNIVERSITY
Ac *.%1a Tat

if *

It if 14at io

TABLE OF CONTENTS (ion! s ,t ba ttn_..-u

Avt olabiliy Cod

LIST OF TABLES ........................................ vii i ari/o

special

LIST OF FIGURES...................................... xiii16

CHAPTER 1 - THE STUDY IN PERSPECTIVE ................. 1 -

BACKGROUND ..................................... 1

Unique Characteristics .............................. 2

Implications For Federally Funded Civilian R&D ............... 3

Supply-Push .................................... 5

Dem and-Pull .................................... 7

Im plications .................................... 9

PROBLEM CONTEXT ................................. 10

An Information Processing Framework ..................... 12

Government Influence on Information Processing ............... 15

U.S. Government Technical Report ........................ 16

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ......................... 19

Conceptual Framework ............................. 20

The Problem .................................... 21

Research Questions ............................... 23

Hypotheses ..................................... 23

Hypothesis 1 ............................... 23

Hypothesis 2 ............................... 24

Hypothesis 3 ............................... 24

Hypothesis 4 ............................... 25

Hypo thesis 5 ............................... 26

Hypothesis 6 ............................... 26

Hypothesis 7 ............................... 27

Hypothesis 8 ............................... 28

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ............................ 28

Significance of the Problem .......................... 29

M ethodology ................................... 30

Lim itations ..................................... 31

Organization of the Study ........................... 31

REFERENCES ...................................... 32

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... 39
CHAPTER 2 - THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

AND THE DIFFUSION OF FEDERALLY FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D 43

INTRODUCTION ..................................... 43

BACKGROUND ..................................... 43

Characteristics of Technical Reports .......... ........... 45

The Role of the Technical Report in S&T Communication ....... 47

History and Growth of Technical Report Literature ............ 48

THE TRANSFER OF FEDERALLY FUNDED R&D ............... 49

DOD STI - Defense Technical Information Center ............. 49

DOE STI - Office of Scientific and Technical Information ........ 51

NASA STI - NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility . 52

National Technical Information Service ..................... 53

A Review of the Federal STI System ...................... 54

REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT RESEARCH ..................... 57

REFERENCES ...................................... 66

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... 74

CHAPTER 3 - THE INFORMATION-SEEKING HABITS AND

PRACTICES OF ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS AND THE

DIFFUSION OF FEDERALLY FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D ...... 77

INTRODUCTION ..................................... 77

BACKGROUND ..................................... 77

The Nature of Science and Technology ..................... 80

Distinguishing Engineers From Scientists .................... 88

Influence on Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers 91

THE INFORMATION-SEEKING HABITS AND PRACTICES

OF ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS ........................ 97

H erner ....................................... 99

Rosenbloom and Wolek ............................. 99

A llen ... . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . ... . . .. .. . .. 100

K rem er ....................................... 101

Shuchm an ..................................... 102

Kaufm an ...................................... 103

ii
THE TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES OF U.S.

AEROSPACE ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS .................. 104

Time Devoted to Communicating Technical Information ........ 105

The Use and Production of Technical Information ............. 107

Technical Information and Problem Solving ................. 113

Use of Libraries, Technical Information Centers, and

On-Line Data Bases .............................. 114

Use of Information Technology ........................ 116

REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT RESEARCH .................... 121

REFERENCES ...................................... 140

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... 153

CHAPTER 4 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN ...... 158

INTRODUCTION ..................................... 158

BACKGROUND ..................................... 158

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT .......................... 159

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................ 160

The Engineer As An Information Processor ................. 162

Dependent and Independent Variables .................... 165

Hypotheses ..................................... 166

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................ 168

Survey Research ................................. 169

Validity and Reliability ............................. 172

Response Rate .................................. 173

Dillman's Total Design Method (TDM) .................... 175

RESEARCH DESIGN .................................. 179

Population and Sample Selection ........................ 180

Questionnaire Development .......................... 182

Data Collection .................................. 183

Data Processing .................................. 186

THE FRAMEWORK FOR DATA ANALYSIS ................... 186

Assum ptions .................................... 187

Data Analysis . ................................... 187

iii
REFERENCES ...................................... 189

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... 192

CHAPTER 5 - PRESENTATION OF THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA ... 193

INTRODUCTION ..................................... 193

BACKGROUND ..................................... 193

FINDINGS ......................................... 199

Survey Topic 1: The U.S. Government Technical

Report Within a Formal Information Structure ............... 199

Use and Importance ........................... 200

Factors Affecting Use ......................... 203

Purpose .................................. 209

Information Type and Product ..................... 214

Survey Topic 2: The U.S. Government Technical Report and the

Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of U.S. Aerospace

Engineers and Scientists ............................ 219

Project, Task, or Problem Type .................... 220

Information Use and Sequence ..................... 221

U.S. Government Technical Reports and Project, Task, or

Problem Completion ......................... 227

DISCUSSION OF THE DATA ............................ 235

CHAPTER 6 - TEST OF THE HYPOTHESES ................. 237

INTRODUCTION ..................................... 237

BACKGROUND ..................................... 237

PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS ........................ 238

Institutional or Structural Variables ..................... 239

Sociometric or Source Selection Variables .................. 246

Institutional or Structural and Sociometric or Source Selection

V ariables ..................................... 247

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ......................... 248

iv
INTRODUCTRON ....................................... 252

BACKGROUND ....................................... 252

CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS STUDY ........................ 259

The U.S. Government Technical Report .................... 259

The Information Seeking Behavior of U.S. Aerospace

Engineers and Scientists ............................. 260

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................. 261

REFERENCES ........................................ 262

APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ..................... 264

APPENDIX B - ACRONYMS .............................. 267

APPENDIX C - QUESTIONNAIRE AND ASSOCIATED

CORRESPONDENCE ................................... 270

APPENDIX D - DESCRIPTIVE DATA TABLES FOR (1) EDUCATION,

CAREER, AND WORK EXPERIENCE (2) INFORMATION SOURCES USED TO

COMPLETE MOST IMPORTANT TECHNICAL PROJECT, TASK, OR

TECHNICAL PROBLEM .................................. 290

APPENDIX E - DESCRIPTIVE DATA ON SURVEY TOPICS 3 AND 4 ... 312

INTRODUCTION ....................................... 312

BACKGROUND ....................................... 312

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA ...... ..................... 313

Survey Topic 3: The Library and Technical Information Center ..... 314

Survey Topic 4: Computer and Information Technology ........... 320

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ........................... 334

REFERENCES ........................................ 336

PROJECT PUBLICATIONS ........................ ..... 337

v
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Role of the U.S. Government Technical Report in the Federal

STI System ..................................... 61

Table 2. Role of the U.S. Government Technical Report in Federal

Mission-Oriented STI Programs ........................ 63

Table 3. Role of the U.S. Government Technical Report in S&T

Communication ................................. 64

Table 4. The U.S. Government Technical Report: Historical Development,

Use in Specific Disciplines, Obsolescence, Problems, Coverage,

and Research Needs .............................. 65

Table 5. Time Spent Communicating Technical Information to Others . . . 106

Table 6. Time Spent Working With Technical Communications Received

From Others .................................. 107

Table 7. Technical Information Products Produced ................. 107

Table 8. Technical Information Products Used ................... 109

Table 9. Types of Technical Information Produced ................ 110

Table 10. Types of Technical Information Used ................... 111

Table 11. Information Sources Used to Solve Technical Problems ....... 113

Table 12. Use of a Library or Technical Information Center .......... 115

Table 13. Use of Electronic Data Bases ........................ 116

Table 14. How Electronic Data Bases Are Searched ............... 116

Table 15. Use, Nonuse, and Potential Use of Information Technologies . .. 117

Table 16. Knowledge Diffusion and Technological Innovation ......... 126

Table 17. Knowledge Diffusion, Technological Innovation, and

Government Policy ................................ 128

Table 18. Knowledge Diffusion, Technological Innovation, and STI ...... 132

vii
Table 19. Knowledge Diffusion, Technological Innovation, and

Federally Funded Aerospace R&D ..................... 136

Table 20. Technical Information Products Used .................. 200

Table 21. Importance of Technical Information Products .............. 201

Table 22. Frequency of Use of Technical Information Products ........ 203

Table 23. Factors Affecting the Use of Conference Papers ........... 204

Table 24. Factors Affecting the Use of Journal Articles ............. 205

Table 25. Factors Affecting the Use of In-Hoilse, Technical Reports ...... 206

Table 26. Factors Affecting the Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports 207

Table 27. Use of Conference-Meeting Papers ..................... 210

Table 28. Use of Journal Articles ............................ 211

Table 29. Use of In-House Technical Reports .................... 212

Table 30. Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports .............. 213

Table 31. Types of Technical Information Used ................... 214

Table 32. Sources of Basic Scientific and Technological Information ..... 215

Table 33. Sources of In-House Technical Data .................... 216

Table 34. Sources of Computer Programs ....................... 217

Table 35. Sources of Technical Specifications .................... 218

Table 36. Sources of Product and Performance Characteristics ......... 218

Table 37. Type of Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem . .. 220

Table 38. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Survey

Respondents to Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task,

or Problem ................................... 223

Table 39. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by

Academically, Government-, and Industry-Affiliated Respondents

to Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task,

or Problem . ................................... 224

viii
Fable 40. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Engineers and

Scientists to Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task,

or Problem ................................... 225

rable 41. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Managers

and Nonmanagers to Complete Most Important Technical Project,

Task, or Problem ................................. 226

rable 42. UF, of U.S. Government Technical Reports in Completing Most

Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem ............ 227

rable 43. Sources Used by Survey Respondents to Find Out

About U.S.Government Technical Reports Used to Complete Most

Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem ............ 228

Table 44. Sources Used by Academically, Government-, and IndustryAffiliated Respondents to Find Out About the U.S. Government

Technical Reports Used to Complete Most Important Technical Project,

Task, or Problem ................................. 229

Table 45. Sources Used by Engineers and Scientists to Find Out About

the U.S. Government Technical Reports Used to Complete Most

Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem ............ 230

Table 46. Sources Used by Managers and Nonmanagers to Find Out

About the U.S. Government Technical Reports Used to Complete

Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem ......... 232

Table 47. Stage U.S. Government Technical Reports Used in Completing

Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem ......... 233

Table 48. Effectiveness of U.S. Government Technical Reports Used in

Completing Most Important Technical Project,

Task Completion, or Problem ......................... 234

Table 49. Efficiency of U.S. Government Technical Reports Used in

Completing Most Important Technical Project, Task

Completion, or Problem ............................ 234

Table D1. Relationship of Education and Technical Information

Products Used ................................... 290

Table D2. Relationship of Career and Technical Information

Products Used ................................... 290

ix
Table D3. Relationship of Work Experience and Technical Information

Products Used ................................... 291

Table D4. Relationship of Education and Importance of Technical

Information Products ............................... 291

Table D5. Relationship of Career and Importance of Technical

Information Products ............................... 292

Table D6. Relationship of Work Experience and Importance of

Technical Information Products ....................... 292

Table D7. Relationship of Education and Frequency of Use of

Technical Information Products ....................... 293

Table D8. Relationship of Career and Frequency of Use of Technical

Information Products ............................... 293

Table D9. Relationship of Work Experience and Frequency of Use of

Technical Information Products ....................... 294

Table DlO. Relationship of Education and Factors Affecting the Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports .................... 295

Table DI1. Relationship of Career and Factors Affecting the Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports .................... 296

Table D12. Relationship of Work Experience and Factors Affecting the

Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports .............. 297

Table D13. Relationship of Education and Use of

Conference-Meeting Papers .......................... 297

Table D14. Relationship of Career and Use of

Conference-Meeting Papers .......................... 298

Table D15. Relationship of Work Experience and Use of

Conference-Meeting Papers .......................... 298

Table D16. Relationship of Education and Use of

Journal Articles ................................ 299

Table D17. Relationship of Career and Use of

Journal Articles ................................ 299

Table D18. Relationship of Work Experience and Use of

Journal Articles ................................ 300

x
Table D19. Relationship of Education and Use of

In-House Technical Reports ........................ 300

Table D20. Relationship of Career and Use of

In-House Technical Reports ........................ 301

Table D21. Relationship of Work Experience and Use of

In-House Technical Reports ........................ 301

Table D22. Relationship of Education and Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports ..................... 302

Table D23. Relationship of Career and Use of

U.S. Government Technical Repots..................... 302

Table D24. Relationship of Work Experience and Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports ..................... 303

Table D25. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by

Respondents to Complete Most Important Technical Project,

Task, or Technical Problem ........................ 304

Table D26. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by

Academically Affiliated Respondents to Complete Most

Important Technical Project, Task, or Technical Problem ....... 305

Table D27. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by

Government-Affiliated Respondents to Complete Most

Important Technical Project, Task, or Technical Problem ....... 306

Table D28. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by

Industry-Affiliated Respondents to Complete Most

Important Technical Project, Task, or Technical Problem ....... 307

Table D29. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by

Engineers to Complete Most Important Technical Project,

Task, or Technical Problem ........................ 308

Table D30. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by

Scientists to Complete Most Important Technical Project,

Task, or Technical Problem ........................ 309

Table D31. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by

Managers to Complete Most Important Technical Project,

Task, or Technical Problem ........................ 310

xi
Table D32. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by

Nonmanagers to Complete Most Important Technical Project,

Task, or Technical Problem ........................ 311

Table El. Existence of a Library or Technical Information Center ........ 314

Table E2. Use of a Library or Technical Information Center ........... 315

Table E3. Importance of a Library or Technical Information Center ....... 315

Table E4. Extent of Library or Technical Information Center Interaction ... 316

Table E5. Reasons for Library or Technical Information

Center Nonuse ................................ 318

Table E6. Ovcrall Use of Computer and Information Technology ....... 320

Fable E7. Use of Computer and Information Technology in Academia .... 323

Table E8. Use of Computer and Information Technology in Government . . 326

Table E9. Use of Computer and Information Technology in Industry ...... 329

xii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Aerospace Innovation Process as an Information

Processing System ................................ 12

Figure 2. A Model Depicting the Transfer of Federally Funded

Aerospace R&D .................................. 16

Figure 3. Reladions Between Input and Output ..................... 20

Figure 4. Relations Between U.S. Government Technical Reports as

Input and Selected Institutional and Sociometric Variables ...... 22

Figure 5. The Progression From Science Through Technology to

Development as a Continuous Process .................... 80

(With Permission of the MIT Press)

Figure 6. Science and Technology as a Single Tree ................ 83

(With Permission the Author, Rustom Roy)

Figure 7. Science and Technology as Separate Trees ................. 84

(With Permission of the Author, Rustom Roy)

Figure 8. The Progression From Science Through Technology

to Development as a Series of Interactions ................. 85

(With Permission ef the MIT Press)

Figure 9. Information Processing in Science and Technology ........... 87

With Permission of the MIT Press)

Figure 10. The U.S. Aerospace Engineer and Scientist as an Information

Processor: A Structured Analysis With Data on Variables

Related to Information-Seeking Habits and Practices ......... 161

Figure 11. Survey Demographics -- (n = 1839) .................... 195

xlii
CHAPTER 1

THE STUDY IN PERSPECTIVE

This study focuses on the transfer and utilization of knowledge resulting

from federally funded aerospace research and development (R&D).' It is based on

three assumptions: (1) that knowledge production, transfer, and utilization are

equally important components of the aerospace R&D process, (2) that the diffusion

of knowledge resulting from federally funded aerospace R&D is indispensable in

maintaining the vitality and international competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace

industry, and (3) that the U.S. government technical report plays an important, but

as yet undefined, role in the aerospace knowledge diffusion process.

This study has both an immediate and a broader purpose. In the first

instance, it provides an empirical basis for understanding the role of the U.S.

government technical report in the diffusion of knowledge resulting from federally

funded aerospace R&D. In the broader sense, it provides insight regarding the

information-seeking habits, practices, needs, and preferences of U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists.

BACKGROUND

"Judged against almost any criterion of performance -- growth in output,

exports, productivity, or innovation -- the U.S. aerospace industry, in particular the

commercial aviation sector, must be considered a star performer in the American

'This research is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration under Grant NAGW-1682.
economy" (Mowery and Rosenberg, 1982). "Total factor productivity in this [the

commercial aviation sector) industry has grown more rapidly than in virtually any

other U.S. industry during the postwar period" (Mowery, 1985). In 1989, the U.S.

aerospace industry continues to be the leading positive contributor to the balance of

trade among all merchandise industries, including agriculture (U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1990). Along with this performance record, the U.S. aerospace industry,

in particular the commercial aviation sector, presents important anomalies in

structure and conduct that make it worthy of investigation from the standpoint of

enhancing innovation and productivity and understanding the innovation process.

These anomalies include the factors that influence the rate and direction of

innovation, the diffusion of federally funded aerospace R&D, and Federal

involvement in supporting civilian R&D.

Unique Characteristics

The U.S. aerospace industry exhibits certain characteristics that make it

unique among other industries. First, the U.S. aerospace sector leads all other

industries in expenditures for R&D. Total R&D expenditures on U.S. aerospace

projects reached $24 billion in 1988 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990).

Second, the U.S. aerospace industry has benefitted as a technological "borrower"

from developments in other industries such as metallurgy, materials, chemicals, and

petroleum (Mowery and Rosenberg, 1982). Third, the aerospace industry, in

particular the commercial aviation sector, is characterized by the high degree of

systemic complexity embodied in its products. Consequently, a substantial element

of technological and marketplace uncertainty exists in the design and development

2
of each product. Aerospace companies have pursued production and design

strategies aimed at insulating themselves from the adverse consequences of such

uncertainty (Mowery, 1985).

Finally, the U.S. aerospace industry, principally the commercial aviation

sector, has been the beneficiary of federally funded R&D for nearly a century.

According to Mowery (1985), "The commercial aircraft industry is virtually unique

among U.S. manufacturing industries in that a Federal research organization, the

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), 2 and subsequently the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), has for many years

conducted and funded research on airframe and propulsion technologies." The

commercial aviation sector has also benefitted from considerable investment, in

terms of research and procurement, by the Department of Defense. "Although not

intended to support innovation in any but military airframe and propulsion

technologies, [this investment] has, nonetheless, yielded indirect, but very important,

technological spillovers to the commercial aircraft industry" (Mowery, 1985).

Implications For Federally Funded Civilian R&D

Both the NACA and NASA have been cited by scholars as models for

Federal involvement in civilian R&D (Tiech, 1985) and precommercial research

cooperation between industry and government (Nelson, 1982). Vannevar Bush

(1945) proposed a similar model for the creation of his National Research

I Usage varies on the pronunciation of the names NACA and NASA. In this

dissertation, NACA is meant to be read as four individual letters "N-A-C-A," while

the acronym NASA as a two-syllable word.

3
Foundation that was based on the land-grant colleges and the NACA. "Both offered

science, applied science, technology, and a system for coupling knowledge with

people who would use it in the field" (Shapley and Roy, 1985). The apparent

success of Federal involvement in aerospace contrasts sharply with the results of the

Federal government's attempts to intervene in the innovation process in the

automotive industry through initiatives such as the Cooperative Automotive Research

Program (CARP) (Rosenberg, 1985).

Numerous reasons have been advanced for the failures of civilian

technology programs such as CARP. Averch (1984) suggests that the failure of

these initiatives lies with the application of an "engineering strategy" approach to

the solution of broad economic and social problems such as declining productivity.

Logsdon (1986) suggests that the failure of such programs is due to the "direct

involvement" of government in the marketplace, implying that direct government

involvement in economic affairs should be minimal. Mowery (1983) suggests that

the failure of these programs is attributable to the application of an inappropriate

theoretical economic framework, a framework that ignores or does not account for

the effective transmission and utilization of complex research results and

technological information. In particular, these programs ignore the abilities and

limitations of organizations engaged in innovation to exploit extramural research,

thus ignoring the relationship between knowledge production, transfer, and utilization

as equally important components of the innovation process. Mowery (1985) further

states:

This theoretical [economic] framework focuses primarily on the

putative undersupply of research and bases its recommendations for

policy on this market failure. However, for policy purposes, the

4
distribution and utilization of the results of research and development

are crucial. An exclusive focus on the R&D support policies of the

Federal government, without some cognizance of the substantial

diffusion support component of the policy structure, yields conclusions

that differ substantially from those of an analysis that attempts to

incorporate both the technology supply and technology adoption

incentives operating within the overall policy framework.

What reasons account for the apparent success of the Federal government's

attempts to intervene in aerospace R&D? According to Mowery (1985), "Government policy in the aircraft industry not only supported precommercial research in

civilian and military aircraft technologies, but it also has played a major role in

supporting the diffusion of the results of that research." A retrospective look

indicates that the Federal government has played an enormously significant role in

both the "supply-push" and the "demand-pull" side of the aerospace knowledge

diffusion process (March, 1989).

Supply-Push

The use of Federal policy to supply and push aerospace knowledge began

with the creation of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) by

the Congress in 1915. The NACA was created to "supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solutions and to

give advice to the military air services and other aviation services of government"

(The Naval Appropriations Act, 1916). In its wind tunnels and laboratories, the

NACA worked on problems of aerodynamics and aeronautics common to both military and commercial aviation, guided by committees composed of representatives

from the aviation industry, the military services, and academia.

5
Throughout its history, the NACA has been described as "arguably the most

important and productive aeronautical research establishment in the world. Between

its creation in 1915 and its demise in 1958, the NACA published more than 16 000

technical reports which were sought after and exploited by aeronautical engineers

[and scientists] throughout the U.S. and abroad" (Roland, 1985). Many of these

reports are classics in the field of aerodynamics and aeronautics and are still used

and referenced; the data contained in these reports are essential to understanding the

fundamentals of aeronautical research and design (Anderson, 1974). Additionally,

the NACA maintained an "intelligence" office in Paris for the specific purpose of

collecting, evaluating, translating, and disseminating the results of foreign

aeronautical research to U.S. academic, government, and industry users.

The use of Federal policy to supply and push aerospace knowledge has been

aided by the Department of Defense (DOD). Research supported by the DOD has

yielded indirect, but very important, innovative spillovers to the commercial aircraft

sector of the U.S. aerospace industry, most notably in the areas of airframe

development, aircraft propulsion, avionics, and flight control systems. The demands

of the military for performance pushed the development and early application of

many technologies. The military supported je" ngine development, provided

continued support for the development of specific miary engines whose cores were

adapted for commercial use, and provided the test-beds for the technological

development of early commercial jet aircraft (March, 1989).

The development of the first jet engine in the United States was financed

entirely by the DOD, reflecting "both the perceived military urgency of the project,

6
and the lack of interest in the development of such an engine expressed by

commercial aircraft firms prior to 1940" (Mowery and Rosenberg, 1982). Turbofan

engine research for the C-5A, which led to the development of high-bypass-ratio

engines, was adapted by the commercial aviation industry for the engines that power

the Boeing 747, 757, and 767. The development of the KC-135 tanker laid the

foundation for the Boeing 707, particularly with regard to the wings, tail, and power

plant (Mowery, 1985).

Demand-Pull

Federal regulatory policy also affects the demand for knowledge by the

commercial aviation industry. Passage of the Kelly Air Mail Act of 1925 transferred responsibility for airmail transport from the Post Office to private contractors.

The contractors, who were paid on a weight basis, bid on the various routes.

During the years 1925 to 1930, the Congress reduced airmail rates, creating a

substantial increase in airmail volume. Reflecting the growth of the airmail market,

the commercial aircraft industry responded by producing aircraft, such as the Boeing

40, that were designed for long-haul cargo transport (Mowery, 1985).

The McNary-Watres Act of 1930 changed the method of payment for

carrying airmail from a weight basis to a space-mile (seat) basis. Carriers would,

therefore, derive a greater portion of their revenues from passenger transportation.

Additionally, incentive payments were made to carriers who used multiengine

aircraft, radios, and other navigational aids. The McNary-Watres Act, which had

the effect of developing a small number of financially strong transcontinental

carriers, coincided with the rapid growth of air passenger traffic. The commercial

7
aircraft industry responded with the design of long-haul passenger transports such as

the B-247 and the DC-2, which represented significant commercial aviation

developments (Mowery and Rosenberg, 1982).

Congress created the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in 1938, giving it the

power to issue operating certificates, oversee airline fares, control pricing policies,

and control entry to and exit from commercial air transportation. Multiple carriers,

operating in a market where entry was controlled and price competition was

prohibited, gave rise to a high level of service-quality competition. Acting on the

belief that the rapid introduction of state-of-the-art aircraft was an effective

marketing strategy, the major air carriers quickly adopted new aircraft designs. The

drive to be the first with a new design motivated the major airlines to make early

purchase commitments to airframe manufacturers as a means of obtaining the

earliest possible delivery. Service-quality competition thus fostered rapid diffusion

and adoption of innovations that drew upon federally funded research results. This

same situation fostered fierce competition among airframe manufacturers, especially

for aircraft that would capture the largest single markets, the transcontinental and

transatlantic routes. Little or no heed was paid to the development of aircraft for

short-range and low-density routes (Mowery and Rosenberg, 1982).

Recent Federal regulatory policy, in the form of domestic airline

deregulation, has disrupted the supply-push and demand-pull knowledge production,

transfer, and utilization equation by fundamentally shifting the primary axis of

competition from service and quality to price. Price competition has the net effect

of pressuring both the airlines and the airframe manufacturers to cut cost; it also

8
lessens the need for and the adoption of innovations. Many airlines have postponed

or delayed purchase decisions and continue using existing aircraft (Leinster, 1984).

Airline deregulation has also affected route structure, thus altering fleet

needs. Deregulation has replaced a point-to-point emphasis with a hub-to-spoke

strategy that emphasizes short-range and low-density routes and has produced a

mismatch between the existing fleets of larger, wide-body aircraft and the need for

smaller commuter aircraft. CAB policies, which emphasized long-haul, point-topoint service, restricted the need for short-haul aircraft and, hence, their production

by U.S. manufacturers. Their development was confined largely to Europe and

Canada. One outcome of domestic airline deregulation has been the creation of a

commuter airline market and the need for commuter aircraft. Rapid growth of this

market has benefitted European, Canadian, and other foreign producers of these

aircraft (March, 1989).

ImDiications

With its contribution to trade, its coupling with national security, and its

symbolism of U.S. technological strength, the U.S. aerospace industry holds a

unique position in the Nation's industrial structure (National Academy of

Engineering, 1985). However, the U.S. aerospace industry, in particular the

commercial aviation sector, is experiencing profound change created by a

combination of domestic and international circumstances. Some features of the

change result from domestic actions and circumstances such as airline deregulation,

while others result from external trends and events such as emerging foreign

competition (Hannay, 1986). Consequently, while the implications of the change

9
that is occurring are of national importance, the implications are not well

understood. Hannay (1986) finds that four factors, events, and trends are changing

the nature of the U.S. aerospace industry and the commercial aviation sector. The

continuation of the domestic airlines' traditional role in launching new aircraft is

uncertain due to economic deregulation and the deteriorating financial performance

of domestic airlines.

Worldwide, the manufacture of aircraft is becoming an attractive industry and

many foreign companies enjoy a special supportive (financial) relationship with their

governments. Domestic air travel is projected to grow less rapidly than in foreign

markets, so export sales will become increasingly important. Countries are

demanding a participative role in manufacturing as the price of entry into their

markets. Simultaneously, U.S. producers are seeking to spread risks and to develop

additional capital. Thus, increasing U.S. collaboration with foreign producers results

in a more international manufacturing environment. The changing composition of

the industry will foster an increasing flow of U.S. aerospace trade. At the same

time, international industrial alliances will result in a more rapid diffusion of

technology, increasing pressure on the U.S. aerospace industry to push forward with

new technological developments (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988).

PROBLEM CONTEXT

To establish an organizing framework for this study, the process of

innovation in the U.S. aerospace industry is conceptualized as an information

processing system that must deal with work-related uncertainty through patterns of

10
technical communications. Throughout the innovation process, ideas and knowledge

are being pursued and transferred. The fact that these ideas and knowledge deal

with hard technologies or may be, as Allen (1977) states, "physically or hardware

encoded," should not detract from the observation that, in aerospace R&D, the

innovation process is fundamentally an information processing activity.

The premise that the process of innovation can be viewed as an information

processing activity has its roots in open system theory (Katz and Kahn, 1966) and

represents an extension of the arguments developed by Tushman and Nadler (1980).

These arguments trace their origins to, among others, Galbraith (1973) and Duncan

(1973), who have conceptualized organizations as information processing systems.

Uncertainty, defimed as the difference between information possessed and

information required to complete a task (Rosenbloom and Wolek, 1970), is central

to the concept of organizations as information processing activities. Rogers (1982)

states that uncertainty is the central concept in innovation behavior. "The act, and

the process, of innovating is clearly one that involves grappling with unknowns.

These unknowns or uncertainties may be technological, economic, or merely the

manifestation of personal and social variables."

Rogers (1982) further states that "when faced with uncertainty, individuals

typically seek information. Such information-seeking to cope with uncertainty is

why communication behavior cannot be ignored when studying innovation. Because

innovation behavior always entails coping with a relatively high degree of

uncertainty, such innovation is, most centrally, an informational process."

11
An Information Processine Framework

Information processing in aerospace R&D (figure 1) is viewed as an ongoing

problem-solving cycle involving various activities within the innovation process, the

larger organization, and the external world. For purposes of this study, the

innovation process is conceptualized as a process of related activities or units

beginning with research at one end and service and maintenance on the other.3

EXTERNAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT,:-...... .

Federadl- *Stuppy-Push OTCNLOIA MARKET Demand-Pu~t.~ e~a

Govemntm IRMATON IFORMATION Gvrmn

The Aerospace Oganization [ . ]- Design & Manufacturing[- Marketing I Service &

Devel ment & P uction ' I & Sales Manenc

Technical Information Center

INTERNAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT

... ... .... .. i i i!

Figure 1. The Aerospace Innovation Process as an Information Processing System.

These activities or units are highly differentiated, however. They operate on

different time frames and have different goals and varying professional orientations

(Rosenbloom and Wolek, 1970). These differences in norms and values also carry

with them different internal coding schemes that suggest that each unit may possess

specific and unique information requirements and information processing patterns.

'The proposition that innovation is a linear process, a view presented by Myers

and Marquis (1969), is not universally accepted. Langrish, et al., (1972) and Kline

(1985) have rejected "linear models" of the innovation process as unrealistic.

12
The activities or units are also likely to have different sources of effective feedback,

evaluation, and information support (Tushman and Nadler, 1980).

For any given task, each activity or unit within the innovation process "must

[based on open system thecry] effectively import technical and market information

from the external information world" (Tushman and Nadler, 1980). New [external]

and established [internal] information must be effectively processed within the work

area; decisions, solutions, and approaches must be worked on and coordinated within

each activity and within the organization; and outputs, such as decisions, processes,

pwuducts, and information, must effectively be transferred to the external environment. The outputs of this process create conditions for another set of activities,

thereby initiating another information processing cycle. Throughout the process,

organizations must be sensitive to the differences bet -en the activities or units that

comprise the innovation process. Specialized feedback, evaluation, and support may

be required to process new information from internal and external sources

(Gerstberger, 1971).

Organizations involved in innovation are open systems that must deal with

several sources of work-related uncertainty (Katz and Kahn, 1966). In particular,

they must deal with technical and market uncertainty from outside the organization

as well as uncertainty concerning problem solving within the organization (Myers

and Marquis, 1969; Utterback, 1974). The nature of organizations nvolved in

innovation is such that uncertainty cannot be eliminated. To maintain stability,

however, organizations involved in innovation must constantly strive to reduce un13
certainty to a manageable level (Miller, 1971). Information is used by organizations

to reduce work-related uncertainty (Tushman and Nadler, 1980).

Three factors (task characteristics, task environment, and task interdependence) combine to influence the degree of uncertainty with which organizations involved in the innovation process must contend. Uncertainty increases as

the task becomes more complicated, as the environment becomes more dynamic, and

as task interdependence becomes more complex. The greater the uncertainty, the

greater the information processing requirements and the greater the need for

information external to the organization (Rosenbloom and Wolek, 1970; Allen,

1970).

However, it is the nature of organizations engaged in innovation to isolate

themselves from the outside world, to erect barriers to communication with their

external environment, and to rely on information internal to the organization

(Gerstenfeld and Berger, 1980). This behavior is due in large part to tfe need for

organizations to exercise control over those situations in which they interact with the

"outside," to reduce uncertainty, and because these organizations are frequently

involved in activities of a proprietary nature (Fischer, 1980; Allen, 1970).

Numerous studies have found a strong relationship between successful innovation,

idea formulation, and information external to the organization (Dewhirst, et al.,

1979; Allen, 1977; Science Policy Research Unit, 1972). The danger, then, for

organizations engaged in innovation is to become isolated from their external

environment and from information external to the organization (Fischer, 1980).

14
Government Influence on Information Processing

This condition of isolation is moderated somewhat, however, by the "supplypush/demand-pull" effect created by the Federal government's involvement, primarily

through NASA and DOD, in the aerospace innovation process. The Federal government has become both a performer and a dominant purchaser of aerospace R&D.

From a policy perspective, the aerospace industry is a main performer of Federal

R&D and the academic community a main performer of basic research. According

to Rosenberg (1985), "The role of the Federal government in the support of R&D is

carried out within an institutional framework dominated [or characterized] by

contractual relationships between the Federal government, the aerospace industry,

and the academic community."

These contractual relationships, in and of themselves, contribute to the

transmission and utilization of knowledge resulting from federally funded aerospace

R&D. The transfer of knowledge is also aided by joint government-industry

cooperative projects; technical committees composed of representatives from

academia, government, and industry; the exchange of personnel; jointly sponsored

workshops and conferences; and the use of government facilities by academia and

industry. Additionally, both NASA and DOD maintain scientific and technical

information (STI) systems for acquiring, processing, announcing, publishing, and

transferring the results of government-performed and government-sponsored research.

According to Stohrer (1981), within both the NASA and DOD STI systems, the

U.S. government technical report is used as a primary means of transferring the

results of this research to the aerospace community.

15
U.S. Government Technical Report

Figure 2 presents a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded

aerospace R&D vis-11-vis the U.S. government technical report. The model is

composed of two parts: the informal, which relies on collegial contacts, and the

Informal (Collegial)

Surrogates Producers Information Users

Intermediaries " DTIC o DOD 0 Aerospace

p TRAC NASA a Librarians Engineers S a

" DROLS publh D Ua Gatekeepers and Scientists -

NASA STIF aContractors i m Linking Agents Surro Aerospace

f STAR & Grantees Engineering

a RECON Knowledge and Science

" NTIS Brokers Students

oGRA&I

•NTIS FILE

Formal

Figure 2. A Model Decipting the Transfer of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D.

formal, which relies on surrogates, information products, and information intermediaries to complete the transfer of knowledge from the "producer" to "user." The

producers are DOD and NASA and their contractors and grantees. NASA and

DOD publish U.S. government technical reports and make the initial or primary distribution to libraries and technical information centers. Surrogates receive copies

for secondary and subsequent distrbution, A limited number of reports are set

aside as "author" copies to be used by the author for the "scientist-to-scientist"

exchange of information.

Surrogates include the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), the

NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility (NASA STIF), and the National

16
Technical Information Service (NTIS). They serve as technical report repositories or

clearinghouses for the producers. The surrogates, in turn, have created various

technical report announcement journals such as TRAC (Technical Report Announcement Circular), STAR (Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports), and Government Reports Announcements and Index (GRA&I) and computerized retrieval

systems such as DROLS (Defense RDT&E On Line System), RECON (REmote

CONsole), and the NTIS File that permit on-line access to technical report data

bases.

Information intermediaries are, irt large part, librarians and technical

information specialists "in academia, government, and industry. Those representing

the producers serve as what McGowan and Loveless (1981) describe as "knowledge

brokers" or "linking agents." Information intermediaries connected with users act,

according to Allen (1977), as "technological entrepreneurs" or "gatekeepers." The

more "active" the intermediary, the more effective the transfer process becomes

(Goldhor and Lund, 1983). Active intermediaries take information from one place

and move it to another, often face-to-face. Passive information intermediaries, on

the other hand, "simply array information for the taking, relying on the initiative of

the user to request or search out the information that may be needed" (Eveland,

1987).

What little is known about the U.S. government technical report in an

empirical sense is limited and dated (Herner and Herner, 1961; O'Donnell, et al.,

1962). Auger (1975) states that "the history of technical report literature in the U.S.

coincides almost entirely with the development of aeronautics, the aviation industry,

17
and the creation of the NACA, which issued its first report in 1917."' In her study,

Information Transfer in Engineering, Shuchman (1981) reports that 75 percent of the

engineers surveyed used technical reports; that technical reports were important to

engineers doing applied work; and that aerospace engineers, more than any other

group of engineers, referred to "key" persons and technical reports. However, in

many of these studies it is often unclear, as in Shuchman's study, whether U.S.

government technical reports, non-U.S. government technical reports, or both are

included (McClure, 1988).

McClure (1988) argues that "the [U.S. government] technical report is the

primary means by which [the results] of Federal R&D are reported." There is some

historical, but little empirical, evidence to support the claim that the U.S.

government technical reports produced by the NACA played an important role in

transferring the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aeronautical community

(Roland, 1985). Paradoxically, while U.S. government technical reports "may

constitute the single most important storehouse of R&D in the world, they may

constitute the most ignored and inaccessible STI [product] in the world" (McClure,

1989). McClure (1989) further concludes that "we know very little about the role,

'The complete citation to the first NACA technical report is given below.

Re=ort on Behavior of Aeroplanes in Gusts. NACA Report I in Two Parts,

1915. Hunsaker, J.C. Part 1 - Experimental Analysis of Inherent Longitudinal

Stability For a Tpical Biplane. Wilson, E.B. Part 2 - Theory of an Aeroplane

Encountering Gusts. In (1915) First Annual Report of the National Advisory

Committee for Aeronautics. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1917,)

23.

18
importance, and impact of this literature vis-h-vis the transfer of federally funded

R&D, U.S. innovation, and productivity."

What, then, is the role of the U. S. government technical report in the

diffusion of knowledge resulting from federally funded aerospace R&D? What role

does the U.S. government technical report play in an industry in which Federal

science and regulatory policy influence knowledge diffusion? What role does the

U.S. government technical report play in a mature industry that is becoming more

interdisciplinary in nature and more global in scope?

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Numerous "user studies," investigations of the information-seeking habits and

practices of engineers and scientists, have been performed over the past quarter of a

century. User studies can be broadly grouped into two categories. One type is

concerned primarily with the performance of an information service or system that

is used by a particular group of engineers and scientists. A goal of these studies is

frequently to determine the effectiveness of the service or system. The other type is

concerned primarily with the impact of information or a particular information

product on the task or the work being performed. Studies of this nature focus on

the social system within which information is produced or used. This study fits into

the latter category, being concerned with an exploration of the interface between the

user, the task being performed, the information products used, and the criteria

affecting the selection or use of a particular information product.

19
Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for the problem is based on the work of Orr and

Mick, et al., (1979). Their research focused on developing a conceptual scheme for

understanding and predicting the communication behavior of scientists, a generic

term employed to cover both engineers and scientists.

Their work was grounded in the following three assumptions: (1) that a

holistic or global view is necessary to understand and predict the scientists'

communication behavior, (2) that the scientists' communication behavior can be

viewed as a system of information input and output activities, can be characterized

as a series of complex interactions, and is influenced or affected by a variety of

factors; and (3) that these variables, either individually or grouped, influence

information processing and, therefore, can be used to understand and predict the use

and production of an information product and the scientists' communication

behavior. Orr (1970) states that a number of studies have indicated that a

scientist's information input and output activities are related or at least associated.

Orr (1970) hypothesizes (figure 3) that some personal or situational variable(s) "X"

is the major determinant of both input and output.

INPUT • OUTPUT

X

Figure 3. Relations Between Input and Output.

20
The Problem

The following question expresses the problem statement for this research.

Which factors or variables explain the use of U.S. government technical reports by

U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists? For purposes of this study, two sets of

variables are said to influence the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists. The first set, identified as institutional or

structural variables, includes the following six factors: education, academic

preparation, years of professional aerospace work experience, type of organization,

professional duties, and technical discipline. Research conducted by Allen (1977),

Fischer (1980), Fishenden (1959), Herner (1954), Olson (1978), Rosenbloom and

Wolek (1970), Scott (1962), Seiss (1982), and Shuchman (1981) indicates that these

variables influence the use of an information product as well as the informationseeking habits and practices of engineers and scientists.

The second set, identified as sociometric or source selection variables,

include the following seven factors: accessibility, ease of use, expense, familiarity

or experience, technical quality or reliability, comprehensiveness, and relevance.

O'Gara (1968) refers to these variables as sociometric factors. Research conducted

by Gerstberger (1967), Kaufman (1979,1983), Rosenberg (1966), and Werner (1965)

indicates that these variables influence the use of an informauon product as well as

the information-seeking habits and practices of engineers and scientists.

The conceptual framework for the problem, which is shown in figure 4, is an

extension of Orr's (1970) model for predicting information product use, production,

and behavior. This research follows Orr's work but with the following three dis21
U.S. Government

Technical Reports INPUT OUTPUT

(Number of times used) t

x

" Education * Accessibility

" Academic preparation * Expense

" Years of aerospace * Familiarity

work experience * Relevance

" Type of organization 0 Ease of use

" Technical discipline * Technical quality

" Professional duties o Comprehensiveness

Figure 4. Relations Between U.S. Government Technical Reports as

Input and Selected Institutional and Sociometric Variables.

tinctions: (1) while acknowledging an association between input and output, this

research focuses on "input," the use of U.S. government technical reports; (2) although an inherent compatibility exists between input and output in the information

processing system of science, a fundamental and inherent incompatibility exists

between input and output in technology (Allen, 1977); and (3) whereas "scientist"

continues to be used as a generic term for both engineers and scientists, the two

groups are fundamentally different. The primary difference between engineers and

scientists leads not only to different information-seeking habits and practices, but

also to differences in the use and value that the two groups place on information

(Joenk, 1985). The difference stems from two primary considerations: (1) the

independent nature of science and technology (Allen, 1977; Shapely and Roy, 1985),

and (2) the social enculturation of engineers and scientists (Allen, 1977; Krulee and

Nadler, 1960; Holmfeld, 1970).

22
Research Ouestions

The goal of this study is to provide an empirical basis for understanding the

role of the U.S. government technical report in the diffusion of knowledge resulting

from federally funded aerospace R&D. Taking the view that the U.S. government

technical report plays an important, but as yet undefined, role in the aerospace

knowledge diffusion process, it follows that three research questions are generated.

First, do the six institutional or structural variables explain the use of U.S.

government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists? Second,

do the seven sociometric or source selection variables explain the use of U.S.

government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists? Third, if

both the institutional and sociometric variables are considered, does one set of

variables predominate in terms of use?

Hvotheses

The dependent variable in this study is the "number of times a U.S.

government technical report was used in a 6-month period" by U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists. There are 13 independent variables. The hypotheses were

formulated on "an assumption of difference" and, therefore, are stated as

alternative hypotheses. Each hypothesis was tested with the statistical significance

of p < 0.05.

Hvpothesis 1. The amount of education, stated in terms of no graduate and

graduate education degree, influences the number of U.S. government technical

reports used in a 6-month period. Therefore, U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists

having only an undergraduate education degree or less are more likely than their

23
counterparts with a graduate degree to use U.S. government technical reports. The

assumption of difference is based on Allen's (1977) belief that "the long, complex

process of academic socialization involved in obtaining an M.S. or a Ph.D. is bound

to result in a person who differs considerably in his/her lifeview. These differences

in values and attitudes toward work will almost certainly reflect in the behavior of

the individual, especially in their use and production of information."

Hypothesis 2. Educational preparation, stated in terms of academic

preparation to become either an engineer or a scientist, influences the number of

U.S. government technical reports used in a 6-month period. Therefore, those

survey respondents educated as engineers, as opposed to those educated as scientists,

are more likely to use U.S. government technical reports. The assumption of

difference is based on the COSATI Report, which states that "the technical report is

favored as a recording medium of R&D and is, therefore, used by engineers and

technologists, while the scientific journal appears to be favored as the recording

medium of basic research and is, therefore, used by scientists" (Federal Council for

Science and Technology, 1968).

Hypothesis 3. The number of years of professional work experience in

aerospace, stated in terms of a 30-year career, influences the number of U.S.

government technical reports used in a 6-month period. Those U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists having 15 years or less of professional aerospace work

experience are more likely to use U.S. government technical reports than those

having 16 years or more of professional aerospace work experience. The

assumption of difference is based on Fischer (1980), who quotes Treadwell (1968),

24
stating that after the attainment of some peak level of performance, a researcher's

effectiveness declines over time. Further, Pelz and Andrews (1966) found that

technical communication, both in terms of frequency and time consumed, appears to

decline with age.

Hypothesis 4. The type of organization, stated in terms of academia,

government, and industry, to which U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists belong

influences the number of U.S. government technical reports used in a 6-month

period. Therefore, those survey respondents who work in a government organization, identified as DOD, NASA, and other, are more likely to use U.S. government technical reports than are those U.S. government aerospace engineers and

scientists who work in academia and industry. The assumption of difference is

based on Fischer's (1980) and Tushman and Nadler's (1980) observations that information internal to the organization constitutes the organization's institutional or

corporate memory.

Information internal to the organization is also the information the

professional is most likely to turn to first, especially when uncertainty is low. Allen

(1977) found that engineers, performing nine separate functions such as learning

new procedures, turn to internal information in the form of technical reports first for

information for six of the nine functions. Therefore, it is assumed that professionals

affiliated with U.S. government organizations would use the U.S. government

technical report, which constitutes the information internal to government

organizations.

25
Hypothesis 5. The type of professional duties, stated in terms of

management and nonmanagement, performed by U.S. aerospace engineers and

scientists influences the number of U.S. government technical reports used in a 6-

month period. Those survey respondents performing nonmanagement duties are

more likely than those performing management duties to use U.S. government

technical reports. The assumption of difference is based on the presumption that the

duties of managers and nonmanagers are fundamentally different. Consequently,

these two groups would develop different information use and production strategies

that would, in turn, manifest themselves as distinctive technical communication

practices. Although not supported by convincing empirical evidence, the assumption

of difference has been advanced by Mathes and Stevenson (1976) and Bozeman, et

al., (1978).

Hypothesis 6. The discipline or the nature of the work, stated in terms of

engineering or science, that best characterizes the work performed by U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists influences the number of U.S. government technical reports

used in a 6-month period. Those survey respondents who characterize their work as

engineering, as opposed to science, are more likely to use U.S. government technical

reports. The assumption of difference is based on the observation of Bikson, et al.,

(1984) that the literature of choice is based in large part on the tradition of the

discipline. Those disciplines considered to be "more science like" tend to prefer the

scientific journal as the medium of communication, whereas the more technologyoriented disciplines tend to prefer the technical report as the medium of choice.

Furthermore, Bikson and her colleagues (1984) state that the U.S. government

26
technical report serves as both a releasing mechanism and a contractual record for

the major mission-oriented agencies, such as DOD and NASA, involved in

aerospace R&D.

Hypothesis 7. Certain sociometric variables, identified as accessibility, ease

of use, expense, familiarity or experience, technical quality or reliability, comprehensiveness, and relevance, influence the number of U.S. government technical

reports used in a 6-month period. Of those sociometric variables considered,

accessibility is most likely to influence the use of U.S. government technical reports.

The assumption of difference is based on Allen's (1977) findings, which reveal a

relationship between the frequency of information channel use and information

channel performance. Gerstberger and Allen (1968), in their study of engineers and

choice of an information channel, note:

Engineers, in selecting among information channels, act in a

manner which is intended not to maximize gain, but rather to

minimize loss. The loss to be minimized is the cost in terms of

effort, either physical or psychological, which must be expended in

order to gain access to an information channel.

Their behavior appears to follow a "law of least effort" (Zipf, 1949).

According to this law, individuals, when choosing among several paths to a goal,

will base their decision upon the single criterion of "least average rate of probable

work." According to Gerstberger and Allen (1968), engineers appear to be governed

or influenced by a principle closely related to this law. They attempt to minimize

effort in terms of work required to gain access to an information channel. Perceived accessibility appears to be the primary determinant in an engineer's selection

of an information source.

27
Hypothesis 8. Thirteen variables, six institutional or structural and seven

sociometric or source selection, are thought to influence or determine the use of

U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. A

review of the relevant literature indicates that all these variables influence

information use. Viewed as two groups, however, the institutional or structural

variables tend to predominate or exert the greatest influence on information use.

Therefore, it is proposed that, taken as a group, the structural or institutional

variables determine the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists.

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

With its contribution to trade, its coupling with national security, and its

symbolism of U.S. technological strength, the U.S. aerospace industry holds a

unique position in the Nation's industrial structure (NASA, 1986). However, the

U.S. aerospace industry is experiencing profound change created by a combination

of domestic policy actions such as airline deregulation, while others result from

external trends such as emerging foreign competition (Hannay, 1986).

These circumstances emphasize the need to understand the aerospace

knowledge diffusion process with respect to federally funded R&D; to recognize that

STI emanating from federally funded aerospace R&D is a valuable strategic resource

for innovation, problem solving, and productivity; and to remove the major barriers

that restrict or prohibit the ability of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists to

acquire and process the results of federally funded aerospace R&D. However, as

28
Solomon and Tomatzky (1986) point out, "While STI, its transfer and utilization, is

crucial to innovation [and competitiveness], linkages between [the] various sectors of

the technology infrastructure are weak and/or poorly defined."

These conditions also intensify the need to understand the production,

transfer, and utilization of knowledge as a precursor to the rapid diffusion of

aerospace technology and as a means of maximizing the aerospace R&D process.

Maximizing the aerospace R&D process begins with an understanding of the

information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

As Menzel (1966) states:

The way in which [aerospace] engineers and scientists make

use of the information systems at their disposal, the demands that they

put on them, the satisfaction achieved by their efforts, and the

resultant impact on their future work are among the items of

knowledge which are necessary for the wise planning of S&T

information systems and policy.

Si2nificance of the Problem

In terms of empirically derived data, very little is known about the diffusion

of knowledge in the aerospace industry. Rogers (1983) defines diffusion as the

"process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over

time among members of the social system." Most of the channel studies, such as

the work by Gilmore, et al., (1967) and Archer (1964), have been concerned with

the transfer of aerospace technology to nonaerospace industries. Although

researchers have investigated the information-seeking habits and practices of enginneers, it is not possible to determine from the published results if the study participants included aerospace engineers and scientists.

29
It is likely that an understanding of the process by which STI in the aerospace industry is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of the social system would contribute to increasing productivity, stimulating

innovation, and improving and maintaining the professional competence of U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists. Furthermore, an empirically derived understanding of the process would permit the development of a conceptual framework

for understanding both the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and their behavior within the aerospace information

social system. Such knowledge could be used by information and R&D managers

to develop policies relative to U.S. aerospace innovation, productivity, and

competitiveness and to develop and evaluate U.S. aerospace STI policy and systems.

Methodologv

Survey research is the methodology used for the study. Data were collected

by means of a self-administered mail questionnaire. The survey design is based

primarily on Dillman's total design method (TDM) (Dillman, 1978). The approximately 34 000 members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(AIAA) served as the study population. The sample frame consisted of 6781 AIAA

members (1 out of 5) who reside in the U.S and who are employed in academia,

government, and industry. Systematic sampling was used to select 3298 members

from the sample frame to participate in the study. Two thousand and sixteen

(2016) usable questionnaires were received by the established cutoff date. With an

adjusted sample of 2894 and 2016 completed questionnaires, the adjusted response

rate for the survey was 70 percent.

30
Limitations

The generalizability of the data analysis is limited because the study focuses

on U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and U.S. government technical reports.

The fact that only AIAA members are included in the sample also limits the generalizability of the data analysis. Further, the generalizability of the data analysis is

limited because the sample is drawn from a professional society and does not

include those who do not join professional societies. Finally, while the results help

explain the use of U.S. government technical reports, the results cannot be used to

predict report use.

Organization of the Study

The study is organized around five appendixes and seven chapters. The

definitions of the terms used in the study appear in appendix A. The acronyms

used in the study appear in appendix B. The questionnaire and associated correspondence appear in appendix C. Additional descriptive data tables for survey topics

1 and 2 appear in appendix D. The presentation of the descriptive data for survey

topics 3 and 4 appears in appendix E. Chapter 1 contains the background, the

problem context, the statement of the problem, and an overview of the study.

Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature concerning U.S. government technical

reports. A review of the literature concerning the information-seeking habits and

practices of engineers is contained in chapter 3. The research design and methodology is found in chapter 4. The presentation of the descriptive data for survey

topics 1 and 2 appears in chapter 5. The test of the hypotheses appears in chapter

6. The conclusions and recommendations for further research appear in chapter 7.

31
REFERENCES

Allen, Thomas J. "Roles in Technical Communication Networks."

In Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, Carnot E. Nelson and

Donald K. Pollack, eds. (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1970,) 191-208.

Allen, Thomas J. Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the

Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization.

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.)

Anderson, Jean. "Not a Half-Life for NACA Reports." Sci-Tech News 28:4

(October 1974): 24.

Archer, John F. The Diffusion of Space Technology By Means of Technical

Publications: A Report Based on the Distribution, Use, and Effectiveness of

"Selected Welding Techniques." Boston: American Academy of Arts and

Sciences, November 1964. (Available from NTIS Springfield,VA 70N76955.)

Auger, Charles P. Use of Technical Reports Literature. (Hamden, CT: Archon

Books, 1975.)

Averch, Harvey A. A Strategic Analysis of Science and Technology Policy.

(Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.)

Bikson, Tora K.; Barbara E. Quint; and Leland L. Johnson. Scientific and

Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Options. Washington, DC:

National Science Foundation, March 1984. (Available from NTIS, Springfield,

VA PB-85-150357; also available as Rand Note 2131.)

Bozeman, Barry; Kenneth Roering; and E. Allen Slusher. "Social Structure and the

Flow of Scientific Information in Public Agencies: The Ideal Design." Research

Policy 7:4 (October 1978): 384-405.

Bush, Vannevar. Science: The Endless Frontier. (Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office, 1945.)

Dewhirst, H. Dudley; Richard D. Avery; and Edward M. Brown. "Satisfaction and

Performance in Research and Development Tasks as Related to Information

Accessibility." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-25:3

(August 1979): 58-63.

Dillman, Don A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. (NY:

John Wiley, 1978.)

32
Duncan, Robert B. "Multiple Decision-Making Structures in Adapting

Environmental Uncertainty: The Impact on Organizational Effectiveness"

Human Relations 26:3 (1973): 273-291.

Eveland, J. D. Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and Findings.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, March 1987. (Not available

from NTIS.)

Federal Council for Science and Technology. Committee on Scientific and

Technical Information. Task Group on the Role of the Technical Report. The

Role of the Technical Report in Scientific and Technological Communication.

Washington, DC: Federal Council for Science and Technology, 1968. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-180 944; AKA The COSATI Report.)

Fischer, William A. "Scientific and Technical Information and the Performance of

R&D Groups." In Management of Research and Innovation, Burton V. Dean

and Joel L. Goldhar, eds. (NY: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1980,) 67-

89.

Fishenden, R.M. "Methods by Which Research Workers Find Information." In

Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information held in

Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council,

1959, 163-179.

Galbraith, John K. Designing Complex Organizations. (Reading, MA: Addison -

Wesley, 1973.)

Gerstberger, Peter G. An Investigation of the Criteria Used in Information Channel

Selection By R&D Engineers. Master's Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 1967.

Gerstberger, Peter G. The Preservation and Transfer of Technology in Research and

Development Organizations. Ph.D. Diss., Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 1971.

Gerstberger, Peter G. and Thomas J. Allen. "Criteria Used By Research and

Development Engineers in the Selection of an Information Source." Journal of

Applied Psvchology 52:4 (August 1968): 272-279.

Gerstenfeld, Arthur and Paul Berger. "An Analysis of Utilization Differences for

Scientific and Technical Information." Management Science 26:2 (February

1980): 165-179.

Gilmore, John S. et al. The Channels of Technology Acquisition in Commercial

Firms and the NASA Dissemination Program. Denver, CO: Denver Research

Institute, June 1967. (Available from: NTIS Springfield, VA N67-31477.)

33
Goldhor, Richard S. and Robert T. Lund. "University-to-Industry Advanced

Technology Transfer: A Case Study." Research Policy 12 (1983): 121-152.

Hannay, N. Bruce. "Technology and Trade: A Study of U.S. Competitiveness in

Seven Industries." In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for

Economic Growth Ralph Landau and Nathan Rosenberg, eds. (Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 1986,) 480-499.

Herner, Saul. "Information Gathering Habits of Workers in Pure and Applied

Science." Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 46:1 (January 1954):

228-236.

Herner, Saul and Mary Herner. Factors Governing the Announcement of and

Publication of United States Government Research Reports. Arlington, VA:

Herner and Company, December 1961. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA

PB-160 555.)

Holmfeld, John D. Communication Behavior of Scientists and Engineers. Ph.D.

Diss., Case Western Reserve University, 1970. UMI 70-25874.

Joenk, Rudy J. "Engineering Text for Engineers." Chapter 15 in Technology of

Text: Vol. II Principles for Structuring. Designing, and Displaving Text, David

H. Jonassen, ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications,

1985, 346-369.

Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organizations. (NY:

John Wiley, 1966.)

Kaufman, Harold G. "Information Needs of Practicing Engineers." In Scarce

Resource Allocations -- Engineering in the 80's: Proceedings of the 1979 ASEE

Annual Conference, Lawrence P. Grayson and Joseph M. Biedenbach, eds.

(Baton Rouge, Louisiana: ASEE, June 25-28, 1979,) 472-480.

Kaufman, Harold G. Factors Related to Use of Technical Information in

Engineering Problem Solving. Brooklyn, NY: Polytechnic Institute of New

York, January 1983.

Kline, Stephen J. "Innovation Is Not a Linear Process." Research Management 27

(July/August 1985): 36-45.

Krulee, G.K. and E.B. Nadler. "Studies of Education for Science and Engineering:

Student Values and Curriculum Choice." IRE Transactions on Engineering

Management 7:4 (June 1960): 157-158.

Langrish, J.; M. Gibbons; W.G. Evans; and F.R. Jevons. Wealth From Knowledge:

A Study of Innovation in Industry. (NY: John Wiley, 1972.)

34
Leinster, Colin. "How American (Airlines) Mastered Deregulation." 10 Fortune

(June 11, 1984): 38-40,43,45,47,49,51.

Logsdon, John M. "Federal Policies Towards Civilian Research and Development:

A Historical Overview." In Technological Innovation: Strategies for a New

Partnership, D.O. Gray, T. Solomon, and W. Hetzner, eds. (NY: North-Holland,

1986,) 9-26.

March, Artemis. '"he US Commercial Aircraft Industry and Its Foreign

Competition." MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity Working Paper.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.

Mathes, J.C. and Dwight W. Stevenson. Designing Technical Reports.

(Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1976.)

McClure, Charles R. "The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs

and Issues." Government Information Quarterly 5:1 (1988): 27-44.

McClure, Charles R. "Testimony of Charles R. McClure, Professor, School of

Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, to the U.S.

House of Representatives Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology,

Hearings in Federal Scientific and Technical Information Policy, October 12,

1989."

McGowan, Robert P. and Stephen Loveless. "Strategies for Information

Management: The Administrator's Perspective." Public Administration Review

41:3 (May/June 1981): 331-339.

Menzel, Herbert. "Information Needs and Uses in Science and Technology." In

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 1, Carlos A.

Cuadra, ed. (New York: John Wiley, 1966,) 41-69.

Mick, Colin K.; Georg N. Lindsey; Daniel Callahan; and Frederick Spielberg.

Towards Usable User Studies: Assessing the Information Behavior of Scientists

and Engineers. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1979.

(Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB80-177165.)

Miller, Roger-Emile. Innovation. Organization, and Environment: A Study of

Sixteen American and West Eurovean Steel Firms. (Sherbrooke: University

of Sherbrooke Press, 1971.)

Mowery, David C. "Economic Theory and Government Technology Policy." Policy

Sciences 16 (1983): 27-43.

35
Mowery, David C. "Federal Funding of R&D in Transportation: The Case of

Aviation." Paper commissioned for a workshop on The Federal Role in

Research and Development, November 21-22, 1985, held in Washington, DC,

and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of

Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.

Mowery, David C. and Nathan Rosenberg. "The Commercial Aircraft Industry."

Chapter 3 in Government and Technical Progress: A Cross-Industry Analysis,

Richard R. Nelson, ed. (NY: Pergamon Press, 1982,) 101-161.

Myers, Sumner and Donald G. Marquis. Successful Industrial Innovations: A

Study of the Factors Underlying Innovation in Selected Firms. Washington,

DC: National Science Foundation, 1969. (Not available from NTIS.)

National Academy of Engineering. Competitive Status of the U.S. Civil Aviation

Manufacturing Industry: A Study of the Influences of Technology in

Determining International Industrial Competitive Advantage. Washington, DC:

National Academy of Engineering, 1985. (Available from NTIS, Springfield,

VA PB88-100334.)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Aeronautics and Space

Technology. NASA Aeronautics Research and Technology: 1986 Annual

Repnt. NASA EP-259. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986.

Nelson, Richard R. "Government Stimulus of Technological Progress: Lessons

From American History." In Government and Technical Progress: A CrossIndustry Analysis, Richard R. Nelson, ed. (NY: Pergamon Press, 1982,)

435-463.

O'Donnell, T.R.; J.L. Lewis; and J.I. Glendinning. Study of the Federal

Government's System for Distributing Its Unclassified R&D Reports.

Washington, DC: John I.Thompson and Company, June 20, 1962. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA AD-283 335.

O'Gara, Paul Webber. Physical Location As a Determinant of Communication

Probability Among R&D Engineers. Master's Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 1968.

Olson, Edwin E. Organizational Factors Affecting the Flow of Scientific and

Technical Information in Industrial R&D Divisions. (Rockville, MD: Westat,

Inc. January 1978.) (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-277 761.)

Orr, Richard H. '"The Scientist As An Information Processor: A Conceptual Model

Illustrated With Data on Variables Related to Library Utilization." In

Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, Carnot E. Nelson and Donald

K. Pollack, eds. (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1970,) 143-189.

36
Pelz, Donald C. and Frank M. Andrews. Scientists in Organizations: Productive

Climates for Research and Development. (NY: John Wiley, 1966.)

Public Law 63-271 (March 3, 1915) The Naval Apropriations Act, 1916.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. (NY: The Free Press,

1983.)

Rogers, Everett M. "Information Exchange and Technological Innovation." In The

Transfer and Utilization of Technical Knowledge, Devendra Sahal, ed.

(Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1982,) 105-123.

Roland, Alex. Model Research: The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

1915-1958 Volume 1. NASA SP-4103. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, 1985. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA

85N23683.)

Rosenberg, Nathan. "A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment

in Research and Development Since World War II." Paper commissioned for a

workshop on The Federal Role in Research and Development, November 21-22,

1985, held in Washington, DC, and sponsored by the National Academy of

Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.

Rosenberg, Victor. The Application of Psychometric Techniques to Determine the

Attitudes of Individuals Toward Information Seeking. Master's Thesis, Lehigh

University, 1966.

Rosenbloom, Richard S. and Francis W. Wolek. Technology and Information

Transfer: A Survey of Practice in Industrial Organizations. (Boston: Harvard

University, 1970.)

Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. Success and Failure in

Industrial Research. (London: Centre for the Study of Industrial Innovation,

1972; AKA Project Sappho.)

Scott, Christopher. "The Use of Technical Literature by Industrial Technologists."

IRE Transactions on Engineering Management 9:4 (June 1962): 76-81.

Seiss, Judith A. "Information Needs and Information Gathering Behavior of

Research Engineers." In Collected Pavers of the lth Mid-Year Meeting of ASIS

held in Knoxville, TN, June 13-15, 1982. Washington, DC: American Society

for Information Science, NP#.

Shapley, Deborah and Rustom Roy. Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science and

Technology Policy Adrift. (Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1985.)

37
Shuchman, Hedvah L. Information Transfer in Engineering. (Glastonbury, CT:

The Futures Group, 1981.)

Solomon, Trudy and Louis G. Tornatsky. "Rethinking the Federal Government's

Role in Technological Innovation." In Technological Innovation: Strategies For

a New Partnership, Denis 0. Gray, Trudy Solomon, and William Hetzner, eds.

(NY: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1986,) 41-53.

Stohrer, Freda F. "Marketing Information: The Technical Report As Product."

Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Conference on College

Composition and Communication, Dallas, TX, March 26-28, 1981.

Tiech, Albert H. "Federal Support of Applied research: A Review of the United

States Experience." Paper commissioned for a workshop on The Federal Role in

Research and Development, November 21-22, 1985, held in Washington, DC,

and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of

Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.

Treadwell, Yvonne. "Group Age Versus Technical Performance." Chapter 12 in

The Research Society, Evelyn Glatt and Maynard W. Shelly, eds. (NY:

Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1968,) 317-324.

Tushman, Michael L. and David A. Nadler. "Communication and Technical Roles

in R&D Laboratories: An Information Processing Model." In Management

of Research and Innovation Burton V. Dean and Joel L. Goldhar, eds.

(NY: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1980,) 91-112.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990 U.S. Industrial Outlook: Prospects for Over

350 Manufacturing and Service Industries. (Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office, January 1990.)

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1988 U.S. Industrial Outlook: With Expanded

Coverage of the Services Sector, Construction, High-tech, and Emerging

Industries. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, January 1988.)

Utterback, James M. "Innovation in Industry and the Diffusion of Technology."

Science 183 (15 February 1974): 620-626.

Werner, David J. A Study of the Information-Seeking Behavior of Medical

Researchers. Master's Thesis, Northwestern University, 1965.

Zipf, Geo K. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. (Cambridge, MA:

Addison-Wesley, 1949.)

38
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, Ralph. "Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a World

Social Science Information System." International Social Science Journal 27:3

(1975): 519-531.

Aerospace Industries Association of America. Aerospace Facts and Figures: 89/90.

Washington, DC: Aerospace Industries Association of America, 1989.

Aerospace Industries Association of America. Key Technologies for the 1990's:

An Overview Washington, DC: Aerospace Industries Association of America,

November 1987.

Aldrich, Howard and Diane Herker. "Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization

Structure." The Academy of Management Review 2:1 (January 1977):

217-230.

Ballard, Steve et al. Improving the Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical

Information. The Federal Role: Volume 2 -- Problems and Issues in the

Transfer and Use of STI. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1986.

(Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-87-142923.)

Beyer, Janice M. and Harrison M. Trice. "The Utilization Process: A Conceptual

Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings." Administrative Science

Quarterly 27 (December 1982): 591-622.

Blade, Mary-Frances. "Creativity in Engineering." In Essays on Creativity in the

Sciences. Myron A. Coler, ed. (NY: New York University Press, 1963,) 110-

122.

Blandin, James S. and Warren B. Brown. "Uncertainty and Management's Search

for Information." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-24:4

(November 1977): 114-119.

Blissett, Marlan. Politics in Science. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972.)

Brown, Warren B. "Systems, Boundaries, and Information Flow." Academy of

Management Journal 9 (December 1966): 318-327.

Culnan, Mary J. "Environmental Scanning: The Effects of Task Complexity and

Source Accessibility on Information Gathering Behavior." Decision Sciences

14:2 (1983): 194-206.

Downey, H. Kirk; Don Hellriegel; and John W. Slocum, Jr. "Environmental

Uncertainty: The Construct and Its Application." Administrative Science

Quarterly 20:4 (December 1975): 613-629.

39
Downey, H. Kirk and John W. Slocum, Jr. "Uncertainty: Measures, Research, and

Sources of Variation." Academy of Management Journal 18:3 (September

1975): 562-578.

Duncan, Robert B. "Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived

Environmental Uncertainty." Administrative Science Quarterly 17:3 (September

1972): 313-327.

Duncan, Robert B. The Effects of Perceived Environmental Uncertainty on

Organizational Decision Unit Structure: A Cybernetic Model. Ph.D. Diss., Yale

University, 1971. UMI 71-22136.

Fischer, William A. '"The Acquisition of Technical Information by R&D Managers

for Problem Solving in Nonroutine Contingency Situations." IEEE Transactions

on Engineering Management EM-26:1 (February 1979): 8-14.

Fraser, Robert C. and Bernard Maggin. Summary and Analysis of the Role of

NASA in Aeronautical Research and Technology. NASA CR-170110.

Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, March 1982.

(Not available from NTIS.)

Huber, George P.; Michael J. O'Connell; and Larry L. Cummings. "Perceived

Environmental Uncertainty: Effects of Information and Structure." Academy of

Management Journal 18:4 (December 1975): 725-740.

Keller, Robert T. and Winford E. Holland. "Boundary-Spanning Roles in a

Research and Development Organization: An Empirical Investigation."

Academy of Management Journal 18:2 (June 1975): 388-393.

Keller, Robert T.; Andrew D. Szilagyi, Jr.; and Winford E. Holland. "BoundarySpanning Activities and Employee Reactions: An Empirical Study" Human

Relations. 29:7 (1976): 699-710.

Kitchen, Paul and Associates. A Review of the Feasibility of Developing a

Methodology to Demonstrate the Value of Canadian Fedeal Libraries in

Economic Terms. Canada: Paul Kitchen and Associates, March 1989.

Leifer, Richard and Andre Delbecq. "Organizational/Environmental Interchange: A

Model of Boundary Spanning Activity." Academy of Management Review 3:1

(January 1978): 40-50.

Leifer, Richard and George P. Huber. "Relations Among Perceived Environmental

Uncertainty, Organizational Structure, and Boundary-Spanning Behavior."

Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (June 1977): 235-247.

40
Lopez, Virginia C. and Loren Yager. The U.S. Aerospace Industry and the Trend

Toward Internationalization. Washington, DC: Aerospace Industries Association

of America, March 1988.

Menzel, Herbert. The Flow of Information Among Scientists: Problems,

Opportunities, and Research Questions. NY: Columbia University, Bureau of

Applied Research, 1958.

Mowery, David and Nathan Rosenberg. "The Influence of Market Demand Upon

Innovation: A Critical Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research

Policy 8:2 (April 1979): 102-153.

National Academy of Engineering. The Competitive Status of the U.S. Civil

Aviation Manufacturing Industry: A Study of the Influences of Technology in

Determining International Industrial Competitive Advantage. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1985. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB88-

100334.)

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of

Medicine. The Federal Role in Research and Development: Report of a

Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986.

Office of Science and Technology Policy. Aeronautical Research and Technology

Policy. Volume 2: Final Report. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the

President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, November 1982. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA 83N23268; AKA The Keyworth Report.)

O'Reilly, Charles A. "Variations in Decision Makers' Use of Information Sources:

The Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Information." Academy of

Management Journal 25:4 (1982): 756-771.

Paulisick, John G. Research and Development Contribution to Aviation Progress

(RADCAP). Volume 1: Contributions of Military Technology, Research, and

Development to Civil Aviation Programs. NASA CR-129572. Washington, DC:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, August 1972. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA 73N13982; AKA Project RADCAP.)

Porter, Lyman W. and Karlene H. Roberts. "Communication in Organizations."

Chapter 35 in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Marvin

D. Dunnette, ed. (NY: John Wiley, 1983,) 1533-1589.

Ritti, R. Richard. The Engineer in the Industrial Corporation. (NY: Columbia

University Press, 1971.)

Rubenstein, Albert H. "Timing and Form of Researchers' Needs for Technical

Information." Journal of Chemical Documentation 2:1 (1962): 28-31.

41
Sayer, John. "Do Present Information Services Serve the Engineer?" Data

Processing Magazine 7:2 (February 1965): 24-25, 64-65.

Tushman, Michael L. Communication in Research and development Organizations:

An Information Processing Aproach. Ph.D. Diss., Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 1976.

Tushman, Michael L. "Impacts of Perceived Environmental Variability on Patterns

of Work Related Communication." Academy of Management Journal 22:3

(1979): 482-500.

Tushman, Michael L. "Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process."

Administrative Science Quarterly 22:4 (December 1977): 587-635.

Tushman, Michael L. "Technical Communication in R&D Laboratories: The

Impact of Project Work Characteristics." Academy of Management Journal

21:4 (1978): 624-645.

Tushman, Michael L. "Work Characteristics and Subunit Communication Structure:

A Contingency Analysis." Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (March

1979): 82-98.

Tushman, Michael L. and Ralph Katz. "External Communication and Project

Performance: An Investigation Into the Role of Gatekeepers." Management

Science 26:11 (November 1980): 1071-1085.

Tushman, Michael L. and David A. Nadler. "Information Processing as an

Integrating Concept in Organizational Design." Academy of Management

Review 3:1 (January 1978): 613-624.

Tushman, Michael L. and Thomas J. Scanlan. "Characteristics and External

Orientations of Boundary Spanning Individuals." Academy of Management

Journal 24:1 (1981): 83-98.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Research Funding As an

Investment: Can We Measure the Returns? Washington, DC: Congressional

Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-TM-SET-36, April 1986.

Waldman, David A. and Bernard M. Bass. Transformational Leadership at Different

Phases of the Innovation Process. Report 90-162. Binghamton, NY: State

University of New York, Binghamton, 1990.

42
CHAPTER 2

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT AND

THE DIFFUSION OF FEDERALLY FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D

INTRODUCTION

This chapter contributes to the immediate purpose of this study by establishing a framework for understanding the role played by the U.S. government technical

report in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace R&D. To establish this framework, an overview of the U.S. government technical report, its unique aspects, its role

in scientific and technical (S&T) communication, and its historical development are presented. The STI system that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D

from knowledge producer to knowledge user, vis-A-vis the U.S. government technical

report, is described. Finally, to help create the conceptual framework, literature

relevant to the U.S. government technical report is presented based on four themes.

BACKGROUND

World War II marked a sharp departure from the role previously played by the

Federal government in science and technology with respect to financial support for

research not directly or explicitly tied to a specific Federal agency or program. "In

spite of the permissive implications of the general welfare clause of the U.S.

Constitution, Federal support for science and technology prior to World War II had

43
been limited sharply by a strict interpretation of the role of the government" (Teich,

1985). Rosenberg (1985) provides the following historical observation:

What has emerged since the Second World War is a system in

which the Federal government has become the dominant purchaser of

R&D, but without, at the same time, becoming the dominant performer

of R&D. Thus, the unique institutional development has been the

manner in which the Federal government has accepted a vastly broadened

financial responsibility for R&D without arranging simultaneously for its

in-house performance. Rather, private industry has become the main

performer of Federal R&D, and the university community the main

performer of the basic research component. Thus, the enlarged role of

the Federal government in the support of R&D has been carried out

within an institutional framework dominated by contractual relationships

between the Federal government and private performers.

According to Teich (1985), the successful completion of such large-scale

endeavors as the Manhattan Project "ushered in the age of truly big science. Also,

it shaped the postwar imagination about the more constructive possibilities of science

[and technology] when it could be applied in an organized and systematic way to the

pursuit of human goals." Further justification for federally funded science and

technology follows the argument advanced in Science: The Endless Frontier (Bush,

1945) that government-funded research in science and technology serves as a means

to improve health, defend the nation, fuel economic growth, and provide jobs in new

industries. Events such as the Korean War and Sputnik, the increased use of science

and technology by the Federal government to solve social problems in the late 1960s

and 1970s, the energy crisis, the "War on Cancer," the Vietnam War, and, more

recently, a widening concern over the apparent decline in U.S. international

competitiveness account for the growth of federally funded research in science and

technology (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and

Institute of Medicine, 1986).

44
The post-World War II expansion of the Federal government in science and

technology resulted in significant changes in STI activities in the United States. These

changes, which were necessary to handle the increased production of federally funded

R&D, included new methods of publishing, disseminating, storing, and retrieving STI.

According to Adkinson (1978), "A significant change occurred during this period in the

way the results of federally funded research were disseminated. In the past, there had

been almost complete reliance on dissemination through traditional journals and

monographs; now, with the growth of federally funded science and technology, the use

of the U.S. government technical report became widespread." According to McClure

(1988), U.S. government technical reports "may constitute the single most important

storehouse of R&D results in the world. These reports are a primary means by which

the results of federally funded R&D are made available to the S&T community and are

added to the literature of science and technology."

Characteristics of Technical Reports

The definition of the technical report varies because the report serves different

roles in communication within and between organizations. The technical report has

been defined etymologically, according to report content and method (U.S. Department

of Defense, 1964); behaviorally, according to the influence on the reader (Ronco, et al.,

1964); and rhetorically, according to the function of the report within a system for

communicating STI (Mathes and Stevenson, 1976). The boundaries of technical report

literature are difficult to establish because of wide variations in the content, purpose,

and audience being addressed. The nature of the report -- whether it is informative,

analytical, or assertive -- contributes to the difficulty.

45
Fry (1953) points out that technical reports are heterogenous, appearing in many

shapes, sizes, layouts, and bindings. According to Smith (1981), "Their formats vary;

they might be brief (two pages) or lengthy (500 pages). They appear as microfiche,

computer printouts or vugraphs, and often they are loose leaf (with periodic changes

that need to be inserted) or have a paper cover, and often contain foldouts. They

slump on the shelf, their staples or prong fasteners snag other documents on the shelf,

and they are not neat."

Technical reports may exhibit some or all of the following characteristics (Gibb

and Phillips, 1979; Subramanyam, 1981):

o Publication is not through the publishing trade.

o Readership/audience is usually limited.

o Distribution may be limited or restricted.

o Content may include statistical data, catalogs, directions, design criteria,

conference papers and proceedings, literature reviews, or bibliographies.

o Publication may involve a variety of printing and binding methods.

The SATCOM report (National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of

Engineering, 1969) lists the following characteristics of the technical report:

o It is written for an individuol or organization that has the right to

require such reports.

o It is basically a stewardship report to some agency that has funded

the research being reported.

o It permits prompt dissemination of data results on a typically flexible

distribution basis.

o It can convey the total research story, including exhaustive exposition, detailed tables, ample illustrations, and full discussion of unsuccessful approaches.

46
The Role of the Technical Report in S&T Communication

Technical reports and S&T journals are two of the primary information products

used by engineers and scientists to communicate the results of their research. The

choice of whether to publish the results of federally funded R&D in a technical report

or an S&T journal depends on such factors as the nature of communication within the

discipline, the type of information being reported, the reporting requirements of the

sponsoring Federal agency, the timing of dissemination, and the need for selective or

controlled dissemination. In practice, however, the technical report is favored as a

recording medium of R&D and is, therefore, used by engineers and technologists, while

the S&T journal appears to be favored as the recording medium of basic research and

is, therefore, used by scientists (Federal Council for Science and Technology, 1968;

AKA the COSATI Report).

During the past 45 years, the technical report has developed into an important

medium of communication in science and technology to the extent that it has

sometimes been viewed as a threat to the S&T journal (Pasternack, 1966). However,

the technical report has been accused of not meeting the same criteria or standards of

authority, scientific rigor, and retrievability as S&T journal articles (Brearley, 1973).

Much of the debate concerning technical reports centers around the following four

themes: (1) availability, (2) quality, (3) diversity of content, and (4) status as primary

information products, especially in relationship to S&T journals (McCullough, et al.,

1982).

47
History and Growth of Technical Report Literature

In describing the development of S&T communication, Grogan (1982) states that

dissemination of research results was made first through personal correspondence and

then through papers given at society meetings. As science became more specialized

and institutionalized, the S&T journal became the accepted method of reporting

research results. However, as the growth of science and technology began to escalate

rapidly, the S&T journal was no longer capable of meeting the total information needs

of engineers and scientists. According to Grogan the technical report emerged as an

alternative method of disseminating the results of research.

The development of the [U.S. government] technical report as a major means

of communicating the results of R&D, according to several authorities such as Godfrey

and Redman (1973), dates back to 1941 and the establishment of the U.S. Office of

Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). Further, the growth of the U.S.

government technical report coincides with the post-World War II era and the

expanding role of the Federal government in science and technology. However, U.S.

government technical reports have existed for some period of time. The Bureau of

Mines Reports of Investigation (Redman, 1965/66), the Professional Papers of the

United States Geological Survey, and the Technological Papers of the National Bureau

of Standards (Auger, 1975) are early examples of U.S. government technical reports.

The first U.S. government publications identified as technical reports may have been

those published by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). Many

NACA technical reports, which were published from 1917 to 1958, are classics in the

field of aeronautics and are still used and referenced (Anderson, 1974).

48
THE TRANSFER OF FEDERALLY FUNDED R&D

The Federal government funds a major portion of the R&D in the United States,

and it is estimated that $61 billion will be spent on Federal R&D in 1990 (Nation.,

Science Foundation, 1989). A substantial portion of the Federal R&D expenditure is

allocated to three agencies -- the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of

Energy (DOE), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The

results of this expenditure are transferred through a two-part system. The U.S.

government technical report is a primary means by which these results are made

available to the S&T community (Stohrer, 1981).

The model (figure 2) that depicts the transfer of federally funded R&D vis-4-

vis the U.S. government technical report is composed of the formal and informal parts.

The formal part relies on surrogates, specialized information products, and information

intermediaries to complete the transfer of knowledge from "producer" to "user." The

primary producers of federally funded R&D are DOD, DOE, and NASA. The

surrogates include the Defense Technical Information Center, the NASA Scientific and

Technical Information Facility, and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

Information intermediaries are, in linge part, librarians and technical information

specialists in academia, government, and industry. An overview of the DOD, DOE,

and NASA STI systems and of the NTIS follows.

DOD STI - Defense Technical Information Center

Situated at Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia, the Defense Technical

Information Center (DTIC) is the central point within DOD for acquiring, storing,

49
retrieving, and disseminating STI to support the management and operation of DOD

research, development, engineering, and studies programs (U.S. Department of Defense,

1985). Access to the results of defense-related research began in 1947, when the

Office of Naval Research (ONR) contracted with the Library of Congress (LC) to

establish the Science and Technology Project (STP) to catalog and abstract Navy

technical reports and to provide bibliographic services for them (Tallman, 1962).

In 1951, the Secretary of Defense established the Armed Services Technical

Information Agency (ASTIA) to coordinate and consolidate all DOD STI activities.

In 1963, ASTIA was renamed the Defense Documentation Center (DDC); its

operational control was transferred to the Defense Logistics Agency in 1979 (U.S.

Department of Defense, 1985).

DTIC STI products and services are based on the agency's collection of over

one million U.S. government technical reports and its computerized technical report

data base. DTIC holds DOD technical reports that are classified for reasons of

national security, that have restricted or limited distribution, or that are otherwise not

publicly available. Unclassified and declassified technical reports that have no

distribution limitations and have been released to the public are sent to NTIS.

DTIC has created a variety of STI products and services to provide access for

registered users to its technical report collection and data base. The Defense RDT&E

On Line System (DROLS), an interactive system linking remote terminals to the DTIC

data base, is used for both retrieval and input. Users can order bibliographies,

management data reports, and technical reports directly from their terminals. The

recently cancelled Technical Report Awareness Circular (TRAC), which had replaced

50
Technical Abstracts Bulletin (TAB), was the unclassified-unlimited announcement

journal for unclassified-unlimited, unclassified-limited, and classified DOD technical

reports. TRAC, which was published monthly, included citations but no abstracts or

subject index, contained five indexes, and had a semiannual-annual index that was

published on microfiche.

The Current Awareness Bibliography (CAB) is a customized, automated

bibliography based on the subject interests of DTIC users. Every two weeks the user's

interest profile is matched against newly accessioned technical reports, and the selected

citations are sent to the subscriber. Under the Automatic Document Distribution

(ADD) program, DTIC users establish profiles of their interests; every two weeks they

receive microfiche copies of newly acquired technical reports that match those interests

(U.S. Department of Defense, 1985; Molholm, et al., 1988).

DOE STI - Office of Scientific and Technical Information

The Department of Energy (DOE) STI system is administered by the Office of

Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), which operates the Technical Information

Center (TIC) located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The DOE STI system originated in

1942 with the Technical Information Service (TIS) of the Atomic Energy Commission

(AEC). TIS became the Technical Information Center of the Energy Research and

Development Administration (ERDA) and then the Technical Information Center of

DOE.

The DOE technical report collection, currently 775 000 reports, grows by about

20 000 reports annually. DOE technical reports are distributed through a selective

automatic distribution system. Unclassified-unlimited reports are supplied to NTIS and

51
the Government Printing Office (GPO) for further distribution to academic institutions,

industry, and the public (Coyne, Hughes, and Winsbro, 1986).

OSTI has created a variety of STI products and services, including three data

bases: the Energy Data Base (EDB), which covers all aspects of energy and energy

sources; Nuclear Science Abstracts (NSA), which covers international nuclear science

and technology research; and Research in Progress (RIP), which covers recently

completed and ongoing projects funded by DOE. These data bases are available

through commercial, on-line retrieval systems. Qualified users can access the data

bases through the DOE national on-line information retrieval network, OSTI Automated

Retrieval System (OARS). OSTI also publishes a variety of current-awareness

documents, including Energy Research Abstracts, a biweekly announcement journal for

technical reports; Energy Abstracts for Policy Analysis, a monthly announcement journal

covering policy-related energy literature; and a variety of specialized bulletins covering

such topics as acid precipitation and laser research (U.S. Department of Energy, 1987).

NASA STI - NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility

The NASA STI system is administered by the Scientific and Technical

Information Division. The mission of the NASA STI system is to acquire worldwide

research information in aeronautics, space, and related disciplines, and to contribute to

the expansion of knowledge through the timely dissemination of the results of NASAperformed and NASA-sponsored research to the aerospace community. NASA was

created in 1958 by the National Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568) to supersede

the NACA, an agency that published its first technical report in 1917.

52
The NASA collection of 1.5 million technical reports grows by approximately

45 000 reports each year. Like those of DOE, NASA technical reports are distributed

through an automatic distribution system. Unclassified-unlimited reports are supplied

to NTIS and GPO for further distribution to academic institutions, industry, and the

public. NASA technical reports that are classified for reasons of national security,

that are restricted or limited in distribution, or that are otherwise not publicly available

are obtained from the NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility (STIF),

located at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport (Wente, 1990).

The NASA STI system utilizes a variety of information products and services

to provide access to the NASA technical report collection data base. Scientific and

Technical Aerospace Reports (STAR), an announcement journal, covers worldwide

aerospace technical report literature. Selected Current Aerospace Notices (SCAN), a

current-awareness publication, supplements STAR by providing users with computergenerated citations to new reports announced in STAR. The NASA data base is

accessible to authorized users through RECON, the NASA computerized on-line,

interactive retrieval system. The unclassified portion of the NASA data base is

commercially available through DIALOG's Aerospace Data Base (Wente, 1990).

National Technical Information Service

The NTIS has its origin in the Publications Board (PB), which was established

in 1945. Its purpose was to collect and distribute unclassified and declassified

technical reports produced by U.S. government agencies and foreign government

research agencies as well as reports captured in World War II. In 1946, the name of

the PB was changed to the Office of Technical Services (OTS). In 1964, OTS was

53
renamed the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information (CFSTI).

In 1970, CFSTI was abolished and its functions were transferred to the newly created

NTIS.

The NTIS bibliographic data base includes unclassified-unlimited and

declassified U.S. government technical reports that DOD, DOE, and NASA access and

send to NTIS on magnetic tape. These tapes are merged with entries from other

Federal, non-Federal, and foreign sources every two weeks to produce the NTIS

Bibliographic Database Update File, which is distributed to a number of commercial

vendors for on-line access.

Technical reports acquired by NTIS are announced in Government Reports

Announcements and Index (GRA&I), which is published biweekly and may be

purchased directly from NTIS in paper copy or microfiche. The reports may be

received automatically through a biweekly current awareness service, Selected Research

in Microfiche (SRIM), which provides full-text microfiche copies of reports selected by

means of a preestablished interest profile. Other NTIS products and services include

the NTIS Abstract Newsletter, a current awareness service; access to bibliographic data

bases from other U.S. government agencies; and access to Federal Research in

Progress (FEDRIP), computer software, translations, goven. ient patent information,

and various fact sheets (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986).

A Review of the Federal STI System

In their investigation, which focused on ways to improve the transfer of

knowledge generated by federally funded research in science and technology, Bikson,

et al., (1984) note three problems with the Federal STI system. First, the very low

54
level of support for knowledge transfer in comparison to knowledge production

suggests that dissemination efforts are not viewed as an important component of the

R&D process. Second, there are mounting reports from users about difficulties in

getting appropriate information in forms useful for problem solving and decision

making. Third, rapid advances in many areas of science and technology can be fully

exploited only if they are translated into further research and applications. Such

translation requires multidisciplinary, problem-focused communication of STI.

Traditional transfer mechanisms, such as those used to transfer federally funded STI,

do not provide that kind of communication.

In their study of the Federal role in the transfer and use of federally funded

STI, Ballard, et al., (1986) conclude that" the present system for transferring the results

of federally funded STI is passive, fragmented, and unfocused." They further state

that "effective knowledge transfer is aggravated by the fact that the Federal government

has no coherent or systematically designed approach to transferring the results of

federally funded R&D to the users."

Eveland (1987) states that there have been a number of studies in recent years

specifically concerned with the transfer of STI and U.S. industrial competitiveness.

Although they offer no comprehensive explanation, Bikson, et al., (1984) state "much

of what has been learned about knowledge transfer has not been incorporated into

federally funded information transfer activities." Many of the individuals interviewed

by Bikson, et al., state that "dissemination activities were afterthoughts, undertaken

without serious commitment by Federal agencies whose primary concerns were with

[knowledge] production and not with knowledge transfer."

55
Two problems exist with the formal part of the Federal STI system. First, the

formal part of the system employs one-way, source-to-user transmission. The problem

arises because formal, one-way, "supply side" transfer procedures do not seem to be

responsive to the user context (Bikson, et al., 1984). Rather, these efforts appear to

start with an information system into which the producers later try to retrofit the users'

requirements (Adam, 1975). The consensus of the findings from the empirical research

is that interactive, two-way communications are required for effective information

transfer (Bikson, et al., 1984).

Second, the formal part relies heavily on information intermediaries to complete

the knowledge transfer process. However, a strong methodological base for measuring

or assessing the effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and

Trice, 1982; Kitchen, 1989). Therefore, the empirical findings on the effectiveness of

these individuals and the role(s) they play in knowledge transfer are sparse and

inconclusive. The impact of the information intermediary is likely to be strongly

conditional and limited to a specific institutional context, and may be costly to

maintain (Bikson, et al., 1984).

Two investigations specifically concerned with the dissemination of U.S.

government technical reports were found. In an evaluation and appraisal of the

effectiveness with which the existing system satisfies the Federal government's need

for disseminating the results of federally funded STI promptly and effectively,

O'Donnell, et al., (1962) conclude that "the present degree of effectiveness is

unsatisfactory and that improvements to the Federal technical information distribution

system are possible in several areas." Herner and Herner (1961), in their inquiry into

56
the factors governing the publication and announcement of U.S. government technical

reports, conclude that announcement is slow and spotty and that the number of reports

announced versus the number of unclassified reports available is small by comparison.

Studies of the DOD, DOE, NASA, and NTIS information systems and services

have been performed. Some empirical investigations relate tangentially to the problem.

None of these investigations, however, are directly concerned with the transfer of

federally funded STI or U.S. government technical reports. The study by McClure,

Hernon, and Purcell (1986), which explores the use of NTIS services and products by

academic and public libraries, is noteworthy. The investigation by Finch (1988) into

the factors responsible for the decline in sales of technical reports at NTIS is also

worthy of mention. Several dissertations, such as Hernon's (1978), are concerned with

the use and nonuse of U.S. government publications, not with U.S. government

technical reports. Klempner's (1967) dissertation is concerned with the distribution

patterns of U.S. government indexing and abstracting services such as STAR and TAB.

REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT RESEARCH

To further develop the conceptual framework for the study, literature considered

relevant to U.S. government technical reports is grouped according to the following

four topics:

o Role in the Federal STI system

o Role in Federal mission-oriented STI programs

o Role in S&T communication

o Historical development, use in specific disciplines, obsolescence,

problems, coverage, and research needs

57
Selected findings, recommendations, and contributions addressing these topics are

summarized in tables 1-4. This material sets the general tone of the research and

literature related to technical reports and U.S. government technical reports. Although

comprehensive, the list is not exhaustive.

Table 1 presents a small sampling of the more than 50 studies relative to

Federal STI that have been conducted over the past 30 years. World War 11 resulted

in an expanded Federal role in science and technology and signaled the "beginning of

the era in which it was assumed that the [Federal] government had the primary

responsibility to support and control STI" (Ballard, 1986). The primary argument for

this assumption stems from the role of the Federal government as a major funder of

R&D and the corresponding need for a uniform Federal approach to disseminating the

results of federally funded R&D.

However, while numerous pieces of legislation affecting the creation,

distribution, use, and dissemination of STI have been enacted, Federal STI policy is

sketchy and uncoordinated. The demise of COSATI with its coordinating function and

the resulting decentralized STI activities, the abolishment of the NSF Office of Science

Information and its focus on STI research, and the questionable viability of the Office

of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) have left the Federal government with no

coherent, centrally organized, and systematically designed approach to STI transfer

(McClure, Hernon, and Relyea, 1989). Testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology on Federal STI policy,

Joseph G. Coyne (1989), speaking on behalf of the Federal interagency group CENDI,

stated:

58
The U.S. does not have an overall [STI] strategy, and it does not

have a focal point to develop one. There are a number of laws,

regulations, and standards now under consideration that could have a

major impact on [Federal] STI programs. However, at the Federal level,

there is no focal point for coordination [of STI] issue identification, and

resolution.

Table 2 contains a listing of the studies specifically concerned with the DOD,

DOE, and NASA STI programs. While not specifically concerned with the U.S.

government technical report, some of the findings are relevant. The DOD user studies

(Berul, et al., 1965 a&b; Goodman, et al., 1966 a,b,&c) conclude that the DOD

technical information system is not widely used by DOD engineers and scientists.

Roderer, et al., (1983) report that users read approximately 12.4 million DOD technical

reports annually, that bibliographic search is the method most often used to identify

DOD technical reports, and that education and research are the purposes for which

DOD technical reports are most often read.

In their study of the DOE Energy Data Base, King, et al., (1982) report that

users read 6.6 million DOE technical reports annually. DOE technical reports are

identified through various means: 12 percent through computer search, 16 percent

through a printed index, and the remaining 72 percent through other means such as

browsing and standard distribution.

Monge, et al., (1979) report that NASA technical reports are widely used in

the aerospace community. NASA technical reports are most frequently used to

maintain professional awareness, to develop new ideas, and to validate research.

Respondents to the Monge study cite the absence of detailed summaries and abstracts,

the exclusion of negative data or findings, and insufficient tabular data as deficiencies

in NASA technical reports.

59
Tables 3 and 4 contain the research relevant to the U.S. government technical

report. The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results

of federally funded R&D are made available to the S&T community and are added to

the literature of science and technology (President's Special Assistant for Science and

Technology, 1962). McClure (1988) points out that "although the [U.S.] government

technical report has been variously reviewed, compared, and contrasted, there is no real

knowledge base regarding the role, production, use, and importance [of this information

product] in terms of accomplishing this task." A review of the literature identified in

tables 3 and 4 supports the following conclusions reached by McClure:

o The body of available knowledge is simply inadequate and noncomparable

to determine the role played by the U.S. government technical report in

transferring the results of federally funded R&D.

o Further, most of the available knowledge is largely anecdotal, is limited in

scope and dated, and is unfocused in the sense that it lacks a conceptual

framework.

o The available knowledge does not lend itself to developing "normalized"

answers to questions regarding U.S. government technical reports.

While the literature review does contribute to the immediate purpose of the

study, it falls short of answering the fundamental research questions posed by this

study. The role played by the U.S. government technical report in the diffusion of

federally funded aerospace R&D is unknown. The extent to which the six institutional

or structural variables influence the use of U.S. government technical reports is not

known. Finally, the extent to which the seven sociometric or source selection variables

influence the use of U.S. government technical reports cannot be determined from the

available literature.

60
Table 1. Role of the U.S. Government Technical Report

in the Federal STI System

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1962 Crawford Recognized that government technical reports

(President's Special constitute an important element in

Assistant for Science and STI system; their principal value (use) is

Technology) in the documentation of federally funded

research.

Government technical reports should be

stored in an organized collection and

placed under bibliographic control to

facilitate their announcement, accessibility,

and availability to the S&T community.

1963 Weinberg Recognized the problems that the prolifera-

(President's Special tion of government technical reports

Advisory Committee) caused the library and information

community.

Government has the obligation to publish all

significant R&D findings; critical reviews,

similar to those given S&T journal

literature, should be applied to government

technical reports; government-wide

clearinghouses should be established to

help integrate the results of governmentfunded R&D in the literature

of science and technology; and the OTS

should become a complete sales

agency for government technical reports.

1964 Elliott Recognized the importance of technical

(U.S. Congress, reviews; concerned as to the type(s) of

House of Representatives, controls placed on dissemination; and

Select Committe on recognized the need to properly index,

Government Research) abstract, and make government technical

reports accessible to the S&T community.

A single clearinghouse to coordinate Federal

STI documentation and dissemination

activities is needed; furthermore, the

need exists to ensure that classified or

otherwise restricted government technical

reports do not remain unavailable to the

S&T community any longer than is essential

to the national interest.

61
Table 1. Concluded

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1968 COSATI Recognized that the government technical

(Federal Council for report and the S&T journal are

Science and both essential in disseminating the

Technology) results of federally funded R&D;

both play important and different roles

in S&T communication.

Federal report-producing agencies must

insist on full and high-quality reporting

of all government-funded research.

1969 SATCOM Recognized the need to more effectively

(National Academy communicate the results of federally

of Sciences-National funded R&D; recognized the role of

Academy of Engineering) the government technical report in

documenting and disseminating these

results.

Government technical reports must be given

uniform and adequate bibliographic

control; the writing and presentation

of data must be improved; accessibility,

through better and more fully coordinated

announcement, must be increased; and

maximum coordination between

government technical reports and S&T

journals must occur to minimize

confusion and undesirable duplication.

1989 U.S. Congress, Office of The Federal government is the largest

Technology Assessment single source of scientific and technical

(OTA Staff Paper) information (STI) in the world; OTA found

that the government does not have an overall

strategy on dissemination of STI including

government technical reports; an overall

strategy would help (1) maximize the return

on the substantial Federal R&D investment

and (2) meet other national goals to which

STI can contribute, such as improving

the education of U.S. scientists and

engineers, the international competitiveness of U.S. industry, and the strength

of the U.S. civilian technology base.

62
Table 2. Role of the U.S. Government Technical Report

in Federal Mission-Oriented STI Programs

Year Agency Author Contributions

1965 DOD Berul, et al. DOD User-Needs Studies-first

1966 DOD Goodman, et al. large-scale attempts by a major

component of the Federal communication community to determine

the "broad picture" and understand

information acquisition flow and

use of STI (including DOD technical

reports) within a large segment of

the R&D community.

1983 DOD/DTIC Roderer, et al. Use and value of DTIC products and

services-attempted to determine

the economic value associated with

DTIC products, including DOD

technical reports; determined use,

purpose of use, and readership of

DOD technical reports.

1982 DOE/OSTI King, et al. Value of energy data base-attempted

to determine the economic value of

the DOE energy data base; determined

time (hours) spent reading DOE

technical reports and the use and

purpose for using DOE technical

reports.

1979 NASA Monge, et al. Assessment of NASA technical

information--concerned with the

1980 NASA Glassman and Cross dissemination and utilization of

NASA STI within the aeronautics

1981 NASA Glassman and industry; determined the knowledge

Glassman and use of NASA STI products and

1989 NASA Glassman services and the perceived quality

and usefulness of NASA technical

reports.

1982 NASA McCullough, et al. NASA technical report formatconcerned with the NASA technical

1982 NASA Glassman and report as a rhetorical device;

Cordle analyzed and compared the NASA

technical report format with

current practice and usage.

63
Table 3. Role of the U.S. Government Technical Report in S&T Communication

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1956, Gray and Rosenborg Most "publishable" STI contained in

1957 unclassified defense-related government

technical reports did find its way into

the S&T literature, but the process was slow.

Authors should be encouraged to publish "publishable" findings promptly; government

technical reports should be accessible

to the S&T community several years

after publication.

1961 Herner and Herner Probability of a government technical

1962 Hemer and Kolber report appearing in a nongovernment

abstracting and indexing service was low;

average time from issuance to announcement

of DOD technical reports in U.S.

government announcement literature

was slow.

Federal government should take the necessary

steps to encourage nongovernment

abstracting and indexing services

to include government technical reports,

and the process of announcing DOD

technical reports should be expedited.

1962 O'Donnell, et al. The Fcderal systems used to disseminate

government technical reports were

ineffective and in some cases wasteful.

Recommended coordinated government-wide

policy for technical report documentation

and dissemination.

1964 Ronco, et al. Virtually no empirical work had been

conducted to determine the effectiveness of

government technical reports as

communication devices.

Federal technical-report-producing agencies

should develop methods to test the

effectiveness of technical reports

as dissemination devices. Experimental

formats for technical reports should be

developed and tested to determine their

effectiveness.

64
Table 4. The U.S. Government Technical Report: Historical Development, Use in

Specific Disciplines, Obsolescence, Problems, Coverage, and Research Needs

Findings

Year Author and

recommendations

1952; 1962 Miller; Tallman Traced the historical development of

1962; 1970 Kee; Boylan government technical reports.

1953; 1958; 1961 Cobb; Wilson; Burton and Discussed the use of government

Green technical reports by electrical and

1965 Garvey and Griffith electronic engineers and in psychol1967 Fuccillo ogy, physics, and biomedicine.

1969 Coile

1967; 1969 Houghton; Passman Discussed the role of the government

1973; 1975 Brearley; Auger technical report in S&T

1981; 1982 Subramanyam; Grogan communication.

1959; 1960 Randall; Burton and Discussed obsolescence and

Kebler "half-life" of government technical

1966; 1958, 1964; Pasternack; Wilson; reports.

1974 Anderson

1952; 1953; 1967 Bennington; Fry; Boylan Discussed the organization and

1970; 1978 Boylan; Newman and management of government

Amir technical reports.

1953; 1965/1966 Woolston; Redman Discussed problems with obtaining,

1966; 1967; 1967 Hartas; Boylan; handling, processing, and

Klempner controlling technical reports.

1981 Henderson

1959, 1986 Herner and Herner Discussed government technicaJ

1988 McClure report coverage and research needs.

65
REFERENCES

Adam, Ralph. "Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a World

Social Science Information System." International Social Science Journal 27:3

(1975): 519-531.

Adkinson, Burton W. Two Centuries of Federal Information. (Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1978.)

Anderson, Jean. "Not a Half-Life for NACA Reports." Sci-Tech News 28:4

(October 1974): 24.

Auger, Charles P. Use of Technical Reports Literature. (Hamden, CT: Archon

Books, 1975.)

Ballard, Steve et al. Improving the Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical

Information. The Federal Role: Volume 2 -- Problems and Issues in the Transfer

and Use of STI. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1986.

(Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-87-142923.)

Bennington, John. "The Integration of Report Literature and Journals." American

Documentation 3 (August 1952): 149-152.

Berul, Lawrence H. et al. DoD User-Needs Study, Phase 1. Volume 1: Management

Report Conduct of the Study and Analysis of Data. Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach

Corp., May 1965a. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA AD-615 501.)

Berul, Lawrence H. et al. DoD User-Needs Study, Phase 1. Volume 2: Interview

Guide Handbook, Computer Program Documentation, and Statistical Tables.

Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach Corp., May 1965b. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA AD-615 502.)

Beyer, Janice M. and Harrison M. Trice. "The Utilization Process: A Conceptual

Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings." Administrative Science

Quarterly 27 (December 1982): 591-622.

Bikson, Tora K.; Barbara E. Quint; and Leland L. Johnson. Scientific and Technical

Information Transfer: Issues and Options. Washington, DC: National Science

Foundation, March 1984. (Available from NTIS, Springfield VA PB-85-150357;

also available as Rand Note 2131.)

Boylan, Nancy G. "Identifying Technical Reports Through U. S. Government Research

Reports and Its Published Indexes." College & Research Libraries 28 (May

1967): 175-183.

66
Boylan, Nancy G. "Technical Reports, Identification and Acquisition." Research

Quarterly 10 (Fall 1970): 18-21.

Brearley, Neil. "The Role of Technical Reports in Scientific and Technical

Communication." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC-16:3

(September 1973): 117-119.

Burton, R. E. and B. A. Green, Jr. "Technical Reports in Physics Literature." Physics

Today 14 (October 1961): 35-37.

Burton, R. E. and R. W. Kebler. "The 'Half-Life' of Some Scientific and Technical

Literature." American Documentation 11:1 (January 1960): 18-22.

Bush, Vannevar. Science: The Endless Frontier. (Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office, 1945.)

Cobb, Mary M. "Publication of Medical Research in Scientific Journals." Bulletin

on the Medical Library Association 41 (April 1953): 154-155.

Coile, Russell C. "Information Sources for Electrical and Electronics Engineers."

IEEE Transactions on Engineering, Writing, and Speech EWS-12:3 (October

1969): 71-78.

Coyne, Joseph G. "Statement" of Joseph G. Coyne, Manager, Office of Scientific and

Technical Information, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to the

U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Science, Research and

Technology, (October 12, 1989).

Coyne, Joseph G.; Thomas E. Hughes; and Bonnie C. Winsbro. "Sharing Results of

Federal R&D: A Look at the Department of Energy's System for Managing

Scientific and Technical Information." Government Information Quarterly 3

(1986): 363-380.

Eveland, J. D. Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and Findings.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, March 1987. (Not available from

NTIS.)

Federal Council for Science and Technology. Committee on Scientific and Technical

Information. Task Group on the Role of the Technical Report. The Role of the

Technical Report in Scientific and Technological Communication. Washington,

DC: Federal Council for Science and Technology, 1968. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA PB-180 944; AKA The COSATI Report.)

Finch, Walter L. Analysis of Technical Report Sales at the National Technical

Information Service. Springfield, VA: NTIS, April 20, 1988. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA PB89-131056.)

67
Fry, Bernard M. Library Organization and Management of Technical Reports

Literature. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 1953.

Fuccillo, Domenic A. The Technical Report in Biomedical Literature: Proceedings

of a Workshop. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, September 1967.

Garvey, William D. and Belver C. Griffith. The Role of the Technical Report in the

Dissemination of Scientific Infornation. APA-PSIEP, Report 13. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association, April 1965. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA PB-167 446.)

Gibb, J. M. and E. Phillips. "A Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature." Journal of Communication Studies 1 (May 1979): 225-234.

Glassman, Myron. An Evaluation of Selected NASA Scientific and Technical

Information Products: Results of a Pilot Study. NASA TM-101533. Washington,

DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1989. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA 89N15789.)

Glassman, Myron and Virginia M. Cordle. Survey of Reader Preferences Concerning

NASA Technical Reports. NASA TM-84502. Washington, DC: National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, August 1982. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA 82N34300.)

Glassman, Myron and Edward M. Cross. A Review and Evaluation of the Langley

Research Center's Scientific and Technical Information Program: Results of Phase

I- Knowledge and Attitudes Survey, LaRC Research Personnel. NASA TM-81893.

Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, November 1980.

(Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 81NI6947.)

Glassman, Myron and Nanci A. Glassman. A Review and Evaluation of the Langley

Research Center's Scientific and Technical Information Program: Results of Phase

IV- Knowledge and Attitudes Survey, Academic and Industrial Personnel. NASA

TM-81934. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

February 1981. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 81N22976.)

Godfrey, Lois E. and Helen F. Redman. Dictionary of Report Series Codes. (2nd ed.)

(NY: Special Libraries Association, 1973.)

Goodman, Arnold F.; John D. Hodges, Jr.; and Forrest G. Allen. DoD User-Needs

Study. Phase II Flow of Scientific and Technical Information Within the Defense

Industry. Volume 1: Overview. Anaheim, CA: North America Aviation, Inc.,

November 1966a. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA AD-647 111.)

68
Goodman, Arnold F.; John D. Hodges, Jr.; Bruce W. Angelet; and Richard B. McCord. DoD User-Needs Study. Phase II: Flow of Scientific and Technical Information

Within the Defense Industry. Volume 2: Technical Description and Technical

Appendices. Anaheim, CA: North American Aviation, Inc., November 1966b.

(Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA AD-647 112.)

Goodman, Arnold F.; John D. Hodges, Jr.; Bruce W. Angelet; Richard B. McCord;

and Carol C. Taylor. DoD User-Needs Study. Phase II: Flow of Scientific and

Technical Information Within the Defense Industry. Volume 3: Frequency

Distribution and Correlations and Relationship and Comparison. Anaheim, CA:

North American Aviation, Inc., November 1966c. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA AD-649 284.)

Gray, Dwight E. and Steffan Rosenborg. "Do Technical Reports Become Published

Papers?" Physics Today 10:6 (June 1957): 18-21.

Gray, Dwight E. and Steffan Rosenborg. Study of Publications Stemming from

Defense-Related Technical Reports. Washington, DC: Library of Congress,

December 1956.

Grogan, Denis J. Science and Technology: An Introduction to the Literature.

4th ed. (London: Clive Bingley, 1982.)

Hartas, J. C. "Government Scientific and Technical Reports and Their Problems."

The Assistant Librarian 59 (March 1966): 54-59.

Henderson, Madeline H. "Some Aspects of Technical Report Processing By Federal

Agencies." Science and Technology Libraries 1:4 (Summer 1981): 19-26.

Herner, Mary and Saul Herner. "The Current Status of the Government Research

Report in the United States." UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries 13

(August-September 1959): 187-196.

Herner, Mary and Barbara Kolber. Speed of Announcement of United States

Government Research Reports in Technical Abstract Bulletin, U. S. Government

Research Reports. and Nuclear Science Abstracts, 1961-1962. Arlington, VA:

Herner and Company, March 1962. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA

PB-160 556.)

Herner, Saul and Mary Herner. Factors Governing the Announcement of and Publication of United States Government Research Reports. Arlington, VA: Herner

and Company, December 1961. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-160

555.)

Herner, Saul and Mary Herner. "The Unpublished Government Research Report."

Government Publications Review 13 (January/February 1986): 97-104.

69
Hernon, Dan Peter. Use and Non-Use of Government Publications By Social Scientists

in Selected Academic Institutions. Ph.D. Diss., Indiana University, 1978. UMI

79-06250.

Houghton, Bernard. "Technical Report Literature." In Technical Information Sources:

A Guide to Patents, Standards, and Technical Report Literature. (Hamden, CT:

Archon Books, 1967,) 84-96.

Kee, Walter A. "Availability of Technical Reports." Sci-Tech News 16 (Spring

1962): 7-9.

King, Donald W.; Jose-Marie Griffiths; Nancy K. Roderer; and Robert R. V.

Wiederkehr. Value of the Energy Data Base. Rockville, MD: King Research

Inc., March 1982. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA DE82014250.)

Kitchen, Paul and Associates. A Review of the Feasibility of Developing a

Methodology to Demonstrate the Value of Canadian Federal Libraries in Economic

Terms. Canada: Paul Kitchen and Associates, March 1989.

Klempner, Irivng M. National Documentation Center Abstracting and Indexing Services and the Diffusion of Results from Government-Sponsored Research.

Ph.D. Diss., Columbia University, 1967. UMI 70-17023.

Mathes, J.C. and Dwight W. Stevenson. Designing Technical Reports. (Indianapolis,

IN: Bobbs-Me-.rill, 1976.)

McClure, Charles R. "The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs and

Issues." Government Information Quarterly 5:1 (1988): 27-44.

McClure, Charles R.; Peter Hernon; and Gary R. Purcell. Linking the U.S. National

Technical Information Service With Academic and Public Libraries. (Norwood,

NJ: Ablex Press, 1986.)

McClure, Charles R.; Peter Hernon; and Harold Relyea. United States Government

Information Policies: Views and Perspectives. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press,

1989.)

McCullough, Robert A.; Douglas D. Pilley; and Freda F. Stohrer. A Review and

Evaluation of the Langley Research Center's Scientific and Technical Information

Program. Results of Phase IV. The Technical Report: A Survey and Analysis.

NASA TM-83269. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, April 1982. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 82N2813.

Miller, Eugene E. "The Genesis and Characteristics of Report Literature." American

Documentation 3 (April/June 1952): 91-94.

70
Molholm, Kurt N.; Betty L. Fox; Paul M. Klinefelter; Ellen V. McCauley; and

William M. Thompson. "The Defense Technical Information Center: Acquiring

Information and Imparting Knowledge." Government Information Quarterly 5:4

(1988): 323-340.

Monge, Peter R.; James D. Schriner; Bettie F. Farace; and Richard V. Farace. The

Assessment of NASA Technical Information. NASA CR-181367. Washington,

DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, October 1979. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA 87N70893.)

National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering. Scientific and

Technical Communication: A Pressing National Problem and Recommendations

for Its Solution. A Report by the Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1969; AKA The

SATCOM Report.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of

Medicine. The Federal Role in Research and Development: Report of a

Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986.

National Science Foundation. Science and Technology Data Book: 1989.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1989.

Newman, Wilda B. and Michlean J. Amir. "Report Literature: Selecting Versus

Collecting." Special Libraries 69:11 (November 1978): 415-424.

O'Donnell, T. R.; J. L. Lewis; and J. L. Glendinning. Study of the Federal Government's System for Distributing Its Unclassified R&D Reports. Washington, DC:

John I. Thompson and Company, June 20, 1962. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA AD-283 335.)

Passman, Sidney. Scientific and Technical Communication. (Oxford: Pergamon

Press, 1969.)

Pastemack, Simon. "Is Journal Publication Obsolescent?" Physics Today 19 (May

1966): 38-43.

Public Law 85-568 (July 28, 1958) The National Aeronautics and Space Act.

President's Science Advisory Committee. Science, Government, and Information: The

Responsibility of the Technical Community and the Government in the Transfer

of Information. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, January 1963;

AKA The Weinberg Report.)

President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology. Sientific and Technological

Communication in the Government (Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office, April 1962; AKA The Crawford Report.)

71
Randall, Gordon E. "Literature Obsolescence at a British and an American

Aeronautical Library." Special Libraries 50 (November 1959): 447-450.

Redman, Helen F. "Technical Reports: Problems and Predictions." Arizona Librarian

23 (Winter 1965/1966): 11-17.

Roderer, Nancy K.; Donald W. King; and Sandra E. Brovard. Use and Value of

Defense Technical Information Center Products and Services. Rockville, MD:

King Research Inc., June 1983. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA

AD-A130 805.)

Ronco, Paul G.; John A. Hanson; Margaret W. Raben; and Ina A. Samuels.

Characteristics of Technical Reports That Affect Reader Behavior: A Review of

the Literature. Boston, MA: Tufts University, Institute for Psychological

Research, 1964. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-169 409.)

Rosenberg, Nathan. "A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment

in Research and Development Since World War II." Paper commissioned for a

workshop on The Federal Role in Research Development, November 21-22, 1985,

held in Washington, DC, and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences,

National Academy of Engineers, and Institute of Medicine.

Smith, Ruth S. "Interaction Within the Technical Report Community." Science and

Technology Libraries 1:4 (Summer 1981): 5-18.

Stohrer, Freda F. "Marketing Information: The Technical Report As Product." Paper

presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition

and Communication, Dallas, TX, March 26-28, 1981.

Subramanyam, Krishna. Scientific and Technical Information Resources. (NY:

Marcel Dekker, 1981.)

Tallman, Johanna. "History and Importance of Technical Report Literature, Part II."

Sci-Tech News 16 (Winter 1962): 164-165, 168-172.

Teich, Albert H. "Federal Support of Applied Research: A Review of the United

States Experience." Paper commissioned for a workshop on The Federal Role

in Research Development, November 21-22, 1985, held in Washington, DC, and

sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineers,

and Institute of Medicine.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Select Committee on Government Research.

Documentation and Dissemination of Research and Development Results, Study

No. IV. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, November 1964; AKA

The Elliott Report.)

72
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. The Defense Technology Base:

Introduction and Overview. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1988.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Federal Scientific and Technical

Information in an Electronic Age: Opportunities and Challenges. OTA Staff

Paper. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, October 1989.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service. NTIS

Bibliographic Database Guide: A Reference Tool for Users of the National

Technical Information Service Bibliographic Database. 1964-1985. Springfield,

VA: NTIS, 1986.

U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Documentation

Center. Glossary of Information Handling. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA:

DDC, 1964.

U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Technical

Information Center. Handbook for Users of the Defense Technical Information

Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA: DTIC, December 1985.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information. Scientific

and Technical Information Products from the U. S. Department of Energy.

Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical

Information, May 1987.

Wente, Van A. "Scientific and Technical Information Management." Government

Information Quarterly 7:2 (1990): 149-167.

Wilson, C. W. J. "Obsolescence of Report Literature." ASLIB Proceedings 16

(June 1964): 200-201.

Wilson, C. W. J. "Report Literature Used by Aerodynamicists." ASLIB Proceedings

10 (August 1958): 194-200.

Woolston, John E. "American Technical Reports: Their Importance and How to

Obtain Them." Journal of Documentation 9 (December 1953): 211-219.

73
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aines, Andrew A. "A Visit to the Wasteland of Federal Scientific and Technical

Information Policy." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 35

(May 1984): 179-184.

American National Standards Institute. Scientific and Technical Reports: Organization,

Preparation, and Production. ANSI Z39.18-1987. New York: ANSI, 1987.

Anthony, J. L. "The Structure of Engineering Information." Chapter 1 in Information

Sources in Engineering. 2nd ed. L. J. Anthony, ed. (London: Butterworths,

1985,) 1-19.

Auger, Charles P. "Reports." Chapter 2 in Information Sources in Engineering. 2nd

ed. L. J. Anthony, ed. (London: Butterworths, 1985,) 20-34.

Bearman, Toni Carbo. "U. S. Information Policy Issues." Information Services and

Use 1 (November 1981): 169-173.

Benning, V. J. "Reports" Chapter 5 in Use of Engineering Literature. K. W. Mildren,

ed. (London: Butterworths, 1976,) 62-75.

Blados, Walter R. "Controlling Unclassified Scientific and Technical Information."

Information Management Review 2 (Spring 1987): 49-60.

Bozeman, Barry and Elliot Cole. "Scientific and Technical Information in Public

Management: The Role of Gatekeeping and Channel Preference." Administration

& Society 13 (February 1982): 479-493.

Branscomb, Lewis M. "Improving R&D Productivity: The Federal Role." Science

222 (October 1983): 133-135.

Douglas, Richard D.; Ellen V. McCauley; Allen D. Kuhn; Jeanne L. Bell; and

Karen W. Woolridge. DTIC 2000: A Corporate Plan for the Future. Alexandria,

VA: DTIC, July 1984. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA AD-647 111.)

Fry, Bernard M. and James J. Kortendick, (eds.) The Production and Use of Technical

Reorts. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 1955.

Gerstenfeld, Arthur and Paul Berger. "An Analysis of Utilization Differences for Scientific and Technical Information." Management Science 26 (February 1980):

165-179.

74
Glaser, Edward M.; Harold H. Abelson; and Kathalee N. Garrison. Putting Knowledge

to Use: Facilitating the Diffusion of Knowledge and the Implementation of

Planned Change. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1983.)

Goldstone, N. J. "How Not to Promote Technology Transfer." Technology Review

89 (July 1986): 22-23.

Hall, John L. "Technical Report Literature" in Handbook of Special Librarianship and

Information Work. 4th ed. W. E. Batten, ed. (London: ASLIB, 1975,)

102-123.

Henderson, Madeline M. "The Data Element Dictionary: Developments in Technical

Reports Processing." Government Publications Review 13 (1986): 581-590.

Hernon, Peter and Charles R. McClure. Federal Information Policies in the 1980s:

Conflicts and Issues. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press, 1987.)

Hernon, Peter and Charles R. McClure. Public Access to Government Information:

Issues, Trends, and Strategies. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press, 1984.)

Houghton, Bernard. "Technical Report Literature" Chapter 9 in Technical Information

Sources: A Guide to Patents, Standards, and Technical Report Literature.

(Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1967,) 78-83.

Jackson, D. "Structure of the Literature and Channels of Communication" Chapter 1

in Use of Engineering Literature, K. W. Mildhen, ed. (London: Butterworths,

1976,) 1-12.

Klempner, Irving M. "The Concept of National Security' and Its Effect on Information Transfer." Special Libraries 64 (July 1973): 263-269.

Lesser, Barbara. "New Regulation Seeks Compliance." Defense Technical Information

Center Digest (April 1988): 1, 5.

Lilley, G. M. "Aeronautics and Astronautics." Chapter 19 in Use of Engineering

Literature, K. W. Mildren, ed. (London: Butterworths, 1976,) 276-299.

MacAdam, E. J. "Aerospace Engineering." Chapter 16 in Information Sources in

Engineering. 2nd ed., L. J. Anthony, ed. (London: Butterworths, 1985,) 294-

324.

McClure, Charles R. and Peter Hernon (eds.) United States Scientific and Technical

Information Policies: Views and Perspectives. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press,

1989.)

Pace, Scott N. "The Aerospace Plane: Goals and Realities." Issues in Science and

Technology 3 (Spring 1987): 20-24.

75
Pruett, Nancy J. "Technical Reports." Chapter 12 in Scientific and Technical

Literature. Vol. 2: Functions and Management, (NY: Academic Press, 1986,)

70-88.

Relyea, Harold C. "Increased National Security Controls on Scientific

Communication." Government Information Quarterly 1 (1984): 177-207.

Rich, Robert F. Social Science Information and Public Policy Making. (San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1981.)

Shapley, Deborah and Rustum Roy. Lost at the Frontier: U. S. Science and

Technology Policy Adrift. (Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press, 1985.)

Shattuck, John "Federal Restrictions on the Free Flow of Academic Information and

Ideas." Government Information Quarterly 3 (1986): 5-29.

Shattuck, John and Muriel M. Spence. Government Information Controls: Implications

for Scholarship, Science, and Technology. (Washington, DC: Association of

American Universities, 1988.)

"A Symposium on Protecting National Security Information." Government Information

Quarterly 1 (1984): 113-207.

U.S. Department of Defense. Glossary of Information Handling. (Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, 1964.)

Wooster, Harold. "Historical Note: Shining Palaces, Shifting Sands: National Information Systems." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 38

(September 1987): 321-335.

Wright, R. C. "Report Literature." In Special Materials in the Library, Jack Burkett

and T. S. Morgan, eds. (London: The Library Association, 1963,) 46-59.

76
CHAPTER 3

THE INFORMATION-SEEKING HABITS AND PRACTICES

OF ENGINEERS AND THE DIFFUSION OF FEDERALLY

FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D

INTRODUCTION

This chapter contributes to the broader purpose of the study by establishing a

framework for understanding the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists. To establish this framework, the nature of science

and technology, the differences between engineers and scientists, and an overview of

engineering STI studies are presented. Selective results of an exploratory study that

investigated the technical communications practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and

scientists are presented to further develop the conceptual framework. Finally, to further

develop the conceptual framework, literature relevant to knowledge diffusion and

technological innovation is presented based on four themes.

BACKGROUND

The President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness (1985) concluded that

"the nation's ability to compete has declined over the past twenty years; that we must

be able to compete [internationally] if we are going to meet our national goals of a

rising standard of living; and that we, as a nation, can no longer afford to ignore the

competitive consequences of our actions or our inactions." American productivity,

77
which is at the heart of competitiveness, has been surpassed by the world's major industrialized nations (Porter, 1990). Since 1965, 7 out of 10 U.S. high-technology industries have lost world market shares (Young, 1985). The exception is the aerospace industry, which continues as the leading positive contributor to the United States balance

of trade among all merchandise industries (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990).

In his study of the commercial aviation sector of the aerospace industry,

Mowery (1985) concludes that R&D investment resulted in dramatic productivity

increases. Mowery further states that "total factor productivity in this [commercial

aviation sector] industry has grown more rapidly than in virtually any other U.S.

industry during the postwar period." U.S. aerospace industry leads all other industries

in expenditures for R&D. The National Science Foundation (1989) estimates that total

R&D expenditures on U.S. aerospace projects reached $24 billion in 1988. The Federal

government, primarily through NASA and DOD, funds a substantial share of aerospace

R&D to encourage basic research, generic product development, and improvements in

flight safety (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990).

However, the U.S. aerospace industry, in particular the commercial aviation

sector, is in the midst of profound change and now faces a significantly more

challenging competitive and global environment (National Academy of Engineering,

1985). The MIT Commission of Industrial Productivity (Dertouzos, et al., 1989)

reinforces this position, stating that "federal regulatory policy and foreign competition

has dramatically altered the marketplace for the U.S. commercial aviation sector."

Technological innovation is "the primary if not the only means of improving

industrial productivity; it is the means of developing new businesses that are the

78
primary source of economic growth" (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1979). "It is the

force propelling the American economy forward and a process [that is] inextricably

linked to knowledge diffusion" (David, 1986). Studies conducted in the 1960s and

early 1970s reveal a positive statistically significant relationship between investment

in technological innovation or R&D and the rate of productivity increase and a

relatively high marginal rate of return from investment in technological innovation or

R&D (Griliches, 1964; Mansfield, 1968; Minasian, 1969; Terleckyj, 1974).

In their treatise, The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for

Economic Growth, Landau and Rosenberg (1986) describe technological innovation as

the critical factor in the long-term economic growth of modem industrial societies

that functions successfully only within a larger social environment that provides an

effective combination of incentives and complementary inputs into the innovation

process. Technological innovation is a process in which the communication of STI is

critical to the success of the enterprise (Fischer, 1980; Solomon ai d Tornatzky, 1986).

"It is a process about which we know little and understand even less" (U.S. Department

of Commerce, 1967).

"Technology, unlike science, is an extroverted activity; it involves a search for

workable solutions to problems. When it finds solutions that are workable and

effective, it does not pursue the why? very hard. Moreover, the output of technology

is a product, process, or service. Science, by contrast, is an introverted activity. It

studies problems that are usually generated internally by logical discrepancies or

internal inconsistencies or by anomalous observations that cannot be accounted for

within the present intellectual framework" (Landau and Rosenberg, 1986).

79
Technology is a process dominated by engineers, as opposed to scientists, which

"leads to different philosophies and habits not only about contributing to the technical

literature but also to using the technical literature and other sources of information"

(Joenk, 1985). Consequently, an understanding of the relationship between science and

technology and the information-seeking habits and practices of aerospace engineers is

critical to understanding the diffusion of federally funded aerospace R&D.

The Nature of Science and Technolo2v

The relationship between sciencc and technology is often expressed as a

continuous process or normal progression from basic research (science) through applied

research (technology) to development (utilization). This relationship, which is

illustrated in figure 5, is based on the widely held assumption that technology grows

out of or is dependent upon science for its development.

Science Body of

knowledge

Technology State of the art

Practical need Utilization

and use

Time

Source: Allen (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology

Figure 5. The Progression From Science Through Technology

to Development as a Continuous Process.

80
However, the belief that technological change is somehow based on scientific

advance has been challenged in recent years. Technological change has been increasingly seen as the adaption of existing technological concepts in response to demand

(Langrish, et al., 1972). Moreover, several years of study that attempted to trace the

flow of information from science to technology have produced little empirical evidence

to support the relationship (U.S. Department of Defense, 1969 (AKA Project Hindsight);Ulinois Institute of Technology, 1968 (AKA Project TRACES). Price (1969),

for example, claims:

The naive picture of technology as applied science simply will not

fit the facts. Inventions do not hang like fruits on a scientific tree. In

those parts of the history of technology where one feels some

confidence, it is quite apparent that most technological advances [are]

deriv[ed] immediately from those that precede them.

Substantial evidence exists that refutes the relationship between science and

technology. Schmookler (1966) has attempted to show that the variation in inventive

activity between different American industries is explicable in terms of the variation

in demand, concluding that economic growth determines the rate of inventive activity

rather than the reverse. Price (1965), in his investigation of citation patterns in both

scientific and technical journals, finds that scientific literature is cumulative and builds

upon itself, whereas technical literature is not and does not build upon itself. Citations

to previous work are fewer in technical journals and are often the author's own work.

Price (1965) concludes that science and technology progress independently of

one another. Technology builds upon its own prior developments and advances in a

manner independent of any link with the current scientific frontier and often without

any necessity for an understanding of the basic science underlying it.

81
In summarizing the differences between science ,id technology, Price (1965)

makes the following 12 points. First, science has a cumulating, close-knit structure;

that is, new knowledge seems to flow from highly related and rather recent pieces of

old knowledge, as displayed in the literature. Second, this property is what

distinguishes science from technology and from humanistic scholarship. Third, this

property accounts for many known social phenomena in science and also for its

surefootedness and high rate of exponential growth. Fourth, technology shares with

science the same high growth rate, but shows quite complementary social phenomena,

particularly in its attitude to the literature. Fifth, technology therefore may have a

similar, cumulating, close-knit structure to that of science, but it is of the state of the

art rather than of the literature. Sixth, science and technology each therefore have

their own separate cumulating structures. Seventh, a direct flow from the research

front of science to that of technology, or vice versa, occurs only in special and

traumatic cases, since the structures are separate.

Eighth, it is probable that research-front technology is strongly related only to

that part of scientific knowledge that has been packed down as part of ambient

learning and education, not to research-front science. Ninth, research-front science is

similarly related only to the ambient technological knowledge of the previous generation of students, not to the research front of the technological state of the art and its

innovation. Tenth, this reciprocal relation between science and technology, involving

the research front of one and the accrued archive of the other, is nevertheless sufficient

to keep the two in phase in their separate growths within each otherwise independent

cumulation. Eleventh, it is therefore naive to regard technology as applied science or

82
clinical practice as applied medical science. Twelfth, because of this, one should be

aware of any claims that a particular eijentific research is needed for particular

technological breakthroughs, and vice verqa. Both cumulations can only be supported

for their own separate ends.

The single-tree concept, shown in figure 6, is often used to illustrate the

relationship between science and technology as a continuous process. Shapley and Roy

(1985) argue that such a metaphor is historically inaccurate. In their case for a

reorientation of American science poiicy, they argue that the two-tree concept, which

is shown in figure 7, is a more accurate metaphcr and is much more useful in

developing science policy.

Basic science

Source: Shapley and Roy (1985) Lost at the Frontier

Figure 6. Science and Technology as a Single Tree.

83
.$ Technological Contemporary $ frit tee $basic science

Source: Shapley and Roy (1985) Lost at the Frontier

Figure 7. Science and Technology as Separate Trees.

Shapley and Roy (1985) contend that a normal progression from science to

technology does not exist, nor is there direct communication between science and

technology. To support their position, they point to the results of innovation research

studies, in particular the results of Project Hindsight (1969). Project Hindsight

attempted to trace technological advancements resulting from DOD-funded research

back to their scientific origins. The study found that, while none of the technological

advancements would have been possible without basic science, the link between science

and technology was extremely weak. It should be pointed out that the results of

Project Hindsight were not universally accepted within the S&T community.

84
Allen (1977), who studied the transfer of technology and the dissemination of

technological information in R&D organizations, finds little evidence to support the

relationship between science and technology as a continuous relationship. Allen concludes that the relationship between science and technology, which is depicted in

figure 8, is best described as a series of interactions that are based on need rather than

on a normal progression.

Body of

Science knowledge

Technology State of the art

Practical needb

and use Utilization

Time

Source: Allen (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology

Figure 8. The Progression From Science Through Technology

to Development as a Series of Interactions.

According to Allen (1977), (a) the results of science do progress to technology

in the sense that some sciences such as physics are more closely connected to technologies such as electronics, but (b) overall a wide variation exists between science and

technology. The need for a (c) device, technique, or scientific understanding

85
influences technology. Technology, in turn, (d) responds to a need and, in doing so,

may generate the need for an understanding of certain physical phenomena. A direct

communication system between science and technology does not exist to the extent that

communication between science and technology is restricted almost completely to that

which takes place through the process of education.

Allen (1977) states that the independent nature of science and technology (S&T)

and the different functions performed by engineers and scientists directly influence the

flow of information in science and technology. Science and technology are ardent

consumers of information. Both engineers and scientists require large quantities of

information to perform their work. At this level, there is a strong similarity between

the information input needs of engineers and scientists. However, the difference

between engineers and scientists in terms of information processing becomes apparent

upon examination of their outputs (Allen, 1977).

According to Allen (1977), information processing in S&T is depicted in figure 9 in the form of an input-output model. Scientists use information to produce

information. From a system standpoint, the input and output, which are both verbal,

are compatible. The output from one stage is in a form required for the next stage.

Engineers use information to produce some physical change in the world. Engineers

consume information, transform it, and produce a product that is information bearing;

however, the information is no longer in verbal form. Whereas scientists consume and

produce information in the form of human language, engineers transform information

from a verbal format to a physically encoded form. Verbal information is produced

only as a by-product to document the hardware and other physical products produced.

86
Input System Output

:1 Science _______

Verbally encoded ___Science Verbally encoded

information information

(papers & discussion) (papers)

>Tecnnology

Verbally encoded j Physically encoded

information information

(papers & discussion) (hardware & other products)

By-product

Verbally encoded information

(documentation)

Source: Allen (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology

Figure 9. Information Processing in Science and Technology.

According to Allen (1977), there is an inherent compatibility between the inputs

and outputs of the information-processing system of science. He further states that

since both are in a verbal format, the output of one stage is in the format required for

the next stage. The problem of supplying information to the scientist becomes a

matter of collecting and organizing these outputs and making them accessible. Since

science operates for the most part on the premise of free and open access to

information, the problem of collecting outputs is made easier.

In technology, however, there is an inherent incompatibility between inputs and

outputs. Since outputs are usually in a form different from inputs, they usually cannot

serve as inputs for the next stage. Further, the outputs are usually in two parts, one

87
physically encoded and the other verbally encoded. The verbally encoded part usually

cannot serve as input for the next stage because it is a by-product of the process and

is itself incomplete (Allen, 1977). Those unacquainted with the development of the

hardware or physical product therefore require some human intervention to supplement

and interpret the information contained in the documentation (Allen, 1988). Since

technology operates to a large extent on the premise of restricted access to information,

the problem of collecting the documentation and obtaining the necessary human intervention becomes difficult (Fischer, 1980).

Distinguishin! Engineers From Scientists

In their study of the values and career orientation of engineering and science

undergraduate students, Krulee and Nadler (1960) found that engineering and science

students have certain aspirations in common: to better themselves and to achieve a

higher socio-economic status than that of their parents. They report that science

students place a higher value on independence and on learning for its own sake, while

engineering students are more concerned with success and professional preparation.

Many engineering students expect their families to be more important than their careers

as a source of satisfaction, but the reverse pattern is more typical for science students.

Krulee and Nadler (1960) also determined that engineering students are less

concerned than science students with what one does in a given position and more

concerned with the certainty of the rewards to be obtained. They report that, overall,

engineering students place less emphasis on independence, career satisfaction, and the

inherent interest their specialty holds for them and place more value on success, family

life, and avoiding a low-level job. Engineering students appear to be prepared to

88
sacrifice some of their independence and opportunities for innovation in order to realize

their primary objectives. Engineering students are more willing to accept positions that

will involve them in complex organizational responsibilities and they assume that

success in such positions will depend upon practical knowledge, administrative ability,

and human relation skills (Krulee and Nadler, 1960).

In his study of engineers in industry, Ritti (1971) found marked contrast

between the work goals of engineers and scientists. Ritti draws the following three

conclusions from his study: (1) the goals of engineers in industry are very much in

line with meeting schedules, developing products that will be successful in the

marketplace, and helping the company expand its activities; (2) while both engineers

and scientists desire career development or advancement, for the engineer advancement

is tied to activities within the organization, while advancement for the scientist is

dependent upon the reputation established outside of the organization; and (3) while

publication of results and professional autonomy are clearly valued goals of the Ph.D.

scientist, they are clearly the least valued goals of the baccalaureate engineer.

Allen (1988) states that the type of person who is attracted to a career in

engineering is fundamentally different from the type of person who pursues a career

as a scientist. He writes that "perhaps the single most important difference between

the two is the level of education. Engineers are generally educated to the

baccalaureate level; some have a master's degree while some have no college degree.

The research scientist is usually assumed to have a doctorate. The long, complex

process of academic socialization involved in obtaining the Ph.D. is bound to result in

persons who differ considerably in their lifeviews." According to Allen, these

89
differences .n values and attitudes toward work will almost certainly be reflected in the

behavior of the individual, especially in their use and production of information.

According to Blade (1963), engineers and scientists differ in training, values,

and methods of thought. Further, Blade states that the following differences exist in

their individual creative processes and in their creative products: (1) scientists are

concerned with discovering and explaining nature; engineers use and exploit nature;

(2) scientists are searching for theories and principles; engineers seek to develop and

make things; (3) scientists are seeking a result for its own ends; engineers are engaged

in solving a problem for the practical operating results; and (4) scientists create new

unities of thought; engineers invent things and solve problems. Blade states that "this

is a different order of creativity."

Finally, communication in engineering and science are fundamentally different.

Communication patterns differ because of the fundamental differences between

engineering and science and because of the social systems associated with the two

disciplines. With one exception, the following characteristics of the social systems as

they apply to the engineer and scientist are based on Holmfeld's (1970) investigation

of the communication behavior of engineers and scientists.

Engineer

o Contribution is [technical] knowledge used to produce end items or

products.

o New and original knowledge is not a requirement.

o Reward is monetary or materialistic and serves as an inducement to

continue to make further contributions to technical knowledge.

o Seeking rewards that are not part of the social system of technology is

quite proper and also encouraged.

90
o The value of technical knowledge lies in its value as a commodity of

indirect exchange.

o Exchange networks found in the social system of technology are based

on end-item products, not knowledge.

0 Strong norms against free exchange or open access to knowledge with

others outside of the organization exist in the social system of

technology.

o Restriction, security classification, and proprietary claims to knowledge

characterize the social system of technology.

Scientist

o Contribution is new and original knowledge.

o Reward is social approval in the form of professional [collegial]

recognition.

o Recognition is established through publication and claim of discovery.

o A well-developed communication system based on unrestricted access is

imperative to recognition and claim of discovery.

o Since recognition and priority of discovery are critical, strong norms

against any restriction to free and open communication exist in the social

system of science.

o Seeking rewards that are not part of the social system of science in

return for scientific contribution is not considered proper within the

social system of science.

o Exchange networks commonly referred to as "invisible colleges" exist in

the social system of science; in these networks the commodities are

knowledge and recognition (Price, 1961; Crane, 1972).

Influence on Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers

The nature of science and technology and differences between engineers and

scientists influence their information-seeking habits, practices, needs, and preferences

and have significant implications for planning information services for these two groups

91
(System Development Corporation, 1966). Taylor (1986), who quotes Brinberg (1980),

offers the following characteristics for engineers and scientists: "Unlike scientists, the

goal of the engineer is to produce or design a product, process, or system; not to

publish and make original contributions to the literature. Engineers, unlike scientists,

work within time constraints; they are not interested in theory, source data, and guides

to the literature nearly so much as they are in reliable answers to specific questions.

Engineers prefer informal sources of information, especially conversations with

individuals within their organization. Finally, engineers tend to minimize loss rather

than maximize gain when seeking information."

Anthony, et al., (1969) suggest that engineers may have psychological traits that

predispose them to solve problems alone or with the help of colleagues rather than

finding answers in the literature. They further state that "engineers like to solve their

own problems. They draw on past experiences, use the trial and error method, and ask

colleagues known to be efficient and reliable instead of searching or having someone

search the literature for them. They are highly independent and self-reliant without

being positively anti-social."

According to Allen (1977), "Engineers read less than scientists, they use

literature and libraries less, and seldom use information services which are directly

oriented to them. They are more likely to use specific forms of literature such as

handbooks, standards, specifications, and technical reports." What an engineer usually

wants, according to Cairns and Compton (1970), is "a specific answer, in terms and

format that are intelligible to him -- not a collection of documents that he must sift,

evaluate, and translate before he can apply them."

92
Young and Harriott (1979) report that "the engineer's search for information

seems to be bared more on a need for specific problem solving than around a search

for general opportunity. When engineers use the library, it is more in a personalsearch mode, generally not involving the professional (but "nontechnical") librarian."

Young and Harriot conclude by saying that "when engineers need technical information,

they. usually use the most accessible sources rather than searching for the highest

quality sources. These accessible sources are respected colleagues, vendors, a familiar

but possibly outdated text, and internal company [technical] reports. He [the engineer]

prefers informal information networks to the more formal search of publicly available

and cataloged information."

Evidence exists to support the hypothesis that differences between science and

technology and scientists and engineers directly influence information-seeking habits,

practices, needs, and preferences. The results of a study conducted by the System

Development Corporation (1966) determined that "an individual differs systematically

from others in his use of STI" for a variety of reasons. Chief among these are five

institutional variables -- "type of researcher, engineer or scientist; type of discipline,

basic or applied; stage of project, task, or problem completeness; the kind of

organization, fundamentally thought of as academia, government, and industry; and

the years of professional work experience."

Studies, such as the work performed by O'Gara (1968), indicate that information-seeking habits, practices, needs, and preferences are influenced by certain

sociometric variables. O'Gara found a positive correlation between physical proximity

93
to an information source and its use. King, et al., (1984) report a positive correlation

between the number of visits to a library and proximity of the user.

According to Hardy (1982), two of the major problems in the flow of STI are

to crate channels by which information is made available and to encourage the use

of these channels by those people who need the information that the channels provide.

He states that two general model- of information seeking relate to the use of STI.

One model proposes that an information seeker makes an assessment of the expected

benefits and costs of using an information channel and selects an information channel.

Hardy refers to this as the cost-benefit model of information seeking. According to

this model, information seekers assess both costs and benefits of using an information

source.

Antecedents to this model are found in economics (Stigler, 1961) and mass

communication (Atkin, 1973). Orr (1970) is one of the first authors in the area of

information science to propose "channel selection" criteria. According to Orr, "Whatever he [the scientist] opts for, trying observation or the information pool, will depend

upon his subjective estimate or perception of the relative likelihood of success in

acquiring the desired information by these two alternatives [observation or the

information pool] within an acceptable time, on this perception of the relative cost

of these alternatives. If he [the scientist] tries the information pool, he recognizes that

there is more than one channel through which he may obtain the specific item needed;

the same sort of rule will govern the selection of [information] channels. Thus, the

scientist makes a decision on which information channel to select on the basis of both

cost and expected outcome."

94
Hardy's (1982) second model is the least-effort model of information seeking.

It asserts that individuals who look for information do so in a way that the least

amount of effort is expended in the process. This is accomplished by choosing the

information source that has the least psychological and financial cost in its use.

According to this model, information seekers will choose a source in order to minimize

cost regardless of the quality of the information they expect to obtain (Hardy, 1982).

Gerstberger and Allen (1968), in their study of engineers and their choice of an

information channel, note the following:

Engineers, in selecting among information channels, act in a

manner which is intended not to maximize gain, but rather to minimize

loss. The loss to be minimized is the cost in terms of effort, either

physical or psychological, which must be expended in order to gain

access to an information channel.

Their behavior appears to follow a "law of least effort" (Zipf, 1949). According to

this law, individuals, when choosing among several paths to a goal, will base their

decision upon the single criterion of "least average rate of probable work." According

to Gerstberger and Allen, engineers appear to be governed or influenced by a principle

closely related to this law. They attempt to minimize effort in terms of work required

to gain access to an information channel. Gerstberger and Allen reached the following

conclusions:

1. Accessibility is the single most important determinant of the overall extent

to which an information channel or source is used by an engineer.

2. Both accessibility and perceived technical quality influence the choice of the

first source.

3. The perception of accessibility is influenced by experience. The more experience engineers have with an information channel or source, the more accessible they perceive it to be.

95
Gerstberger and Allen (1968) conclude their discussion by rtating that "any

assumption that engineers act in accord with a simple instrumental learning model in

which they turn most frequently to those information channels which reward them most

often should now clearly be laid to rest." Rosenberg's (1967) findings also support the

conclusions by Gerstberger and Allen that accessibility almost exclusively determines

the frequency of use of information channels. Rosenberg concludes that researchers

minimize the cost of obtaining information while sacrificing the quality of the

information received.

In his study of the Factors Related to the Use of Technical Information in

Engineering Problem Solving, Kaufman (1983) reports that engineers rated technical

quality or reliability followed by relevance as the criteria used in choosing the most

useful information source. However, accessibility appears to be used most often for

selecting an information source even if that source proved to be the least useful.

In his review of the cost-benefit and least-effort models, Hardy (1982) assumes that information seekers assess the cost and benefits of alternative information

sources. He says that "information seekers are assumed to place different weights on

the costs and benefits of an information source. They do not seek to minimize cost.

They weigh cost as being the most important criterion in selecting an information

source." Hardy concludes that "information seekers do evaluate information sources

on the basis of their costs and benefits, not cost alone as Allen (1977) maintains. The

majority of weight in their decision does go to cost. Contrary to Orr's (1970) expectations, the quality of the information obtained is less important than its accessibility."

96
THE INFORMATION-SEEKING HABITS AND PRACTICES

OF ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS

Studies specifically concerned with the information-seeking habits and practices

of engineers and scientists were reviewed to further develop the conceptual framework

for the study. Research studies deemed significant to this topic are listed in the

"Overview of Engineering STI Studies" and are discussed in some detail. Although

not comprehensive, data from these studies are used to further develop the concept of

"different" information-seeking habits and practices for engineers and scientists.

Some other studies are worthy of mention. Dissertations by Halperin (1986),

Kasperson (1976), and Mondschein (1988) purport to have studied "scientists and

engineers" when, in fact, it is unclear which of the two groups were studied. The two

groups are not the same. According to Allen (1977), "The argument that scientist is

a more generic term merely evades the fundamental issue. The practice of lumping

the two groups [engineers and scientists] together is self-defeating in information

[production, transfer, and] use studies because confusion over the characteristics of the

sample has led to what appears to be conflicting results and to a greater difficulty in

developing normative measures for improving information systems in either science or

technology." Seiss (1982), who supports Allen's position, states tha "che terms

engineer and scientists are not synonymous and that the difference in work environment

and personal/professional goals between the engineer and scientist proves to be an

important factor in e-termining their information-seeking practices."

David's (1979) study, conducted for the World Federation of Engineering

Organizations, represents an analysis of the engineer's role and need for STI. Wilkin's

97
(1981) work is concerned with the information needs of engineers in a variety of

specialties. Raitt's (1984) study focuses on the information-seeking and use habits of

engineers and scientists in selected European aerospace research establishments.

Picken's (1988) study is concerned with the organization and use of aerospace library

and information services in the United Kingdom.

OVERVIEW OF ENGINEERING STI STUDIES

Percentage

Response Rate

Principal Research Sample Sample Sample (number

Year Investigator Method Population Prame Design Size responding) Description

1954 Herner Structured All scientific Unknown Unknown 600 100 Survey to determine

interview and technical the informationpersonnel at gathering methods

Johns Hopkins of scientific and

technical personnel at

Johns Hopkins

1970 Rosenbloom Self- Members of 2430 Census 2430 71 Survey to determine

and Wolek administered 5 industrial (1 7?5) how engineers and

questionnaire R&D organi- scientists in induszations trial research and

Members of Unknown Probability Unknown Unknown development organi4 IEEE interest (1 034) zations acquire STI

groups

1977 Allen Record Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Survey to determine

analysis (1 153) technology transfer

Self- and the dissemiadministered nation of technological

questionnaire information in

research and development organizations

1980 Kremer Self- All design 73 Census 73 82 Survey to identify and

administered engineers at one (60) evaluate the inforquestionnaire engineering mation channels used

design firm by engineers in a

design company

1981 Shucbman Structured Engineers in 14 797 Probability 3371 39 Survey to determine

interview 89 R&D and (1315) information used

Self- non-R&D and production in

administered organizations engineering

questionnaire

1983 Kaufman Self- Engineers in 147 Census 147 100 Survey to determine

administered six technology- I (147) the use of technical

questionnaire based organi-l information in techzations nical problem solving

98
Herner

Herner's (1954) is one of the first "user" studies that is specifically concerned

with "differences" in information-seeking habits and practices. He reports significant

differences in terms of researchers performing "basic and applied" research, researchers

performing "academic and industry" type duties, and their information-seeking habits

and practices. Herner says that researchers performing "basic or academic" duties

make greater use of formal information channels or sources, depend mainly on the

library for their published material, and maintain a significant number of contacts

outside of the organization.

Researchers performing "applied or industry" duties make greater use of

informal channels or sources, depend on their personal collections of information and

colleagues for information, make significantly less use of the library than do their

counterparts, and maintain fewer contacts outside of the organization. Applied or

industry researchers make substantial use of handbooks, standards, and technical

reports. They also read less and do less of their reading in the library than do their

counterparts (Herner, 1954).

Rosenbloom and Wolek

Rosenbloom and Wolek (1970) conducted one of the first "large-scale" industry

studies that was specifically concerned with the flow of STI within R&D organizations.

They report three significant and fundamental differences between engineers and scientists: (1) engineers tend to make substantially greater use of information sources

within the organization than do scientists; (2) scientists make considerably greater use

of the professional (formal) literature than do engineers; and (3) scientists are more

99
likely than engineers to acquire information as a consequence of activities directed

toward general competence rather than a specific task.

In terms of interpersonal communication, the engineers in the Rosenbloom and

Wolek (1970) study recorded a higher incidence of interpersonal communication with

people in other parts of their own corporation, whereas scientists recorded a greater

incidence of interpersonal communication with individuals employed outside their own

corporation. When using the literature, the engineers tend to consult in-house technical

reports or trade publications, while the scientists tend to make greater use of the

professional [formal] literature.

Rosenbloom and Wolek (1970) report certain similarities between engineers and

scientists. The propensity to use alternative types of technical information sources is

related to the purposes that will give meaning to the use of that information. Work

that has a professional focus draws heavily on sources of information external to the

user's organization. Work that has an operational focus seldom draws on external

sources, relying heavily on information that is available within the employing

organization. Those engineers and scientists engaged in professional work commonly

emphasize the simplicity, precision, and analytical or empirical rigor of the information

source. Conversely, those engineers and scientists engaged in operational work

typically emphasize the value of communication with others who understand and are

experienced in the same real context of work.

Allen

Allen's (1977) study of technology transfer and the dissemination of

technological information within the R&D organization is the result of a 10-year

100
investigation. Allen describes the study, which began as a "user study," as a systemslevel approach to the problem of communication in technology. Allen's work is

considered by many information professionals to be the seminal work on the flow of

technical information within R&D organizations.

Allen (1977) was among the first to produce evidence supporting different

information-seeking habits and practices for engineers and scientists. These differences,

Allen notes, lead to different philosophies and habits regarding the use of the technical

literature and other sources of information by engineers. The most significant of

Allen's findings is the relative lack of importance of the technical literature in terms

of generating new ideas and in problem definition, the importance of personal contacts

and discussions between engineers, the existence of technological "gatekeepers," and

the importance of the technical report. Allen states that "the unpublished report is the

single most important informal literature source; it is the principal written vehicle for

transferring information in technology."

Kremer

Kremer's (1980) study was undertaken to gain insight on how technical

information flows through formal and informal channels among engineers in a design

company. The engineers in her study are not involved in R&D. Kremer's findings

are summarized as follows.

In terms of information habits, personal files are the most frequently consulted

source for needed information. The reason given most frequently to search for information is problem solving; colleagues within the company are contacted first for needed information, followed by colleagues outside of the company. In terms of the tech101
nical literature, handbooks are considered most important, followed by standards and

specifications. Libraries are not considered to be important sources of information

and are used infrequently by company engineers.

Regardless of age and work experience, design engineers demonstrate a decided

preference for internal sources of information. The perceived accessibility, ease of

use, technical quality, and amount of experience a design engineer has had with an

information source strongly influence the selection of an information source. Technological gatekeepers were found to exist among design engineers; they are high

technical performers and a high percentage are first line supervisors.

Shuchman

Shuchman's (1981) study is a broad-based investigation of information transfer

in engineering. The respondents represented 14 industries and the following major

disciplines: civil, electrical, mechanical, industrial, chemical and environmental, and

aeronautical. Seven percent, or 93 respondents, were aeronautical engineers. The

engineers in Shuchman's study, regardless of discipline, display a strong preference

for informal sources of information. Furthr, these engineers rarely find all the

information they need for solvir, Thnical problems in one source; the major difficulty

engineers encounter in finding the information they need to do their job is identifying

a specific piece of missing data and then learning who has it.

In terms of information sources and solving technical problems, Shuchman

(1981) reports that engineers first consult their personal store of technical information,

followed in order by informal discussions with colleagues, discussions with supervisors,

use of internal technical reports, and contact with a "key" person in the organization

102
who usually knows where the needed information may be located. Shuchman states

that technical libraries and librarians are used by a small proportion of the engineering

profession.

In general, Shuchman (1981) states engineers do not regard information technology as an important adjunct to the process of producing, transferring, and using

information. While technological gatekeepers appear to exist across the broad range

of engineering disciplines, their function and significance is not uniform; considering

the totality of engineering, gatekeepers account for only a small part of the information

transfer process.

Kaufman

Kaufman's (1983) study is concerned with the factors relating to the use of

technical information by engineers in problem solving. The study reports that, in

terms of information sources, engineers consult their personal collections first, followed

by colleagues and then by formal literature sources. In terms of formal literature

sources used for technical problem solving, engineers use technical reports, followed

in order by books, monographs, and technical handbooks.

Most sources of information, according to Kaufman (1983), are found primarily

through an intentional search of written information, followed by personal knowledge

and then by asking someone. The study purports that the criteria used in selecting all

information sources, in descending order of frequency, are accessibility, familiarity or

experience, technical quality, relevance, comprehensiveness, ease of use, and expense.

The various information sources are used by engineers for specific purposes.

Librarians and information specialists are primarily utilized to find leads to information

103
sources. On-line computer searches are used primarily to define the problem. The

technical literature is used primarily to learn techniques applicable to dealing with the

problem. Personal experience is used primarily to find solutions to the problem.

Kaufman (1983) reports that the criteria used in selecting the most useful

information sources, in descending order of frequency, are technical quality or reliability, relevance, accessibility, familiarity or experience, comprehensiveness, ease of

use, and expense. In terms of the effectiveness, efficiency, and usefulness of the various information sources, personal experience is rated as the most effective in accomplishing the purpose for which it is used; librarians and information specialists receive

the lowest rating for efficiency and effectiveness. Most engineers use several different

types of information sources in problem solving; however, engineers do depend on their

personal experience more often than on any single specific information source.

THE TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES OF

U.S. AEROSPACE ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS

An exploratory study (Pinelli, et al., 1989) was conducted that investigated the

technical conmniunications practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. The

study, which utilized survey research in the form of a self-administered mail

questionnaire, had a twofold purpose: (1) to gather baseline data regarding several

aspects of technical communications in aerospace and (2) to develop and validate

questions that could be used in this study, which is concerned with understanding the

role of the U.S. government technical report in the diffusion of knowledge resulting

from federally funded aerospace R&D.

104
The exploratory study had five specific objectives: first, to solicit the opinions

of aerospace engineers and scientists regarding the importance of technical

communications to their profession; second, to determine the use and production of

technical communications by aerospace engineers and scientists; third, to seek their

views about the appropriate content of an undergraduate course in technical

communications; fourth, to determine aerospace engineers' and scientists' use of

libraries, technical information centers, and on-line data bases; and fifth, to determine

the use and importance of computer and information technology to them.

Data were collected by means of a self-administered mail questionnaire that was

pretested at the NASA Ames Research Center and the McDonnell Douglas Corporation

in St. Louis. Members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(AIAA) comprised the study population. The sample frame consisted of approximately

25 000 AIAA members in the United States with either academic, government, or

industry affiliations. Random sampling was used to select 2000 members from the

sample frame to participate in the exploratory study. Six hundred and six (606) usable

questionnaires (30-percent response rate) were received by the established cutoff date.

The study spanned the period from July 1988 to November 1988. The

questionnaire used in the study contained 35 questions: 25 questions concerned

technical communications in aeronautics, 8 questions concerned demographic

information about the survey respondents, and 2 were open-ended questions.

Time Devoted to Communicatine Technical Information

The aerospace engineers and scientists in the exploratory study (Pinelli, et al.,

1989) spend an average of 13.95 hours per week communicating technical information

105
to others (table 5). Based on a 40-hour work week, they spend approximately 35

percent of their work week communicating technical information to others (Pinelli, et

al., 1989). Respondents to the Davis (1977) study spend approximately 25 percent of

their time communicating technical communications to others.

Table 5. Time Spent Communicating Technical

Information to Others

Hours per week a Number Percentage

5 or less 102 17.1

6 to 10 189 31.7

11 to 20 237 39.8

21 or more 68 11.4

596 100.0

a Mean = 13.95 hours.

The aerospace engineers and scientists in the exploratory study (Pinelli, et al.,

1989) spend approximately 13 hours a week working with technical communications

received from others (table 6). In a 40-hour work week, they spend approximately 31

percent of their week with such work. Respondents to the Davis (1977) study spend

about 30 percent of their time working with technical communications received from

others. Considering both the time spent working on the preparation of technical

information and the time spent working with technical information received from

others, technical communication takes up approximately 66 percent of the 40-hour

work week for the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in the exploratory study.

106
Table 6. Time Spent Working With Technical

Communications Received From Others

Hours per weeka Number Percentage

5 or less 126 21.1

6 to 10 222 37.2

11 to 20 197 33.0

21 or more 52 8.7

597 100.0

aMean = 12.57 hours.

The Use and Production of Technical Information

Respondents produce a variety of technical information products (table 7).

Table 7. Technical Information Products Produced

Percent of respondents producing -

Technical information product None 1-5 6-10 11 and Average above

Letters 15.0 22.7 22.8 39.5 22.2

Memos 8.6 14.9 19.1 57.4 28.8

Technical reports - government 60.9 31.7 5.6 1.8 1.6

Technical reports - other 57.1 34.2 6.5 2.2 1.9

Proposals 47.4 46.4 4.2 2.0 1.8

Technical manuals 84.9 13.9 1.2 0.0 0.3

Computer program documentation 70.0 24.6 3.6 1.8 1.3

Journal articles 80.0 19.4 0.4 0.2 0.4

Conference-meeting papers 62.8 33.9 1.8 1.5 1.1

Trade-promotional literature 93.0 5.6 0.9 0.5 0.3

Press releases 90.0 9.3 0.2 0.5 0.3

Drawings-specifications 71.8 17.8 3.3 7.1 3.2

Speeches 54.0 35.0 7.5 3.5 2.2

Audiovisual materials 30.1 36.2 17.4 16.3 6.6

107
Most Frequently Produced Least Frequently Produced

Technical Information Products Technical Information Products

6-month production 6-month production

Memos Trade-promotional literature

Letters Press releases

Audiovisual materials Technical manuals

Drawings-specifications Journal articles

Speeches Conference-meeting papers

Based on average production, the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in the

exploratory study produce approximately 29 memos, 22 letters, 7 audiovisual (AV)

materials, 3 drawings-specifications, and 2 speeches. Other technical information

products are produced less frequently. Based on average production, respondents

produce 1.1 conference-meeting papers; 0.3 trade-promotional literature, press releases,

and technical manuals; and 0.4 journal articles in a 6-month period. Approximately

43 and 40 percent of the respondents, respectively, produce one or more technical

reports and government technical reports during the 6-month period.

A one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) was used to compare respondents

with academic, government, and industry organizational affiliations with their

production of technical information products. Academic respondents produce

significantly more letters, proposals, and journal articles than do respondents in other

groups. Industry respondents produce significantly more technical reports than do

respondents in the other groups. NASA respondents produce significantly more

government technical reports than do respondents in the other groups (Pinelli, et al.,

1989).

108
Respondents use a variety of technical information products (table 8).

Table 8. Technical Information Products Used

Percent of respondents using -

Technical information product None 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 and Average

above

Letters 18.7 30.4 20.5 30.4 16.7

Memos 10.3 27.7 17.5 44.5 24.3

Technical reports - government 35.3 44.8 12.9 7.0 4.2

Technical reports - other 34.5 46.3 11.0 8.2 4.5

Proposals 57.2 38.2 3.8 0.8 1.4

Technical manuals 60.9 31.1 4.8 3.2 2.2

Computer program documentation 55.7 34.5 5.3 4.5 3.0

Journal articles 34.9 36.8 14.9 13.4 6.7

Conference-meeting papers 43.8 39.8 10.0 6.4 4.3

Trade-promotional literature 54.1 27.6 9.1 9.2 5.7

Drawings-specifications 56.3 23.7 8.5 11.5 7.9

Audiovisual materials 47.0 33.4 11.9 7.7 5.5

Most Frequently Used Least Frequently Used

Technical Information Products Technical Information Products

1-month use 1-month use

Memos Proposals

Letters Technical manuals

Drawings-specifications Computer program documentation

Journal articles Government technical reports

Trade-promotional literature Conference-meeting papers

Based on average use, the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in the exploratory

study use approximately 24 memos, 17 letters, 8 drawings-specifications, 7 journal

articles, and 6 pieces of trade-promotional literature in a 1-month period. Other

technical information products are used less frequently. Based on average use,

respondents use 1.4 proposals, 2.2 technical manuals, 3.0 pieces computer program

109
documentation, 4.2 government technical reports, and 4.3 conference-meeting papers.

Approximately 65 percent of the respondents use one or more technical reports and

government technical reports during a 1-month period.

A one-way ANOVA was used to compare respondents with academic, government, and industry organizational affiliations with their use of technical information

products. NASA respondents use significantly more government technical reports and

AV materials than do the respondents in the other groups.

Respondents produce a variety of technical information (table 9).

Table 9. Types of Technical Information Produced

Type of technical information Respondents

No. %

Scientific and technical information 555 92.2

Experimental techniques 269 44.7

Codes of standards and practices 126 20.9

Design procedures and methods 282 47.0

Computer programs 344 57.1

Government rules and regulations 92 15.4

In-house technical data 511 84.9

Product and performance characteristics 350- 58.2

Economic information 164 27.2

Technical specifications 359 59.6

Patents 109 18.1

Most Frequently Produced Least Frequently Produced

Technical Information Technical Information

6-month use 6-month use

S&T information Government rules and regulations

In-house technical data Patents

Technical specifications Codes of standards and practices

Product and performance Economic information

characteristics Experimental techniques

Computer programs

110
Chi-square cross tabulations were used to compare respondents' organizational

affiliation with their production of specific types of technical information. Academic

and NASA respondents are more likely than expected to produce experimental

techniques. Academic and NASA respondents are less likely than expected to produce

codes of standards and practices. Industry respondents are more likely and academic

and NASA respondents less likely than expected to produce product and performance

characteristics. Academic and NASA respondents are less likely than expected to

produce economic information.

Respondents use a variety of technical information (table 10).

Table 10. Types of Technical Information Used

Respondents

Type of technical informatio Re

No. %

Scientific and technical information 584 97.0

Experimental techniques 363 60.4

Codes of standards and practices 287 47.8

Design procedures and methods 336 55.9

Computer programs 486 80.7

Government rules and regulations 432 71.9

In-house technical data 545 90.5

Product and performance characteristics 435 72.3

Economic information 215 35.8

Technical specifications 463 76.9

Patents 85 14.1

Most Frequently Used Least Frequently Used

Technical Information Technical Information

6-month use 6-month use

S&T information Patents

In-house technical data Economic information

Computer programs Codes of standards and practices

Technical specifications Design procedures and methods

Product and performance Experimental techniques

characteristics

Ill
Data on the types of technical information produced and used by U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists in the exploratory study (Pinelli, et al., 1989) were compared

with the data reported for the aeronautical engineers in Shuchman's (1981) study. The

five types of technical information most frequently produced and used are presented for

comparison.

Most Frequently Produced Technical Information

Shuchman (1981) Pinelli, et al., (1989)

In-house technical data S&T information

Physical data In-house technical data

S&T information Technical specifications

Design methods Product and performance

Computer programs characteristics

Computer programs

Most Frequently Used Technical Information

Shuchman (1981) Pinelli, et al., (1989)

S&T information S&T information

In-house technical data In-house technical data

Computer programs Computer programs

Physical data Technical specifications

Design methods Product and performance

characteristics

The different sample sizes and the research designs for the Shuchman and

Pinelli, et al., studies affect the extent to which a valid comparison can be made

between the two data sets. Nevertheless, to the extent that such a comparison is valid,

the types of technical information produced in both studies compare reasonably well.

There is, however, a much better fit between the types of technical information used.

112
Technical Information and Problem Solving

Aerospace engineers and scientists in the exploratory study (Pinelli, et al., 1989)

use a variety of sources of technical information when solving technical problems

(table 11). The sources of technical information used by aerospace engineers and

Table 11. Information Sources Used to Solve Technical Problems

Percent of Source respondents

1. Personal knowledge 88.7

2. Informal discussion with colleagues 77.2

3. Discussions with experts within the organization 69.5

4. Discussions with supervisor 45.1

5. Textbooks 39.6

6. Technical reports 35.4

7. Journals and conference-meeting papers 35.2

8. Handbooks and standards 34.5

9. Government technical reports 33.5

10. Discussions with experts outside of the organization 25.5

11. Librarians and technical information specialists 14.1

12. Technical information sources such as on-line data bases 8.2

scientists in the exploratory study to solve technical problems compare favorably with

the findings of previous studies. Like engineers in general, U.S. aerospace engineers

and scientists display the same preference for using personal knowledge, personal

contacts, and informal sources of information.

In an attempt to validate the findings, the sources of technical information used

by aerospace engineers and scientists in the exploratory study were compared with the

sources used by the engineers in Shuchman's (1981) study, Information Transfer in

Engineering. With minor exceptions, the aerospace engineers and scientists in the

113
Information Sources Used to Solve Technical Problems

Source Percent of

respondents

1. Consulted personal store of technical information 93

2. Informal discussion with colleagues 87

3. Discussed problem with supervisor 61

4. Consulted internal technical reports 50

5. Consulted key person in firm who usually knows new

information 38

6. Consulted library sources (e.g., technical journals,

conference proceedings) 35

7. Consulted outside consultant 33

8. Used electronic data bases 20

9. Consulted librarian or technical information specialist 14

10. No pattern in problem solving 5

Source: Shuchman (1981) Information Transfer in Engineering

exploratory study seek information from sources similar to the sources used by

engineers in Shuchman's study. Both groups begin with what Allen (1977) calls an

"informal personal search for information followed by the use of formal information

sources. Having completed these steps, engineers turn to librarians and library services

for assistance."

Use of Libraries, Technical Information Centers, and On-Line Data Bases

Ninety-four percent of the respondents indicate that they use a library or

technical information center (table 12). The frequency rates vary among respondents,

with 27 percent using a library or technical information center one or more times a

week (Pinelli, et al., 1989).

114
Table 12. Use of a Library or Technical Information Center

Use rate Respondents

No. %

Daily 12 2.0

Two to six times a week 60 10.0

Once a week 90 15.0

Two to three times a month 116 19.2

Once a month 102 16.9

Less than once a month 186 30.9

Do not use 36 6.0

602 100.0

Approximately 63 percent of the respondents use a library or technical

information center one or more times a month, while approximately 31 percent use a

library or technical information center less than once a month. The use of libraries

and technical information centers by aerospace engineers and scientists in the

exploratory study compares favorably with the use rate of libraries and technical

information centers by engineers reported in previous studies.

Less than half, or 44.1 percent of the survey respondents, use on-line data bases

(table 13). Of those survey respondents who use on-line data bases, 23 percent do all

or most of their own searches (table 14). Approximately 65 percent use an intermediary to do most or all of their searches, while about 12 percent do half the searches

themsevles and use an intermediary for the other half of the searches (Pinelli, et al.,

1989).

115
Table 13. Use of Electronic Data Bases

Use Number Percentage

Yes 265 44.1

No 336 55.9

601 100.0

Table 14. How Electronic Data Bases Are Searched

How searched Number Percentage

Do all searches myself 18 6.9

Do most searches myself 42 16.1

Do half by myself and half through an

intermediary (e.g., librarian) 32 12.3

Do most searches through an

intermediary (e.g., librarian) 92 35.2

Do all searches through an intermediary 77 29.5

261 100.0

Use of Information Technoloty

Aerospace engineers and scientists in the exploratory study use a variety of

information technologies to communicate technical information (table 15). The percentage of "I already use it" responses ranges from 84.3 percent (fax or telex) to 6.1

percent (laser disc, videodisc, or CD-ROM) (Pinelli, et al., 1989).

116
Table 15. Use, Nonuse, and Potential Use of Information Technologies

I I don't I don't

already use it, but use it, and

Information technology use it may in doubt if

the future I will

No. % No. % No. %

Audiotapes and cassettes 118 20.3 172 29.6 292 50.1

Motion picture film 118 20.5 142 24.7 315 54.8

Videotape 275 46.5 234 39.6 82 13.9

Desktop-electronic publishing 272 46.5 243 41.5 70 12.0

Floppy disks 441 74.5 112 18.9 39 6.6

Computer cassette-cartridge tapes 129 22.7 222 39.0 218 38.3

Electronic mail 274 46.6 255 43.4 59 10.0

Electronic bulletin boards 148 25.7 308 53.6 119 20.7

Fax or telex 501 84.3 64 10.8 29 4.9

Electronic data bases 290 50.3 233 40.4 54 9.3

Videoconferencing 95 16.3 363 62.4 124 21.3

Teleconferencing 344 58.7 182 31.1 60 10.2

Micrographics and microforms 100 18.0 245 44.0 212 38.0

Laser disc, videodisc, or CD-ROM 35 6.1 370 64.9 165 29.0

Electronic networks 185 32.2 303 52.8 86 15.0

The most frequently used information technologies, in descending order of use, for

communicating technical information are listed below.

Information Technology Percentage Use

Fax or Telex 84.3

Floppy disks 74.5

Teleconferencing 58.7

Electronic data bases 50.3

Electronic mail 46.6

Videotape 46.5

Desktop-electronic publishing 46.5

117
A further look at table 15 reveals several information technologies for which

a considerable number of "I don't use it, and doubt if I will" responses were recorded.

The percentages of these responses range from a high of 54.8 percent (motion picture

film) to a low of 4.9 percent (fax or telex). The five information technologies

receiving the highest percentage of "I don't use, and doubt if I will" responses appear

below in descending order of nonuse.

Information Technology Percentage Nonuse

Motion picture film 54.8

Audiotapes and cassettes 50.1

Computer cassette-cartridge tapes 38.3

Micrographics and microforms 38.0

Laser disc, videodisc, or CD-ROM 29.0

Table 15 also indicates several information technologies for which a considerable

percentage of "I don't use it, but may in the future" responses were recorded. The

percentages of these responses range from a high of 64.9 percent (laser disc, videodisc,

or CD-ROM) to a low of 10.8 percent (fax or telex). The five information

technologies receiving the highest percentage of "I don't use it, but may in the future"

responses appear below in descending order of potential use.

Information Technology Percentage Potential Use

Laser disc, videodisc, or CD-ROM 64.9

Videoconferencing 62.4

Electronic bulletin boards 53.6

Electronic networks 52.8

Micrographics and microforms 44.0

118
In Shuchman's (1981) study, respondents were asked to indicate the use,

nonuse, and potential usefulness of 21 computer and information technologies. These

21 technologies are arranged into the following four groups: computer devices,

information transmission, recorded and prerecorded, and advanced technology. The

Group 1 Group 3

Computer Devices Recorded and Prerecorded

Computations Audiocassettes

Keyboard Audio with high-speed playback

Line printer Motion picture film and video tape

Accessing data banks Videodiscs

Video displays

Computer-aided instruction

Line and graphics printers

Group 2 Group 4

Information Transmission Advanced Technology

Fast facsimile Video telephone

Teleconferencing Video closed-circuit TV

Audio conference calls Audio recognition

following six engineering disciplines were represented in Shuchman's (1981) study:

aeronautical, civil, chemical and environmental, electrical, industrial, and mechanical.

Comparisons were made by Shuchman among the four computer and information

technology groups and the six engineering disciplines in terms of use, nonuse, and

potential usefulness.

Computer and information technologies in Group 1 were used by half of the

engineers in Shuchman's (1981) study. Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of the

aeronautical engineers used Group 1 technologies. Next to electrical engineers

(15 percent), aeronautical engineers had the lowest "nonuse" (16 percent) of Group 1

119
technologies of the six engineering disciplines, while 22 percent of those aeronautical

engineers surveyed indicated that Group 1 technologies had "potential usefulness."

A larger-than-average number of aeronautical engineers (57 percent) used

Group 2 technologies. Of the six engineering disciplines, aeronautical engineers had

the lowest nonuse (17 percent) of Group 2 technologies, while 26 percent of those

aeronautical engineers surveyed indicated that Group 2 technologies had potential

usefulness.

Group 3 technologies represent both traditional and evolving technologies.

Slightly more than half of those engineers who responded used slides and viewgraphs,

while only 4 percent of the respondents used high-speed video. Slightly more than

one-third (35 percent) of the aeronautical engineers used Group 3 technologies. Of the

six engineering disciplines, aeronautical engineers had the lowest nonuse (34 percent)

of the Group 3 technologies and 31 percent of those aeronautical engineers surveyed

indicated that Group 3 technologies had potential usefulness.

Group 4 technologies, which contain some of the "newer" developments in

computer and information technology, were used by a small percentage of the

respondents. Aeronautical and mechanical engineers represented the highest percentages

of Group 4 technology users. Of the six engineering disciplines, aeronautical engineers

had the lowest nonuse (52 percent) of the Group 4 technologies and 40 percent of

those aeronautical engineers surveyed indicated that Group 4 technologies had potential

usefulness.

The aerospace engineers and scientists in the exploratory study make

considerable use of computer and information technology. Their use, nonuse, and

120
potential use responses compare quite favorably to the responses of the aeronautical

engineers in Shuchman's (1981) study.

REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT RESEARCH

To further develop the conceptual framework for the study, literature relevant

to the information-seeking habits and practices of engineers and to the diffusion of

federally funded aerospace R&D is grouped according to the following four topics:

o Knowledge diffusion and technological innovation

o Knowledge diffusion, technological innovation, and government policy

o Knowledge diffusion, technological innovation, and STI

o Knowledge diffusion, technological innovation, and federally funded

aerospace R&D

Selected findings, recommendations, and contributions addressing these topics are

summarized in tables 16-19. This material sets the general tone of research and

literature related to the information-seeking habits and practices of engineers, STI,

technological innovation, and knowledge diffusion. Although comprehensive, the list

is not exhaustive.

Tables 16-19 indicate that numerous factors contribute to the economic growth,

prosperity, and performance of a nation. Studies performed by economists, such as

Mansfield (1968,1982), reveal that from 40 to 90 percent of the increase in economic

growth can be attributed to technological innovation, gains in knowledge, diffusion of

technology, or similar innovation-related factors. Although the precise amount of their

contributions to economic growth, prosperity, and performance remain unresolved, the

121
consensus is that technological innovation has contributed significantly to the economic

growth of post-World War II United States in general (Nelson 1982) and the U.S.

commercial aviation industry in particular (Mowery, 1985). Economists, such as David

(1986), point out that "technological innovation is the primary, if not the only means

of improving industrial productivity. It is the force propelling the American economy

forward and a process [that is] inextricably linked to knowledge transfer and diffusion."

Table 16 indicates that knowledge diffusion is the process by which a

[technological] innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among

the members of a social system (Rogers, 1983). Rogers further states that "diffusion

is a special type of communication, in which the messages are concerned with new

ideas. In the case of technology, the newness of the idea brings with it a high degree

of technical uncertainty. The newer the idea, the greater the amount of uncertainty."

In technology, as elsewhere, information is used to reduce or moderate uncertainty.

Thus, according to Rogers, it is useful to conceptualize technological innovation and

knowledge diffusion within a framework based on knowledge or information diffusion

and uncertainty.

Table 18 contains a small sampling of the literature concerned with knowledge

diffusion, technological innovation, and STI. The ability of engineers and scientists to

identify, acquire, and utilize scientific and technical information (STI) is of paramount

importance to the efficiency of technological innovation and the R&D process.

Testimony to the central role of STI in the R&D process is found in numerous studies.

These studies show, among other things, that engineers and scientists, and aerospace

engineers and scientists in particular, devote more time, on the average, to the

122
communication of technical information than to any other scientific or technical activity

(Fischer, 1980; Pinelli, et al., 1989).

A number of studies have found strong relationships between the communication

of STI and technical performance at both the individual (Allen, 1970b; Hall and

Ritchie, 1975;Rothwell and Robertson, 1973) and group levels (Carter and Williams,

1957; Rubenstein, et al., 1971;Smith, 1970). As Fischer (1980) concludes, "The role

of scientific and technical communication is thus central to the success of the innovation process, in general, and the management of R&D activities, in particular." But

as Solomon and Tornatzky (1986) point out, "While STI, its transfer and utilization,

is crucial to technological innovation [and competitiveness], linkages between [the]

various sectors of the technology infrastructure are weak and/or poorly defied."

The importance of the U.S. aerospace industry to the American economy is

illustrated in the following commentary offered by the Aerospace Industries Association

(1990).

Last year U.S. aerospace exports totaled nearly $32 billion.

Imports of similar goods were approximately $10 billion for a positive

sectoral trade balance of $22 billion. This was a net improvement of $4

billion over 1988. In fact, the U.S. sectoraJ trade balance in aerospace

products has improved every year since 1984. The contrast to other

U.S. manufacturing industries is striking. The trade trend for high-tech

U.S. industries, such as computers and automobiles, has been steadily

negative. For such industries the goal is reversing these persistent

negative trends; for U.S. aerospace, the goal is to maintain its positive

trade balance.

In spite of its importance to the U.S. economy and the balance of trade, very

little is known about technological innovation and the diffusion of knowledge and the

aerospace industry, both in terms of the channels used to communicate the ideas and

the inforn'ation-gathering habits and practices of the members of the aerospace social

123
system. Most of the channel studies, such as the work by Gilmore, et a., (1967) and

Archer (1964), have been concerned with the transfer of aerospace technology to nonaerospace industries. Most of the studies involving aerospace engineers and scientists,

such as the work by McCullough, et al., (1982) and Monge, et al., (1979), have been

limited to the use of NASA STI products and services and have not been concerned

with information-gathering habits and practices. Although researchers such as Davis

(1977) and Spremak (1982) have investigated the importance of technical communications to engineers, it is not possible to determine from the published results if the

study participants included aerospace engineers and scientists.

Therefore, it is likely that an understanding of the process by which aerospace

STI is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of che

aerospace social system would contribute to stimulating technological innovation,

maximizing the R&D process, increasing R&D productivity, and improving and

maintaining the professional competence of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

Despite the vast amount of STI available to potential users, several major

barriers to effective knowledge diffusion exist (Bikson, et al., 1984). First, the very

low level of support for knowledge transfer in comparison to knowledge production

suggests that dissemination efforts are not viewed as an important component of the

R&D process. Second, there are mounting reports from users about difficulties in

getting appropriate information in forms useful for problem solving and decision

making. Third, rapid advances in many areas of S&T knowledge can be fully

explr ited only if they are quickly translated into further research and application.

Although the United States dominates basic R&D, foreign competitors may be better

124
abie to apply the results. Fourth, current mechanisms are often inadequate to help the

user assess the quality of available information. Fifth, the characteristics of actual

usage behavior are not sufficiently taken into account in making available useful and

easily retrieved information. These deficiencies must be remedied if the results of

federally funded R&D are to be successfully applied to innovation, problem solving,

and productivity. Only by maximizing the R&D process can the United States

maintain its international competitive edge in aerospace.

Finally, while the literature review does contribute to the broader purpose of the

study, it falls short of answering the fundamental research question posed by this study.

Historical and empirically derived evidence exists to support the claim that technical

reports are used by and are important information products to engineers. The results

of the exploratory study (Pinelli, et al., 1989) indicate that U.S. government technical

reports are used by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. The role played by the

U.S. government technical report in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace R&D

is unknown. The relationship between the information-seeking habits and practices of

U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and the U.S. government technical report is also

unknown. The extent to which the six institutional or structural variables influence the

use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists is

not known. The extent to which the seven sociometric or source selection variables

influence the use of U.S. government technical reports cannot be determined from the

available literature.

125
Table 16. Knowledge Diffusion and Technological Innovation

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1989 Curlee and Goel Presented a general overview (survey) of

the economics literature on transfer

and diffusion of new technologies.

Presented the arguments, both pro

and con, for government involvement

in technological innovation.

1983 Glaser, Abelson, Reported on an early attempt to

and Garrison collect and distill the relevant literature from the social sciences associated

with the diffusion of knowledge and

knowledge utilization. Looked at the

barrier and gateways related to dissemination, transfer, and utilization

of knowledge and concentrated on the

development of strategies to facilitate

knowledge diffusion in organization and

institutionalized settings.

1975 Kelly and Reported the results of an investiKranzberg gation concerned with determining

what is known about technological innovation. This ambiguous investigation

collected, revised, and critiqued the literature from a variety of disciplines;

identified the "gaps" and "weaknesses"

regarding what is known about technological innovation; determined the

various methodologies and approaches

that were used; looked at technologi- cal innovation within an individual and

organizational content; and looked at

technological innovation within a larger "system" context.

126
Table 16. Concluded

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1986 Landau and Recognized as a significant contriRosenberg bution to the understanding of knowledge diffusion and technological innovation. Established a clear link between technological innovation and

economic theory. Stressed that while

technological innovation is different in

each industry, knowledge diffusion is

common to technological innovation

and, thus, all industries.

1985 Mahajan and Reviewed the "several most widely cited

Peterson mathematical diffusion models" found

in the literature. Explained the development of these models and presented

a "generality" of these models across

disciplines and innovations.

1983 Rogers This work is recognized as a "landmark"

effort in the field of knowledge diffusion. Represented an empirical investigation of knowledge diffusion from

a communications standpoint. Indicated there are four key elements in

the diffusion Drocess-the innovation,

channels of communication time, and

the social system.

127
Table 17. Knowledge Diffusion, Technological Innovation, and

Government Policy

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1989 Ballard, et al. Investigated the transfer and use of federally funded STI to improve technological innovation and the international

competitiveness of American industries.

Concluded that major changes must

occur at the federal level and within

industry before the results of Federally

funded R&D can make a difference in

U.S. competitiveness.

1984 Chakrabarti and Reported on the critical factors that

Souder affect the innovation process and some

ways in which government can influence technological innovation. Concluded that the transfer of governmentfunded knowledge to industry is a vital

part of any government policy directed

toward technological innovation.

1986 David Reported that it is hard to exaggerate

the economic significance of technology

or knowledge diffusion. Stated that

more knowledge "production," not better knowledge "transfer," is considered

by government policymakers to be crucial to successful technological innovation. Described the absence of technology and knowledge diffusion from the

report, Global Competition, as "the dog which did not bark in the night."

1974 Eads Examined the economic concept of "externalities" (i.e., the underinvestment

of knowledge production) as a justification for U.S. government intervention in the process of developing

commercial technology. Stated that

this concept is not well understood by

policymakers and illustrated the point

with a list of U.S. government policies

that have had a significant impact on

the rate or direction of technological

change in the U.S. commercial aircraft

industry.

128
Table 17. Continued

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1968; 1982; Mansfield; Mansfield and his research team created

1975; 1977 Mansfield, et al.; the "new microeconomics of innoRomeo; Romeo vation diffusion," which is concerned

with the adoption of new technologies

by industries. This work was directed

toward identifying common features

and determinants of technology and

the knowledge diffusion process. This

work stressed the importance, from

a government policy perspective, of

investing in technology and knowledge

diffusion.

1983 Mowery Reported that Federal proposals and program experiments aimed at improving

the innovative performance of American industry are based on an economic

model that emphasizes the undersupply of knowledge production which

leads to Federal support for knowledge

production. Stressed that this model

is based on an inappropriate analytic

framework. A more appropriate analytic approach is the "information

processing" framework, which places

greater emphasis on the transfer and

utilization of knowledge.

1979 Mowery and Reported on an analysis of empirical

Rosenberg studies concerned with the influence

of market den ind on the process of

technological innovation. Concluded

that while these studies support the

proposition that market demand

governs the process of technological

innovation, the proposition is by no

means conclusively demonstrated by

these studies. Further, they concluded

that both demand (market) and

supply side influences are crucial to

technological innovation and that

government policies should pay greater

attention to supply. (i.e., knowledge

transfer and utilization).

129
Table 17. Continued

Year Author T Findings and recommendations

1982 Nelson Reported on the nature of public policies

that have influenced the pace and pattern of technical progress in seven key

American industries. These policies include, among others, knowledge transfer and utilization and the industries,

including commercial aviation. Concluded that each of these policies (i.e.,

knowledge transfer and utilization)

must be applied differently in each industry.

1976 Pavitt and Conducted a review of what is known

Walker about government policies towards

technological innovation. The purpose was to formulate a list of ways

in which government can influence

technological innovation. Concluded

that the transfer of government-funded

knowledge to industry is a vital part

of government policy regarding civilian

R&D.

1978 Roberts and Reported on how Federal agencies

Frohman approach research (knowledge) utilization and transfer. Stated that most of

the approaches used by Federal agencies have been ineffective in stimulating

the diffusion of technological innovation.

1986 Solomon and Reported that past Federal efforts to

Tornatzky stimulate technological innovation have

been largely ineffective because they

either tinkered unsuccessfully with

macroeconomic policy or merely threw

money at the problem under the mistaken belief that the government could

"buy" technological innovation. Concluded that America has no integrated,

coherent innovation policy. Such policy, to be successful, would have to

make provision for knowledge diffusion

and transfer.

130
Table 17. Concluded

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1986 Stoneman and Focused on government policies that

David aim to influence the diffusion of technological innovation into actual use.

Noted that government largely attempts to speed up the diffusion of

new knowledge two ways-by information provision (e.g., Federal information programs and systems) and by the

use of subsidies (e.g., favorable leasing

terms and tax credits).

1990 Tornatzky Examined the issues of science and

technology policy as they relate to

technological innovation. Stated

that "diffusion of knowledge" is one

of several policy tools available to

government policymakers concerned

with technological innovation.

131
Table 18. Knowledge Diffusion, Technological Innovation, arid STI

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1966; 1966; Allen; Marquis and Discussed a series of investigations into

1968; 1969; Allen; Allen; Allen the STI needs of engineers; the rela1970; 1982 and Cohen; Allen; tionship between STI and project task

Katz and Allen or function; the flow of STI in R&D

laboratories; and the relationship

between STI, technical performance,

and the productivity of R&D projects.

1967; 1972 Baker, Siegman, and Discussed the relationship and role of

Rubenstein; Baker STI to the generation of ideas for

and Freeland R&D projects and solutions to technical problems including the organizational factors affecting the flow of STI

and the sources and channels used to

obtain STI. The critical problems of

STI search and dissemination were also

examined.

1987 Batson Reported that the characteristics of

R&D and R&D management influence the STI needs of managers and

researchers. Since R&D is largely an

information processing activity, the

availability and flow of STI is critical

to successful R&D. How R&D managers and researchers gather, process,

and communicate STI is directly related to successful R&D.

1982 Bozeman and Cole Reported on the role of channel preference and gatekeepers in the acquisition

of STI in public R&D organizations.

1983 Chakrabarti, Feineman, Reported on the use of STI by researchand Fuentevilla ers and the various dimensions or

characteristics of the sources, channels,

and contents associated with STI and

their relationship to frequency of use.

1977 Chakrabarti and Reported on the role played by "key" O'Keefe communicators in 3 U.S. government

laboratories engaged in R&D in linking researchers within the labs with

STI from the external information

environment.

132
Table 18. Continued

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1988 Davis and Wilkof Reported that firms engaged in R&D

have a choice of how to effectively

organize. The organizational structure

and processes they implement have

major effects on how STI is transferred

as well as the quality of the STI that is

disseminated and used.

1971; 1978 Dewhirst; Dewhirst, Reported on the relationship between

Arvey, and Brown the perceived information sharing

norms and the use of information channels both inside and outside a U.S.

government aeronautical research laboratory. Reported on the relationship

between information accessibility and

(1) STI generated inside the organization, (2) STI generated outside the

organization, and (3) goal-related STI.

1984 Ebadi and Utterback Reported that access to STI and frequency of use affect R&D project success. Hence, R&D projects should be

organized and managed to formulate

the flow of STI.

1979; 1980 Fischer; Fischer Reported on the process of STI acquisition by R&D managers for problem

solving. Reported on a survey of the

literature on STI as it relates to innovation and discussed how STI can

improve the efficacy of technological

innovation and the R&D process.

1971; 1973 Frost and Whitley; Reported on a study that duplicated,

Whitley and Frost in a British R&D facility, some of

Allen's work on the flow of STI in

R&D organizations. Reported on the

acquisition of STI through informal

and formal sources and channels into a

British R&D facility and the formation

of internal information barriers.

133
Table 18. Continued

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1980 Gerstenfeld and Reported on the process of STI transfer

Berger in 5 major U.S. corporations; the

use of STI was analyzed in terms

of the task to be performed and the

characteristics of the information used.

1974 Gibbons and Reported on an analysis of 30

Johnson innovations, focusing upon the origins

and character of informational inputs

used to solve technical problems in the

innovation process. Information inputs

were analyzed in terms of internal and

external and scientific and technical.

1976 Goldhar, Bragaw, Reported on the use and flow of

and Schwartz information and management styles in

several recently completed empirical

studies of successful technological

innovations.

1984 Heaton and Holloman Reported that the diffusion of technological innovation is a strategy that

the United States has undervalued

too long. The same is true for Federal technology programs, which are

characterized by massive R&D expenditures. STI is critical to technological

innovation. Simply put, the United

States must make a major effort to ensure that the results of federally funded

R&D are utilized.

1976 Holland, Stead, Reported on an investigation into the

and Leibrock relationship between technical uncertainty and the selection of STI channels and sources by engineers and

scientists in a large U.S. government

R&D organization.

1988 Lee and Treacy Reported that STI is critical to innovation. Information technology will

enhance innovation by providing access

to STI.

134
Table 18. Concluded

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1975 Johnson and Reported on the characteristics of STI

Gibbons used to resolve technical problems

in British industry technological

innovations and R&D projects.

1985 Opren Reported on the influence of R&D

managers on R&D workers and their

use of STI originating outside the

organization.

1975 Rothwell Reported on an analysis of the available empirical data that relate to the

inforration-seeking habits of innovators in their search for STI.

1973 Rothwell and Reviewed the more significant empirical

Robertson research in the field of technological

innovation, emphasizing the patterns

of STI flow and STI use by research

personnel.

1975 Taylor and Reported on STI patterns in a large

Utterback R&D laboratory and how technical

and managerial influences affect R&D

communications.

1980 Tushman and Reported on an investigation of the role

Katz of gatekeepers and the transfer of STI

in a single R&D organization.

1990 U.S. Congress, Office of Reported that the United States must

Technology Assessment make better use of its STI resources

(OTA) if it wishes to be competitive in world

markets and maintain its leadership.

STI is an essential ingredient of the

innovation process.

1971 Utterback Reported on the channels and sources of

STI used in technological innovation

and the production of new scientific

instruments.

135
Table 19. Knowledge Diffusion, Technological Innovation, and

Federally Funded Aerospace R&D

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1987 Aerospace Industries Reported that the competitive position

Association (AIA) of the U.S. commercial aviation industry is eroding. Proposed a national

strategy to improve the position of the

U.S. aviation industry in the competitive global arena by focusing on the

development of key technologies. Emphasized the need for cooperative ways

to share in the development and utilization of these key technologies.

1988 AIA Reported on "technological readiness" as

the long-term market strength of U.S.

civil aircraft manufacturers. Emphasized the importance in "technology

readiness" for application and the need

to "transfer" new technology promptly

to U.S. industry.

1971 Booz-Allen Reported on an analysis of federally

funded aeronautical R&D since 1945

and the benefits that accrued from

the transfer of this technology to U.S.

commercial aviation.

1982 Fraser and Maggin Investigated the role and need for

continued U.S. government support

of aeronautical R&D. Concluded that

U.S. commercial aviation will not and

cannot invest in the R&D necessary to

ensure long term industry leadership.

1978 Gellman and Price Examined the question of technology

transfer vis-4-vis U.S. commercial aviation through international arrangements for the production of commercial

transport aircraft.

136
Table 19. Continued

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1972; Hudson; Reported on the advances made in U.S.

1972 Paulisick commercial aviation since 1925, the

significant technological advances that

have taken place in U.S. commercial

aviation, and the relationship between

these advances and federally funded

aeronautical R&D.

1989 March Reported on the U.S. commercial aircraft

industry and its foreign competitors.

Provided an historical overview of

aviation since 1945, the development

of foreign competition, the changing

competitive environment, and what

the U.S. commercial aircraft industry

will have to do to compete in this

environment.

1985 Mowery Discussed the importance of federally

funded research investment on the

technological and economic performance of the U.S. commercial aircraft

industry. Focused on the role of such

investment within a policy structure

that has affected both the supply of

innovation and the demand for the

embodiment of those innovations in

new commercial aircraft design and

production.

1982 Mowery and Examined the innovation process within

Rosenberg the U.S. commercial aircraft industry,

focusing particularly upon the role of

U.S. S&T policy in affecting the pace

and structural context within which

technological innovation has occurred.

Concluded that U.S. government

policy has influenced the adoption

of innovation in the U.S. commercial

aircraft industry through "supplypush/demand pull" activities.

137
Table 19. Continued

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1985 Mowery and Reported on the potential viability of

Rosenberg the Japanese in becoming an independent force in commercial aviation.

Concluded that the Japanese commercial avi.i,,n industry, in its present

state, is far from having the capability

to operate independently in the large

commercial transport market.

1985 National Academy of Reported on the influence of technology

Engineering and technological innovation in determining the international competitiveness of the U.S. commercial aviation

industry. Examined U.S. government

policies and practices that may bear

on technological innovation and adoption in the U.S. commercial aviation

industry.

1982 Office of Science Reviewed the appropriateness and

and Technology Policy effectiveness of U.S. aeronautical R&D

(OSTP) policies and the role of the Federal

government in supporting aeronautical

R&D. Considered the role of the

Federal government as a transfer agent

for knowledge diffusion. Concluded

that Federal involvement in funded

aeronautical R&D is necessary if

the U.S. is to remain internationally

competitive.

1985 OSTP Proposed 3 national R&D goals to

clarify and focus the direction of ".S.

aeronautical R&D. These goals clcarly

emphasize knowledge production at

the expense of knowledge transfer and

do not mention the role of the Federal

government in transferring the results

of U.S. government-funded R&D to the

U.S. aeronautical community.

138
Table 19. Concluded

Year Author Findings and recommendations

1987 OSTP Presented a refinement of the national

R&D goals published in 1985. As in

1985, the focus was on knowledge production with no mention of knowledge

transfer.

1978 Rosenberg, Thompson, Examined the progress of U.S.

and Belsley commercial aviation in terms of invention, development, production, and

improvement phases. Stated that technological advances resulting from aeronautical R&D have resulted in dramatic productivity increases for the

U.S. commercial aviation industry.

1983 Trilling Traced the history of the development

of large body commercial jet aircraft

in the U.S. Discussed the transfer of

technology, first developed to meet

military needs, to the U.S. commercial

aviation industry.

1988 U.S. Department of Reported on the competitive portion of

Commerce the U.S. civil helicopter industry.

Looked at the structure of the industry, the economic characteristics of the

industry, factors affecting growth, foreign competition, and the implications

of U.S. government policies on technological innovation.

139
REFERENCES

Aerospace Industries Association. Key Technologies for the 1990's: An Overview.

Washington, DC: Aerospace Industries Association of America, November 1987.

Aerospace Industries Association. "Newsletter." Volume 3, Number 2, July 1990.

Aerospace Industries Association. The U.S. Aerospace Industry and the Trend Toward

Internationalization. Washington, DC: Aerospace Industries Association of

America, March 1988.

Allen, Thomas J. "Communication Networks in R&D Laboratories." R&D

Management 1:1 (1970a): 14-21.

Allen, Thomas J. "Distinguishing Engineers From Scientists." In Managing

Professionals in Innovative Organizations, Ralph Katz, ed. (Cambridge, MA:

Ballinger Publishing, 1988,) 3-18.

Allen, Thomas J. Managing the Flow of Technologv: Technology Transfer and the

Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization.

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.)

Allen, Thomas J. "Organizational Aspects of Information Flow in Technology."

ASLIB Proceedings 20 (1968): 74-93.

Allen, Thomas J. "Roles in Technical Communication Networks." In Communication

Among Scientists and Engineers, Carnot E. Nelson and Donald K. Pollack, eds.

(Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1970b,) 191-208.

Allen, Thomas J. "Studies of the Problem-Solving Process in Engineering Design."

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-13:2 (June 1966): 72-83.

Allen, Thomas J. and Stephen I. Cohen. "Information Flow in Research and Development Laboratories." Administrative Science Ouarterly 14 (1969): 12-19.

Anthony, L. J.; H. East; and M. J. Slater. "The Growth of the Literature of Physics."

Reports on Progress in Physics 32 (1969): 709-767.

Archer, John F. The Diffusion of Space Technology By Means of Technical

Publications: A Report Based on the Distribution, Use, and Effectiveness of

"Selected Welding Techniques." Boston: American Academy of Arts and

Sciences, November 1964. (Available from NTIS Springfield, VA 70N76955.)

Atkin, Charles. "Instrumental Utilities and Information Seeking." Chapter 7 in

New Models for Mass Communication Research, Peter. Clark, ed. (Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage Publications, 1973,) 67-89.

140
Baker, Norman R. and James R. Freeland. "Structuring Information Flow to Enhance

Innovation." Management Science 19:1 (September 1972): 105-115.

Baker, Norman R.; Jack Siegman; and Albert H. Rubenstein. "The Effects of

Perceived Needs and Means on the Generation of Ideas for Industrial Research and

Development Projects." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-14:4

(December 1967): 156-163.

Ballard, Steve et al. Innovation Through Technical and Scientific Information:

Government and Industry Cooperation. (NY: Quorum Books, 1989.)

Batson, Robert G. "Characteristics of R&D Management Which Influence Information

Needs." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-24:3 (August 1987):

178-183.

Bikson, Tora K.; Barbara E. Quint; and Leland L. Johnson. Scientific and Technical

Information Transfer: Issues and Options. Washington, DC: National Science

Foundation, March 1984. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-85-150357;

also available as Rand Note 2131.)

Blade, Mary-Frances. "Creativity in Engineering." In Essays on Creativity in the

Sciences. Myron A. Coler, ed. (NY: New York University Press, 1963,) 110-

122.

Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc. A Historical Study of the Benefits Derived From

Application of Technical Advances to Civil Aviation. Volume 1: Summary Report

and Appendix A. NASA CR-1808. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, February 1971. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA

N71-27010.)

Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc. A Historical Study of the Benefits Derived From

Application of Technical Advances to Civil Aviation. Volume 2: Appendices B

Thru I. NASA CR-1809. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, February 1971. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA N71-

27011.)

Bozeman, Barry and Elliot Cole. "Scientific and Technical Information in Public

Management: The Role of Gatekeeping and Channel Preference." Administration

and Society 13:4 (February 1982): 479-493.

Brinberg, Herbert R. "The Contribution of Information to Economic Growth and

Development." Paper presented at the 40th Congress of the International Federation

for Documentation, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 1980.

Cairns, R.W. and Bertita E. Compton. "The SATCOM Report and the Engineer's

Information Problem." Engineering Education 60:5 (January 1970): 375-376.

141
Carter, C.F. and B.R. Williams. Industry and Technical Progress: Factors Governing

the Sved of Application of Science. (London: Oxford University Press, 1957.)

Chakrabarti, Alok K.; Stephen Feineman; and William Fuentevilla. "Characteristics of

Sources, Channels, and Contents for Scientific and Technical Information Systems

in Industrial R and D." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-30:2

(May 1983): 83-88.

Chakrabarti, Alok K. and Robert D. O'Keefe. "A Study of Key Communicators in

Research and Development Laboratories." Group & Organization Studies 2:3

(September 1977): 336-346.

Chakrabarti, Alok K. and William E. Souder. "Critical Factors in Technological

Innovation and Their Policy Implications." Technovation 2 (1984): 255-275.

Crane, Diana. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities.

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.)

Curlee, T.R. and R.K. Goel. The Transfer and Diffusion of New Technologies: A

Review of the Economics Literature. ORNL/TM-11155. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S.

Department of Energy, June 1989. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA N90-

11655.)

David, Anthony (ed.) Enineer's Needs for Scientific and Technical Information.

London: World Federation of Engineering Organizations, Committee on

Engineering Information, October 1979. (Available from ERIC, Alexandria, VA

ED 186 046.)

David, Paul A. "Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial Competitiveness."

In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth,

Ralph Landau and Nathan Rosenberg, eds. (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1986,) 373-391.

Davis, Peter and Marcia Wilkof. "Scientific and Technical Information Transfer For

High Technology: Keeping the Figure in Its Ground." R&D Management 18:1

(January 1988): 45-58.

Davis, Richard M. "How Important is Technical Writing? -- A Survey of the

Opinions of Successful Engineers." Technical Writing Teacher 4:3 (Spring 1977):

83-88.

Dertouzos, Michael L.; Richard K. Lester; Robert M. Solow; and the MIT Commission

on Industrial Productivity. Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge.

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.)

142
Dewhirst, H. Dudley. "Influence of Perceived Information-Sharing Norms on

Communication Channel Utilization." Academy of Management Journal 14:3

(September 1971): 305-315.

Dewhirst, H. Dudley; Richard D. Arvey; and Edward M. Brown. "Satisfaction and

Performance in Research and Development Tasks as Related to Information

Accessibility." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-25:3 (August

1979): 58-63.

Eads, George. "US Government Support for Civilian Technology: Economic Theory

Versus Political Practice." Research Policy 3 (1974): 2-16.

Ebadi, Yar M. and James M. Utterback. "The Effects of Communication on

Technological Innovation." Management Science 30:5 (May 1984): 572-585.

Fischer, William A. "The Acquisition of Technical Information by R&D Managers for

Problem Solving in Nonroutine Contingency Situations." IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management EM-26:1 (February 1979): 8-14.

Fischer, William A. "Scientific and Technical Information and the Performance of

R&D Groups." In Management of Research and Innovation, Burton V. Dean and

Joel L. Goldhar, eds. (NY: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1980,) 67-89.

Fraser, Robert C. and Bernard Maggin. Summary and Analysis of the Role of NASA

in Aeronautics Research and Development. NASA CR-170 11 0. Washington, DC:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, March 1982. (Not available from

NTIS.)

Frost, Penelope A. and Richard Whitley. "Communication Patterns in a Research

Laboratory." R&D Management 1:2 (1971): 71-79.

Gellman, Arron J. and Jeffery P. Price. Technology Transfer and Other Public Policy

Implications of Multi-National Arrangements for the Production of Commercial

Airframes. NASA CR-159890. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, July 1978. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA N78-29045.

Gerstberger, Peter G. and Thomas J. Allen. "Criteria Used By Research and

Development Engineers in the Selection of an Information Source." Journal of

Applied Psychology 52:4 (August 1968): 272-279.

Gerstenfeld, Arthur and Paul Berger. "An Analysis of Utilization Differences for

Scientific and Technical Information." Management Science 26:2 (February

1980): 165-179.

Gibbons, Michael and Ron Johnson. "The Roles of Science in Technological

Innovation." Research Policy 3 (November 1974): 220-242.

143
Gilmore, John S. et al. The Channels of Technology Acquisition in Commercial Firms

and the NASA Dissemination Program. Denver, CO: Denver Research Institute,

June 1967. (Available from NTIS Springfield, VA N67-31477.)

Glaser, Edward M.; Harold H. Abelson; and Kathalee N. Garrison. Putting Knowledge

to Work: Facilitating the Diffusion of Knowledge and the Implementation of

Planned Change. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1983.)

Goldhar, Joel D.; Louis K. Bragaw; and Jules J. Schwartz. "Information Flow,

Management Styles, and Technological Innovation." IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management EM-23:1 (February 1976): 51-62.

Griliches, Z. "Research Expenditures, Education, and the Aggregate Agricultural

Production Function." American Economic Review 54 (December 1964): 961-

974.

Hall, K.R. and E. Ritchie. "A Study of Communication Behavior in an R&D

Laboratory." R&D Management 5 (1975): 243-245.

Halperin, Michael R. The Publications of U.S. Industrial Scientists: A Company and

Industry Analysis. Ph.D. Diss., Drexel University, 1986. UMI 86-16543.

Hannay, N. Bruce. "Technology and Trade: A Study of U.S. Competitiveness in

Seven Industries." In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for

Economic Growth. Ralph Landau and Nathan Rosenberg, eds. (Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1986,) 480-499.

Hardy, Andrew P. "The Selection of Channels When Seeking Information:

Cost/Benefit vs Least-Effort." Information Processing & Management 18:6

(1982): 289-293.

Heaton, George R. and J. Herbert Hollomon. "Technological Diffusion and National

Policy." Research Management 27:5 (October 1984): 5-7.

Herner, Saul. "Information Gathering Habits of Workers in Pure and Applied Science."

Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 46:1 (January 1954): 228-236.

Holland, Winford E.; Bette Ann Stead; and Robert C. Leibrock. "Information

Channel/Source Selection as a Correlate of Technical Uncertainty in a Research and

Development Organization." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

EM-23:4 (November 1976): 163-167.

Holmfeld, John D. Communication Behavior of Scientists and Engineers. Ph.D. Diss.,

Case Western Reserve University, 1970. UMI 70-25874.

144
Hudson, Charles R., Jr. Research and Development Contribution to Aviation Progress

(RADCAP). Volume 2: Military Technologv, Research, and Development to Civil

Aviation Programs. NASA CR-129573. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, August 1972. (Available from NTIS, Sor;ingfield, VA

73N13983; AKA Project RADCAP.)

Illinois Institute of Technology. Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in

Science. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1968; AKA Project

TRACES. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-234 767.)

Joenk, Rudy J. "Engineering Text for Engineers." Chapter 15 in Technology of Text:

Vol. II Principles for Structuring, Designing, and Displaying Text, David H.

Jonassen, ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1985,)

346-369.

Johnson, Ron and Michael Gibbons. "Characteristics of Information Usage in

Technological Innovation." IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management EM22:1 (February 1975): 27-34.

Kasperson, Conrad J. An Exploratory Analysis of Information Use by Innovative,

Productive, and Non-Productive Scientists and Engineers. Ph.D. Diss., Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute, 1976. UMI 77-13710.

Katz, Ralph and Thomas J. Allen. "Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH)

Syndrome: A Look at the Performance, Tenure, and Communication Patterns of

50 R&D Project Groups." R&D Management 12:1 (1982): 7-19.

Kaufman, Harold G. Factors Related to Use of Technical Information in Engineering

Problem Solving. Brooklyn, NY: Polytechnic Institute of New York, January

1983.

Kelly, Patrick and Melvin Kranzberg. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review

of Current Knowledge: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: National Science

Foundation, 1975. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB 249 104.)

King, Donald W.; Jose-Marie Griffiths; Ellen A. Sweet; and Robert R.V. Wiederkehr.

A Study of the Value of Information and the Effect on Value of Intermediary

Organizations, Timeliness of Services and Products, and Comprehensiveness of

EDB. Rockville, MD: King Research, 1984. (Available from NTIS, Springfield,

VA DE82014250.)

Kremer, Jeannette M. Information Flow Among Engineers in a Design Company.

Ph.D. Diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1980. UMI 80-17965.

Krulee, G.K. and E.B. Nadler. "Studies of Education for Science and Engineering:

Student Values and Curriculum Choice." IRE Transactions on Engineering

Management 7:4 (June 1960): 157-158.

145
Landau, Ralph and Nathan Rosenberg (eds.) The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing

Technology for Economic Growth. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1986.)

Langrish, John et al. The Wealth From Knowledge. (London: MacMillian, 1972.)

Lee, Soonchul and Michael E. Treacy. "Information Technology Impacts on

Innovation." R&D Management 18:3 (1988): 257-271.

Mahajan, Vijay and Robert A. Peterson. Models for Innovation Diffusion. Sage

University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series

no. 07-001. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1985.)

Mansfield, Edwin. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. (NY: W.W.

Norton, 1968.)

Mansfield, Edwin et al. Technology Transfer, Productivity, and Economic Policy.

(NY: W.W. Norton, 1982.)

March, Artemis. "The US Commercial Aircraft Industry and Its Foreign Competition."

MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity Working Paper. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press, 1989.

Marquis, Donald G. and Thomas J. Allen. "Communication Patterns in Applied

Technology." American Psychologists 21 (1966): 1052-1060.

McCullough, Robert A.; Douglas A. Pilley; and Freda F. Stohrer. A Review and

Evaluation of the Langley Research Center's Scientific and Technical Information

Program. Results of Phase VI. The Technical Report: A Survey and Analysis.

NASA TM-83269, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, April 1982. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 82N28213.)

Minasian, J.R. "Research and Development, Production Functions, and Rates of

Return." American Economic Review 59 (May 1969): 80-85.

Mondschein, Lawrence G. R and D Productivity: Relationship to Selective

Dissemination of Information (SDI) in the Corporate Environment. Ph.D. Diss.,

Rutgers University, 1988. UMI 89-011101.

Monge, Peter R.; James D. Schriner; Bettie F. Farace; and Richard V. Farace. The

Assessment of NASA Technical Information. NASA CR-181367. Washington, DC:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, October 1979. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA 87N70893.)

Mowery, David C. "Economic Theory and Government Technology Policy." Policy

Sciences 16 (1983): 27-43.

146
Mowery, David C. "Federal Funding of R&D in Transportation: The Case of

Aviation." Paper commissioned for a workshop on The Federal Role in Research

and Development, November 21-22, 1985, held in Washington, DC, and sponsored

by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and

Institute of Medicine.

Mowery, David C. and Nathan Rosenberg. "Commercial Aircraft: Cooperation and

Competition Between the U.S. and Japan." California Management Review 27:4

(Summer 1985): 70-92.

Mowery, David C. and Nathan Rosenberg. "The Commercial Aircraft Industry."

Chapter 3 in Government and Technical Progress: A Cross-Industry Analysis,

Richard R. Nelson, ed. (NY: Pergamon Press, 1982,) 101-161.

Mowery, David C. and Nathan Rosenberg. "The Influence of Market Demand Upon

Innovation: A Critical Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research

Policy 8 (1979): 102-153.

National Academy of Engineering. Competitive Status of the U.S. Civil Aviation

Manufacturing Industry: A Study of the Influences of Technology in Determining

International Industrial Competitive Advantage. Washington, DC: National

Academy of Engineering, 1985. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB88-

100334.)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Aeronautics and Space

Technology. NASA Aeronautics Research and Technology: 1986 Annual Report.

NASA EP-259. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986.

National Science Foundation. Science and Technology Data Book: 1989.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1989.

Nelson, Richard R. (ed.) Government and Technical Progress: A Cross-Industry

Analysis. (NY: Pergamon Press, 1982.)

Office of Science and Technology Policy. Aeronautical Research and Technology

Policy. Volume 2: Final Report. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the

President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, November 1982. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA 83N23268; AKA The Keyworth Report.)

Office of Science and Technology Policy. National Aeronautical R and D Goals:

Technology for America's Future. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the

President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, March 1985. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA 87N12405.)

147
Office of Science and Technology Policy. National Aeronautical R&D Goals: Agenda

For Achievement. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of

Science and Technology Policy, February 1987. (Available from NTIS, Springfield,

VA PB90-179094.)

O'Gara, Paul Webber. Physical Location as a Determinant of Communication

Probability Among R&D Engineers. Master's Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 1968.

Opren, Christopher. "The Effect of Managerial Distribution of Scientific and Technical

Information on Company Performance." R&D Management 15:4 (1985): 305-

308.

Orr, Richard H. "The Scientist As An Information Processor: A Conceptual Model

Illustrated With Data on Variables Related to Library Utilization." In Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, Carnot E. Nelson and Donald K.

Pollack, eds. (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1970,) 143-189.

Paulisick, John G. Research and Development Contribution to Aviation Progress

(RADCAP). Volume 1: Contributions of Military Technology, Research, and

Development to Civil Aviation Programs. NASA CR-129572. Washington, DC:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, August 1972. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA 73N13982; AKA Project RADCAP.)

Pavitt, K. and W. Walker. "Government Policies Toward Industrial Innovation:

A Review." Research Policy 5:1 (January 1976): 11-97.

Picken, David P. The Organization and Use of Library and Information Services in

the Aerospace Industry With Particular Emphasis on the United States. Masters

Dissertation, University of Wales, 1988.

Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca 0. Barclay.

Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Study.

TM-101534, Part 1, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, February 1989. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 89N26772.)

Porter, Michael E. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. (New York: The Free

Press, 1990.)

President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. Global Competition: The New

Reality. The Report of the President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness,

Volume II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, January 1985.

Price, Derek J. de Solla. "Is Technology Historically Independent of Science?"

Technology and Culture 6:3 (Summer 1965): 553-578.

Price, Derek J. de Solla. Science Since Babylon. (New Haven: Yale Press, 1961.)

148
Price, Derek J. de Solla. "The Structures of Publication in Science and Technology."

In Factors in the Transfer of Technology, William H. Gruber and Donald G.

Marquis, eds. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969,) 91-104.

Raitt, David I. The Communication and Information-Seeking and Use Habits of

Scientists and Engineers in International Organizations Based in European National

Aerospace Research Establishments. Ph.D. Diss., Loughborough University of

Technology, 1984.

Ritti, R. Richard. The Engineer in the Industrial Corporation. (NY: Columbia

University Press, 1971.)

Roberts, Edward B. and Alan L. Frohman. "Strategies for Improving Research

Utilization." Technology Review 80:5 (March/April 1978): 32-39.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. (NY: The Free Press, 1983.)

Romeo, Anthony A. "Interindustry and Interfirm Differences in the Rate of Diffusion

of an Innovation." Review of Economics and Statistics 57 (1975): 311-319.

Romeo, Anthony A. "The Rate of Imitation of a Capital-Embodied Process

Innovation." Econometricia 45 (1977): 63-69.

Rosenberg, Nathan; Alexander Thompson; and Steven E. Belsley. Technological

Change and Productivity Growth in the Air Transport Industry. NASA TM-78505.

Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1978. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA 79N10997.)

Rosenberg, Victor. "Factors Affecting the Preferences of Industrial Personnel for

Information Gathering Methods." Information Storage and Retrieval 3 (July

1967): 119-127.

Rosenbloom, Richard S. and Francis W. Wolek. Technology and Information Transfer:

A Survey of Practice in Industrial Organizations. (Boston: Harvard University,

1970.)

Rothwell, Roy. "Patterns of Information Flow During the Innovation Process." Aslib

Proceedings 27:5 (May 1975): 217-226.

Rothwell, R. and A.B. Robertson. "The Role of Communications in Technological

Innovation." Research Policy 2 (1973): 204-225.

Rubenstein, Albert H; Richard T. Barth; and Charles F. Douds. "Ways to Improve

Communications Between R&D Groups." Research Management 14:6 (November

1971): 49-59.

149
Schmookler, Jacob. Invention and Economic Growth. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1966.)

Seiss, Judith A. "Information Needs and Information Gathering Behavior of Research

Engineers." In Collected Papers of the 1lth Mid-Year Meeting of ASIS held in

Knoxville, TN, June 13-15, 1982. Washington, DC: American Society for

Information Science, NP#.

Shapley, Deborah and Rustom Roy. Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science and

Technology Policy Adrift. (Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1985.)

Shuchman, Hedvah L. Information Transfer in Engineering. (Glastonbury, CT: The

Futures Group, 1981.)

Smith, C.G. "Consultation and Decision Processes in a Research and Development

Laboratory." Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (1970): 203-215.

Solomon, Trudy and Louis G. Tornatzky. "Rethinking the Federal Government's Role

in Technological Innovation." In Technological Innovation: Strategies for a New

Partnership, Denis 0. Gray, Trudy Solomon, and William Hetzner, eds. (NY:

North-Holland Publishing Company, 1986,) 41-53.

Spretnak, Charlene M. "A Survey of the Frequency and Importance of Technical

Communication in an Engineering Career." Technical Writing Teacher 9:3 (Spring

1982): 133-136.

Stigler, George J. "The Economics of Information." The Journal of Political Economy

69:3 (June 1961): 213-225.

Stoneman, Paul L. and Paul A. David. "Adoption Subsidies vs Information Provision

as Instruments of Technology Policy." The Economic Journal 96 (1986): 142-

150.

System Development Corporation. A System Study of Abstracting and Indexing in the

United States. Technical Memorandum WD-394. Falls Church, VA: System

Development Corporation, 16 December 1966. (Available from NTIS, Springfield,

VA PB 174 249.)

Taylor, Robert S. Value-Added Processes in Information Systems. (Norwood, NJ:

Ablex Press, 1986.)

Taylor, Robert L. and James M. Utterback. "A Longitudinal Study of Communication

in Ruearch: Technical and Managerial Influences." IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management EM-22:2 (May 1975): 80-87.

Terleckyj, Nestor E. Effects of R&D on the Productivity Growth of Industries: An

Exploratory Study. (Washington, DC: National Planning Association, 1974.)

150
Tornatzky, Louis G. "Issues of Science and Technology Policy." Chapter 10 in The

Processes of Technological Innovation, Louis G. Tomatzky and Mitchell Fleischer

eds. (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990,) 235-258.

Trilling, Leon. "An Example of Innovation: Large American Jet Transports -- An

Historical Overview." Paper presented at the Annual Winter Meeting of the

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boston, MA, November 13-18, 1983.

(Available from NASA STIF, BWI Airport, MD 84A30651.)

Tushman, Michael L. and Ralph Katz. "External Communication and Project

Performance: An Investigation Into the Role of Gatekeepers." Management

Science 26:11 (November 1980): 1071-1085.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Helping America Compete: The

Role of Federal Scientific & Technical Information, OTA-C1T-454. (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1990.)

U.S. Department of Commerce. Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Industrial

Innovation. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1979.)

U.S. Department of Commerce. Technological Innovation: Its Environment and

Management (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, January 1967.)

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1988 U.S. Industrial Outlook: With Expanded

Coverage of the Services Sector, Construction. High-Tech, and Emerging Industries.

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, January 1988.)

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990 U.S. Industrial Outlook: Prospects for Over

350 Manufacturing and Service Industries. (Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office, January 1990.)

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. Competitive

Assessment of the U.S. Civil Helicopter Industry. (Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office, 1988.) (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 88N24574.)

U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Director of Defense Research and

Engineering. _Project Hindsight. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense,

October, 1969. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA AD-495 905 AKA Project Hindsight.)

Utterback, James M. "The Process of Innovation: A Study of the Origination and

Development of Ideas for New Scientific Instruments." IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management EM-18:2 (1971): 124-131.

Whitley, Richard and Penelope Frost. "Task Type and Information Transfer in a

Government Research Laboratory." Human Relations 25:4 (1973): 537-550.

151
Wilkin, Anne. "The Information Needs of Practitioners: A Review of the Literature."

Chapter 4 in Information Needs of Engineers, BLR&D Report 5611, (London:

British Library R&D Department, 1981,) 4-15 - 4-50.

Young, John A. "Global Competition: The New Reality." California Management

Review 27:3 (Spring 1985): 11-25.

Young, J.F. and L.C. Harriott. "The Changing Technical Life of Engineers."

Mechanical Engineering 101:1 (January 1979): 20-24.

Zipf, Geo K. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. (Cambridge, MA:

Addison-Wesley, 1949.)

152
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Thomas J. Manaing the Flow of Scientific and Technological Information.

Ph.D. Diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1966.

Arrow, Kenneth J. "Classificatory Notes on the Production and Transmission of

Technical Knowledge." American Economic Review. 59 (1969): 29-35.

Averch, Harvey A. A Strategic Analysis of Science and Technology Policy.

(Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.)

Avery, Robert W. "Enculturation in Industrial Research." IRE Transactions on

Engineering Management EM-7 (March 1960): 20-24.

Battelle Laboratories. Interactions of Science and Technology in the Innovative

Process: Some Case Studies. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation,

1973. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-228 508.)

Blackman, A. Wade. "The Rate of Innovation in the Commercial Aircraft Engine

Market." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2 (1971): 269-276.

Bopp, Gordon R. (ed.) Federal Lab Technology Transfer: Issues and Policies.

(NY: Praeger, 1988.)

Brandin, David A. and Michael A. Harrison. The Technology War: A Case for

Competitiveness. (NY: John Wiley, 1987.)

Braunstein, Yale M.; William J. Baumol; and Edwin Mansfield. "The Economics of

R&D." In Management of Research and Innovation, Burton V. Dean and Joel L.

Goldhar, eds. (NY: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1980,) 19-32.

Brown, Lawrence A. Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective. (NY: Methuen &

Co., 1981.)

Carter, Charles (ed.) Industrial Policy and Innovation. (London: Heinemann, 1981.)

Carter, C.F. and B.R. Williams. Investment in Innovation. (London: Oxford

University Press, 1958.)

Cotter, Lawrence R. Information Flow into Research and Development Projects: An

Exploratory Study of the Flow of Important Information. Ph.D. Diss., University

of California, Los Angeles, 1977. UMI 77-30895.

Council on Competitiveness. America's Competitive Crisis: Confronting the New

Reality. (Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness, April 1987.)

153
Culnan, Mary J. Organizational Information Flows and the Industrial Library: An

Empirical Investigation. Ph.D. Diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1980.

UMI 80-15963.

Davidson, Harold F.; Marvin J. Cetron; and Joel D. Goldhar (eds.) Technology

Transfer. (Leiden: Noordhoff, 1974.)

Doctors, Samuel. The NASA Technology Transfer Program: An Evaluation of the

Dissemination System. (NY: Praeger, 1971.)

Doctors, Samuel. Role of Federal Agencies in Technology Transfer. (Cambridge, MA:

MIT Presi, 1969.)

Dupree, A. Hunter. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and

Activities. (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.)

Gerstberger, Peter G. An Investigation of the Criteria Used in Information Channel

Selection By R&D Engineers. Master's Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 1967.

Gerstberger, Peter G. The Preservation and Transfer of Technology in Research and

Development Organizations. Ph.D. Diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

1971.

Gerstenfeld, Arthur. Effective Management of Research and Development. (Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley, 1970.)

Gerstenfeld, Arthur. Technical Interaction Among Engineers and Its Relation to

Performance. Ph.D. Diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1967.

Gold, Bela. (ed.) Research, Technological Change, and Economic Analysis.

(Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977.)

Gruber, William H. and Donald G. Marquis (eds.) Factors in the Transfer of

Technology. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969.)

Havelock, R.G. Planning for Innovation Through Dissemination and Utilization of

Knowledge. (Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific

Knowledge, 1973.)

Jonscher, Charles R. "Information Resources and Economic Productivity." Information

Economics and Policy 1:1 (1983): 13-35.

Kanter, Rosabeth M. The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in the

American Corporation. (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1983.)

154
Katz, Ralph (ed.) Managing Professional in Innovative Organizations: A Collection

of Readings. (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1988.)

Kelly, Patrick and Melvin Kranzberg. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review

of Current Knowledge: Volume 1 - The Ecology of Innovation. Washington, DC:

National Science Foundation, 1975. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB

242 550.)

Kelly, Pauick and Melvin Kranzberg. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review

of Current Knowledge: Volume 2 - Aspects of Technological Innovation.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1975. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA PB 242 551.)

Kelly, Patrick and Melvin Kranzberg. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review

of Current Knowledge: Volume 3 - Cross-Classifications of Bibliographical Data

Base. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1975. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA PB 242 552.)

Kelly, Patrick and Melvin Kranzberg. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review

of Current Knowledge: Volume 4 - Selected Literature Abstracts. Washington,

DC: National Science Foundation, 1975. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA

PB 242 553.)

Kelly, Patrick and Melvin Kranzberg. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review

of Current Knowledge. (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press, 1978.)

Kranzberg, Melvin. "Communication of Scientific and Technical Information:

Implications for Federal Policies and Research." Information Reports and

Bibliographies 12:5 (1983): 13-22.

Lane, Henry W.; Rodney G. Beddows; and Paul R. Lawrence. Managing Large

Research and Development Programs. (Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press, 1981.)

Langrish, J. "The Changing Relationship Between Science and Technology." Nature

250 (August 23, 1974): 614-616.

Little, Arthur D. Patterns and Problems of Technical Innovation in American Industry:

Report to the National Science Foundation Washington, DC: National Science

Foundation, 1963. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB 181 573.)

Mansfield, Edwin. "Technological Change and Market Structure: An Empirical

Study." American Economic Review 73:2 (May 1983): 205-209.

Mar, Brian W.; William T. Newell; and Borje 0. Saxberg (eds.) Managing High

Technology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. (NY: Elsevier Science Publishers,

1985.)

155
Miller, R.E. and D. Sawers. The Technical Development of Modem Aviation. (NY:

Praeger, 1970.)

Myers, Sumner and Donald G. Marquis. Successful Industrial Innovations: A Study

of Factors Underlying Innovation in Selected Firms. Washington, DC: National

Science Foundation, 1969. (Not available from NTIS.)

Myers, Sumner and Eldon E. Sweezy. "Why Innovations Fail." Technology Review

80:5 (March/April 1978): 40-46.

Nelson, Richard R. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research." Journal

of Political Economy 67 (1959): 297-306.

Nelson, Richard R. Understanding Technical Change as an Evolutionary Process.

(NY: North-Holland, 1987.)

Prestowitz, Clyde V. Trading Places: How We Are Giving Our Future to Japan and

How to Reclaim It. (NY: Basic Books, 1988.)

Roessner, J. David. (ed.) Government Innovation Policy. (NY: St. Martin's Press,

1988.)

Rosenbloom, Richard S. and Robert A. Burgelman (eds.) Research on Technological

Innovation Management and Policy. (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1990.)

Sahal, Devendra (ed.) The Transfer and Utilization of Technical Knowledge.

(Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982.)

Scherer, F.M. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. 2nd ed.

(Chicago: Rand McNally, 1980.)

Scherer, F.M. Innovation and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives. (Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press, 1984.)

Schmidt, Richard S. Technical Information Exchange in R&D Organizations: The

Technical R&D Pundit Role. Ph.D. Diss., Rutgers University, 1988.

UMI 88-14619.

Schmookler, Jacob. Invention and Economic Growth. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1966.)

Schumpeter, John A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. (NY: Harper, 1947.)

Smilor, Raymond; George Kozmetsky; and David V. Gibson (eds.) Creating the

Technopolis: Linking Technology Commercialization and Economic Development

(Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988.)

156
Souder, William E. and Albert H. Rubenstein. "Some Designs For Policy Experiments

and Government Incentives For the R&D/Innovation Process." IEEE Transactions

on Engineering Management EM-23:3 (August 1976): 129-139.

Stoneman, Paul. The Economic Analysis of Technological Change. (London: Oxford

University Press, 1983.)

Stoneman, Paul. "Technological Diffusion: The Viewpoint of Economic Theory."

Ricerche Economiche 40:4 (1986): 585-606.

Tornatzky, Louis G. et al. Innovation Processes and Their Management: Conceptual,

Empirical, and Policy Review of Innovation Process Research. Washington, DC:

National Science Foundation, 1979. (Not available from NTIS.)

Tornatzky, Louis G. et al. The Process of Technological Innovation: Reviewing the

Literature. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1983. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA PB84-125020.)

Tushman, Michael L. and William L. Moore (eds.) Readings in the Management of

Innovation. 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1988.)

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. The Regulator Environment for

Science. OTA-TM-SET-34 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986.)

U.S. Department of Commerce. Advisory Committee on Industrial Innovation.

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1979.) (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA PB80-13175.)

U.S. Department of Defense. Bolstering Defense Industrial Competitiveness:

Preseiving Our Heritage - The Industrial Base Securing Our Future. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Defense, July 1988. (Available from DTIC, Cameron

Station, Alexandria, VA AD-A202 840.)

Utterback, James M. "Innovation in Industry and the Diffusion of Technology."

Science 183 (1974): 620-626.

Van de Ven, Andrew H.; Harold L. Angle; and Marshall S. Poole (eds.) Research on

the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies. (NY: Harper & Row,

1989.)

Wilkin, Anne. "Personal Roles and Barriers in Information Transfer." In Advances

in Librarianship Vol. 7, Melvin J. Voight and Michael H. Harris, eds. (NY:

Academic Press, 1977,) 257-297.

Young, John A. Global Competition: What's at Stake, Where We Stand. (Pittsburgh,

PA: Carnegie-Mellon Press, 1986.)

157
CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

INTRODUCTION

This chapter contributes to the immediate and broader purposes of the study by

establishing an understanding of the research design and methodology used to collect

and analyze the data. To establish this understanding, the background, theoretical

development, conceptual framework, and hypotheses that underlie the study are presented. Furthermore, the study's research design and methodology are explained at a

level of detail sufficient to provide ample and adequate detail to duplicate the study.

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted as a Phase 1 activity of the NASA/DOD Aerospace

Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Phase 1 of the project is concerned with the

information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists,

with particular emphasis placed on their use of government-funded aerospace STI

products and services. This study, which spanned the period from May 1989 through

February 1990, was conducted in conjunction with the Indiana University Center for

Survey Research. Professional research assistance was utilized to help ensure confidentiality, to maintain the integrity of the study and the research process, and to obtain the

skills needed to design and conduct a study of this complexity and magnitude.

158
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT

Theory and research are inseparable in the traditional model of science (Wallace,

1971). According to this model, theory generates hypotheses, hypotheses suggest observations and/or experimentation, observations and/or experimentation produce generalizations, and generalizations result in modifications of theory. Modifications in theory

lead to modified hypotheses and a new set of observations and/or experimentation,

which produce somewhat revised generalizations, further modifying the theory.

The theoretical basis for this study is derived in large-part from work by Orr

(1970) and Mick (1979). Their work is grounded in the following three assumptions:

(1) that a holistic or global view is necessary to understand and predict the communication behavior of engineers and scientists; (2) that the communication behavior of

engineers or scientists can be viewed as a system of information input and output

activities, can be characterized as a series of complex interactions, and is influenced

by a variety of factors or variables; and (3) that these factors or variables, either

individually or collectively, influence information processing and, therefore, can be used

to understand and predict the use and production of an information product and the

engineers' or scientists' communication behavior. These factors or variables may be

variously grouped as personal, situational, organizational, and environmental.

Orr (1970) theorizes that these variables combine to influence information use

and production. According to Orr, the impact or influence of these variables is

estimated subjectively by the engineer or scientist who, in turn, makes a decision based

on their time; the physical-psychological effort required, and the perceived likelihood

of success, as opposed to perceived benefit, in acquiring the desired information.

159
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

To describe, understand, and eventually predict the information-seeking habits

and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, it is useful and perhaps

necessary to plan and conduct "user" studies within a conceptual framework. According to Mick (1979), a conceptual framework is needed to "develop theories that explain

and predict information-seeking behavior and that can be applied to problems involving

either the management of information work or the design of information products,

services, and systems."

Several schemas specifically concerned with information-seeking behavior have

been advanced through the years. Notable examples include the work by Paisley

(1968), Orr (1970), Allen (1977), and Mick (1979). Paisley, who focuses on information-seeking behavior at the individual level, defines a number of systems within

which the engineer or scientist operates. Allen focuses on the information-seeking

behavior of engineers in work groups conducting mission-oriented research. Orr

concentrates on the engineer-scientist as an information processor. Mick's work centers

on information behavior within a corporate-work structure and emphasizes a more

policy-oriented approach to user behavior.

The conceptual framework for this study, shown in figure 10, is based on the

work of Paisley, Allen, and Mick and represents an extension of Orr's scheme of the

engineer-scientist as an information processor. The framework for this study focuses

on information seeking and assumes that, notwithstanding individual differences, there

is an internal, consistent logic that governs the information-seeking behavior of U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists.

160
Project/tasW/ I

problem

SType(s)Adn(s)

of information

needed

I

likelihood

Of success

Create information _O Search

(tho h eprments for existing

and/or observations) information?

,, ug +i- ,oi , I variables

Information choalenill

system network

Geleorm tiontie

•Conference - meeting papers| Journal articlesi

In-house technicalreot -U.S. govt. techniclrrs i

Figur 10.The US. Arospce Eninee andScienist s anInformation Poesr

ContinueInformation-ein PAT ALL bit pls aNO Pract iue

procssuseulnot rMskproess
The Eneineer As An Information Processor

As Paisley (1968) points out, the engineer-scientist can be viewed as the center

of many systems. The selection of a particular system or systems depends on a

number of considerations. For purposes of this study, U.S. aerospace engineers and

scientists are placed within the following four systems: the political system, because

the study is concerned with the diffusion of federally funded aerospace knowledge; the

formal organization, because the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists are viewed in terms of academic, government, and

industry affiliation; the reference group, because the study focuses on those U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists whose duties are primarily or exclusively research;

and the formal information system, because the study is concerned with the role

occupied by formal information systems in the diffusion of federally funded R&D.

However, because the study also attempts to explore, describe, and explain the use of

U.S. government technical reports, U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists are viewed

as information processors within a conceptual framework of information seeking.

A project, task, or problem that precipitates a need for information is central to

the conceptual framework for this study. This need for information may, in turn, be

internally or externally induced and is referred to by Orr (1970) as inputs or outputs,

respectively. Inputs originate within the mind of the individual engineer-scientist and

include information needed to keep up with advances in one's profession and to

perform one's professional duties (Voight, 1961; Menzel, 1964) and to obtain

stimulation and feedback from and to interact with peers, colleagues, and coworkers

(Storer, 1966; Hagstrom, 1965).

162
Outputs frequently, but not exclusively, result from an external stimulus or

impetus. Outputs serve a variety of functions, including responding to a request for

information from a supervisor, a coworker, peer, or colleague; reporting progress;

providing advice; reacting to inquiries; defending; advocating; and proposing. Inputs

and outputs require the use of specific kinds and types of information.

The conceptual framework for this study assumes that, in response to a project,

task, or problem, a specific kind(s) or type(s) of information is needed. In response

to this scenario, U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists are confronted with two basic

alternatives: they can create the information through experimentation or observation or

they can search the existing information (Orr, 1970). Orr postulates that if they act

rationally, the decision to "make or buy" the information will depend upon their "subjective estimate or perception of the relative likelihood of success in acquiring the

desired information by these two alternatives within an acceptable time, and on their

perception of the relative cost [money and/or effort] of these alternatives."

If a decision is made to search the existing information, U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists effectively are faced with a decision or a choice of two

information channels. One is the informal or collegial network, which is characterized

by interpersonal (oral) communications with peers, coworkers, colleagues, gatekeepers,

vendors, consultants, "key" personnel, and supervisors and by personal collections of

information. The other is the formal information system, which includes libraries,

technical information centers, librarians and technical information specialists,

information products and services, and information storage and retrieval systems.

It is assumed that the decision to choose a particular information channel is influenced

163
by several institutional factors or variables operating within the previously identified

systems. It is proposed that certain sociometric variables influence information source

and product selection. Gerstberger and Allen (1968), Rosenberg (1967), and Orr (1970)

theorize that information source and product selection are influenced by these variables.

The resulting information is subjectively evaluated. The information processor

is faced with three possible courses of action. First, if the acquired-obtained

information completes the project or task or solves the problem, the process is

successfully terminated. Second, if the acquired-obtained information is useful but only

partially completes the project or task or partially solves the problem, a decision is

made to either continue the process by reevaluating the information source selection or

terminate the process. Third, if the acquired-obtained information is not applicable

to or does not complete the project or task or solve the problem, a decision is made

to either continue the process by redefining the project, task, or problem or to terminate

the process.

Because the broader purpose of the study is to provide insight regarding the

information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, the

study is cast within a conceptual framework that focuses on information seeking.

However, since the immediate purpose of the study is to provide an empirical basis

for understanding the role of the U.S. government technical report in the diffusion of

knowledge resulting from federally funded aerospace R&D, the conceptual framework

is investigated but not validated. Instead, the study focuses on the information acquired

or obtained through the source selection process and the institutional and sociometric

variables associated with that portion of the conceptual framework.

164
Dependent and Independent Variables

Potentially, there are four dependent variables: conference-meeting papers,

journal articles, in-house technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports. The

dependent variable selected for the study is the number of U.S. government technical

reports used in a 6-month period. There are six institutional and seven sociometric

variables that serve as the independent variables for the study. The six institutional

variables include level of education, operationally defined as the presence or absence

of a graduate degree; educational preparation, operationally defined as either engineer

or scientist; years of professional work experience, operationally defined as 0 to 15

years and 16 years and over, organizational affiliation, operationally defined as

academic, government, and industry; primary professional duties, operationally defined

as management and nonmanagement; and technical discipline, operationally defined as

engineering and nonengineering.

The seven sociometric variables include accessibility, operationally defined as

the ease of getting to an information source; ease of use, operationally defined as the

ease of understanding, comprehending, or utilizing the information source; expense,

operationally defined as the expense in either time, effort, or money in comparison to

anoiher information source; familiarity or experience, operationally defined as prior

knowledge or previous use of an information source; technical quality or reliability,

operationally defined as the expectation that the information source would be the best

in terms of quality; comprehensiveness, operationally defined as the expectation that the

information source would pro :ide broad coverage of the available knowledge; and

165
relevance, the expectation that a high percentage of the information acquired or

obtained from the source would be useful.

Other variables central to the study include the project, task, or problem and the

types and kinds of information respondents use in performing their present professional

duties. Project, task, or problem is operationally defined two ways: educational,

research, and management, following the work by King, et al., (1982), and research,

design, development, manufacturing, production, computer applications, and management, following Kaufman's work (1983). The types and kinds of information are

operationally defined as basic scientific and technological information, in-house technical data, computer programs, technical specifications, and product and performance

characteristics, following the work of Shuchman (1981) and Pinelli, et al., (1989).

Hypotheses

The goal of this study is to provide an empirical basis for understanding the

role of the U.S. government technical report in the diffusion of knowledge resulting

from federally funded aerospace R&D. Assuming that the U.S. government technical

report plays an important, but as yet undefined, role in the aerospace knowledge

diffusion process, it follows that three research questions are generated. First, do the

six institutional or structural variables explain the use of U.S. government technical

reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists? Second, do the seven sociometric

or source selection variables explain the use of U.S. government technical reports by

U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists? Third, if both the institutional and sociometric

variables are considered, does one set of variables predominate in terms of use?

166
The following hypotheses were formulated based on the three research questions.

The hypotheses were formulated on "an assumption of difference" and, therefore, are

stated as alternative hypotheses. Each hypothesis was tested with a statistical

significance of p < 0.05. Use of U.S. government technical reports was measured in a

6-month period. Finally, 95 percent of the respondents were educated as either aerospace

engineers or scientists. Only respondents who use the U.S. goverrment technical reports

(96.6 percent) were used to test the hypothesis.

H,: Presence or absence of a graduate degree significantly influences the use

of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

H2: Academic preparation as an engineer or scientist significantly influences

the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and

scientists.

H3: Years of professional work experience (15 or less and 16 or more)

significantly influences the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists.

H4 Academic, government, and industry organizational affiliation significantly

influences the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists.

H5: Management and nonmanagement professional duties significantly influence

the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and

scientists.

H6: Engineering and nonengineering disciplines or duties significantly influence

the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace enginee-, and

scientists.

H,: Accessibility, as opposed to the other sociometric variables, significantly

influences the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists.

H,: The institutional or structural variables, as opposed to the sociometric or

source selection variables, significantly influence the use of U.S. government

technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

167
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Social science research, the umbrella under which user studies and this study

fit, serves many purposes. According to Babbie (1986), tl'.ree of the most common

and useful purposes include exploration, description, and explanation. This study

attempts to explore the amount of use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists, to describe the information-seeking habits and

practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, and to explain the influence of

selected institutional and sociometric variables on the use of U.S. government technical

reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

Saracevic and Wood (1981) state that surveys, observations, record analysis, and

experimentation are the research methods most often used with user studies. Of these

possibilities, survey research in the form of a self-administered mail questionnaire was

the research methodology used with this study. The survey design was based primarily

on Dillman's (1978) total design method (TDM) for mail surveys. There are three

reasons for choosing survey research over the other possible methodologies.

First, there are specific limitations associated with each research method not

selected. Observation was discounted because of the time and expense required and

because access to a sufficient number of aerospace organizations and installations could

not be obtained. Record analysis could not be used because no suitable primary or

secondary sources or records were found that could be analyzed. Experimentation

was considered to be inappropriate because of the purpose and nature of the study.

Second, survey research was selected because of the ability of this methodology to

gather data on a population that is too large and geographically dispersed to observe

168
directly. By distributing a self-administered questionnaire to a randomly chosen

sample, the relative incidence, distribution, and interrelationship between variables

could be observed. Third, the use of a questionnaire permits large amounts of data

to be collected and manipulated in a uniform manner (Babbie, 1986).

Survey Research

Survey research studies large and small populations (or universes) by "selecting

and studying samples chosen from the populations to discover the relative incidence,

distribution, and interrelations of sociological and psychological variables. Although

used by many disciplines, survey research is considered to be a branch of social

scientific research. Its procedures and methods have been developed mostly by psychologists, sociologists, economists, political scientists, and statisticians. Surveys can

be conveniently classified by the following methods of obtaining information: personal

interview, mail questionnaire, panel, and telephone" (Kerlinger, 1986).

Survey research has contributed much to the methodology of the social sciences.

"Its most important contributions, perhaps, have been to rigorous sampling procedures,

the overall design and the implementation of the design of studies, the unambiguous

definition and specification of the research problem, and the analysis and interpretation

of data" (Kerlinger, 1986). In the limited space of a section of one chapter, however,

it is impossible to discuss adequately the methodology of survey research. Interested

readers are referred to the following sources for additional detail regarding survey

research methodology: Alreck and Settle (1985), Babbie (1973), and Fowler (1984).

A basic assumption in social research is that all research methods have

limitations and special strengths and weaknesses and that all measurement involves

169
error. The researcher's task is one of selecting the appropriate research method,

maximizing its strengths, compensating for its weaknesses, and reducing measurement

error as much as possible.

Nachmias and Nachmias (1987) view the mail questionnaire as an impersonal

survey method. The advantages and disadvantages of mail questionnaires are as

follows:

Advantages

o Mail surveys are particularly useful in describing the characteristics of

large populations; they are flexible in that many questions can be asked

on a given topic (Babbie, 1986).

o Mail surveys are the least expensive means of gathering large amounts

of data about a large population (Kidder and Judd, 1986).

o Mail questionnaires can be sent to all respondents simultaneously.

Although the final returns may take several weeks, interviews are

generally performed sequentially and may take months to complete.

Once questionnaires are mailed, the researcher is free to work on other

aspects of the project (Bailey, 1978).

o Mail questionnaires reduce interviewer bias that might result from the

personal characteristics of interviewers and from the variab'lities in their

skills. There are many possibilities for bias that may arise in a personal

interview situation because of the nature of the personal interaction

between the interviewer and the respondent. This can be completely

avoided with a mail questionnaire (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1987;

Kidder and Judd, 1986).

o Mail questionnaires are credited with giving respondents a greater feeling

of anonymity, which is especially helpful with surveys that deal with

sensitive issues. Given the absence of an interviewer, respondents are

more likely to respond openly to sensitive questions (Bailey, 1978;

Kidder and Judd, 1986; Nachmias and Nachmias, 1987).

o Mail questionnaires permit wider geographic contact with minimal cost.

Interviewing a population that is widely dispersed geographically would

involve considerable travel cost and time (Nachmias and Nachmias,

1987).

170
o Mail questionnaires are preferable when questions demand a considered

(rather than an immediate) answer or if the answer requires consultation

of personal documents or of other people (Kidder and Judd, 1986;

Nachmias and Nachmias, 1987).

o Mail questionnaires permit the use of standardized questions. Comparison of respondents' answers is facilitated by the fact that each respondent is exposed to exactly the same wording. Likewise, by asking each

respondent exactly the same question, the researcher is bound to assign

the same intent to all respondents giving a particular response (Babbie,

1986; Bailey, 1978).

Disadvantages

o It is often difficult to obtain an adequate response rate with mail

questionnaires. Assuming that nonrespondents are different from

respondents, researchers who use mail questionnaires are faced with the

problem of how to estimate the effect the nonrespondents may have on

their findings (Kerlinger, 1986; Nachmias and Nachmias, 1987).

o Mail questionnaires do not allow an interviewer to correct misunderstandings or answer questions that the respondents have (Bailey, 1978).

Questions must be straightforward so that they can be comprehended

solely with the help of printed instructions and definitions. The answers

have to be accepted as final. There is no opportunity to probe beyond

the given answer (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1987).

o With a mail questionnaire, researchers have no control over the

respondent's actions. They cannot be sure that the right person

completes the questionnaire. An individual other than the intended

respondent may complete it (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1987). Additionally, researiAnrs cannot control the date of response. They can only ask

for the questionnaire to be returned by a specific date (Bailey, 1978).

o Certain environmental concerns are associated with mail questionnaires.

First, it is often important that the respondent answer one question before

seeing or answering another. With a mail questionnaire, there is no way

to control question order (Kidder and Judd, 1986). Second, with personal

interviews, great care is usually taken to ensure that a standardized

environment exists for every interviewee. No such assurance can be

made for mail surveys (Bailey, 1978). Third, respondents are likely not

to answer all questions. While the overall response rate may be fixed,

the response rate for each question may vary (Bailey, 1978).

171
Validity and Reliability

According to Babbie (1986), survey research is generally weak on validity and

strong on reliability. The validity of mail questionnaires can be assessed by comparing

the findings from a mail questionnaire with previously known facts (Bailey, 1978).

Validity for this study was established in the following three ways: (1) the questions

used in this study were compared with those used in studies by Allen (1977),

Shuchman (1981), and Kaufman (1983), which were concerned with the informationseeking habits and practices of engineers and scientists; (2) the questions were further

developed through the administration of a pilot study (Pinelli, et al., 1989) that was

administered to a randomly drawn sample of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists

belonging to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA); and

(3) the questionnaire was pretested with 3 groups of 25 aerospace engineers and

scientists at the NASA Langley Research Center.

According to Babbie (1986), reliability in survey research is easier to ascertain

than validity. Presenting all respondents with a standardized stimulus, according to

Bailey (1978), goes a long way toward eliminating unreliability. Conversely, survey

research deals almost exclusively with reports of behavior rather than with observations

of behavior, a factor that tends to weaken reliability (Singleton, et al, 1988).

Two methods were available to help ensure reliability. First, particular

demographic information regarding the population was contained in the AIAA National

Membership Profile. Certain of the demographic information collected in this study

could be compared to "known" data to determine the accuracy of "reported" data.

Second, a variation of Flanagan's critical incident technique was used to help ensure

172
reporting accuracy.' According to Lancaster (1978), the theory behind the critical

incident technique is that it is much easier for people to recall accurately what they did

on a specific occurrence or occasion than it is for them to remember what they do in

general. In this study, questions specifically concerned with information use were

framed in terms of "a specific time period"; "their present professional duties"; and "the

most important project, task, or technical problem" within the past 6 months.

Response Rate

According to Bailey (1978), a large number of factors can affect response rates

and also account for the tremendous variation in response rates in mail questionnaires.

Given this extreme variation, what constitutes an adequate response rate? Babbie

(1973) offers the following comment:

I feel that a response rate of at least 50 percent is adequate for

analysis and reporting. A response rate of at least 60 percent is good.

And a response rate of 70 percent or more is very good. The reader

should bear in mind, however, that these are only rough guides; they

have no statistical basis, and a demonstrated lack of response bias is far

more important than a high response rate.

Drew and Hardman (1985) state that there is no wide consensus among

researchers regarding these figures. Bailey (1978), on the other hand, states that

researchers should not be satisfied with such low response rates and that "serious

researchers should undertake several steps to substantially increase the return."

'The critical incident technique was formulated by John C. Flanagan and is

discussed in an article for which the citation appears in the references.

173
According to Bailey, a properly constructed mail questionnaire and appropriate followup should result in a 75-percent response rate. According to Singleton, et al., (1988),

however, nonrespondents or "nonobservations tend to differ in systematic ways from

observations."

Borg and Gall (1983) suggest that it is desirable to check a portion of the

nonresponding group if more than 20 percent of the questionnaires are not returned.

According to Borg and Gall, the general findings from the literature indicate little

difference between respondents and nonrespondents if less than 20 percent of the

questionnaires are not returned. On the other hand, they suggest that if more than 20

percent are not returned, it is desirable to check a portion of the nonresponding group.

The ideal method of checking is to select a small number of cases randomly from the

nonresponding group and then "contact" these subjects to determine their reason for

"nonresponse." In this study, a postcard .'as mailed to nonrespondents to determine

their reasons for "nonresponse."

One factor affecting the response rate is the population being surveyed. In this

study, members of the AIAA constituted the study population. Historically, surveys

of engineers and scientists have yielded low response rates (Citro and Kalton, 1989).

For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) conducted a survey of engineers

and scientists in 1982. The sample was mailed a questionnaire and a postcard, and

up to two additional questionnaires were sent to the nonrespondents. After the third

questionnaire, a telephone follow-up was attempted with the remaining nonrespondents.

The response rate for the survey was 71 percent (Citro and Kalton, 1989).

174
One of the reasons often given to explain why engineers and scientists are

difficult to survey is because of the problems in defining who is an engineer or

scientist (Citro and Kalton, 1989). Citro and Kalton present additional evidence to

show that the response rates for this group have decreased during the 1980's.

Consequently, it was assumed that achieving a response rate of 75 percent or

higher would be difficult. It was also assumed that the questionnaires would not be

relevant to a certain percentage of the sample. That is, some of the sample would not

be actively engaged in aerospace research. Therefore, an overall response rate greater

than 75 percent would be difficult to obtain because the salience of the topic was

expected to be unrelated to the professional duties of some members of the sample

(Heberlein and Baumgartner, 1978).

Dillman's Total Desifn Method (TDM)

According to Dillman (1978), the process of sending a questionnaire to prospective respondents, getting them to complete the questionnaire in an honest manner,

and getting them to return it can be v4ewed as a special case of "social exchange."

The theory of social exchange, as espoused by Blau (1964), Homans (1961), and

Thibaut and Kelley (1959), asserts that the actions of individuals are motivated by the

return these actions are expected to bring and, in fact, usually do bring from others.

According to Dillman, there are three things that must be done to maximize survey

response: minimize the cost of responding, maximize the rewards for doing so, and

establish trust that those rewards will be delivered.

Dillman (1978) uses social exchange as the theoretical basis for his TDM.

Dillman asserts that the TDM can be used to improve both the quality and the quantity

175
(response rate) of mail questionnaires. Using the TDM, Dillman reports an average

response rate of 70 percent from the general public and 77 percent from specialized

groups. (It should be noted that these response rates are considerably higher than those

reported for the majority of self-administered mail questionnaires.) Dillman reports that

there is almost no difference in response rate for questionnaires of various page lengths

below 12 pages or about 125 items. Beyond the 12-page length, the response rate

begins to fall off. Dillnan further reports that, using the TDM, the average item

nonresponse rate is 3 to 4 percent, which is rather low for self-administered mail

questionnaires.

Dillman (1978) asserts that, using the TDM, a researcher can expect to achieve

results that may be comparable in quantity and quality to those obtained through faceto-face interviews at a much lower cost. Dillman offers the following description of

the TDM:

The total design method consists of two parts. The first is to

identify each aspect of the survey process that may affect either the

quality or qudntity of response and to shape each of them in such a way

that the best possible responses are obtained. The second is to organize

the survey efforts so that the design intentions are carried out in

complete detail. The first step is guided by a theoretical view of why

people respond to questionnaires. It provides the rationale for deciding

how each aspect, even the seemingly minute ones, should be shaped.

The second step is guided by an administrative plan, the purpose of

which is to ensure implementation of the survey in accordance with

design intentions.

Dillman (1978) claims that researchers can offer few rewards, but that the

power to reward is the real key. There are several actions a researcher might do to

reward a respondent. First, the researcher should act in a positive manner. As such,

the researcher should personalize the process by using real signatures, individual

176
greetings, and individually typed letters. Second, the research should give verbal

appreciation. This might include a handwritten note indicating "thanks" or "sincere

appreciation" to respondents and, in addition, a follow-up postcard thanking respondents

for their responses. Third, the researcher should use a consulting approach. This

means that respondents are told that their views are important and need to be heard.

Open-ended questions should be included in the survey to permit respondents to voice

their opinions in greater detail. Fourth, the researcher should describe to the

respondent the social value of the study. For example, the researcher could tell the

respondent how the results might be used, the issues involved, and the impact the

results might have on the issues. Fifth, the researcher must make the questionnaire

interesting. The more interesting the questionnaire, the more motivated the respondent

becomes to complete and return the instrument. All these actions were taken in this

study.

Dillman (1978) claims that cost to the respondent, both in terms of money and

effort, should be reduced as much as possible. This can be accomplished in several

ways. First, the instrument can be made clear, concise, and simple by reducing its

size and giving it a simple and attractive layout. Second, simple directions can be

used and complex and difficult questions avoided. Third, the possibility of

embarrassment can be eliminated by avoiding the inclusion of personal questions.

Fourth, subordination can be reduced by making the respondents feel as though they

are part of the process. Fifth, any direct cost can be eliminated by including postagepaid return envelopes and never asking the respondents to bear the cost of postage.

All these actions were taken in this study.

177
Dillman (1978) claims that in social exchange there is no way to guarantee that

a favor will be returned for a favor. Therefore, one must trust the other person to do

something in return for doing something. Trust can be built in several ways. First,

the researcher can provide a token of appreciation by offering to send the respondent

a copy of the results or by assuring the respondent that the results will find their way

to those individuals having the power to do something about the issue. This was done

in this study. Second, the research should be identified with an organization that has

a legitimate interest in the issue. For example, as was done in this study, the name

of the organization providing the funding was included in the cover letter. If possible,

include a letter of endorsement from the funding organization.

Dillman's TDM (1978) advises that the questionnaire should be prepared as a

booklet printed on white or off-white paper. In this study, some of the questionnaires

were printed on light blue and green paper out of necessity. According to Dillman,

no questions should be printed on the front page, which is reserved for an interesting

title or illustration. In this study, the cover contained a graph that plotted U.S. trade

surplus for aerospace and agriculture, 1984-1989. Dillman suggests that the more

general questions should be placed first, followed by potentially objectionable questions,

with demographic questions last. Lowercase letters should be used for the questions;

uppercase letters are used for the answers. Questions should not overlap from one

page to another, although they did, out of necessity, in the questionnaile used in this

study.

Each respondent in this study was sent a personalized, one-page letter. To

ensure a response, the ltter explained the social value of the study, why each

178
respondent's input and response was needed, and who should complete the survey.

Each letter contained the typed name and address of the respondent and was printed

on official letterhead. The researcher's name was individually signed in blue ink for

each letter. Each questionnaire was stamped with an identification number, which was

explained in the cover letter, and the mail-out package was placed in an envelope for

mailing. The respondent's name and address were typed on the envelope. First-class

postage was used to ensure forwarding if the person had moved. (Stamps are preferred

to postage meters.) A postcard follow-up reminder was mailed out to all recipients

one week after the initial mailing. Three weeks after the initial mailing, a follow-up

package was mailed to everyone who had not responded. Three weeks after the

second mailing, a follow-up package was sent by registered mail to nonrespondents.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design, according to Kerlinger (1986), is the plan and structure of

investigation so conceived as to obtain answers to research questions. He further states

that the plan is the overall scheme or program of the research. The structure is the

framework, organization, or configuration of the elements that compose the study.

Furthermore, the structure is a paradigm or model of the relations among the variables

in the study. The research design, therefore, "expresses both the structure of the

research problem and the plan of investigation used to obtain empirical evidence on the

relations of the problem" (Kerlinger, 1986).

Related literature and previous research were identified, reviewed, and analyzed

as part of the process of understanding, defining, and establishing a theoretical and

179
conceptual framework for the problem and of the research described herein. The

search for related research and literature included searches of print and computerized

data bases, including Dissertation Abstracts, Engineering Index, Compendex, ERIC,

Information Science Abstracts, LISA, NTIS, and SCISEARCH, the Annual Review of

Information Science and Technology (ARIST), books, periodicals, reports, conference

proceedings, encyclopedias, and bibliographies. Several search strategies and topics

were used as part of the review of related research and literature. The results of the

review of relevant literature and research were used to finalize the overall scope,

research questions, assumptions, hypotheses, and research methodology for the study.

Three assumptiens and research questions, 1 dependent variable, and 13 independent

variables were incorporated in the study.

Population and Sample Selection

Stage 1 of the five-stage research design procedure involved identifying the

appropriate population. There is no practical way to identify all the aerospace

engineers and scientists in the U.S. For this reason, the population for this study was

identified as the members of the AIAA. The AIAA is the largest American technical

society devoted to engineering and science in the fields of aeronautics and astronautics.

The sample frame consisted of all AIAA members residing in the U.S. in 1989. The

sample frame was compiled from the AIAA National Membership Profile as of January

1989.

In developing the sample frame, the intent was to target and include only those

AIAA members whose professional duties are primarily aerospace research.

Consequently, non-U.S. addresses were deleted, as were AIAA members with job titles

180
of students, librarians, and retired members. As Dillman (1978) states, "There is no such

thing as a perfect list." The AIAA list had many shortcomings, chief among which was

its currency. As was determined from its use, the list contained numerous incorrect

addresses and deceased members.

Stage 2 of the five-stage research design procedure involved the creation of the

sample. The sample frame consisted of approximately 34 000 AIAA members and

excluded all non-U.S. members, retirees, and students. From the sample frame, 6781

persons (about 1 out of every 5) were systematically sampled. A random number was

assigned to each of the original 6781 names. The names were sorted by that random

number and 2900 names were selected. Some names were deleted, such as those names

with a foreign address. The sample was supplemented from the original 6781 to bring

the number back to 2900. The process was repeated until a final sample of 2898 was

obtained.

Probability sampling, which assumes that each member of the sample frame has

a known probability of being included in the sample, was used to assure a representative

sampling plan. Probability sampling makes it possible to estimate the extent to which the

sample findings are likely to differ from what would have been found by studying the

entire population of AIAA members. With probability sampling, it is possible to specify

the sample size that is needed to guarantee that the sample findings are fairly close to

those that a study of the entire population would yield.

A review of the returned questionnaires indicated that AIAA members with

academic affiliations were underrepresented. Academics comprise approximately 15

percent of the AIAA membership; however, academics comprised less than 2 percent

181
of the returns. A review of the original sample provided by the AIAA indicated that

academics were underrepresented. To redress this problem, all names listed with an

academic address on the 1989 membership roster (about 1200 names) were entered into

a data base, assigned random numbers, and sorted. All faculty members who were in

the original sample were deleted.

Ouestionnaire Development

Stage 3 of the five-stage research design procedure involved developing the

questionnaire. The survey instrument consisted of 65 closed-ended and 1 open-ended

questions. Questions from previously cited studies concerned with the informationseeking habits and practices of engineers and scientists were used to develop the

questions used in this study. The questions included in the survey instrument utilized

nominal, ordinal, and ratio scales to record the data. To answer most questions,

respondents circled a code number or inserted a number in blank lines. The

questionnaire was pretested on 3 groups of 25 aerospace engineers and scientists at the

NASA Langley Research Center to determine the amount of time required to complete

the survey, to ascertain the clarity of the instructions, and to identify any questions that

needed modification because of wording or misinterpretation. The questionnaire and

associated correspondence are presented in appendix C.

When a sample is randomly selected from a population, the characteristics of

the population may reasonably be inferred from the attributes of the sample. Such

inference is then subject to various conventions regarding statistical significance. The

appropriate application of such conventions to the primary survey effort is called

estimation of parameters (Gravetter and Wallnau, 1985; Hopkins, Glass, and Hopkins,

182
1987). The population parameters, in this study a population parameter P, are

estimated from the sample statistic p. Such estimates are dependent in part upon

sample size. The sample sizes vary from question to question because all respondents

did not answer each question. However, given the general range of the sample sizes

and the nature of the sampling distributions of proportions, it can be stated that at

the 95-percent confidence level, the sample statistics p of the sample group are within

plus or minus 3 percentage points of the population parameter P, that is, p = P + 3%.

Data Collection

Stage 4 of the five-stage research design procedure included the collection of

data. The first mailing of questionnaires took place on May 15, 1989. Each member

of the sample received a package containing the questionnaire, a cover letter explaining

the survey, and a postage-paid envelope. The letter was written on Indiana University

(LU) School of Library and Information Science (SLIS) letterhead and was signed by

Herbert S. White, dean of the school. A reminder postcard, signed by Dean White,

was sent out to all persons in the sample during the first week of June 1989. On

June 30, 1990, follow-up letters and questionnaires were sent to those individuals who

had not returned the questionnaire. The letter in the second mailing was on IU SLIS

letterhead and was signed by Dean White. On August 7, 1989, a third mailing was

sent to nonrespondents and included another follow-up letter on IU SLIS letterhead

and another copy of the questionnaire.

A supplemental follow-up letter was sent on September 8, 1989. The letter was

written on NASA Headquarters letterhead and was signed by Dr. Randolph A. Graves,

Director of the Aerodynamics Division. This letter included a postage-paid postcard

183
on which the respondent could request a new copy of the questionnaire, declare that

the study was inappropriate for their duties, refuse to participate in the study, or

request a copy of the results. Individuals requesting a copy of the questionnaire were

sent a copy of the survey and a short letter, signed by Dr. John M. Kennedy, IU

Center for Survey Research, thanking them for their interest.

As previously mentioned, a review of the returned questionnaires indicated that

AIAA members with academic affiliations were underrepresented. To redress this

problem, 400 faculty names were randomly selected and sent a package on January 2,

1990, containing the questionnaire, a cover letter explaining the survey, and a postagepaid envelope.

The January 2, 1990, mailing contained two explanatory cover letters. One

letter was written on NASA letterhead and was signed by Bruce Holmes, Acting

Director of the Aerodynamics Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC.

The second letter was written on IU Center for Survey Research letterhead and signed

by Dr. John M. Kennedy, director. On January 19, 1990, a follow-up letter, signed

by Dr. Kennedy, was sent to all nonrespondents as a substitute for a postcard. A

second mailing took place on February 2, 1990, and included a follow-up letter signed

by Dr. Kennedy.

Including the faculty mailing, the total sample was n = 3298. A questionnaire

was mailed to everyone in the sample. The actual number of questionnaires received

was 2016 for a 62-percent rate of return. In survey research, it is both reasonable

and customary to delete individuals from the sample for reasons such as death, illness,

retirement, wrong addresses, and individuals who indicated that the questionnaire was

184
inappropriate for their present professional duties. Removing these individuals

produced an adjusted n of 2894. Considering the number of questionnaires returned

(2016) and the adjusted n of 2894 resulted in an adjusted response rate of 70

percent.

The following procedure was undertaken to increase the overall survey response

rate and to establish the relevance of the survey focus for the remaining "nonresponding" persons in the sample. A letter from Dr. Randolph A. Graves, Director

of the Aerodynamics Division at NASA Headquarters, was sent to the remaining nonrespondents. The letter (see appendix C) explained the importance of the survey and

requested cooperation with the project. Since U.S. aerospace researchers are familiar

with NASA, it was assumed that a letter from a NASA division director would induce

some of the nonrespondents to complete and return the questionnaire. The impact of

a letter from a government sponsor was found previously by Heberlein and

Baumgartner (1978) to significantly increase response rates.

In order to identify the relevance of the content of the questionnaires, a return

postcard was enclosed with a letter. This postcard allowed the recipient to check off

one of the following:

o Please send me another questionnaire.

o I am not involved in aerospace research.

o I do not wish to participate in the study.

o Please send me a copy of the final report.

The postcard was designed to help determine if the previous nonresponse was due to

the content of the questionnaire. It was expected that this procedure would allow a

more accurate determination of the proportion of the sample that did not respond

because the survey focus was not appropriate to them. Based on the results of the

185
sponsor letter and postcard, it was assumed that the nonrespondents were probably not

involved in research and, therefore, the questionnaire was simply not relevant to these

individuals. Based on further analysis of the AIAA sample and the demographics of

the respondents, it was concluded that "most" of the AIAA members in the sample

doing research returned the questionnaires (Kennedy and Pinelli, 1990).

Data Processing

Stage 5 of the five-stage research design procedure included the processing of

the data. A complete record was kept at the Center for Survey Research on all

returned questionnaires. Each returned questionnaire was reviewed and examined to

ascertain acceptability for processing and to make any corrections or notations that

might be required before processing. Once certified for processing, data contained in

the questionnaires were transferred (input) to a computer file using previously specified

record formats. The transferred data were reviewed, edited, and "cleaned" to ensure

acceptability for analysis.

THE FRAMEWORK FOR DATA ANALYSIS

This study has both an immediate and a broader purpose. In the first instance,

it provides an empirical basis for understanding the role of the U.S. government technical report in the diffusion of knowledge resulting from federally funded aerospace

R&D. In the broader sense, it provides insight regarding the information-seeking habits, practices, needs, and preferences of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

186
Data collected through the use of a self-administered mail questionnaire were

analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences-X (SPSS-X) with an

IBM-XT. Data concerning the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists, contained in chapter 5, are treated as descriptive

data and are presented in terms of academic, government, and industry affiliation. The

results of the tests of the eight hypotheses established for the study are contained in

chapter 6.

Assumptions

Four assumptions underlie the analysis of the data. The unit of analysis for

the dependent variable is the number of times a U.S. government technical report was

used in a 6-month period. The fundamental assumption underlying the unit of analysis

is that the "number of times used in a 6-month period" represents an unbiased sample;

that is, the "number used" would not vary considerably over a substantial period of

time. Other assumptions underly the analysis of the data. First, the incidents reported

by the respondents were valid. Second, the selection of their most recent problem,

task, or problem was reported without bias. Third, the respondents' information use

over a 6-month period did not fluctuate dramatically over moderate periods of time.

Data Analysis

Three statistical tests were used to analyze the data collected in this study.

The chi square test for independence, which provides a standard for deciding whether

two variables are statistically independent, was used to test hypotheses 1-7. The chi

square is a commonly used nonparametric test of significance for tables containing

187
nominal and ordinal variables. The chi square test, as applied to the hypotheses in this

study, consisted of four parts: (1) the alternative hypothesis (H,) that the variables are

statistically dependent, (2) expected frequencies derived under Lhe assumption that the

alternative hypothesis is true, (3) a comparison of these expected values with the

corresponding observed frequencies, and (4) a judgment as to whether the differences

between the expected and observed frequencies could have risen by chance.

The Pearson product-moment correlation, or the Pearson coefficient, was used to

test hypothesis 7. The Pearson coefficient is an inferential test, a statistical measure, a

number that expresses the strength of the relationship between two variables. Computation of a correlation coefficient indicates how well the data being tested can be described

as a linear model. A correlation measures the degree of relationship between two

variables on a scale from 0 to 1.00. It does not, however, explain why the two variables

are related, nor should it be interpreted as proof of a cause-effect relationship between the

two variables.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was the inferential statistic used to test

certain of the descriptive data reported in chapter 5. Descriptive data were reported in

terms of academic, government, and industry affiliation. A one-way ANOVA was used

to test for statistical significance among the three groups, that is, AIAA members with

either academic, government, or industry affiliation. The ANOVA statistics were adjusted

for unequal cell sizes. All statistical differences reported in chapters 5 and 6 are

significant at P < 0.05. Finally, only substantially significant differences (not all

statistically significant differences) are reported.

188
REFERENCES

Allen, Thomas J. Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the

Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization.

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.)

Alreck, Pamela L. and Robert S. Settle. The Survey Research Handbook. (Homewood,

IL: Irwin, 1985.)

Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing, 1986.)

Babbie, Earl. Survey Research Methods. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing,

1973.)

Bailey, Kenneth D. Methods of Social Research. (NY: The Free Press, 1978.)

Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. (NY: John Wiley, 1964.)

Borg, Walter R. and Meredith D. Gall. Educational Research: An Introduction.

4th ed. (NY: Longman, 1983.)

Citro, Constance F. and Graham Kalton. Surveying the Nation's Scientists and

Engineers: A Data System for the 1990s. (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1989.)

Dillman, Don A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. (NY:

John Wiley, 1978.)

Drew, Clifford J. and Michael L. Hardman. Designing and Conducting Behavioral

Research. (NY: Pergamon Press, 1985.)

Flanagan, John C. "The Critical Incident Technique." Psychological Bulletin 51:4

(July 1954): 327-358.

Fowler, Floyd J. Survey Research Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series.

Volume 1. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1984.)

Gerstberger, Peter G. and Thomas J. Allen. "Criteria Used By Research and

Development Engineers in the Selection of an Information Source." Journal of

Applied Psychology 52:4 (August 1968): 272-279.

Gravetter, Frederick J. and Larry B. Wallnau. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences:

A First Course for Students of Psychology and Education. (St. Paul, MN: West

Publishing Company, 1985.)

189
Hagstrom, Warren 0. The Scientific Community. (NY: Basic Books, 1965.)

Heberlein, Thomas A. and Robert M. Baumgartner. "Factors Affecting Response Rates

to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis of the Published Literature."

American Sociological Review 43 (1978): 447-462.

Homans, George C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. (NY: Harcourt, Brace,

and World, 1961.)

Hopkins, Kenneth D.; Gene V. Glass; and B.E. Hopkins. Basic Statistics for the

Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987.)

Kaufman, Harold G. Factors Related to Use of Technical Informa'an in Engineering

Problem Solving. Brooklyn, NY: Polytechnic Institute of _4ew York, January

1983.

Kennedy, John M. and Thomas E. Pinelli. "The Impact of a Sponsor Letter on Mail

Survey Response Rates." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Association for Public Opinion Researcai, Lancaster, PA, May 1990.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. (NY: Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston, 1986.)

Kidder, Louise H. and Charles M. Judd. Research Methods in Social Relations. (NY:

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1986.)

King, Donald W.; Jose-Marie Griffiths; Nancy K. Roderer, and Robert R. V.

Wiederkehr. Value of the Energv Data Base. Rockville, MD: King Research

Inc., March 1982. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA DE82014250.)

Lancaster, F. Wilfrid. Critical Incident Techniques. (Urbana, IL: University of

Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, 1978.)

Menzel, Herbert. "The Information Needs of Current Scientific Research." Library

Quarterly 34:1 (January 1964): 4-19.

Mick, Colin K.; Georg N. Lindsey; Daniel Callahan; and Frederick Spielberg. Towards

Usable User Studies: Assessing the Information Behavior of Scientists and

Engineers. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1979. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA PB80-177165.)

Nachmias, David and Chava Nachmias. Research Methods in the Social Sciences.

(NY: Saint Martin's Press, 1987.)

190
Orr, Richard H. "The Scientist as an Information Processor: A Conceptual Model

Illustrated With Data on Variables Related to Library Utilization." In

Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, Carnot E. Nelson and Donald K.

Pollack, eds. (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1970,) 143-189.

Paisley, William J. "Information Needs and Uses." In Annual Review of Information

Science and Technology, Vol. 3, Carlos A. Cuadra, ed. (NY: John Wiley, 1968,)

1-30.

Pineili, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca 0. Barclay.

Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Study.

TM-101534, Part 1, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, February 1989. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 89N26772.)

Rosenberg, Victor. "Factors Affecting the Preferences of Industrial Personnel for

hiformation Gatheriig Methods." Information Storage and Retrieval 3 (July

1967): 119-127.

Saracevic, Tefko and Judith B. Wood. Consolidation of Information: A Handbook on

(the) Evaluation. Restructuring.and Repackaging of Scientific and Technical

Information. PGI-81/WS/16. (Paris: General Information Programme and

UNISIST, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, July

1981.)

Shuchman, Hedvah L. Information Transfer in Engineering. (Glastonbury, CT: The

Futures Group, 1981.)

Singleton, Royce et al., Approaches to Social Research. (NY: Oxford University

Press, 1988.)

Storer, Norman W. The Social System of Science. (NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

1966.)

Thibaut, J.W. and H.H. Kelly. The Social Psychology of Groups. (NY: John Wiley,

1959.)

Voight, Melvin J. Scientists' Approaches to Informtion. ACRL Momograph, No. 24.

(Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1961.)

Wallace, Walter. The Loic of Science in Sociology. (Chicago: Aldine & Atherton,

1971.)

191
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, Frank M; Laura Klem; Terrence N. Davidson; Patrick M. O'Malley; and

Willard L. Rodgers. A Guide for Selecting Statistical Techniques for Analyzing

Social Science Data. (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, Uiniversity of

Michigan, 1981.)

Ary, Donald; Lucy Cheser Jacobs; and Asghar Razavieh. Introduction to Research in

Education. 3rd ed. (NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985.)

Asher, Herbert B. Causal Modeling. 2nd ed. Sage University Paper Series on

Quantitative Application in the Social Sciences, 07-001. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, 1983.)

Busha, Charles H. and Stephen P. Harter. Research Methods in Librarianship:

Techniques and Interpretation. (NY: Academic Press, 1980.)

Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An

Introduction to Theory and Research. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.)

Gay, L.R. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis & Application. 2nd ed.

(Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1982.)

Martyn, John and F. Wilfrid Lancaster. Investigative Methods in Library and

Information Science: An Introduction. (Arlington, VA: Information Resources

Press, 1981.)

McMillian, James H. and Sally Schumacher. Research in Education: A Conceptual

Introduction. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984.)

Pedhazur, Alazar. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and

Prediction. (NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982.)

Reynolds, H.T. Analysis of Nominal Data. 2nd ed. Sage University Paper Series on

Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-007. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, 1984.)

Seigel, Sidney and N. John Castellan, Jr. Nonparametric Statistics For the Behavioral

Sciences. 2nd ed. (NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.)

Slonim, Morris James. Sampling: A Quick, Reliable Guide to Practical Statistics.

(NY: Simon and Schuster, 1960.)

Weisberg, Herbert F. and Bruce D. Bowen. An Introduction to Survey Research and

Data Analysis. (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1977.)

192
CHAPTER S

PRESENTATION OF THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA

INTRODUCTION

This chapter, which contains the descriptive data for the study, contributes to

the immediate and broader purposes of the study. First, the U.S. government

technical report is viewed in terms of its use within a formal information structure.

Second, the U.S. government technical report is viewed in terms of the informationseeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and their use

of U.S. government technical reports in problem solving.

BACKGROUND

The sample frame consists of AIAA members who live in the U.S. Of the

2016 questionnaires received, 1839 were selected for data analysis, presentation, and

discussion. The difference of 177 includes retired, unemployed, and AIAA members

who selected "other" as their organization affiliation who were eliminated from the

sample. The sample of 1839 includes those individuals with an academic, government, industry, or not-for-profit affiliation. For purposes of this research, the notfor-profit respondents have been incorporated with the academic respondents. Sample

demographics for these individuals (n=1839) appear in figure 11. A brief discussion

of the survey demographics follows.

193
The respondent's highest level of education is presented in figure 11.1.

Seventy-six percent of the respondents with an academic affiliation hold at least a

doctorate. Education is fairly evenly divided among government-affiliated respondents, with 33 percent having a bachelor's degree or less, 41 percent holding a

master's degree, and 26 percent holding a doctorate. About 35 percent of the

industry-affiliated respondents have a bachelor's degree or less, about 45 percent

hold a master's degree, and about 20 percent possess a doctorate.

Most of the respondents were educated as engineers (figure 11.2). In terms

of organizational affiliation, about 75 percent of the academically affiliated

respondents were educated as engineers and about 18 percent were educated as

scientists. About 82 percent of the government-affiliated respondents were educated

as engineers and about 13 percent were educated as scientists. About 8 percent of

the academically affiliated respondents were educated as neither engineers nor

scientists, and about 6 percent of the government-affiliated respondents were

educated as neither engineers nor scientists.

The educational preparation (figure 11.2) and professional duties (figure 11.3)

of the respondents vary. In terms of organizational affiliation, about 58 percent of

the academically affiliated respondents function as engineers, about 18 percent

function as scientists, and about 24 percent function as neither engineers nor

scientists. About 66 percent of the government-affiliated respondents function as

engineers, about 10 percent function as scientists, and about 24 percent function as

neither engineers nor scientists. About 72 percent of the industry-affiliated

respondents function as engineers, about 5 percent function

194
100 100-

90 -90 -Government Industry

80 -Acdeic 80 -Academic

70 -70

60-Industry Peren S

Percent 50 -Government Pret5

40- 40-

30 -30

20 -20

10 -10 ~*

CS z. (6*,Ui(6C c- ) 9 N1

~V %

.e c C, -o$cj , 0 0

44b

(1) Highest Level of Education. (2) Educational Preparation.

100- 100-

90 - Governrnn Industry 90 cdriGoen ntIusy So0 Acadernic Acseo GoenetIdsr

70 - 70

60 -60

Percent 50 -Iecnt 5 40 Pec- 40

20 -20

10 10 I

CbC

(3) Present Professional Duties. (4) Primary Professional Duties.

Figure 11. Survey Demographics -- (n=1839).

195
100 100-

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 - Academc Govenment Industry 60

Percent 50 Percent 50 Academic Government Industry

40 I0

30 II 30-

20( 20 

OIk/ Per A#tent49 A4(C0

0 00*

(5) Technical Discipline. (6) Years of Work Experience.

100) Academic Government Industry 100- Academnic Goverruemt Industry

90 -90-

80 -so

70 -70

60E 60

Percent 50 -Percent 50-

401 401

301 301 J

1096

20 yyPge~~ vv br 4 N Zo4 S.V 

(7) Federal Funding. (8) Funding.

Figure 11. Concluded.

196
as scientists, and about 23 percent function as neither engineers nor scientists. The

variations between educational preparation and professional duties are offset by corresponding increases in the category "other."

Respondents perform a narrow range of professional duties (figure 11.4).

The majority of the academically affiliated respondents (73.6 percent) perform

academic duties, which may include both teaching and research, and about 19

percent perform management duties. About 45 percent of the government-affiliated

respondents perform management duties, about 29 percent perform academic duties,

and about 21 percent perform design and development duties. About 41 percent of

the industry-affiliated respondents perform management duties, about 39 percent

perform design and development duties, and about 11 percent perform academic

duties.

Aerospace R&D is represented in chapter 1 as a linear process incorporating

research, design and development, manufacturing and production, marketing and

sales, service, and management. Based on the demographics (figure 11.4), the

manufacturing and production, marketing and sales, and service components of the

aerospace R&D process appear to be underrepresented.

In terms of technical disciplines, the majority of the respondents are more

closely aligned with engineering as opposed to science (figure 11.5). About 82

percent of the academically affiliated respondents are involved in nonscience

disciplines. The same holds true for government-affiliated respondents (82 percent)

and for industry-affiliated respondents (88 percent). Thirty-seven percent of the

academically affiliated respondents selected engineering as their technical discipline,

197
26.5 percent selected aeronautics, and 10.5 percent selected astronautics as their

technical discipline. About 31 percent of the government-affiliated respondents

selected engineering as their technical discipline, 30 percent selected aeronautics, and

11.4 percent selected astronautics. About 46 percent of the industry-affiliated

respondents selected engineering as their technical discipline, 22.5 percent selected

aeronautics, and 10 percent selected astronautics.

About 48 percent of the academically affiliated respondents possess 20 years

or less of work experience; about 25 percent possess 21 to 30 years (figure 11.6).

Twenty-seven percent have 31 or more years of work experience. About 56 percent

of the government-affiliated respondents possess 20 years or less of work

experience; about 29 percent possess 21 to 30 years of work experience. About 14

percent have 31 or more years of work experience. About 45 percent of the

industry-affiliated respondents have 20 years of work experience or less; about 26

percent have 21 to 30 years. About 28 percent have 31 or more years of work

experience.

Respondents were asked if any of their current work is funded by the

Federal government (figure 11.7). About 74 percent of the academicaily affiliated

respondents indicated that their work is funded by the Feo government. Ninetysix percent of the government-affiliated respondents indicated that some of their

work is funded by the Federal government. About 80 percent of the industryaffiliated respondents indicated that some of their work is funded by the Federal

government.

198
Respondents were asked who supplies the largest proportion of funds for

their current research or project (figure 11.8). About 68 percent of the academically

affiliated respondents, about 96 percent of the government-affiliated respondents, and

about 68 percent of the industry-affiliated respondents receive the largest portion of

their funding from the Federal government.

FINDINGS

The responses to the 65 closed-ended questions are presented as four study

topics. The responses for survey topics 1 and 2 appear in this chapter. The

responses for survey topics 3 and 4 appear in appendix E. For each question, the

findings are presented in the aggregate and according to organizational (academic,

government, and industry) affiliation. Findings pertinent to survey topic 1 are also

presented as tables in appendix D according to the highest level of education,

defined as bachelor's degree or lower, master's degree, or doctorate or higher;

educational preparation, defined as engineer, scientist, or other; and years of

professional work experience, defined as 1 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 20 years,

21 to 30 years, and 31 or more years of experience. Findings pertinent to survey

topic 2 are also presented in appendix D as tables D25-D32.

Survey Topic 1: The U.S. Government Technical Report Within a Formal

Information Structure

Based in large part on the results of the pilot study, the U.S. government

report was placed within the context of three technical information products: conference-meeting papers, journal articles, and in-house technical reports. Question

199
responses were grouped for presentation purposes according to the following four

themes: use and importance, factors affecting use, purpose, and information type

and product.

Use and Importance. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their use

and importance of these four information products and approximately how many

times they had used each product in the past 6 months in performing their present

professional duties. As shown in table 20, almost all the U.S. aerospace engineers

Table 20. Technical Information Products Used

Percentage using product in - Overall

percentage

Information product Academia Government Industry using product

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 18 39 )a

Conference-Meeting papers 99.4 99.1 95.5 97.1

Journal articles 99.4 97.4 95.5 96.7

In-house technical reports 97.9 99.6 98.8 98.8

U.S. Government technical reports 98.9 99.1 96.6 96.6

a177 of the 2016 total respondents were not included in tables 20-44 because 149 did not specify the

type of organization where they worked and 28 were retired or unemployed.

and scientists in this study use the four information products in performing their

present professional duties. There is no statistical difference in use among the

academically, government-, and industry-affiliated respondents. In terms of highest

level of education (table Dl), career (table D2), and years of professional work

experience (table D3), almost all the respondents use the four information products

in performing their present professional duties. There is little difference in the

overall use rate for each of the four information products. (See appendix D.)

200
Using a 5-point scale, survey participants rated the importance of conferencemeeting papers, journal articles, in-house technical reports, and U.S. government

technical reports (table 21). The rating of 1 to 5 points, very important to very

unimportant, used in the survey instrument is reversed for purposes of data analysis,

presentation, and discussion. Further, a positive and significant correlation

coefficient, shown below, is found when information product use and importance are

compared, indicating that those information products considered to be important are

also used by survey participants.

In-house U.S. government

Conference- Journal technical technical

meeting papers articles reports reports

Correlation

coefficient .248 .262 .164 .175

of importance

and use

Table 21. Importance of Technical Information Products

Averagea (mean) importance rating in - Overall

average (mean) Total

Information product importance respondents Academia Government Industry rating

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Conference-Meeting papers 4.04 3.64 3.31 3.53 1777 b

Journal articles 4.35 3.49 3.26 3.52 1775 c

In-house technical reports 3.02 3.98 4.05 3.84 1766 d

U.S. Government technical reports 3.45 3.73 3.44 3.51 1778 e

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance, with "1" being the lowest possible importance

and "5" being the highest posible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

importance of the product. "Sixty-two survey participants did not rate the importance of conferenceipeeting papers. CSixty-four survey participants did not rate the importance of journal articles.

aSeventy-three survey participants did not rate the importance of in-house technical reports. esixtyone survey participants did not rate the importance of U.S. Government technical reports.

Of the four information products, the overall mean importance rating is

highest for in-house technical reports. The overall mean importance rating, although

201
lower, does not differ considerably for conference-meeting papers, journal articles,

and U.S. government technical reports. Statistically, academically affiliated

respondents attribute a higher importance rating to conference-meeting papers and

journal articles. Government- and industry-affiliated respondents attribute a higher

importance rating to in-house technical reports. (Government-affiliated respondents

probably view U.S. government technical reports as being synonymous with in-house

technical reports.)

Statistically, participants possessing a doctoral degree or higher (table D4)

attribute a higher importance rating to conference-meeting papers and journal articles. In-house technical reports are rated more important by survey participants

possessing a bachelor's degree or lower and a master's degree than by those participants possessing a doctoral degree or higher. Scientists rate conference-meeting papers and journal articles more important than do engineers (table D5). Engineers

rate in-house technical reports more important than do scientists. Engineers and scientists rate the importance of U.S. government technical reports about equal. With

two small exceptions, the importance rating of the four information products

increases as years of professional work experience increase (table D6).

Survey participants were asked to indicate the number of times each of the

four information products had been used in a 6-month period in the performance of

their professional duties (table 22). Data are presented both as means and medians.

On the average, in-house technical reports are used to a much greater extent than

are the remaining three information products. Conference-meeting papers and

journal articles are used to a far greater extent by academically affiliated

202
participants. In-house technical repl'ts are used to a far greater extent by governmentand industry-affiliated participants. Average use of U.S. government technical reports is

about equal for all three groups.

Table 22. Frequency of Use of Technical Information Products

Average number of times (median) product Overall

used in 6-month period for respondents in - average number Total

Information product of times (median) respondents

Academia Government Industry product used

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Conference-Meeting papers 17.98 (7.00) 13.41 (4.00) 9.23 (4.00) 12.02 (4.00) 15 27 a

Journal articles 26.60 (10.00) 15.41 (5.00) 9.99 (4.00) 14.74 (5.00) 150 3 b

In-house technical reports 9.22 (5.00) 17.91 (6.00) 23.91 (8.00) 20.30 (6.00) 153 5 c

U.S. Government technical reports 10.01 (5.00) 12.41 (5.00) 11.49 (4.00) 11.45 (5.00) 14 9 5 d

aNote that 312 individuals did not answer the question. bNote that 336 individuals did not answer the

question. CNote that 304 idividuals did not answer the question. dNote that 344 individuals did not answer

the question.

With the exception of in-house technical reports, use of the three remaining

information products increases as level of education increases (table D7). Survey

participants possessing a doctorate or higher make significantly greater use of conferencemeeting papers and journal articles (table D7).

On the average, scientists make greater use of the four information products than

do engineers (table D8). Engineers and scientists make about equal use of in-house

technical reports. Scientists make greater use of conference-meeting papers and journal

articles than do engineers (table D8). There is no increase in the use of the four

information products as a function of increased years of professional work experience

(table D9).

Factors Affectin! Use. Survey participants who use the four information

products were asked to indicate the extent to which seven sociometric factors influence

203
their use of these products (tables 23-26). The rating of 1 to 5 points, greatly influenced

to not influeri;ed, used in the survey instrument is reversed for purposes of data

analysis, presentation, and discussion.

Table 23. Factors Affecting the Use of Conference Papers

Average a (mean) influence of Overall

factor on use for respondents in - average (mean) Total

Selection influence of respondentsb

factor Academia Government Industry factor

(n = 341) (n = 454 ) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Accessibility 3.94 3.82 3.71 3.79 1551 c

Ease of use 3.43 3.55 3.37 3.43 1548d

Expense 2.63 2.42 2.48 2.50 1547e

Familiarity or experience 3.71 3.52 3.52 3.56 1551 f

Technical quality or reliability 3.84 3.71 3.71 3.74 15529

Comprehensiveness 3.50 3.42 3.32 3.38 1545h

Relevance 4.12 4.01 3.90 3.97 1547i

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance, with "1 being the lowest possible importance and

"5 being the highest possible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the influence

of the factor. Note that 53 individuals gid not use conference papers. CNote that 235 individuals did not

answer this question but should have. "Note that 238 individuals did not answef this question but should

have. eNote that 239 individuals did not answer this question but should have. Note that 235 individuals

did not answer this question but should have. gNote that 234 individuals did not answer this question but

should have. hNote that 241 individuals did not answer this question but should have. 'Note that 239

individuals did not answer this question but should have.

Overall, relevance has the greatest influence (R=3.97) on the use of conference

papers, followed by accessibility (X=3.79) and technical quality or reliability (X=3.74).

Expense OZ=2.50) exerts the least influence on use. There are no differences by

organizational affiliation on these same four factors.

Overall, technical quality or reliability exerts the greatest influence (3=4.03) on

the use of journal articles, followed by accessibility (3 =3.88) and relevance (3 =3.87)

(table 24). Expense (=2.64) exerts the least influence on use. Also noteworthy is the

influence exerted on the use of journal articles by comprehensivenzss (R=3.59),

familiarity (3Z=3.58), and ease of use (R=3.51).

204
Table 24. Factors Affecting the Use of Journal Articles

Averagea (mean) influence of Overall

Selection factor on use for respondents in - average (mean) Total

factor influence of respondents b

Academia Government Industry factor (r = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Accessibility 4.13 3.86 3.79 3.88 1483 c

Ease of use 3.68 3.59 3.40 3.51 1503d

Expense 2.68 2.58 2.61 2.64 1507 e

Familiarity or experience 3.86 3.55 3.48 3.58 1509 f

Technical quality or reliability 4.39 4.04 3.88 4.03 15129

Comprc-hensiveness 3.93 3.64 3.44 3.59 1504h

Relevance 4.15 3.92 3.75 3.87 1505'

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance, with "1" being the lowest possible importance

and "5" being the highest ossible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

influence of the factor. "Note that 61 individuals did ngt use journal articles. cNote that 295

individuals did not answer this question but should have. UNote that 275 individuals did not answer

this quetion but should have. eNote that 271 individuals did not answer this question but should

have. Note that 269 individuals did not answer this question but should have. gNote that 266

individuals did not answer this question but should have. "Note that 274 individuals did not answer

this question but should have. 'Note that 273 individuals did r -t answer this question but should

have.

In terms of organizational affiliation, technical quality or reliability (X-=4.39)

exerts the greatest influence on the use of journal articles by academics, followed by

relevance (X=4.15) and accessibility a-=4.13). Although not in the same order, the

same three factors exert the greatest influence on the use of journal articles by

government- and industry-affiliated U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

Overall, relevance exerts the greatest influence (X=4.15) on the us- of inhouse technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, followed by

accessibility (X=4.01) and familiarity or experience (X=3.78) (table 25). Expense

(X=2.50) exerted the least influence on use.

205
Table 25. Factors Affecting the Use of In-House Technical Reports

Average a (mean) influence of Overall

Selection factor on use for respondents in - average (mean) Total

influence of respondentsb

factor Academia Government Industry factor

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Accessibility 3.99 4.05 4.00 4.01 1538 c

Ease of use 3.59 3.74 3.55 3.61 1537

Expense 2.44 2.52 2.50 2.50 1534 e

Familiarity or experience 3.69 3.81 3.78 3.78 1536f

Technical quality or reliability 3.64 3.87 3.76 3.77 1603 g

Comprehensiveness 3.46 3.65 3.47 3.51 1600 h

Relevance 3.87 4.22 4.20 4.15 1597 1

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance, with "1" being the lowest possible importance

and "5" being the highet possible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

influence of the factor. 'Note that 22 individuals did not use in-lpuse technical reports. Note that

279 uidividuals did not answer this question but should have. "Note that 280 individuals did not

answer this qustion but should have. eNote that 283 individuals did not answer this question but

should have. Note that 281 individuals did not answer this quqtion but should have. gNote that

214 individuals did not answer this question but should have. "Note that 217 individuals did not

wswer this question but should have. 'Note that 220 individuals did not answer this question but

should have.

In terms of organizational affiliation, accessibility (X-=3.99) exerts the greatest

influence on the use of in-house technical reports by academics, followed by

relevance (-=3.87) and familiarity or experience (X=3.69). Relevance (X=4.22)

followed by accessibility aX=4.05) and technical quality or reliability (X=3.87) exerts

the greatest influence on the use of in-house technical reports by governmentaffiliated respondents. Relevance X=4.20) followed by accessibility (X=4.00) and

familiarity or experience (X=3.78) exerts the greatest influence on the use of inhouse technical reports by industry-affiliated respondents.

Overall, relevance exerts the greatest influence X=3.90) on the use of U.S.

government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, followed by

technical quality or reliability (X=3.73) and accessibility (R=3.65) (table 26).

206
Table 26. Factors Affecting the Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports

Averagea (mean) influence of Overall

factor on use for respondents in - average (mean) Total

Selection influence of respondentsb

factor Academia Government Industry factor

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Accessibility 3.72 3.81 3.54 3.65 1576 c

Ease of use 3.36 3.58 3.28 3.38 1573

Expense 2.72 2.47 2.45 2.51 1569 e

Familiarity or experience 3.62 3.64 3.42 3.52 1575

Technical quality or reliability 3.80 3.77 3.68 3.73 1581 g

Comprehensiveness 3.57 3.65 3.49 3.55 1514 h

Relevance 3.87 4.03 3.84 3.90 1577'

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance, with "1" being the lowest possible importance

and "5" being the highes;tpossible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

influence of the factor. "Note that 44 individuals did not use U.S. Govrnment technical reports.

CNote that 219 individuals did not answer this question but should have. 'Note that 222 individuals

did not answer this questign but should have. eNote that 226 individuals did not answer this

question but should have. Note that 220 individuals did not answer this question but should have.

sNote that 214 individuals did not answer this .question but should have. hNote that 281 individuals

did not answer this question but should have. 'Note that 218 individuals did not answer this question

but should have.

In terms of organizational affiliation, relevance Q(=3.87) exerts the greatest

influence on the use of U.S. government technical reports by academics, followed

by technical quality or reliability (X=3.80) and accessibility (K=3.72). Relevance

(X-4.03) followed by accessibility (X=3.81) and technical quality or reliability

(X=3.77) exerts the greatest influence on the use of U.S. government technical

reports by government-affiliated U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. Relevance

(X=3.84) followed by technical quality or reliability iX=3.68) and accessibility

(X=3.54) exerts the greatest influence on industry-affiliated survey respondents.

For participants with a bachelor's degree or less, relevance (=3.87) followed

by technical quality or reliability (X=3.79) and comprehensiveness (X=3.64) exerts

the greatest influence on use (table D10). For those possessing a master's degree,

relevance (X=3.94) followed by technical quality or reliability (X=3.79)

207
and accessibility a=3.73) exerts the greatest influence on use (table D10). For

survey participants possessing a doctoral degree or higher, relevance (X=3.86)

followed by accessibility (X=3.66) and technical quality or reliability Q(=3.63) exerts

the greatest influence on the use of U.S. government technical reports (table D10).

With slight variation in the value of the numbers, relevance, technical quality or

reliability, and accessibility influence the use of U.S. government technical reports

by engineers and scientists (table Dll).

Relevance, accessibility, and technical quality are the factors which influence

the use of the four information products. The use of in-house technical reports

(X=4.15), U.S. government technical reports (=3.90), and conference-meeting

papers a=3.97) is influenced by relevance. Journal article use is influenced by

technical quality C-=4.03).

The influence of the seven sociometric variables on the use of U.S.

government technical reports by academically, government-, and industry-affiliated

respondents was tested using a one-way ANOVA. The test results appear below.

Influence of Seven Sociometric Variables on the Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports by Survey Respondents

Ease

of Technical

Accessibility Use Expense Familiarity Quality Comprehensiveness Relevance

Overall X = 3.6447 X = 3.3719 X = 2.5029 X = 3.5117 X = 3.7274 X = 3.5445 X = 3.8335

Academic X = 3.7192 X = 3.3562 X = 2.7197 X = 3.6151 X = 3.7966 X = 3.5719 X = 3.8673

Government X = 3.8131 X = 3.5815 1" = 2.4696 X = 3.6392 lX = 3.7694 X = 3.6472 X = 4.0316

X tdustry = 3.5401 X = 3.2782 X = 2.4465 IX = 3.4168 X = 3.6842 X = 3.4868 IX = 3.8372

208
Overall, significant differences exist among the three groups for six of the

sociometric variables. No statistical difference exists between academically,

government-, and industry-affiliated respondents and the influence of technical

quality of their use of U.S. government technical reports. This would seem to

indicate that the three groups rate the technical quality of U.S. government technical

reports high.

Statistically significant differences exist between government- and industryaffiliated respondents and government- and academically affiliated respondents in

terms of accessibility, ease of use, and familiarity and their influence on the use of

U.S. government technical reports. Statistically significant differences exist between

academically and industry-affiliated respondents and academically and governmentaffiliated respondents in terms of expense and its influence of the use of U.S.

government technical reports. Government-affiliated respondents are significantly

different from industry-affiliated respondents in terms of the influence of comprehensiveness on the use of U.S. government technical reports. They are also significantly different from academically and industry-affliated respondents in terms of

the influence of relevance on the use of U.S. government technical reports.

Purpose. To help define the role of the U.S. government technical report

within a formal information structure, survey respondents were asked to indicate

what percentage of the conference-meeting papers, journal articles, in-house technical

reports, and U.S. government technical reports the use are for purposes of education,

research, management, and other. Overall, conference-meeting papers are used most

often for research, followed by education and management (table 27).

209
Table 27. Use of Conference-Meeting Papers

Average percentage of use Overall

for respondents in - average Total

Purpose percentage respondentsa Academia Government Industry of use

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Education 20.16 25.27 25.41 24.23 1355

Research 70.37 50.09 47.86 53.34 1355 c

Management 6.05 17.62 18.16 15.38 1355 d

Other 3.41 7.02 8.57 7.05 1355e

aNote that 67 individuals did not use confeqrence-meeting papers in the past 6 months and that 417

individuals did not answer the question. "Includes 509 individuals who used conference-meeting

papers "0" percent of the time for that purpose. clncludes 28 individuals who used conferencemeeting papers "0" percent of the time for that purpose. Includes 838 individuals who used

conference-meeting papers "0" percent of the time for that purpose. elncludes 457 individuals who

used conference-meeting papers "0 percent of the time for that purpose.

About 74 percent of the conference-meeting papers used by survey

participants working as scientists are used for research, and about 55 percent of the

conference-meeting papers used by survey participants working as engineers are used

for research (table D14). It is worthy of note that as years of professional work

experience increase, use of conference-meeting papers for purposes of education and

research decreases (table D15). Use of conference-meeting papers for purposes of

management increases as years of professional work experience increase (table D15).

Overall, journal articles are used most often for research, followed by

education and management. Overall, journal articles are used about 52 percent of

the time for research (table 28).

210
Table 28. Use of Journal Articles

Average percentage of use Overall

for respondents in - average Total

Purpose percentage respondentsa

Academia Government Industry of use

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Education 23.09 29.76 28.86 27.80 1327 b

Research 69.14 49.41 45.60 51.83 1327c

Management 5.27 14.04 16.22 13.22 1327d

Other 2.50 6.79 9.32 7.15 1327 e

aNote that 73 individuals did not use journal articles in the past 6 months and that 439 individuals

did not answer the question. bIncludes 457 individuals who used journal articles "0" percent of the time for hat ppose. clncludes 218 individuals who used journal articles "0" percent of the time for that purpoe. ulncludes 868 individuals who used journal articles "0" percent of the time for that purpose. e Includes 1080 individuals who used journal articles "0" percent of the time for that

purpose.

Statistically, survey participants possessing a doctorate or higher make

greater use of journal articles than do participants with a master's degree or less.

About 72 percent of the journal articles used by survey participants working as

scientists are used for research, and about 53 percent of the journal articles used by

survey participants working as engineers are used for research (table D17). As

years of professional work experience increase, use of journal articles for purposes

of education and research decreases (table D18). Use of journal articles for management increases as years of professional work experience increase (table D17).

In-house technical reports are used most often for research (52.86 percent),

followed by management (21.54 percent) and education (16.20 percent) (table 29).

Academic participants use in-house reports most often for research followed by

education and management. Government and industry respondents use in-house

technical reports most often for research, followed by management and education.

211
Table 29. Use of In-House Technical Reports

Average percentage of use Overall

for respondents in - average

Purpose percentage Total

Academia Government Industry of use respondentsa

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Education 14.76 18.20 15.61 16.20 1349 b

Research 66.94 50.73 50.38 52.86 1349 c

Management 11.70 23.73 22.94 21.54 1349 d

Other 6.70 7.33 11.07 9.39 1349 e

aNote that 30 individuals did not use ip-house technical reports in the past 6 months and that 460

individuals did not answer the question. 'Includes 678 individuals who used in-house technical reports

"0" percent of the time for that purpose. CIncludes d242 individuals who used in-house technical

reports "0" percent of the time for that purpose. Includes 719 individuals who used in-house

technical reports "0" percent of the time for that purpose. eIncludes 1047 individuals who used inhouse technical reports "0" percent of the time for that purpose.

About 71 percent of the in-house technical reports used by survey

participants working as scientists are used for research, and about 57 percent of the

in-house technical reports used by survey participants working as engineers are used

for research (table D20). As years of professional work experience increase, use of

in-house technical reports for purposes of education and research decreases (table

D21). Use of in-house technical reports for management increases as years of

professional work experience increase (table D21).

Overall, U.S. government technical reports are used most often for research,

followed by education and management. Overall, U.S. government technical reports

are used about 56 percent of the time for research (table 30).

212
Table 30. Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports

Average percentage of use Overall

for respondents in - average Total

Purpose percentage respondents a

Academia Government Industry of use

(n=341) (n=454) (n= 1044) (n= 1839)

Education 17.04 18.79 18.11 18.09 1332 b

Research 70.50 52.60 52.18 55.89 1332c

Management 7.71 20.09 19.25 17.22 1332 d

Other 4.75 8.52 10.47 8.80 1332 e

aNote that 55 individuals did not use U.S. Government technical reports in the past 6 months; 452

individuals did not answer the question. blncludes 656 individuals who used U.S. Government

technical reports "0" percent of the time for that purpose. Clncludes 209 dividuals who used U.S.

Government technical reports "0" percent of the time for that purpose. UIncludes 803 individuals

who used U.S. Government technical reports "0" percent of the time for that purpose. elncludes 1046

individuals who used U.S. Government technical reports "0" percent of the time for that purpose.

Academically affiliated participants use U.S. government technical reports

most often for research (70.5 percent), followed by education and management.

Government- and industry-affiliated respondents use U.S. government technical

reports about 52 percent of the time for research, followed by management and

education.

About 72 percent of the U.S. government technical reports used by survey

participants working as scientists are used for research, and about 59 percent of the

U.S. government technical reports are used by survey participants working as

engineers for research (table D23). Survey participants working as engineers make

greater use of U.S. government technical reports for education (18.93 percent) than

do those participants working as scientists (13.89) (table D23). As years of

professional work experience increase, use of U.S. government technical reports for

purposes of education and research decreases (table D24). Use of U.S. government

technical reports for management increases as years of professional work experience

increase (table D24).

213
Overall, over 50 percent of the four information products are used for

research purposes. Within academia, about 70 percent of the products are used for

research purposes. Conference-meeting papers, journal articles, and U.S. government

technical reports are next used for educational followed by management purposes.

In-house technical reports are used for management followed by educational

purposes.

Information Type and Product. Having explored the use of the four

information products for purposes of education, research, management, and other,

data regarding the use of five types of technical information were collected. The

intent was to explore relationships thought to exist between five types of technical

information and the four information products. The selection of the five types of

technical information was based in large part on the results of the pilot study.

Survey participants were asked to indicate the types of technical information

used in performing their present professional duties. Overall, respondents use basic

scientific and technological (S&T) information, followed by in-house technical data

and computer programs (table 31).

Table 31. Types of Technical Information Used

Percentage of each type of Overall

Types of information used by respondents in - percentage technical information Academia Government Industry of use

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Basic scientific and

technological information 90.3 85.0 78.6 82.4

In-house technical data 58.1 83.3 83.2 78.6

Computer programs 58.9 59.5 63.0 61.4

Technical specifications 40.8 57.7 67.9 60.4

Product and performance characteristics 42.8 52.4 69.3 60.2

214
Academic participants make greater use of basic S&T information than do

their government and industry counterparts. Government- and industry-affiliated

respondents make greater use of in-house technical data. Industry-affiliated

respondents make greater use of product and performance characteristics information

than do their academic and government counterparts.

Next, survey participants were asked to indicate the percentage of the five

types of information found in the four information products. Overall, S&T

information is about evenly divided among conference-meeting papers, journal

articles, in-house technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports (table 32).

For academics, about 68 percent of the basic S&T information they use is found in

journal articles and conference-meeting papers. For government-affiliated

respondents, the basic S&T information is about evenly distributed among the four

information products. About 35 percent of the basic S&T information used by

industry-affiliated participants is obtained from in-house technical reports.

Table 32. Sources of Basic Scientific and Technological Information

Average percentage found in Overall Information product information product by respondents in - average Total

Academia Government Industry ot use (n = 1839)

Conference-Meeting papers 27.29 21.56 19.38 21.54 1515 b

Journal articles 40.86 23.06 18.98 24.47 1515 c

In-house technical reports 13.39 25.76 34.55 28.01 1515 d

U.S. Government technical reports 13.98 20.85 17.74 17.77 1515 e

aNote that 324 individuals did not use basic scientific and technological information in the past 6

months. bIncludes 276 individuals who found basic scientific and technological information in

conference-meeting papers "0" percent of the time. CIlncludes 253 individuals who found basic

scientific and technological information in journal articles "0" percent of the time. dincludes 303

individuals who found basic scientific and technological information in in-house technical reports "0"

percent of the time. eIncludes 328 individuals who found basic scientific and technological

information in U.S. government technical reports "0" percent of the time.

215
Overall, respondents obtain about 46 percent of the basic S&T information

they use from in-house and U.S. government technical reports. About 68 percent of

the basic S&T information used by academics is obtained from conference-meeting

papers and journal articles. Government-affiliated participants obtain about 45

percent of the basic S&T information they use from conference-meeting papers and

journal articles and about 46 percent from both government and in-house technical

reports. Industry-affiliated respondents obtain about 35 percent of the basic S&T

information they use from in-house technical reports.

Overall, respondents obtain about 60 percent of the in-house technical data

they use from in-house technical reports (table 33). Industry-affiliated respondents

obtain about 67 percent of their in-house technical data from in-house technical

reports. Government-affiliated participants obtain about 52 percent of the in-house

technical data they use from in-house technical reports. Academics obtain about 46

percent of the in-house technical data they use from in-house technical reports.

Table 33. Sources of In-House Technical Data

Average percentage found in Overall Total

Lidormation product information product by respondents in - average respondentsa

percentage (n = 1839) Academia Government Industry of use

Conference-Meeting papers 16.74 11.55 8.65 10.52 1445 b

Journal articles 19.39 9.08 7.33 9.44 1445 c

In-house technical reports 46.16 52.36 66.71 60.14 1445 d

U.S. Government technical reports 11.15 18.98 10.04 12.53 1445 e

aNote that 394 individuals did not use in-house technical data in the past 6 months. bIncludes 716

individuals who found in-house technical data in conference-meeting papers "0" percent of the time.

ClInclus 776 individuals who found in-house technical data in journal articles "0" percent of the

time. "Includes 77 individuals who found in-house technical data in in-house technical reports "0"

percent of the time. eIncludes 705 individuals who found in-house technical data in U.S. government

technical reports "0" percent of the time.

216
Respondents obtain about 49 percent of the computer programs they use from

in-house technical reports (table 34). About 58 percent of the computer programs

used by industry-affiliated respondents are found in in-house technical reports.

About 40 and 31 percent, respectively, of the computer programs used by government and academic respondents are obtained from in-house technical reports.

Table 34. Sources of Computer Programs

Average percentage found in Overall Total

Information product information product by respondents in - average respondentsa percentage (n = 1839) Academia Government Industry of use

Conference-Meeting papers 17.15 11.61 7.29 10.08 1129b

Journal articles 20.85 13.19 9.96 12.47 112 9 c

In-house technical reports 31.00 40.08 58.29 49.42 1129d

U.S. Government technical reports 12.27 20.06 11.26 13.54 112 9 e

aNote that 710 individuals did not use computer programs in the past 6 months. bIncludes 713

individuals who found computer programs in conference-meeting papers "0" percent of the time.

cincludes 670 individuals who found computer programs in journal articles "0" percent of the time.

Includes 212 individuals who found computer programs in-house technical reports "0" percent of the

time. eIncludes 622 individuals who found computer programs in U.S. government technical reports

"0" percent of the time.

Overall, about 75 percent of the technical specifications used by survey

participants are obtained from in-house (44 percent) and U.S. government technical

reports (31 percent) (table 35). About 70 percent of the technical specifications

used by academics are obtained from journal articles (16 percent), in-house technical

reports (26 percent), and U.S. government technical reports (28 percent). About 74

percent of the technical specifications used by government-affiliated respondents are

obtained from in-house technical reports (43 percent) and U.S. government technical

reports (31 percent). About 49 percent of the technical specifications used by

industry-affiliated respondents are obtained from in-house technical reports.

217
Table 35. Sources of Technical Specifications

Average percentage found in Overall Total

Information product information product by respondents in - average respondentsa percentage (n = 1839) Academia Government Industry of use

Conference-Meeting papers 14.33 7.57 4.65 6.55 1110b

Journal articles 16.27 7.31 5.53 7.30 1110 c

In-house technical reports 26.20 42.81 48.54 44.39 1110 d

U.S. Government technical reports 28.24 31.18 31.29 30.88 1110 e

aNote that 729 individuals did not use technical specifications in the past 6 months. blncludes 773

individuals who found technical specifications in conference-meeting papers "0" percent of the time.

clncludYs 780 individuals who found technical specifications in journal articles "0" percent of the

time. uIncludes 211 individuals who found technical specifications in-house technical reports "0"

percent of the time. eIncludes 337 individuals who found technical specifications in U.S. government

technical reports "0" percent of the time.

About 62 percent of the product and performance characteristics used by

survey participants are obtained from in-house technical reports (43 percent) and

U.S. government technical reports (19 percent) (table 36). About 65 percent of the

Table 36. Sources of Product and Performance Characteristics

Average percentage found in Overall Total

Information product information product by respondents in - average respondentsa percentage (n = 1839) Academia Government Industry of use

Conference-Meeting papers 15.22 10.36 9.12 10.19 1107 b

Journal articles 22.09 15.95 12.15 14.28 1107 c

In-house technical repe'ts 22.37 35.37 49.38 42.81 1107 d

U.S. Government technical reports 21.60 22.53 17.07 18.84 1107 e

aNote that 732 individuals did not use product and performance characteristics in the past 6 months.

bIncludes 600 individuals who found product and performance characteristics in conference-meeting

papers "0" percent of the time. clncludes 565 individuals who found product and performance

characteristics in journal articles "0" percent of the time. dIncludes 206 individuals who found

product and performance characteristics in in-house technical reports "0" percent of the time.

9ncludes 457 individuals who found product and performance characteristics in U.S. government

technical reports "0" percent of the time.

product and performance characteristics used by academics are obtained from journal

articles (22 percent), in-house technical reports (22 percent), and U.S. government

technical reports (21 percent). About 58 percent of the product and performance

characteristics used by government-affiliated respondents are obtained from in-house

218
technical reports (35 percent) and U.S. government technical reports (23 percent).

About 66 percent of the product and performance characteristics used by industryaffiliated respondents are obtained from in-house technical reports (49 percent) and

from U.S. government technical reports (17 percent).

Overall, about 82 and 79 percent, respectively, of the survey participants use

basic S&T information and in-house technical data in performing their present

professional duties. Overall, about 60 percent of the survey participants use

computer programs, technical specifications, and product and performance

characteristics. Overall, in terms of type of technical information and technical

information product, basic S&T information is found more or less evenly distributed

throughout the four information products. Most of the in-house technical data,

computer programs, technical specifications, and product and performance

characteristics are found in in-house and U.S. government technical reports.

Survey Topic 2: The U.S. Government Technical Report and the InformationSeeking Habits and Practices of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists

Based in large part on the results of the pilot study, the U.S. government

technical report was viewed in terms of the information-seeking habits and practices

of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and their use of U.S. government technical reports in problem solving. Question responses were grouped according to the

following four themes: project, task, or problem type; information sources and

219
Table 37. Type of Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Type Number (percentage) responding intla Totl

Academia Government Industry respondents

(n = 326) (n = 433) (n = 990) (n = 1749)

Educational 36 (11.0) 13 (3.0) 21 (2.1) 70 (4.0)

Research 229 (70.2) 172 (39.7) 219 (22.1) 620 (35.7)

Design 12 (3.7) 61(14.1) 256 (25.9) 329 (18.6)

Development 24 (7.4) 78 (18.0) 274 (27.7) 376 (21.5)

Manufacturing 8 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 15 (1.5) 17 (1.0)

Production 3 (0.9) 9 (2.1) 23 (2.3) 35 (2.0)

Management 13 (4.0) 80 (18.5) 126 (12.7) 219 (12.5)

Computer applications 7 (2.1) 20 (4.6) 56 (5.7) 83 (4.7)

aNote that 90 individuals did not answer this question but should have.

project, task, or problem completion; information source sequence; and U.S.

government technical reports and project, task, or problem completion.

Project. Task, or Problem Type, Survey participants were asked to

describe the most important technical project, task, or problem they had worked on

in the past 6 months. As shown in table 37, the majority of the projects, tasks, or

problems were identified as either basic or applied research (35.7 percent), development (21.5 percent), and design (18.6 percent). For academically affiliated respondents, the majority of the projects, tasks, or problems were research (70.2

percent), educational (11.0 percent), development (7.4 percent), and design (3.7

percent) in nature.

220
For government-affiliated participants, about 40 percent of the projects, tasks,

or problems were research, 18 percent were development, and about 19 percent were

management. For industry-affiliated respondents, about 28 percent were development, about 26 percent were design, about 22 percent were research, and about 13

percent were management.

Information Use and Sequence. The steps followed in searching for the

information used by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists to complete their most

important technical project or task or to solve their most important technical

problem in the past 6 months were determined. Survey participants were given a

list of nine information sources and were asked to identify the steps followed

(sources used) in looking for the information needed to complete the project or

task or to solve the problem. Survey respondents were instructed to enter "1"

beside the first step, "2" beside the second step, and so forth. Tables D25, D26,

D27, D28, D29, D30, D31, and D32, respectively, summarize the responses of all,

academically affiliated, government-affiliated, industry-affiliated, engineers, scientists,

management, and nonmanagement respondents to this question. These tables appear

in appendix D.

The data contained in tables D25-D32 were used to produce the weighted

average rankings presented in tables 38-41. Weighted average rankings were

calculated to determine the actual steps followed (sequence in which information

sources were used) by survey respondents to acquire the information needed or used

to complete their most important project or task or to solve their most important

technical problem in the past 6 months.

221
The weighted average rankings were obtained by assigning weights based on

specific order of use. A weight of 9 was assigned for the step used or followed

first. 8 for the step used or followed second, decreasing sequentially to 1 for the

step used ninth. The weighted ranking was calculated by the formula EI niwi

nt

where n, was the number of participants using a particular information source in the

"ith" position, w, was the weight assigned for the "ith" position, and n, was the total

number of participants who used that particular information source in any position.

The weighted average rankings were calculated for all survey respondents; for academically, government-, and industry-affiliated respondents; for engineers and

scientists; and for managers and nonmanagers.

As shown in table 38, U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists place high

value on the information stored around them and on informal communications. Further, their approach to completing technical projects or tasks or to solving problems

involves personal contact with a variety of people. It is not until they have

exhausted their personal store of information and have consulted various individuals

that U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists turn to formal information sources such

as librarians and data bases. This finding is in keeping with previous engineering

information use studies. It appears that the participants in this study rarely find all

the information they need in one source. Also, they appear to approach the formal

system only after having discussed their project, task, or problem with colleagues.

222
Table 38. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Survey

Respondents to Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Overall (n = 1683)

Steps followed n Weighted

avg. ranka

Used personal store of 1483 7.59

technical information

Discussed problem with 1344 7.11

a colleague in my

organization

Discussed problem with 1007 6.89

a key person in the

organization

Discussed problem with 838 6.68

my supervisor

Intentionally searched 1152 6.16

library resources

Searched data base or 898 6.13

had data base searched

Discussed problem with 937 6.01

a colleague outside the

organization

Asked a librarian in the 607 5.27

organization

Asked a librarian outside 409 4.12

the organization

alighest number indicates step was used first;

lowest number indicates step was used last

The steps followed in searching for the information used by U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists to complete their most important technical project or task or

to solve their most important technical problem in the past 6 months were determined for academically, government-, and industry-affiliated respondents (table 39).

223
Table 39. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Academically,

Government-, and Industry-Affiliated Respondents to Complete Most

Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Academia (n = 341) Government (n = 454) Industry (n = 1044)

Steps followed n Weighted Steps followed n Weighted Steps followed n Weighted

Weigave. rankoea avg. ranka avg. ranka

Used personal store of 257 7.79 Used personal store of 353 7.27 Used personal store of 777 7.57

technical information technical information technical information

Discussed problem with 197 7.14 Discussed problem with 329 7.22 Discussed problem with 726 7.05 a colleague in my a colleague in my a colleague in my organization organization organization

Intentionally searched 218 7.04 Discussed protlem with 249 6.96 Discussed problem with 589 6.95

library resources a key person in the a key person in the organization organization

Searched data base or 146 6.70

had data base searched Discussed problem with 226 6.88 Discussed problem with 476 6.79

my supervisor my supervisor

Discussed problem with 135 6.32

a colleague outside the Discussed problem with 239 5.94 Asked a librarian outside 474 6.07 organization a colleague outside the the organization

Asked a librarian in the 87 6.08 organization Discussed problem with 486 5.99

organization Intentionally searched 271 5.89 a colleague outside the

Discussed problem with 80 5.98 library resources organization

my supervisor Searched data base or 214 5.46 Intentionally searched 586 5.94

Discussed problem with 108 5.39 had data base searched library resources

a key person in the Asked a librarian in the 149 5.33 Asked a librarian in the 331 4.93

organization organization organization

Asked a librarian outside 45 4.16 Asked a librarian outside 104 3.46 Searched data base or 220 4.25

the organization the organization had data base searched

'Highest number indicates step was used first; lowest number indicates step was used last.

In an organizational context, survey participants share certain of the characteristics

common to the overall response. Use of personal store of technical information and

collegial discussions are common to both. With minor exception, asking a librarian

both inside and outside of the organization ranks last as part of the overall search

strategy. There are some interesting differences between the three groups, however.

Academically affiliated respondents make contact with the formal system

much earlier in the process than either the government- or industry-affiliated

respondents. They also search or have a data base searched much earlier in the

process. Industry-affiliated respondents appear to consult a librarian outside of the

organization before consulting a librarian from within the organization.

224
The steps followed in the search for information were examined from the

standpoint of educational preparation as either an engineer or a scientist (table 40).

Table 40. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Engineers and

Scientists to Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Engineers (n = 1627) Scientists (n = 235)

Steps followed n Weighted Steps followed n Weighted

avg. rank a

Used personal store of 1212 7.51 Used personal store of 180 7.33

technical information technical information

Discussed problem with 1098 7.15 Discussed problem with 161 7.03

a colleague in my a colleague in my

organization organization

Discussed problem with 839 6.86 Discussed problem with 106 6.73

a key person in the a key person in the

organization organization

Discussed problem with 709 6.74 Intentionally searched 146 6.57

my supervisor library resources

Intentionally searched 942 6.06 Discussed pr, lem with 82 6.38

library resources my supervisor

Discussed problem with 769 6.02 Searched data base or 109 6.35

a colleague outside the had data base searched

organization

Discussed problem with 105 6.19

Searched data base or 739 6.01 a colleague outside the

had data base searched organization

Asked a librarian in the 499 5.29 Asked a librarian in the 73 5.15

organization organization

Asked a librarian outside 336 3.99 Asked a librarian outside 49 4.64

the organization the organization

aHigest number indicates step was used first; lowest number indicates step was

used last.

In terms of educational preparation, U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists -hare

characteristics common to the overall response. Both use personal stoies of technical information and collegial discussions. Asking a librarian either inside or

outside of the organization ranks last in the overall information search strategy. The

engineers and scientists are a relatively homogeneous group. With few exceptions,

the steps used to acquire information are fairly uniform for both groups.

225
The steps followed in the search for information were examined from the

standpoint of professional duties as either a manager or nonmanager (table 41).

Table 41. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Managers and

Nonmanagers to Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Managers (n = 735) Nonmanagers (n = 1139)

Steps followed n Weighted Steps followed n Weighted _____________ avg. ralnk a - avg. ranka

Used personal store of 542 7.36 Used personal store of 859 7.61

technical information technical information

Discussed problem with 512 7.11 Discussed problem with 761 7.10

a colleague in my a colleague in my

organization organization

Discussed problem with 434 7.07 Discussed problem with 488 6.96

a key person in the my supervisor

organization

Discussed problem with 519 6.74

Discussed problem with 413 6.32 a key person in the

a colleague outside the organization

organization Intentionally searched 715 6.39

Discussed problem with 307 6.31 library resources

my supervisor

Searched data base or 500 6.09

Searched data base or 352 6.17 had data base searched

had data base searched

Discussed problem with 470 5.83

Intentionally searched 385 5.72 a colleague outside the

library resources organization

Asked a librarian in the 225 5.19 Asked a librarian in the 348 5.39

organization organization

Asked a librarian outside 158 4.01 Asked a librarian outside 221 4.04

the organization the organization

aHighest number indicates step was used first; lowest number indicates step was

used last.

Managers and nonmanagers share certain of the characteristics common to all

respondents. Use of personal store of technical information and collegial discussions

are common to both. Asking a librarian either inside or outside of the organization

ranks last for both groups as part of the overall information search strategy.

Perhaps understandably, nonmanagers consult a supervisor before managers and

mangers seek outside assistance earlier in the search process than do nonmanagers.

226
U.S. Government Technical Reports and Project, Task, or Problem

Completion. Overall, about 64 percent of the respondents used U.S. government

technical reports in completing their most important technical project or task, or in

solving their most important technical problem (table 42). Seventy-six percent of the

government-affiliated participants used U.S. government technical reports, followed by

academic (60.7 percent) and industry affiliates (59.5 percent).

Table 42. Use of U.S. Government Technical Reports in Completing

Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Number (percentage) respondents in - Total

Use Academia Government Industry respondents (n = 41) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Yes 207 (60.7) 345 (76.0) 621 (59.5) 1173 (63.8)

No 134 (39.3) 109 (34.0) 423 (40.5) 666 (36.2)

Survey participants were asked how they found out about the U.S. government

technical reports they used in completing their most important technical project or task

or in solving their most important technical problem (table 43). Survey participants were

not asked to indicate the order (the steps) in which the sources were used. Percentages

of use were calculated for all survey respondents; for academically, government-, and

industry-affiliated respondents; for engineers and scientists; and for managers and

nonmanagers. The information sources used by survey respondents to find out about U.S.

government technical reports were compared with the information sources used to

complete their most important technical project or task or in solving their most important

technical problem.

227
Table 43. Sources Used by Survey Respondents to Find Out About U.S.

Government Technical Reports Used to Complete Most Important

Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Overall (n = 2016) a

Source n percentage

who used

Used personal store of 1026 83.1

technical information

Asked a colleague in 712 57.7

my organization

Asked a colleague out- 616 49.9

side of my organization

intentionally searched 613 49.7

library resources

Asked a librarian 376 30.5

Searched data base or 547 27.1

had a data base searched

By accident, browsing, 323 26.2

or looking for other

material

Someone informed me 294 23.8

without my asking

Asked my supervisor 281 22.8

aNote that 746 individuals did not use U.S.

Government technical reports and that 36

individuals did not answer the entire question.

The information sources used by survey participants to locate U.S. government technical reports are similar to those used for completing their most important

technical project, task, or problem. In both cases, survey respondents place a high

value on the information stored around them and on informal communications.

The information sources used by survey participants to find out about U.S.

government technical report were determined from the standpoint of academic, gov228
emiment, and industry affiliation (table 44). Regardless of organizational affiliation,

the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in this study display a preference for

Table 44. Sources Used by Academically, Government-, and Industry-Affiliated

Respondents to Find Out About the U.S. Government Technical Reports Used to

Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Academia (n = 34 1 )a Government (n = 454)b Industry (n = 10 4 4 )c

Source Percentage Source Percentage Source n Percentage Pwho used who used who used

Used personal store of 173 84.0 Used personal store of 298 88.4 Used personal store of 479 80.0

technical information technical information technical information

Intentionally searched 117 56.8 Asked a colleague in 229 68.0 Asked a colleague in 352 58.8

library resources my organization my organization

Asked a colleague out- 111 53.9 Asked a colleague out- 172 51.0 Asked a colleague out- 284 47.4

side of my organization side of my organization side of my organization

Asked a colleague in 87 42.2 Intentionally searched 172 51.0 Intentionally searched 278 46.4

my organization library resources library resources

Searched data base or 86 41.7 Searched data base or 159 47.2 Searched data base or 262 43.7

had a data base searched had a data base searched had a data base searched

Asked a librarian 61 29.6 Asked a lbrarian 109 32.3 Asked a librarian 174 29.0

By accident, browsing, 56 27.2 Asked my supervisor 89 26.4 By accident, browsing, 153 25.5

or looking for other or looking for other

material By accident, browsing, 89 26.4 material

or looking for other

Someone informed me 46 22.3 material Asked my supervisor 147 24.5

without my asking

Someone informed me 78 23.1 Someone informed me 146 24.4

Asked my supervisor 27 13.1 without my asking without my asking

aNote that 134 indiviouals did not use U.S. Government technical reports and 1 individual did not

answer the question. 'Note that 109 individuals did not use U.S. Government technical reports and 8

individuals did not answer the question. CNot that 423 individuals did not use U.S. Government

technical reports and 22 individuals did not answer the question.

using their personal store of technical information and personal communications

when searching for information and U.S. government technical reports. A further

look at table 44 indicates that survey participants actively seek information outside

of their organization as indicated by the percentage of respondents who asked colleagues outside of the organization when trying to find out about U.S. government

technical reports.

229
The information sources used to find out about U.S. government technical reports

were examined from the standpoint of educational preparation as either engineers or

scientists (table 45). Both engineers and scientists place a high value on

Table 45. Sources Used by Engineers and Scientists to Find Out About the

U.S. Government Technical Reports Used to Complete Most Important

Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Engineers (n= 993 a Scientists (n = 155) b

Source n Percentage Source Percentage

who used who used

Used personal store of 833 83.9 Used personal store of 155 83.2

technical information technical information

Intentionally searched 492 49.5 Asked a colleague in 85 54.8

library resources my organization

Asked a colleague in 579 58.3 Searched data base or 79 51.0

my organization had a data base searched

Asked a colleague out- 490 49.3 Intentionally searched 77 49.7

side my organization library resources

Searched data base or 436 43.9 Asked a colleague out- 77 49.7

had a data base searched side of my organization

Asked a librarian 303 30.5 By accident, browsing, 51 32.9

or looking for other

By accident, browsing, 252 25.4 material or looking for other

material Asked a librarian 43 27.7

Someone informed me 241 24.3 Someone informed me 32 20.6

without my asking without my asking

Asked my supervisor 245 24.7 Asked my supervisor 21 13.5

"Note that 603 individuals did not use U.S. Government technical reports and 31

individuals did not answer the question. bNote that 77 individuals did not use U.S.

Government technical reports and 3 individuals did not answer the question.

the technical information stored around them and on informal communications.

Aside from these similarities there are some interesting differences. For both groups,

asking their supervisor is the least used method of looking for U.S government technical

reports. Engineers make much greater use of "intentionally searching library resources"

230
for U.S. government technical reports than do scientists. The percentages of "asked a

colleague outside of the organization" to find out about U.S. government technical reports

are fairly high for both groups. Both engineers and scientists have relatively low rates

for using librarians and searching data bases to find out about U.S. government technical

reports.

The information sources used to find out about U.S. government technical reports

were examined from the standpoint of professional duties as either managers or

nonmanagers (table 46). Using their personal store of technical information and

discussions with colleagues are common to both managers and nonmanagers. Managers

make greater use of colleagues "outside" of the organization and "by accident,

browsing..." for finding out about U.S. government technical reports than did

nonmanagers. On the other hand, nonmanagers make greater use of "intentionally

searched library resources" and "asked my supervisor" than do managers for finding out

about the U.S. government technical reports used to complete their most important

technical project, task, or problem.

Overall, U.S. government technical reports are used throughout the entire process

of completing the project or task or solving the problem about 67 percent of the time,

near the beginning about 42 percent of the time, near the middle about 23 percent of the

time, and near the end about 14 percent of the time (table 47).

231
Table 46. Sources Used by Managers and Nonmanagers to Find Out About

the U.S. Government Technical Reports Used to Complete Most Important

Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Managers (n = 774) Nonmanagers (n = 1100)

Source n Percentage Source n Percentage who used who used

Used personal store of 390 83.7 Used personal store of 582 82.9

technical information technical information

Asked a colleague in 295 63.3 Intentionally searched 382 54.4

my organization library resources

Asked a colleague out- 261 56.0 Asked a colleague in 380 54.1

side of my organization my organization

Searched data base or 225 48.3 Asked a colleague out- 316 45.0

had a data base searched side of my organization

Intentionally searched 199 42.7 Searched data base or 301 42.9

library resources had a data base searched

By accident, browsing, 206 29.3 Asked a librarian 219 31.2

or looking for other

material Asked by supervisor 176 25.1

Asked a librarian 131 28.1 Someone informed me 156 22.2

without my asking

Someone informed me 122 26.2

without my asking By accident, browsing, 98 21.0

or looking for other

Asked my supervisor 87 18.7 material

aNote that 203 individyals did not use U.S. Government technical reports and 31 individuals did not

answer the question. "Note that 387 individuals did not use U.S. Government technical reports and

65 individuals did not answer the question.

232
Table 47. Stage U.S. Government Technical Reports Used in Completing

Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem

Stage of work Number (pe rcentage) res ondents in - Total a

Academia Government Industry respondents

(n = 206) (n = 337) (n = 601) (n = 1144)

Near beginning 95(46.1) 130 (38.6) 260 (43.3) 485 (42.4)

Near middle 55(26.7) 71(21.1) 131 (21.8) 257 (22.5)

Near end 34(16.5) 61 (18.1) 70 (11.6) 165 (14.4)

Throughout entire project, 135 (65.5) 257 (76.3) 378 (62.9) 770 (67.3)

task, or problem

aNote that 666 individuals did not use U.S. Government technical reports and 29 did

not answer the question but should have.

Survey participants rated the effectiveness of the U.S. government technical

reports they used in completing their most important technical project or task or in

solving their most important technical problem (table 48). Overall, U.S. government

technical reports receive a 3.61 mean effectiveness rating. Statistically, governmentaffiliated participants rate U.S. government technical reports more effective (X=3.77)

than do academially Q=3.61) and industry-affiliated respondents (X=3.52).

Survey participants were also asked to indicate the efficiency of the U.S.

government technical reports they used in completing their most important technical

project or task or in solving their most important technical problem (table 49).

Overall, U.S. government technical reports receive a 3.41 mean efficiency rating.

Industry-affiliated participants rate U.S. government technical reports less effective

(X=3.30) than do their counterparts in academia (X=3.45) and government QC=3.58).

Overall, U.S. government technical reports are considered by respondents to be more

effective (X=3.61) than efficient (X=3.41) in completing their most important

technical project or task or in solving their most important technical problem.

233
Table 48. Effectiveness of U.S. Government Technical Reports Used in

Completing Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Problem

[Total respondents, 1 16 2 a

Source Averageb (mean)

effectiveness rating in -

Academia 3.62

Industry 3.52

Government 3.77

Overall 3.61

aNote that 666 individuals did not answer the question. bA I to 5

point scale was used to measure effectiveness, with "I" being the

lowest possible effectiveness and "5" being the highest possible

effectiveness. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater

the effectiveness.

Table 49. Efficiency of U.S. Government Technical Reports Used in

Completing Most Important Technical Project, Task or Problem

[Total respondents, 1157 a1

Averageb (mean) Source efficiency rating in -

Academia 3.45

Industry 3.30

Government 3.58

Overall 3.41

aNote that 666 individuals did not answer the question. bA 1 to 5

point scale was used to measure efficiency, with "1" being the

lowest possible efficiency and "5" being the highest possible

efficiency. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

efficiency.

234
DISCUSSION OF THE DATA

U.S. government technical reports are used and are important to the U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists who participated in this study. Predictably,

conference-meeting papers and journal articles obtain a higher importance rating

from academically affiliated respondents. In-house and U.S. government technical

reports obtain a higher importance rating from government- and industry-affiliated

respondents. Academically affiliated respondents also make greater use of conference-meeting papers and journal articles. Government- and industry-affiliated

respondents make greater use of in-house and U.S. government technical reports.

Theory holds that accessibility, not technical quality, exerts greater influence

on the use of information products and services by engineers. In this study,

relevance has the greatest influence on the use of conference-meeting papers, journal

articles, in-house technical reports, and U.S. government technical reports. In terms

of organizational affiliation, technical quality or reliability has the greatest influence

on the use of journals articles. If theory holds true, it appears not to apply to those

U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who participated in this study.

With one minor exception the four information products (conference-meeting

papers, journal articles, in-house technical reports, and U.S. government technical

reports) are used most often for research and education. Basic scientific and

technological information and in-house technical data are used most often by survey

participants. Most in-house technical data, computer programs, technical

specifications, and product and performance characteristics are obtained from inhouse and U.S. government technical reports.

235
The most important project, task, or problem undertaken in the past 6 months

were either research, development, or design in nature. About 65 percent of the

survey respondents use U.S. government technical reports in completing their most

important project or task or solving their most important problem. About two-thirds

of these reports are used throughout the completion of the project, task, or problem.

U.S. government technical reports are considered to be more efficient than effective

by survey respondents who use them in terms of completing their most important

project, task, or problem.

The U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in this study place high value on

the information stored around them and on informal communications. This characteristic conforms to the information-seeking behavior reported for engineers in

other disciplines. Further, their approach to completing technical project or tasks or

to problem solving involves personal contact with a variety of people. It is not

until they have exhausted their personal store of technical information and have

consulted various individuals that U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists turn to

formal information sources such as librarians and data bases. This finding is in

keeping with previous engineering information use studies. It appears that the

participants in this study rarely find all the information they need in one source.

Also, they appear to approach the formal system only after having discussed their

project, task, or problem with colleagues. This pattern or approach to informationseeking also applies to how survey respondents go about finding out about the U.S.

government technical reports they use in performing their present professional duties.

236
CHAPTER 6

TEST OF THE HYPOTHESES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter, which contains the test of the hypotheses, contributes to the immediate and broader purposes of the study. In the first instance, the U.S. government technical report is placed within the context of factors assumed to influence its

use. In the second instance, the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists are viewed in terms of selected institutional and

sociometric variables assumed to influence the use of four information products.

BACKGROUND

The following question expresses the problem statement for this study.

Which variables explain the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists? Two sets of variables were investigated. The

first set, identified as institutional or structural variables, includes the following six

variables: level of education, academic preparation, years of professional aerospace

work experience, type of organization, professional duty, and technical discipline.

The second set, identified as sociometric or source selection variables, includes the

following seven variables: accessibility, ease of use, expense, familiarity or

experience, technical quality or reliability, comprehensiveness, and relevance.

237
The goal of this study is to provide an empirical basis for understanding the

role of the U.S. government technical report in the diffusion of knowledge resulting

from federally funded aerospace R&D. The study assumes that the U.S. government

technical report plays an important, but as yet undefined, role in the aerospace

knowledge diffusion process. The following three research questions are based on

this assumption. First, do the six institutional or structural variables explain the use

of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists?

Second, do the seven sociometric or source selection variables explain the use of

U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists?

Third, when both the institutional and sociometric variables are considered, does one

set of variables predominate in terms of explaining use?

PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS

The eight hypotheses formulated for this study are based on the three

research questions. The hypotheses are based on "an assumed relationship" and,

therefore, are stated as alternative hypotheses. Each hypothesis was tested at the

p < 0.05 level of statistical significance. The chi square test of independence was

the statistic used to test hypotheses 1 to 6, identified herein as the institutional or

structural variables. The Pearson product-moment correlation, or the Pearson

coefficient, was the statistic used to test hypothesis 7, identified herein as the

sociometric or source selection variables. No statistic was used to test hypothesis 8.

238
Institutional or Structural Variables

Hypothesis : The absence or presence of a graduate degree significantly

influences the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists.

Hypothesis 1 was tested by cross-tabulating Q3G, "number of times U.S.

government technical reports used in the past 6 months," by Q56, "highest level of

education or highest educational degree." The chi square computer analysis follows.

Q3G Use of U.S. government technical reports in the past 6 months

Q56 Highest level of education or degree

Count INO I GRADI

056-) Col Pct IGRD.EDUCI EDUC I Row

I I I Total

03G -------------------------

I 203 I 476 I 679

0-3 I 46.7 I 41.6 I 43.0

--------------------

I 97 I 276 I 373

4-6 I 22.3 I 24.1 I 23.6

----------- +--------

I 68 I 196 I 264

7-12 I 15.6 I 17.1 I 16.7 -------------------

I 67 I 196 I 263

13-500 I 15.4 I 17.1 I 16.7

--------------------

Column 435 1144 1579

Total 27.5 72.5 100.0

Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E.F. Cells with E.F.( 5

3.31175 3 .3460 72.454 None

Number of Missing Observations = 437

It was hypothesized that level of education, operationally defined as having

either a bachelor's degree or less or a graduate degree, and the use of U.S.

government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists are

dependent. This assumption of a relationship is based on the belief that the process

239
of academic socialization or enculturation involved in obtaining a master's degree or

a Ph.D. influences the use and production of information. The chi square test of

independence, however, revealed that the two variables are independent, that is, the

use of U.S. government technical reports is not related to or dependent on level of

education. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis

of "no relationship" is accepted.

Hypothesis 1: Academic preparation as either an engineer or scientist

significantly influences the use of U.S. government technical

reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

Hypothesis 2 was tested by cross-tabulating Q3G, "number of times U.S.

government technical reports used in the past 6 months," by Q57A, "educational

preparation." The chi square computer analysis follows.

Q3G Use of U.S. government technical reports in the past 6 months

QS7A Educational preparation as either an engineer or scientist

Count IENGINEERISCIENCE I

057A-) Col Pct I I I Row

I I I Total

03G +-----------------------

I 584 I 68 I 652

0-3 I 44.2 I 35.8 I 43.2 -------------------- +

I 309 I 44 I 353

4-6 I 23.4 I 23.2 I 23.4

----------- +--------

I 218 I 32 I 250

7-12 I 16.5 I 16.8 I 16.6 -------------------- +

I 209 I 46 I 255

13-500 I 15.8 I 24.2 I 16.9

-------------------- +

Column 1320 190 1510

Total 87.4 12.6 100.0

Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E.F. Cells with E.F.( 5

- -- --- -- - - ~ ~ -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -

9.66586 3 .0216 31.457 None

Number of Missing Observations 506

240
It was hypothesized that academic preparation, operationally defined as being

either an engineer or a scientist, influences the use of U.S. government technical reports

by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. The assumption of a relationship is based on

the belief that the technical report is the information product preferred by engineers and

the journal article is the information product favored by scientists. The chi square test

of independence revealed that the use of U.S. government technical reports is related to

academic preparation. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis of "a relationship" is

accepted. However, the data do reveal that scientists use U.S. government technical

reports more than engineers.

This hypothesis was further explored with a slight variation. Present professional

duties (Q57B) as either an engineer or a scientist was substituted for academic preparation

(Q57A) as either an engineer or a scientist. The chi square test of independence,

however, revealed that the two variables are independent, that is, the use of U.S.

government technical reports is not related to or dependent on present professional duties

as either an engineer or a scientist. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is rejected and

the null hypothesis of "no relationship" is accepted.

Hypothesis : Years of professional aerospace work experience as 15 years or

less or 16 years or more significantly influences the use of U.S.

government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and

scientists.

Hypothesis 3 was tested by cross-tabulating Q3G, "number of times U.S.

government technical reports used in the past 6 months," by Q58, "years of professional

aerospace work experience." The chi square computer analysis follows.

241
Q3G Use of U.S. government technical reports in the past 6 months

Q58 Years of professional aerospace work experience

Count 10-15 116 OR I

058-) Col Pct IYEARS IMORE I Row

I I I Total

036 --- +---------------------

1 281 1 393 I 674

0-3 I 48.5 I 39.7 I 43.0

+-------------------

I 130 I 242 I 372

4-6 I 22.5 I 24.4 I 23.7

+-------------------+

I 78 I 184 I 262

7-12 I 13.5 I 18.6 I 16.7

-------------------

I 90 I 171 I 261

13-500 I 15.5 I 17.3 I 16.6

+-------------------+

Column 579 990 1569

Total 36.9 63.1 100.0

Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E.F. Cells with E.F.( 5

13.62874 3 .0035 96.315 None

Number of Missing Observations = 447

The assumption of a relationship is based on the belief that use and production of

information peaks and declines at some point in a researcher's career. The chi square test

of independence revealed that the use of U.S. government technical reports is related to

years of professional aerospace work experience. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis

of "a relationship" is accepted. However, the data do reveal that those participants with

16+ years of experience use U.S government technical reports more.

Hypothesis t: Organizational affiliation as either academic, government, or

industry significantly influences the use of U.S. government

technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

242
Hypothesis 4 was tested by cross-tabulating Q3G, "number of times U.S.

government technical reports used in the past 6 months," by Q59, "type of

organization where you work." The chi square computer analysis follows.

Q3G Use of U.S. government technical reports in the past 6 months

Q59 Type of organization where you work

Count I ACADEMIC I GOVRMNT I INDUSTRY I

059-) Col Pct I I I I Row

I I I I Total

036 +---- ------------------------------ +

I 119 I 154 I 369 I 642

0-3 i 43.4 I 40.5 I 43.9 I 42.9

----------------------------

I 67 I 98 I 192 I 357

4-6 I 24.5 I 25.8 I 22.8 I 23.9

----------------- -----------

I 48 I 56 I 147 I 251

7-12 I 17.5 I 14.7 I 17.5 I 16.8

-------- +----------------------

I 40 I 72 I 133 I 245

13-500 1 14.6 I 18.9 1 15.8 1 16.4

----------------------------

Column 274 380 841 1495

Total 18.3 25.4 56.3 100.0

Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E.F. Cells with E.F.( 5

5.21035 6 .5171 44.903 None

Number of Missing Observations = 521

The assumption of a relationship is based on the belief that organizational

affiliation influences the use and production of information. The chi square test of

independence, however, revealed that the two variables are independent, that is, the

use of U.S. government technical reports is not related to organizational affiliation.

Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis of "no

relationship" is accepted.

243
Hypothesis : Management and nonmanagement professional duties

significantly influence the use of U.S. government technical

reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

Hypothesis S was tested by cross-tabulating Q3G, "number of times U.S.

government technical reports used in the past 6 months," by Q60, "type of duty as

either management or nonmanagement." The chi square computer analysis follows.

Q3G Use of U.S. government technical reports in the past 6 months

Q60 Type of duty as either management or nonmanagement

Count INON-MGMTIMGMT I

060-) Col Pct I I I Row

I I I Total

036 +------------------------

I 376 I 278 I 654

0-3 I 42.3 I 43.8 I 42.9 -------------------

I 212 I 148 I 360

4-6 I 23.9 I 23.3 I 23.6

-------------------

I 160 I 97 I 257

7-12 I 18.0 I 15.3 I 16.9

-------------------

I 140 1 112 I 252

13-500 I 15.8 I 17.6 I 16.5

+-------------------

Column 888 635 1523

Total 58.3 41.7 100.0

Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E.F. Cells with E.F.( 5

2.66273 3 .4466 105. 069 None

Number of Missing Observations = 493

The assumption of a relationship is based on the belief that use of

information products is influenced by the performance of either management or

nonmanagement duties. The chi square test of independence, however, revealed that

the two variables are independent, that is, the use of U.S. government technical

reports is not related to or dependent on management or nonmanagement

244
professional duties. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is rejected and the null

hypothesis of "no relationship" is accepted.

Hypothesis i: Engineering and science technical disciplines significantly influence

the use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists.

Hypothesis 6 was tested by cross-tabulating Q3G, "number of times U.S.

government technical reports used in the past 6 months," by Q62, "technical discipline."

The chi square computer analysis follows.

Q3G Use of U.S. government technical reports in the past 6 months

Q62 Technical discipline as either engineering or science

Count IENGINEERISCIENCE I

062-) Col Pct I I I Row

I I I Total

03G ---------------------------

I 549 I 140 I 689

0-3 1 44.5 1 38.4 I 43.1

---------------------

; 287 J 88 I 375

4-6 I 23.3 I 24.1 I 23.5

+-------------------

I 212 I 55 I 267

7-12 I 17.2 I 15.1 I 16.7

-------------------

I 185 I 82 I 267

13-500 I 15.0 1 22.5 I 16.7

-------------------

Column 1233 365 1598

Total 77.2 22.8 100.0

Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E.F. Cells with E.F.( 5

12.71546 3 .0053 60.986 None

Number of Missing Observations = 418

The assumption of a relationship is based on the belief that the use of information

products is influenced by a researcher's technical discipline. Accordingly, researchers

working in engineering disciplines (Q62; 1-3) would favor technical reports and those

245
working in science disciplines (Q62; 4-9) would prefer journal articles. The chi square

test of independence revealed that the use of U.S. government technical reports is related

to a researcher's technical discipline. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis of "a

relationship" is accepted. However, the data do reveal that survey participants working

in science disciplines use them more.

Sociometric or Source Selection Variables

Hypothesis 1: Accessibility, as opposed to the six remaining sociometric or source

selection variables, significantly influences the use of U.S.

government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and

scientists.

Hypothesis 7 was tested by correlating Q3G, "number of times U.S. government

technical reports used in the past 6 months," by Q25-Q31, "to what extent was the use

of U.S. government technical reports influenced by the following factors." It was

hypothesized that accessibility exerts the greatest influence on use. However, after

analyzing the correlation coefficients produced, there were no significant correlations

between use of U. S. government technical reports and any of the seven sociometric or

source selection variables.

To further explore this hypothesis, the correlation coefficient statistic was also

used to test the use of conference-meeting papers, journal articles, and in-house technical

reports. A significant correlation coefficient (r=-0.06) exists for journal articles and

accessibility. A significant correlation coefficient also exists for journal articles and

expense (r--0.068), familiarity (r=0.07), technical quality (r=-0.102), comprehensiveness

(r--0.087), and reliability (r=O.l 12). Significant correlation coefficients also exist between

246
in-house technical reports (r=0.083) and conference-meeting papers (r=0.096) and

reliability. Considering the correlation coefficients, the alternative hypothesis is rejected

and the null hypothesis of "no relationship" is accepted. That is, the use of U.S.

government technical reports is independent of accessibility. Accessibility is not

statistically different from any other sociometric variable and the use of U.S. government

technical reports.

Institutional or Structural and Sociometric or Source Selection Variables

Hypothesis 1: The institutional or structural variables, as opposed to the sociometic or source selection variables, significantly influence the use of

U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and

scientists.

No formal statistic was needed to test hypothesis 8. The acceptance or rejection

of this hypothesis is based on a subjective assessment of the available data. The use of

U. S. government technical reports is not independent of three of the six institutional or

structural variables. The use of U.S. government technical reports is independent of all

seven sociometric or source selection variables. Based on these data, it is concluded that

a relationship exists between use and the institutional or structural variables. Therefore,

the alternative hypothesis of "a relationship" is accepted. That is, taken as a group, use

of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists is not

independent of the institutional or structural variables. However, the use of U.S.

government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists is independent

of the seven sociometric or source selection variables.

247
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

This study assumes that the U.S. government technical report plays an

important, but as yet undefined, role in the aerospace knowledge diffusion process.

The following three research questions are based on this assumption.

First, do the six institutional or structural variables explain the use of U.S.

government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists? The

institutional or structural variables include the following six variables: level of

education, academic preparation, years of professional work experience in aerospace,

type of organization, professional duty, and technical discipline. These variables

were tested using the chi square statistic to determine their relationship to the four

information products included in this study. The results of these tests are

summarized below.

Years of

Level of Academic work Type of Professional Technical

education preparation experience organization duties discipline

Conferencemeeting * * * *

papers

Journal * * * * *

articles

In-house

technical * *

reports

U.S. government

technical * * *

reports

*Significant X2 value at p < 0.05.

The 4 information products and the 6 institutional or structural variables

create a 24-cell matrix. The results of the chi square tests indicate that 58-percent

248
of ihe cells in the matrix show a dependent relationship. The results of the chi

square tests indicate that 83.3-percent of the cells in the matrix show a dependent

relationship for the six variables and the use of journal articles, followed by

conference-meeting papers (66.6 percent), U.S. government technical reports (50.0

percent), and in-house techrical reports (33.3 percent).

However, no one variable predominates. A dependent relationship exists

between three variables (academic preparation as either an engineer or a scientist,

type of organization as either academic, government, or industry, and professional

duties as either management or nonmanagement) and use of conference-meeting

papers, journal articles, and U.S. government technical reports.

A dependent relationship exists between level of education (as either the

absence or presence of a graduate degree) and technical discipline (as either an

engineering or a science discipline) and use of conference-meeting papers and

journal articles. A dependent relationship exists between years of professional

aerospace work experience and use of U.S. government technical reports. However,

to answer the first research question posed for the study, the use of U.S.

government technical reports by U.S aerospace engineers and scientists is not

independent of academic preparation as either an engineer or scientist, years of

professional aerospace work experience as 15 years or less and 16 years or more,

and technical discipline as either engineering or science.

Second, do the seven sociometric or source selection variables explain the

use of U.S. government technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists?

The chi square test of independence, a weaker statistic in this application, was used

249
to test for relationships between the number of conference-meeting papers (Q3C),

journal articles (Q3J), and in-house technical reports (Q31) used in a 6-month period

and Q4-QlO, Ql1-17, and Q18-24, respectively, "to what extent was their use

influenced by the following factors." The results of these tests are summarized

below.

Trechnical

Familiarity quality

Ease of or or ComprehenAccessibility use Expense experience reliability siveness Relevance

Conferencemeeting * *

papers

Journal

articles

In-house

technical *

reports

U.S. government

technical

reports

*Significart X2 value at p < 0.05.

The 4 information products and the 7 sociometric or source selection

variables create a 28-cell matrix. The results of the chi square tests indicate that a

93-percent of the cells in the matrix show a dependent relationship. The test results

indicate a dependent relationship between use of conference-meeting papers and five

of the seven variables. The test results also indicate a dependent relationship

between the use of journal articles, in-house technical reports, and U.S. government

technical reports and all seven of the source selection variables. However, to

answer the second research question posed for the study, the use of U.S. govern250
ment technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists is independent of

all seven sociometric or source selection variables. A weak argument can be made

for a relationship between relevance, technical quality or reliability, and

comprehensiveness based on the correlation coefficients recorded for the other three

information products and the overall mean importance ratings assigned by

respondents to "use influenced by." However, a different research design is needed

before the question can be successfully answered.

Third, when both the institutional and sociometric variables are considered,

does one set of variables predominate in terms of explaining use? Based on the

available data, it appears that the institutional, not the sociometric, variables best

explain the use of U.S. government technical reports. However, a different research

design is needed before the question can be successfully answered.

251
CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

This chapter contributes to the immediate and broader purposes of the study.

First, background regarding Federal involvement in technological innovation and knowledge diffusion is presented. Second, a discussion of findings about the role of the

U.S. government technical report in the diffusion of knowledge resulting from federally funded aerospace R&D and the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists is offered. Finally, the chapter concludes with some

thoughts for further research.

BACKGROUND

The role of the Federal government in stimulating technological innovation

remains the subject of serious debate. Proponents of the free enterprise system

persistently poi.t out the deleterious effects of regulation and control on innovation.

Supporters of this view take the position that U.S. government involvement in technological innovation is virtually always expensive folly. Nelson (1982) believes many

attempts by the Federal government to stimulate increased commercialization of technology were just that. Conversely, those advocating a more "active" government role

cite economic vulnerability, lagging productivity, unfavorable trade balances, losses of

252
traditional markets, and unemployment as primary reasons for government intervention

(Chakrabarti and Souder, 1984). Supporters of this position view increased technological innovation as a general solution to national conditions and argue that such

programs are designed to supplement, not supplant, the marketplace.

While Federal involvement invokes considerable discussion and debate, there is

general consensus that current conceptual and empirical knowledge regarding both the

process of technological innovation and U.S. government intervention is lacking.

According to Curlee and Goel (1989), recognition is growing that technology transfer

and diffusion is the "key" to the success of technological innovation. Although

consider-able research into technological innovation and knowledge diffusion has been

conduct-ed by various disciplines and from numerous perspectives, policy implications

from the results of this research and investigation are inconsistent and often

contradictory. Tomatzky and Fleischer (1990) find that the "United States has no

coherent innovation or technology policy." The United States does, however, have

"many programs and numerous policies which cut across political jurisdictions and the

idiosyncratic missions and mandates of single agencies which are more or less

responsive to a series of shifting political alliances and imperatives" (Tornatzky and

Fleischer, 1990).

Beginning in the 1960s, Federal attempts at stimulating and nurturing technological innovation represented a dramatic departure from earlier policy positions

based on a strict interpretation of the "general welfare" clause of the U.S. Constitution

(Rosenberg, 1985). Heretofore, the Federal government had limited itself to activities

either directly or explicitly tied to an existing responsibility of a specific government

253
agency. In the early 1970s, government took an increasingly active role in stimulating

technological change and innovation in the civilian economy (Baer, et al., 1977).

These new initiatives were justified, in large part, by the economic concept of

externalities (Eads, 1974). Central to understanding the theoretical framework for this

concept is the work of Nelson (1959) and Arrow (1962). Eads finds that a concise

statement of the basic theory of externalities and its policy implications for Federal

involvement and investment in technological innovation is found in the 1972 Economic

Report of the President's Council of Economic Advisors:

Government has an appropriate role in R&D even when its results

will not be incorporated in Government purchases, because private firms

would underinvest in R&D for goods normally purchased by the private

sector. Although an investment in R&D may produce benefits exceeding

its costs from the viewpoint of society as a whole, a firm considering

the investment may not be able to translate enough of these benefits

into profits on its own products to justify the investment. This is

because the knowledge which is the main product of R&D can usually

be readily acquired by others who will compete away at least part of the

benefits from the original developer. This is particularly true of basic

research, where the output frequently occurs in the first instance not as

a marketable product, but rather as an advance in basic knowledge that

can subsequently be used in applied research and development by a

wide and often unforeseeable range of firms.

According to Mowery (1983), Nelson (1959) and Arrow (1962) argue that the

social returns to research investment exceed the private returns faced by the individual

firm, leading (o underinvestment by the firm, from the societal point of view, in

research. Arrow argues that while the firm's costs of investment in knowledge production are substantial, the costs of transferring the new knowledge are effectively

zero. From a social point of view, the widest possible diffusion of knowledge is

optimal. However, the price necessary to achieve this end, that is, one equal to the

costs of transfer, is so low as to bankrupt the discoverer. Thus, the supply of socially

254
beneficial research in civilian technologies is insufficient, due to a disjunction between

the privately and socially optimal prices for the results. Mowery (1983) further states

that these analyses of market failure justify Federal subsidies to civilian basic research

and that these same arguments were later extended to civilian applied research.

According to the concept of externalities, the decentralized private market

mechanism will not generate the level and kind of technological innovation that

maximizes the welfare of society. Market failure can arise from three sources (Baer,

et al., 1977). First, the benefits to society from a firm's R&D activities may exceed

the benefits that the firm can capture as profits. Unpredictable research results are

hard for an originating firm to capture. The cost of producing new knowledge through

research is high, but the cost of reproducing it is low. Patents and copyrights only

partially alleviate the disparity, leading firms to invest less in R&D activities than is

socially optimal. Second, the production of some goods and services gives rise to

externalities, positive and negative, that are not reflected in the prices of the goods,

services, or inputs into production. Third, private markets may operate inefficiently

because of high information or transaction costs, or distortions caused by government.

As Eads (1974) points out, Federal support for civilian technology was designed

to correct market failure so that the market then could be relied upon to provide correct

signals for private investment in technological change. Eads goes further with a

cautionary note that "the economic history of the U.S. is full of attempts by the

government to correct through direct intervention what have been perceived by some

as failures of markets to direct economic activity properly. However, in an unfortunately large number of cases, these attempts have been unsuccessful. The market

255
failures, either real or imagined, have not been corrected, and, what is worse, a host

of new market distortions have been created."

Consequently, understanding the influences that motivate innovation and channel

its direction is necessary for government intervention to successfully increase the

production of useful innovation. Nelson (1983) and Pavitt and Walker (1976) review

and analyze government policies and programs toward technological innovation. Federal innovation policy and prescription, they state, encourage innovation, not its

adoption; knowledge transfer and utilization [diffusion] are "very inadequately served

by market forces and the incentives of the market place." They conclude government

would better serve public policy by assuming a more active role in the knowledge diffusion process and formulating policies and programs that encourage and improve

communications between users and producers of knowledge.

David (1986), Mowery (1983), and Mowery and Rosenberg (1979) conclude that

successful [Federal] technological innovation rests more with the transfer and utilization

of knowledge than with its production. In a critique of Federal innovation policy,

David states that "innovation has become our cherished child, doted upon by all

concerned with maintaining competitiveness and renewing failing industries; whereas

diffusion has fallen into the woeful role of Cinderella, a drudge-like creator who tends

to be overlooked when the summons arrived to attend the Technology Policy Ball."

Utilizing existing scientific and technical information (STI) and/or creating new

STI often facilitates technological innovation. Testimony to the central role of STI

in the innovation process is found in numerous studies. Many studies show strong

relationships between the communication of STI and technical performance at both the

256
individual (Allen, 1970) and group levels (Smith, 1970). The role of STI is central to

the innovation process and to its management (Fischer, 1980). Therefore, STI is

essential to technological innovation, but STI by itself does not ensure technological

innovation. Thus, understanding how STI is communicated in the process of technological innovation is critical for assessing the broad set of Federal policies that

influence the production, transfer, and utilization of STI (Ballard, et al., 1989).

Stimulating and nurturing technological innovation to enhance U.S. economic

competitiveness requires understanding how STI is produced, transferred, and utilized.

Numerous panels and commissions have attempted to determine the proper role of the

Federal government in promoting the production, transfer, and utilization of STI.

Three approaches or models have dominated attempts to facilitate the transfer

and utilization of federally funded STI (Ballard, et al., 1989). The appropriability

model, based on neoclassical economics, is built on a "supply-side" approach that

emphasizes the production of STI by the Federal government, not its transfer and

utilization. The appropriability model dominates many aspects of Federal STI policy.

The dissemination model emphasizes the need to transfer the results of federally

funded STI to non-Federal users. This model, based on the assumption that production

of STI will not ensure its use, emerged in response to concern that federally-produced

STI was not used to its fullest potential. This model, characterized by the large-scale

STI programs operated by the DOD, DOE, and NASA, emphasizes accessibility. These

agencies maintain STI systems for acquiring, processing, announcing, and disseminating

the results of government-performed and government-sponsored research. Within these

systems, the U.S. government technical report is used as a primary means of trans257
ferring the results of federally funded R&D. Bikson, et al., (1984) have characterized

these systems as "passive, fragmented, and nonresponsive to the user context."

The knowledge utilization model assumes an active approach to linking producers and users of STI and seeks to remove two barriers to the effective transfer of

STI: inadequate interpersonal communication between producers and users throughout

the production, transfer, and utilization process, and organizational barriers. According

to Ballard, et al., (1989), rather than basing the system on production and supply of

STI (the appropriability model) or focusing on products and services that make STI

more accessible (the dissemination model), the knowledge utilization model emphasizes

the relationships among all components of the production, transfer, and use process.

The assumption is that the results of federally funded R&D will be underutilized unless

they are relevant to the needs of the users and ongoing relationships are developed

among producers and users. The problems associated with this model are twofold --

(1) the lack of clear understanding of the information-seeking behavior of engineers and

scientists involved in technological innovation and (2) the lack of attention to characterizing the implications of information-seeking behavior in terms of Federal

innovation and STI policy.

The Federal government should play a role in stimulating and nurturing

technological innovation; however, no consensus exists regarding the exact role

government should play. Lack of consensus stems from differing political philosophies

concerning the proper role of government, a general lack of understanding about

technological innovation, and the fragmented nature of Federal innovation policy.

258
There is widespread agreement that federally funded STI is vital to successful

technological innovation. However, many Federal activities in information policy have

little relevance to the use of STI for technological innovation because, according to

Ballard, et al., (1989), "they are based on a passive philosophical perspective that

holds that free and open information will eventually be used for technological and

economic benefit." Information policy debates, until recently, have generally not been

linked to technological innovation. Instead they have focused on privatizing Federal

agencies and data bases, determining appropriate rate charges for government

information, and denying access to STI for reasons of national security.

While important, such debates distract from the larger issue of how to improve

the efficiency and effectiveness of the innovation process through the use of federally

funded STI. Successful technological innovation requires a broader view that encompasses Federal science and technology policy, information policy, tax policy, and

economic policy. Heron and McClure (1987) and McClure and Heron (1989) provide useful background on Federal information and STI policy. Technological

innovation also requires an understanding of knowledge diffusion both in terms of the

channels used to communicate ideas and the information-seeking habits and practices

of engineers and scientists involved in the process of technological innovation.

CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS STUDY

Conclusions are presented within the context of technological innovation and

knowledge diffusion and are subject to the limitations established for the study.

259
The U.S. Government Technical Report

The U.S. government technical report constitutes an important information

product in the diffusion of knowledge resulting from federally funded aerospace R&D.

These reports are used for research, education, and management purposes, in problem

solving, and in completing projects and tasks. Relevance, technical quality, and

accessibility are the factors that influence their use by survey participants. A

relationship exists between use of U.S. government technical reports and academic

preparation, years of work experience, and technical discipline.

Ballard's (1989) statement that U.S. government technical reports are not used

for reasons of technical quality and reliability appears not to hold true for the U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists who participated in this study. Further, McClure's

(1988) concerns that these reports may be the most ignored and inaccessible STI products in the world may not hold true for survey participants. However, ,nuch more

research is needed before a more conclusive statement can be made regarding the role

of the U.S. government technical report in the aerospace knowledge diffusion process.

The Information-Seeking Behavior of U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists

The U.S. aerospace engineers in this study prefer informal sources of information, especially conversations with individuals within their organization, when solving technical problems. Engineers solve problems and may have psychological traits

that predispose them to solve problems alone or with the help of colleagues rather than

to seek answers in the literature. They draw on past experiences and consult reliable

and efficient colleagues instead of having someone search the literature for them. The

U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who participated in this study match that profile.

260
The engineer's search for information seems to be based more on a need for

solving specific problems than around a search for general opportunity. Engineers use

the library more in a personal-search mode, generally not involving the professional

(but "nontechnical") librarian. When engineers need technical information, they use

accessible sources: colleagues, vendors, and internal company [technical] reports.

Engineers prefer informal over formal information systems. This characterization also

describes the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists who participated in this study.

When completing a project or task or when solving a problem, they begin by using

their personal stores of technical information followed by discussions with colleagues.

They will then interact with the formal system by seeking the assistance of a librarian.

This method also applies to their obtaining U.S. government technical reports.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1. Research directed at understanding the aerospace knowledge diffusion process is

needed. This research should focus on the members of the social system and the

channels used in communicating and transferring knowledge. Specific attention should

be paid to the U.S. government technical report and litrarians and technical information

sptcialists as information intermediaries.

2. An understanding of the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers

and scientists in aerospace technological innovation is directly related to the technological process. This research could be cross-cultural, involving aerospace engineers

and scientists from several nations.

3. An analysis of existing Federal STI policies and practices should be undertaken.

This analysis should be conducted within a general policy framework that focuses on

Federal innovation, industry, and science and technology policy.

4. A systems analysis of the policies and practices used by NASA and DOD with

respect to dissemination of federally funded R&D should be undertaken. This analysis

should include an assessment of current theory and knowledge relative to technology

transfer and knowledge diffusion. The goal should be tu increase both the effectiveness

and efficiency of the transfer process.

261
REFERENCES

Allen, Thomas J. "Communication Networks in R&D Laboratories." R&D

Management 1:1 (1970): 14-21.

Arrow, Kenneth J. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention."

in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1962,) 34-41.

Baer, Walter S; Leland L. Johnson; and Edward W. Merrow. "Government-Sponsored

Demonstrations of New Technologies." Science 196:27 (May 1977): 950-

957.

Ballard, Steve et al., Innovation Through Technical and Scientific Information:

Government and Industry Cooperation. (NY: Quorum Books, 1989.)

Bikson, Tora K.; Barbara E. Quint; and Leland L. Johnson. Scientific and Technical

Information Transfer: Issues and Options. Washington, DC: National Science

Foundation, March 1984. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-85-150357;

also available as Rand Note 2131.)

Chakrabarti, Alok K. and William E. Souder. "Critical Factors in Technological

Innovation and Their Policy Implications." Technovation 2 (1984): 255-275.

Curlee, T.R. and R.K. Goel. The Transfer and Diffusion of New Technologies: A

Review of the Economics Literature. ORNL/TM-11155. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S.

Department of Energy, June 1989. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA N90-

11655.)

David, Paul A. "Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial Competitiveness."

In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth,

Ralph Landau and Nathan Rosenberg, eds. (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1986,) 373-391.

Eads, George. "US Government Support for Civilian Technology: Economic Theory

Versus Political Practice." Research Policy 3 (1974): 2-16.

Fischer, William A. "Scientific and Technical Information and the Performance of

R&D Groups." In Management of Research and Innovation, Burton V. Dean

and Joel L. Goldhar, eds. (NY: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1980,) 67-

89.

Hernon, Peter and Charles R. McClure. Federal Information Policies in the 1980's:

Conflicts and Issues. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press, 1987.)

262
McClure, Charles R. "The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs and

Issues." Government Information Quarterly 5:1 (1988): 27-44.

McClure, Charles R. and Peter Hernon. United States Scientific and Technical

Information Policies: Views and Perspectives. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press,

1989.)

Mowery, David C. "Economic Theory and Government Technology Policy." Policy

Sciences 16 (1983): 27-43.

Mowery, David C. and Nathan Rosenberg. "The Influence of Market Demand Upon

Innovation: A Critical Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research

Policy 8:2 (April 1979): 102-153.

Nelson, Richard R. "Government Support of Technical Progress: Lessons From

History." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2:4 (1983): 499-514.

Nelson, Richard R. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research." Journal

of Political Economy 67 (1959): 297-306.

Nelson, Richard R. "Public Policy and Technical Progress: A Cress-Industry

Analysis." In Government and Technical Progress: A Cross-Industry Analysis,

Richard R. Nelson, ed. (NY: Pergamon Press, 1982,) 1-7.

Pavitt, K. and W. Walker. "Government Policies Toward Industrial Innovation:

A Review." Research Policy 5:1 (January 1976): 11-97.

President's Council of Economic Advisors. 1972 Economic Report of the President.

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1972,) 126.

Rosenberg, Nathan. "A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment

in Research and Development Since World War II." Paper commissioned for

a workshop on The Federal Role in Research and Development, November 21-

22, 1985, held in Washington, DC and sponsored by the National Academy of

Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.

Smith, C.G. "Consultation and Decision Processes in a Research and Development

Laboratory." Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (1970): 203-215.

Tornatzky, Louis G and Mitchell Fleischer. "Issues of Science and Technology Policy."

Chapter 10 in The Processes of Technological Innovation. Louis G. Tornatzky

and Mitchell Fleischer eds. (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990,) 235-

258.

263
APPENDIX A

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

1. Aerospace This is a generic term that includes those

Engineers engineers and scientists who, regardless

and Scientists of their training, are involved in the theory,

principles, design, development, testing,

manufacture, and operation of aircraft, space

vehicles, and related components and systems.

2. Aerospace Industry The aerospace industry in the United States includes

aircraft; aircraft engines, parts, and equipment; guided

missiles space vehicles; space propulsion units and

parts; and space equipment.

3. AIAA Special These include aerospace science; aircraft systems;

Interest Groups structures, design, and tests; propulsion and energy;

aerospace and information systems; and administration

or management.

4. Applied Research This is research directed toward gaining knowledge or

understanding necessary for determining the means by

which a recognized and specific need may be met.

5. Basic Research This is research primarily concerned with gaining a

fuller understanding or knowledge of the subject under

study rather than a practical application thereof.

6. Descriptive This is a type of research or research strategy that seeks

Research to explore or describe what is happening or has

happened; it involves the collection of data to answer

questions concerning the current status of a subject or

study. In the social sciences, descriptive data are

usually collected through survey questionnaires,

interviews, observations, or document analysis.

7. Education Education is categorized as not having a degree, a

bachelor's degree, a master's degree, or a doctorate.

8. Formal Sources Sources of information best characterized as involving

the use of books, journals, Lechnical reports,

data bases, and interaction with information

professionals such as librarians and information

specialists.

264
9. Informal Sources Sources of information best characterized as involving

personal contact with a variety of individuals such as

colleagues, supervisors, consultants, and vendors.

10. Information Source Information source selection criteria include

Selection Criteria accessibility, expense, comprehensiveness, ease of use,

familiarity or experience, relevance, and technical

quality or reliability.

11. Professional Duties Professional duties include research, administration

management, design development, manufacturing

production, marketing sales, private consultant, service

maintenance, and academic teaching.

12. Research and The systematic use of knowledge and understanding

Development gained from research and directed toward the production

of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods,

including design and development of prototypes and

processes.

13. Research and The initial phase of research and development, which

Technology consists of activities primarily aimed at producing

physical understanding; new concepts; design data; and

validated design procedures for aircraft systems,

subsystems, and components. It consists of activities

ranging from theoretical analysis to laboratory

investigations to flight-testing experiment aircraft.

14. Special A library with a special collection of materials that is

Library usually limited by subject (for example, aeronautics) or

form (for example, technical reports) in accordance with

the interests of its users. These libraries operate in

support of a special purpose or activity determined by

the mission of the sponsoring organizations. Organizationally, these libraries may be found in academic

settings, in large public libraries, in business and

industry, in government, and in nonprofit organizations.

15. STI STI is defined as information used for or resulting from

R&D activities and includes basic scientific data and

technology information, computer programs, in-house

technical data, technical specifications, and product and

performance characteristics.

265
16. Survey Research A type of research or research strategy that attempts to

collect data from members of a population by taking a

sample from the population in order to determine the

current status of that population with respect to one or

more variables. The instrument most frequently

associated with survey research is the survey

questionnaire.

17. Technical Technical disciplines include aeronautics, astronautics,

Discipline chemistry and materials, communications, computational

fluid dynamics, engineering, fluid mechanics, geosciences, life sciences, math and computer science,

physics, psychology, and space sciences.

18. Type of Type of organization includes academic, government,

Organization industry, and nonprofit.

19. U.S. Government A subset of government documents that document the

Technical Reports results of U.S. government-performed and governmentsponsored research and development. These reports are

published by the DOD and NASA; have a unique,

issuer-supplied report number, may have a contract or

grant number and an accession number; and, after initial

distribution, may be obtained from a clearinghouse such

as the National Technical Information Service, the

Defense Technical Information Center, or the NASA

Scientific and Technical Information Facility.

266
APPENDIX B

ACRONYMS

ADD automatic document distribution

AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AKA also known as

ANOVA analysis of variance

ARIST Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

ASTIA Armed Services Technical Information Agency,

U.S. Department of Defense

AV audiovisual

CAB Civil Aeronautics Board; Current Awareness Bibliography

CARP Cooperative Automotive Research Program

CENDI Commerce, Energy, NASA, and Defense Information

CFSTI Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information,

U.S. Department of Commerce

COSATI Committee on Scientific and Technical Information

DDC Defense Documentation Center,

U.S. Department of Defense

DOD (U.S.) Department of Defense

DOE (U.S.) Department of Energy

DROLS Defense RDT&E On-Line System

DTIC Defense Technical Information Center

U.S. Department of Defense

EDB energy data base

ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center,

U.S. Department of Education

267
GPO (U.S.) Government Printing Office

GRA&I Government Reports Announcements and Index

IU Indiana University

LC Library of Congress

LISA Library and Information Science Abstracts

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

M.S. Master of Science

NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NSA Nuclear Science Abstracts

NSF National Science Foundation

NTIS National Technical Information Service,

U.S. Department of Commerce

OARS OSTI Automated Retrieval System

ONR Office of Naval Research

OSRD Office of Scientific Research and Development

OSTI Office of Scientific and Technical Information

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Executive Office of the President

OTA Office of Technology Assessment,

U.S. Congress

OTS Office of Technical Services

PB Publications Board

Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy

P.L. public law

RADCAP R&D Contributions to Aviation Progress

268
R&D research and development

R&T research and technology

RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation

RECON remote console

RIP research in progress

S&T science and technology; scientific and technical or technological

SATCOM Scientific and Technical Communication

SCAN Selected Current Aerospace Notices

SLIS School of Library and Information Science

Indiana University

SPSSR-PC Statistical Package for the Social Sciences - Personal Computer

SRIM Selected Research in Microfiche

STAR Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports

STI scientific and technical information

STIF Scientific and Technical Information Facility,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

STP Science and Technology Project

TDM total design method

TIC Technical Information Center,

U.S. Department of Energy

TIS Technical Information Service

TRAC Technical Report Awareness Circular

TRACES Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science

UMI University Microfilms International

U.S. United States

269
APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE AND ASSOCIATED CORRESPONDENCE

270
These data will help us determine the use, production, and importance

of information by aerospace engineers and scientists.

1. Which of the following information sources do YOU use in performing YOUR present

professional duties? (Cide number)

CONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS 1 YES 2 NO

JOURNAL ARTICLES 1 YES 2 NO

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS* 1 YES 2 NO

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORTS 1 YES 2 NO

2. In terms of performing YOUR present professional duties, how important are the

following information sources? One indicates the source is very important; 5 indicates

that the source is not at all impcrtant. (Circle number)

VERY VERY

IMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT

CONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS 1 2 3 4 5

JOURNAL ARTICLES 1 2 3 4 5

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS 1 2 3 4 5

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL 1 2 3 4 5

REPOITS

3. In the past six months, approximately how many times did you use each of the

following information sources in performing your present professional duties?

In the past six months

CONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS

JOURNAL ARTICLES

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORTS

In-house reports are those rxoduced at your location/installaton. OPEN

271
2

The next few pages ask the factors that have influenced your use

of certain information sources. For each reason, e.g., accessibility,

please indicate by circling from 1 to 5 whether this reason greatly

influenced or had no influence at all on your decision.

ABOUT CONFERENCE/MEETING

PAPERS (If not used, go to Journal Articles)

To what extent was their use influenced GREATLY NOT

by... INFLUENCED INFLUENCED

4. ACCESSIBILITY, that is, the ease of

getting to the information source? . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 3 4 5

5. EASE OF USE, that is, the ease of

comprehending or utilizing the

information? .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

6. EXPENSE, that is, low cost in

comparison to other information sources? ....... 1 2 3 4 5

7. FAMILIARITY OR EXPERIENCE,

that is, prior knowledge or previous use

of the information source? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 3 4 S

8. TECHNICAL QUALITY OR

RELIABILITY, that is, the information

sources were expected to be the best in

terms of quality, accuracy, and reliability? ...... 2 3 4 5

9. COMPREHENSIVENESS, that is, the

expectation that the information source

would provide broad coverage of the

available knowledge? ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

10. RELEVANCE, that is, the expectation

that a high percentage of the information

retrieved from the source would be used? ...... 1 2 3 4 5

ABOUT JOURNAL ARTICLES

(If not used, go to In-House Technical

Reports.)

To what extent was their use influenced GREATLY NOT

by ... INFLUENCED INFLUENCED

I. ACCESSIBILITY, that is, the ease of

getting to the information source? . . . . . . . . . . .

. 1 2 3 4 5

272
3

ABOUT JOURNAL ARTICLES GREATLY NOT

INFLUENCED INFLUENCED

12. EASE OF USE, that is, the ease of

comprehending or utilizing the

information? ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

13. EXPENSE, that is, low cost in

comparison to other information sources? ... 1 2 3 4 5

14. FAMILIARITY OR EXPERIENCE,

that is, prior knowledge or previous use

of the information source? ................. 2 3 4 5

15. TECHNICAL QUALITY OR

RELIABILITY, that is, the information

sources were expected to be the best in

terms of quality, accuracy, and reliability? ... 1 2 3 4 5

16. COMPREHENSIVENESS, that is, the

expectation that the information source

would provide broad coverage of the

available knowledge? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

17. RELEVANCE, that is, the expectation

that a high percentage of the information

retrieved from the source would be used? .... 2 3 4 5

ABOUT IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL

REPORTS (If not used, go to Government

Technical Reports.)

To what extent was their use influenced GREATLY NOT

by... INFLUENCED INFLUENCED

18. ACCESSIBILITY, that is, the ease of

getting to the information source? . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

19. EASE OF USE, that is, the ease of

comprehending or utilizing the

information? .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

20. EXPENSE, that is, low cost in

comparison to other information sources? . 2 3 4 5

21. FAMILIARITY OR EXPERIENCE,

that is, prior knowledge or previous use

of the information source? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 3 4 5

273
4

ABOUT IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL GREATLY NOT

REPORTS INFLUENCED INFLUENCED

22. TECHNICAL QUALITY OR

RELIABILITY, that is, the information

sources were expected to be the best in

terms of quality, accuracyand reliability? ..... 2 3 4 5

23. COMPREHENSIVENESS, that is, the

expectation that the information source

would provide broad coverage of the

available knowledge? ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

24. RELEVANCE, that is, the expectation

that a high percentage of the information

retrieved from the source would be used? ..... 2 3 4 5

ABOUT GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL

REPORTS (If not used, go to Q32.)

To what extent was their use influenced GREATLY NOT

by... INFLUENCED INFLUENCED

25. ACCESSIBILITY, that is, the ease of

getting to the information source? ........... 1 2 3 4 5

26. EASE OF USE, that is, the ease of

comprehending or utilizing the

information? .............................. 1 2 3 4 5

27. EXPENSE, that is, low cost in

comparison to other information sources? ..... 1 2 3 4 5

28. FAMILIARITY OR EXPERIENCE,

that is, prior knowledge or previous use

of the information source? .................. 1 2 3 4 5

29. TECHNICAL QUALITY OR

RELIABILITY, that is, the information

sources were expected to be the best in

terms of quality, accuracypand reliability? ..... 1 2 3 4 5

30. COMPREHENSIVENESS, that is, the

expectation that the information source

would provide broad coverage of the

available knowledge? ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

31. RELEVANCE, that is, the expectation

that a high percentage of the information

retrieved from the source would be used? ...... 1 2 3 4 5

274
5

In the past six months, what percentage of eath .f the following information sources were

used for educational purposes (e.g., tca-hing, professional development); research; and for

the management (e.g., planning, budgeting) of research? (If not used, skip t,, the next

information source.)

Educational Research Manaement Other Total

32. CONFERENCE/MEETING PAI'rHS ___% IQ0&

33. JOURNAL ARTICLES % _ % _2M

34. IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS % % 1 9

35. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL % __ % __

REPORTS

36. Do YOU use the following types or kinds of information in performing YOUR present

professional duties? (Circle numbers)

BASIC SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION I YES 2 NO

IN-HOIJSE TECHNICAL DATA 1 YES ? NO

COMPUTER PROGRAMS 1 YES 2 NO

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1 YES 2 NO

PRODUCT & PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS 1 YES 2 NO

37. In the past six months, approximately what percentage of the basic scientific and

technology information YOU used in performing your present professional duties

were found in the following information sources? (Circle I if you did not use basic

scientific and technology information.)

CONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS _ 1. I did not use

JOURNAL ARTICLES % basic scientific and

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS % technology

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORTS _% information.

38. In the past six months, approximately what percentage of the in-house technical

data YOU used in performing your present professional duties were found in the

following information sources? (Circle 1 if you did not use in-house technical data.)

CONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS % 1. I did not use

JOURNAL ARTICLES % in-house techIN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS %. nical data.

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORTS %

275
3q. In the past six months, approximately what percentage of the computer programs

YOU used in performing your present professional duties were referenced or mentioned

in the following information sources? (Cirde I if you did not use computer programs.)

CONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS % 1. I did not use

JOURNAL ARTICLES % computer

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS % programs.

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORTS %

40. In the past six months, approximately what percentage of the technical specifications YOU used in performing your present professional duties were found in the

following information sources? (Circle 1 if you did not use technical specifications.)

CONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS % 1. I did not use

JOURNAL ARTICLES % technical

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS % specifications.

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORTS %

41. In the past six months, approximately what percentage of the product and performance characteristics YOU used in performing your present professional duties were

found in the following information sources? (Circle 1 if you did not use product and

performance characteristics.)

CONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS % 1. I did not use

JOURNAL ARTICLES % product and

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS % performance

GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORTS % characteristics.

These data will help determine the use of libraries and technical

information centers, library and technical information services,

and the use of information technology by aerospace engineers and

scientists.

42. Does YOUR organization have a library and/or technical information center?

i YE 0- 4 How far from it are you? _ (_ Distance)

44. How many times in the past six months have YOU:

VISITED A LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

SOUGHT THE HELP OF A STAFF MEMBER WHILE VISITING

A LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

BEEN OFFERED ASSISTANCE BY A STAFF MEMBER WHILE

VISITING A LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

276
REQUESTED SOMETHING IN WRITING OR ELECTRONICALLY

FROM A LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

REQUESTED SOMETHING BY TELEPHONE FROM A

LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

REQUESTED SOMETHING THROUGH A PROXY FROM A

LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

REQUESTED SOMETHING OR HAD A LIBRARY REQUEST

SOMETHING FROM SOME OTHER LIBRARY/TECHNICAL

INFORMATION CENTER

45. Which of the following statements best describes any reasons YOU did not visit

or request something from a library or technical information center in the past six

months? (Circle numbers) If you DID visit or request something, skip to Q46.

HAD NO INFORMATION NEEDS 1 YES 2 NO

MY INFORMATION NEEDS WERE MORE EASILY MET 1 YES 2 NO

SOME OTHER WAY

TRIED THEM ONCE OR TWICE BEFORE BUT THEY I YES 2 NO

WERE NOT ABLE TO HELP ME

THE LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER IS I YES 2 NO

PHYSICALLY TOO FAR AWAY FROM WHERE I WORK

THE LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER 1 YES 2 NO

STAFF IS NOT COOPERATIVE OR HELPFUL

THE LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER 1 YES 2 NO

DOES NOT UNDERSTAND MY INFORMATION NEEDS

THE LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER 1 YES 2 NO

DOES NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION I NEED

I HAVE MY OWN PERSONAL LIBRARY AND DO NOT I YES 2 NO

NEED A LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

THE LIBRARY/TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER IS I YES 2 NO

TOO SLOW IN GETTING THE INFORMATION I NEED

WE HAVE TO PAY TO USE THE LIBRARY/TECHNICAL 1 YES 2 NO

INFORMATION CENTER

WE ARE DISCOURAGED FROM USING THE LIBRARY/ I YES 2 NO

TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

277
8

46. In terms of performing YOUR present professional duties, how important is a library

or technical information center? One indicates it is very important; 5 indicates it is

not at all important. (Circle number)

VERY VERY

IMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT

1 2 3 4 5

47. In performing YOUR present professional duties, how do YOU view YOUR use of

the following information technologies? (Circle numbers)

I Don't Use I Don't Use

I Already It, But May It and Doubt

Information Technolozies N h In the Future i IWill

ELECTRONIC DATA BASES 1 2 3

ELECTRONIC NETWORKS 1 2 3

LASER DISC/VIDEO 1 2 3

DISC/CD-ROM

MICROGRAPHICS AND 1 2 3

MICROFILMS

TELECONFERENCING 1 2 3

VIDEO CONFERENCING 1 2 3

ELECTRONIC DATA BASES 1 2 3

FAX OR TELEX 1 2 3

ELECTRONIC BULLETIN 1 2 3

BOARDS

ELECTRONIC MAIL 1 2 3

COMPUTER CASSETTE/ 1 2 3

CARTRIDGE TAPES

FLOPPY DISKS 1 2 3

DESK-TOP/ELECTRONIC 1 2 3

PUBLISHING

VIDEO TAPE 1 2 3

MOTION PICTURE FILM 1 2 3

AUDIO TAPES AND CASSETTES 1 2 3

278
9

These data will help us determine how aerospace engineers and

scientists use information to solve technical problems.

48. Briefly describe the most important technical project, task, or problem you have

worked on in the past six months.

49. In completing your most important technical project, task, or problem during the past

six months, what steps did you follow in looking for the information YOU needed to

complete the project, task or to solve the problem? (Enter "1" beside the first step,

"2' beside the second step, and so forth.)

I SEARCHED A DATABASE OR HAD IT SEARCHED FOR ME

__ I CHECKED WITH A LIBRARIAN/TECHNICAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST

OUTSIDE MY ORGANIZATION

__ I CHECKED WITH A LIBRARIAN/TECHNICAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST

IN MY ORGANIZATION

I CONSULTED LIBRARY SOURCES (E.G., CONFERENCE/MEETING

PAPERS, JOURNAL ARTICLES, TECHNICAL REPORTS)

I SPOKE WITH A KEY PERSON OUTSIDE MY ORGANIZATION TO WHOM I

USUALLY LOOK FOR NEW INFORMATION

I SPOKE WITH A KEY PERSON IN MY ORGANIZATION TO WHOM I

USUALLY LOOK FOR NEW INFORMATION

I DISCUSSED THE PROBLEM WITH MY SUPERVISOR

__ I DISCUSSED THE PROBLEM INFORMALLY WITH A COLLEAGUE(S)

I USED MY PERSONAL STORE OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION,

INCLUDING SOURCES I KEEP IN MY OFFICE

279
10

50. Which of the following BEST characterizes the technical project, task, or problem in

Q48? (Circle one number)

1 EDUCATIONAL (e.g., for professional development, teaching, current awareness,

or preparation of a lecture/presentation)

2 RESEARCH (either basic or applied)

3 DESIGN

4 DEVELOPMENT

5 MANUFACTURING

6 PRODUCTION

7 MANAGEMENT (e.g., planning, budgeting, and management of research)

8 COMPUTER APPLICATIONS

51. Were government technical reports used to complete the technical project or task or

in solving the problem in Q48?

I Y 2 NO (If NO, then skip to Q56.)

52. How did you find out about the government technical report(s)? (Circle numbers)

I USED MY PERSONAL STORE OF

TECHNICAL INFORMATION ................................. 1 YES 2 NO

BY INTENTIONAL SEARCH OF LIBRARY RESOURCES ........ 1 YES 2 NO

BY ASKING A COLLEAGUE IN MY ORGANIZATION ........... . YES 2 NO

BY ASKING A COLLEAGUE OUTSIDE OF

MY ORGANIZATION ......................................... I YES 2 NO

BY ASKING A LIBRARIAN OR

TECHNICAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST ..................... 1 YES 2 NO

BY ASKING MY SUPERVISOR ............................... 1 YES 2 NO

SOMEONE INFORMED ME WITHOUT MY ASKING ............. I YES 2 NO

BY ACCIDENT, BROWSING,

OR LOOKING FOR OTHER INFORMATION ................... I YES 2 NO

I SEARCHED A DATABASE OR HAD IT SEARCHED FOR ME... .I YES 2 NO

53. At what stage in the technical project or task or in solving the problem did YOU use

the government technical report(s)? (Circle number)

THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE TECHNICAL

PROJECT, TASK, OR TECHNICAL PROBLEM .............. 1 YES 2 NO

NEAR THE BEGINNING ..................................... 1 YES 2 NO

NEAR THE MIDDLE ......................................... 1 YES 2 NO

NEAR THE END ............................................. I YES 2NO

280
11

54. To what degree was the information found in the government technical report(s)

effective in completing the technical project or task or in solving the problem? (Circle

number)

EXTREMELY EXTREMELY

EFFECTIVE INEFFECTIVE

1 2 3 4 5

55. To what degree was the information found in the government technical report(s)

efficient (e.g., time spent, cost) in completing the technical project or task or in

solving the problem? (Circle number)

EXTREMELY EXTREMELY

EFFICIENT INEFFICIENT

1 2 3 4 5

These data will help determine if aerospace engineers and scientists

with different backgrounds have different information practices.

56. Which is the highest level of education that YOU have completed? (Circle one

number)

I NO DEGREE 4 MASTER'S DEGREE

2 TECHNICAL OR 5 DOCTORATE

VOCATIONAL DEGREE 6 POST DOCTORATE

3 BACHELOR'S DEGREE 7 OTHER (specify)-

57. Next, compare YOUR educational preparation and present duties. (Circle number)

Educational Preparation Present Professional Duties

1 ENGINEER I ENGINEER

2 SCIENTIST 2 SCIENTIST

3 OTHER (specify). 3 OTHER (specify)._.

58. YOUR years of professional work experience in aerospace: _ YEARS.

59. The type of organization where YOU work. (Circle one number)

1 ACADEMIC 5 INDUSTRIAL

2 GOVERNMENT (DOD) 6 NOT-FOR-PROFIT

3 GOVERNMENT (NASA) 7 RETIRED OR NOT EMPLOYED

4 GOVERNMENT (OTHER) 8 OTHER (specify)-

281
12

60. What is YOUR primary professional duty? (Circle only one number.)

I ACADEMIC/TEACHING 6 TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATIVE/

(may include research) MANAGEMENT (Government,

2 RESEARCH not-for-profit)

3 ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGEMENT 7 DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT/RDTE

(for profit sector) 8 MANUFACTURING/PRODUCTION

4 TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATIVE/ 9 MARKETING/SALES

MANAGEMENT (for profit sector) 10 SERVICE/MAINTENANCE

5 ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGEMENT 11 OTHER (specify)-

(Government, not-for-profit)

61. What is YOUR principal AIAA interest group? (Circle only one number)

1 AEROSPACE SCIENCES 4 PROPULSION & ENERGY

2 AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 5 SPACE & MISSILE SYSTEMS

3 INFORMATION & LOGISTIC 6 STRUCTURES, DESIGN & TEST

SYSTEMS 7 OTHER (specify)_

62. Which of the following best characterizes YOUR area of work or characterizes the

application of YOUR work? (Circle one number)

I AERONAUTICS 6 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTER SCIENCES

2 ASTRONAUTICS 7 MATERIALS & CHEMISTRY

3 ENGINEERING 8 PHYSICS

4 GEOSCIENCES 9 SPACE SCIENCES

5 LIFE SCIENCES 10 OTHER (specify)_

63. IsANYof YOUR current work funded by the Federal government? (Circle number)

1 YES 2 NO

64. Who supplies the largest proportion of funds for YOUR current research/project(s)?

(Circle number)

1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 4 NOT-FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTION

2 PRIVATE INDUSTRY 5 OTHER (specify).

3 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

(OVER)

282
65. Is there anything else you would care to say regarding this research?

Mail to:

1022 East Third Street

Indiana University

Bloomington, IN 47401

283
May 15, 1989

,Ktitle,* 4(name*.

"street "address, 4(city* Astate,* Kzip*

Dear wtitle, 4,name),

Frequently, we are involved in discussions about how to best make technical information

available to engineers and scientists in aerospace. It has been apparent in these discussions

that there is a lot we do not know about the information needs of aerospace engineers and

scientists like yourself and what we can do to better meet those needs. Increased

understanding of the flow of technical information in the aerospace industry can contribute to

increasing productivity, stimulating innovation, and improving and maintaining the

professional competence of aeronautical engineers and scientists.

You are one of a small, but carefully selected, number of aeronautical engineers and scientists

who, as AIAA members, are being asked to provide input on their information-seeking habits

and practices. For the results of this study to accurately reflect the general population of

aeronautical engineers and scientists, it is important that each member of the sample

population participate in the study. We think it will take only 20 minutes to complete.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The number on the questionnaire is used only

to identify those who responded. Only the composite results of the study will be made

available to federal agencies involved in aeronautical research and development. These results

will help the agencies to develop information policy and systems for the aerospace industry.

You can receive a summary of the results by writing "copy of results requested" on the back of

the return envelope. If you have any questions, you can reach me by telephone at (812) 855-

2848.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Herbert S. White, Dean

School of Library and Information Science

284
School of Library

and Information Science

Bloomington, IN 47405

America the Beautiful USA15

July 148'9

Dear AIAA Member

Last week a i, stionnaire seeking your opinion about information-seeking practices was sent to you from

the School of Library and Information Science at Indiana University. If you have already completed

it and returned it, please accept our sincere thanks. You have made it easier for us to complete our

research.

If you have not completed and returned the questionnaire to the Center for Survey Research. please

do so today. It is essential for us to have responses from al! ,:-stionnalres sent out if we are to

present an accurate assessment of technical information use.

If by some chance you have not received the questionnaire. or if it has been misplaced. please call John

Kennedy at the Center for Survey Research (812-855-2573). He will send a replacement questionnaire

immediately. If you have any questions about the survey, please call me (812-855-2848).

rely.

Herbert S. White, Dean

285
June 30, 1989

((name)>

(,address,,

<<city)., (<state) (zip))

Dear ,title, (dname,:

About four weeks ago, we sent you a questionnaire that asked your opinions

about the information needs of aerospace engineers and scientists like

yourself. As of today, we have not yet received your reply.

We feel that input from all of the selected members of the AIAA is essential

if we are to prepare a thorough report on your information-seeking habits

and practices. The AIAA has endorsed this research and your responses are

crucial to our work.

Please return the enclosed questionnaire as soon as possible but no later

than August 28. A prompt reply will assist us in completing the report. If you

would like a copy of the report, indicate so by writing "copy of results

requested" on the back of the return envelope.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions about the

survey, please contact John Kennedy, the survey director, at 812-855-2573.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Herbert S. White, Dean

School of Library and Information Science

286
August 7, 1989

-xname.p

,,street*

-,city,,, ,,state, ,,ip*,

Dear -title* ,iname,,:

As you may recall, we are conducting a study on the information-gathering needs of aerospace

engineers and scientists. The large number of questionnaires that have been returned is very

encouraging. However, we have not yet received yours.

Our past experiences suggest that those of you who have not yet sent in your questionnaires may

hold quite different views on the use of government technical reports than those who have. Tbe

accuracy of the results depends upon having the opinions of all of you who were selected for this

research.

As this is the first study of its kind, the results are of particular importance to federal agencies

involved in aerospace research and development. The usefulness of our results depends on how

accurately we are able to describe the information needs of engineers and scientists. It is for

these reasons that I urge you to complete and return the enclosed questionnaire as quickly as

possible.

If you would like a copy of the results, simply write on the back of the return envelope "copy of

results requested." Your contribution to the success of this study will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Herbert S. White, Dean

School of Library and Information Science

287
NASA

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, D.C.

20546

Reply to Attn of

September 8, 1989

aname.

astreet,,

.City-, -state- -zipDear ,title" ,iname":

I am writing this letter to request your assistance with our research. NASA is very interested in

obtaining data on the information-gathering practices of aerospace engineers and scientists. As part

of this research, you will receive a questionnaire from the Indiana University Center for 3urvey

Research that asks about your information needs.

The AAIA has provided the sample of names for this project. So that our research will be

scientifically valid and reliable, it Is vital that every person who was selected for this research take the

15-20 minutes necessary to fill out and return the questionnaire.

Of course, not all AAIA members are active in aerospace. Therefore, we have provided a postcard

so that you can help us determine who should not receive the questionnaire that will be sent in two

weeks. It applicable, please check the appropriate box and return the postcard as soon as possible.

I appreciate that you have a busy schedule. That is why it is important that you give us your

opinions. By doing so we will be better able to meet your needs and save you time in the future.

This research will assist us in providing you with the information that would be most useful to you.

If you wish to talk about the survey, please contact the survey director, John Kennedy. His telephone

number is (812)855-2573. He will be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Randolph A. Graves, Director

Aerodynamics Division

288
4 % Potageand Fees Pid I~I,~SI~ NatinlMonautios and

National Aeronautics andNSA5 Space Aciministration U-SAH

Langley Research Center

MS 180A

Hampton, Virginia 23665-5225

Oftiial &AeI5

Penay W orivst Urs. WO

Center for Survey Research

Indiana University

1022 East Third Street

Bloomington, IN 47405

Please check the appropriate blanks

Please send me a questionnaire

I am not involved in aerospace research

I do not wish to participate in the study

Please send me a copy of the results

Thank you

________________________________for your response

289
APPENDIX D

DESCRIPTIVE DATA TABLES FOR (1) EDUCATION, CAREER, AND

WORK EXPERIENCE AND (2) INFORMATION SOURCES USED TO

COMPLETE MOST IMPORTANT TECHNICAL PROJECT, TASK, OR

TECHNICAL PROBLEM

Table Dl. Relationship of Education and

Technical Information Products Used

Percentage using product with - Overall

Bachelor's Doctoral percentage

Information product degree or Master's degree or using a

lower degree higher product (n = 562) (n = 774) (n = 618) (n = 1954)

Conference-Meeting papers 94.1 97.2 99.7 97.1

Journal articles 93.2 97.0 99.2 96.6

In-house technical reports 98.4 98.6 98.9 98.6

U.S. Government technical reports 96.1 97.8 98.4 97.5

aNote that 63 individuals did not specify their level of education.

Table D2. Relationship of Career and

Technical Information Products Used

Percentage using product as - Overall

percentage Information product using Engineer Scientist Other producta (n = 1325) (n= 168) (n = 470) (n = 1963)

Conference-Meeting papers 97.4 98.8 96.0 97.2

Journal articles 96.7 97.6 96.6 96.7

In-house technical reports 98.8 99.4 98.1 98.7

U.S. Government technical reports 97.7 98.8 96.6 97.6

aNote that 53 individuals did not specify their educational preparation.

290
Table D3. Relationship of Work Experience and

Technical Information Products Used

Number (percentage) using product

for respondents with - Overall

Information product 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30 percentage

years years years years years using a

work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. product

(n=226) (n=293) (n=425) (n=513) (n=477) (n= 1934)

Conference-Meeting papers 217 284 417 500 459 97.1

(96.0) (96.9) (98.1) (97.5) (96.2)

Journal articles 215 282 415 500 457 96.6

(95.1) (96.2) (97.6) (97.5) (95.8)

In-house technical reports 223 288 420 507 468 98.6

(98.7) (98.3) (98.8) (98.8) (98.1)

U.S. Government technical reports 220 284 415 503 462 97.4

_ (97.3) (96.9) (97.6) (98.1) (96.9)

aNote that 82 individuals did not specify their years of work experience.

Table D4. Relationship of Education and

Importance of Technical Information Products

Averagea(mean) importance rating

for respondents with - Overall

Bachelor's Doctoral average Information product degree or Master's degree or importance

lower degree higher rating b

(n = 562) (n = 774) (n = 618) (n = 1954)

Conference-Meeting papers 3.10 3.42 4.06 3.54 c

Journal articles 3.01 3.33 4.21 3.52 d

In-house technical reports'-' 4.05 4.01 3.43 3.84 e

U.S. Government technical reports 3.39 3.58 3.54 3.51 f

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance, with "1" being the lowest possible importance

and "5" being the highest ppssible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

importance of the product. "Note that 62 individuals did not specify their level of education. CNote

that 71 individuals did not rate conference-meeting papers. Note that 73 individual did not rate

journal articles. eNote that 86 individuals did not rate in-house technical reports. Note that 74

individuals did not rate U.S. Government technical reports.

291
Table D5. Relationship of Career and

Importance of Technical Information Products

Averagea(mean) importance rating for - Overall

average Information product importance Engineer Scientist Other rating b

(n = 1325) (n = 168) (n = 470) (n = 1963)

Conference-Meeting papers 3.50 4.19 3.39 3.53c

Journal articles 3.48 4.31 3.33 3.52 d

In-house technical reports 3.95 3.34 3.69 3 .84 e

U.S. Government technical reports 3.58 3.52 3.31 3.51 f

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance, with "1" being the lowest possible importance

and "5" being the highest possible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

importance of the product. 0Note that 53 individuals did not specifV their present professional duty.

cNote that 69 individuals did not rate conference-meeting papers. Note that 72 indiviOluals did not

rate journal articles. eNote that 83 individuals did not rate in-house technical reports. Note that 73

individuals did not rate U.S. Government technical reports.

Table D6. Relationship of Work Experience and

Importance of Technical Information Products

Averagea(mean) importance rating

for respondents with - Overall

Information product 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30 average

years years years years years importance work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. ratin b (n=226) (n=293) (n=425) (n=513) (n=477) (n= 194)

Conference-Meeting papers 3.28 3.59 3.56 3.59 3.52 3 .53 c

Journal articles 3.39 3.57 3.59 3.53 3.45 3.51 d

In-house technical reports 3.68 3.72 3.89 3.79 4.02 3.84 e

U.S. Government technical reports 3.37 3.39 3.45 3.52 3.71 3.51 f

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance, with "1" being the lowest possible importance

and "5" being the highest pssible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

importance of the product. 'Note that 82 individuals did not specffa their years of work experience.

cNote that 69 individuals did not rate conference-meeting papers. Note that 72 indiviguals did not

rate journal articles. eNote that 81 individuals did not rate in-house technical reports. Note that 72

individuals did not rate U.S. Government technical reports.

292
Table D7. Relationship of Education and Frequency of Use of

Technical Information Products

Average number of times (median) product Overall

used in 6-month period for respondents with - average

number of

Information product Bachelor's Doctoral times

degree or Master's degree or (median)

lower degree higher product used a

(n = 562) (n = 774) (n = 618) (n = 1954)

Conference-Meeting papers 8.73 (3.00) 9.85 (4.00) 17.30 (8.00) 12.14 (4.00)b

Journal articles 7.97 (3.00) 10.36 (4.00) 24.73 (10.00) 14.90 (5 .00 )c

In-house technical reports 24.25 (6.00) 19.37 (6.50) 17.27 (5.00) 20.23 (6.0 0 )d

U.S. Government technical reports 9.63 (4.00) 12.02 (5.00) 12.53 (5.00) 11.53 (5 .00)e

aNote that 62 individuals did not specify their level of education. bNote that 333 individuals did not

specify the frequency of use of conference-meqting papers. CNote that 354 individuals did not

specify the frequency of use of journal articles. 'Note that 328 individuals did not specify frequency

of use of in-house technical reports. eNote that 375 individuals did not specify the frequency of use

of U.S. Government technical reports.

Table D8. Relationship of Career and Frequency of Use of

Technical Information Products

Average number of times (median) product Overall

used in 6-month period for - average

number of

Information product times (median)

Engineer Scientist Other product used a

(n= 1325) (n= 168) (n= 470) (n= 1963)

Conference-Meeting papers 10.30 (4.00) 21.86 (10.00) 14.20 (4.00) 12.31 (4.00)b

Journal articles 11.78 (6.00) 37.28 (12.00) 15.13 (6.00) 15.07 (6 .00 )c

In-house technical reports 19.52 (6.00) 21.96 (5.00) 21.71 (6.00) 20.22 (6.00)d

U.S. Government technical reports 11.68 (5.00) 16.56 (5.00) 9.01 (4.00) 11.52 (5 .0 0)e

aNote that 53 individuals did not specify their present professional duty. bNote that 338 individuals

did not specify the frequency of use of conference-meeqng papers. 4Note that 359 individuals did

not specify the frequency of use of journal articles. UNote that 327 individuals did not specify

frequency of use of in-house technical reports. eNote that 373 individuals did not specify the

frequency of use of U.S. Government technical reports.

293
Table D9. Relationship of Work Experience and Frequency of Use of

Technical Information Products

Average number of times (median) product Overall

used in 6-month period for respondents with - average

number Information product 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30 of times

years years years years years (median) a

work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. product used

(n = 226) (n = 293) (n = 425) (n = 513) (n = 477) (n = 1934)

Conference-Meeting papers 14.51 15.77 11.61 11.36 10.85 12.30 (4 .0 0 )b

(5.00) (5.00) (5.00) (4.00) (4.00)

Journal articles 15.32 90.91 13.59 16.22 11.27 15.02 (5 .0 0 )c

(5.00) (5.00) (5.00) (5.00) (5.00)

In-house technical reports 19.24 20.00 18.00 24.78 17.71 20.14 (6.0 0 )d

(5.00) (5.00) (6.00) (6.00) (6.00)

U.S. Government technical reports 11.93 10.87 9.76 13.78 10.66 11.48 (5 .0 0 )e

1 (3.00) (4.00) (4.00) (5.00) (5.00)

aNote that 82 individuals did not specify their years of work experience. bNote that 333 individuals

did not specify the frequency of use of conference-mting papers. cNote that 353 individuals did

not specify the frequency of use of journal articles. UNote that 318 individuals did not specify the

frequency of use of in-house technical reports. eNote that 365 individuals did not specify the

frequency of use of U.S. government technical reports.

294
Table D10. Relationship of Education and Factors Affecting the Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports

Averagea(mean) influence of factor

on use for respondents with - Ove raill

Selection Bachelor's Doctoral average factor degree or Master's degree or influence

lower degree higher of factor b

(n = 540) (n = 757) (n = 608) (n = 1905)

Accessibility 3.50 3.73 3.66 3.65 c

Ease of use 3.36 3:44 3.30 3.38 d

Expense 2.54 2.50 2.52 2.52 e

Familiarity or experience 3.48 3.53 3.52 3.51 f

Technical quality or reliability 3.79 3.79 3.63 3.73 g

Comprehensiveness 3.64 3.57 3.46 3.55h

Relevance 3.87 3.94 3.86 3.90 i

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure influence, with "1" being the lowest possible influence

and "5" beipg the highest possible influence. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

influence. °Note that 62 individuals did not specify their level of education and that 49 individuals

did not use U.S. Government technic§l reports and were not asked these questions. cNote that 240

individuals did not rate accessibility. rote that 244 individuals did not rate ease of use. eNote that

247 individuals did not rate expense. Note that 240 individuals did no ate familiarity or experience.

gNote that 235 individuals did not rate technical quality or reliability. Note that 241 individuals did

not rate comprehensiveness. 'Note that 237 individuals did not rate relevance.

295
Table Dll. Relationship of Career and Factors Affecting the Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports

Averagea(mean) influence Overall

Selection of factor on use for - average

factor influence

Engineer Scientist Other of factor b

(n = 1295) (n = 166) (n = 454) (n = 1915)

Accessibility 3.65 3.53 3.67 3.64 c

Ease of use 3.38 3.23 3.38 3.37 d

Expense 2.49 2.54 2.57 2.51 e

Familiarity or experience 3.50 3.47 3.59 3.51

Technical quality or reliability 3.76 3.61 3.71 3.739

Comprehensiveness 3.56 3.39 3.59 3.55

Relevance 3.90 3.79 3.92 3.89

aA 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure influence, with "I" being the lowest possible influence

ana "5" being the highest possible influence. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the

influence. "Note that 53 individuals did not specify their present professional duty and that 48

individuals did not use U.S. Government technic1 reports and were not asked these questions. CNote

that 240 individuals did not rate accessibility. tote that 243 individuals did not rate ease of use.

eNote that 248 individuals did not rate expense. Note that 341 individuals did not rate familiarity or

experience. gNote that 235 individuals did. not rate technical quality or reliability. nNote that 241

individuals did not rate comprehensiveness. 'Note that 238 individuals did not rate relevance.

296
Table D12. Relationship of Work Experience and Factors Affecting the Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports

Averagea (mean) influence of factor

on use for respondents with - Overall

Selection 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30 average factor years years years years years influence

work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. of factor b

(n = 220) (n = 284) (n = 415) (n = 503) (n = 462) (n = 1884)

Accessibility 3.61 3.56 3.68 3.63 3.69 3.64 c

Ease of use 3.30 3.35 3.36 3.41 3.39 3.37 d

Expense 2.42 2.43 2.62 2.48 2.52 2.51 e

Familiarity or experience 3.29 3.67 3.54 3.57 3.60 3.52 f

Technical quality or reliability 3.84 3.49 3.67 3.73 3.78 3.73 g

Comprehensiveness 3.64 3.87 3.52 3.55 3.60 3.56 h

Relevance 3.90 3.79 3.89 3.90 3.91 3.90 1

aA 1 to 5 point was used to measure influence, with "1" being the lowest possible influence and "5"

being the highpst possible influence. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the influence

of the factor. 0Note that 82 individuals did not specify their years of work experience and that 50

individuals did not use U.S. Government technical reports and were not asked these questions. cNote

that 237 individuals did not rate accessibility. uote that 240 individuals did not rate ease of use.

eNote that 245 individuals did not rate expense. Note that 238 individuals did not rai! familiarity or

experience. gNote that 232 individuals did. not rate technical quality or reliability. Note that 239

individuals did not rate comprehensiveness. 1Note that 235 individuals did not rate relevance.

Table D13. Relationship of Education and Use of

Conference-Meeting Papers

Average percentage )f use

for respondents with - Overall

Purpose Bachelor's Doctoral average

degree or Master's degree or percentage

lower degree higher of use a,b,c

(n = 340) (n = 545) (n = 549) (n = 1434)

Education 32.36 25.75 17.28 24.07

Research 40.23 47.32 66.61 53.03

Management 19.49 18.03 10.62 15.54

Other 7.93 8.90 5.50 7.37

aNote that 62 individuals did not specify their level of education bNote that 73 individuals did not

use conference-meeting papers in the past 6 months. cNote that 359 individuals were not sure of the

percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

297
Table D14. Relationship of Career and Use of

Conference-Meeting Papers

Average percentage of use for - Overall

average

Purpose percentage

Engineer Scientist Other of use a,b,c

(n = 969) (n = 146) (n = 324) (n = 1439)

Education 25.47 15.03 24.08 24.09

Research 54.88 73.90 39.32 53.31

Management 11.79 8.19 29.13 15.33

Other 7.85 2.88 7.47 7.26

aNote that 53 individuals did not specify their present professional duty. bNote that 71 individuals

did not use conference-meeting papers in the past 6 months. CNote that 453 individuals were not

sure of the percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

Table D15. Relationship of Work Experience and Use of

Conference-Meeting Papers

Average percentage of use for respondents with - ,Overall

1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30 average

Purpose years years years years years percentage

work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. of use a,bc

(n =154) (n = 237) (n = 337) (n = 386) (n = 308) (n = 1422)

Education 31.58 27.43 23.73 21.47 22.48 24.31

Research 57.78 61.05 55.43 49.88 46.09 53.09

Management 4.11 6.45 14.39 21.33 21.33 15.34

Other 6.53 5.07 6.45 7.32 10.10 7.25

aNote that 82 individuals did not specify their years of work experience, bNote that 73 individuals

did not use conference-meeting papers in the past 6 months. "Note that 439 individuals were not

sure of the percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

298
Table D16. Relationship of Education and Use of

Journal Articles

Average percentage of use

for respondents with - Overall

Bachelor's Doctoral average

degree or Master's degree or percentage

lower degree higher of use a,b,c

(n = 333) (n = 532) (n = 546) (n = 1411)

Education 37.92 30.04 19.84 27.95

Research 35.53 45.86 66.69 51.48

Management 16.38 15.93 8.72 13.25

Other 10.18 8.16 4.75 7.32

aNote that 62 individuals did not specify their level of education. bNote that 79 individuals did not

use journal articles in the past 6 months. CNote that 464 individuals were not sure of the percentage

of use for education, research, management, or other.

Table D17. Relationship of Career and Use of

Journal Articles

Average percentage of use for - Overall

average

Purpose percentage

Engineer Scientist Others of use a,b,c

(n = 941) (n = 145) (n = 328) (n = 1414)

Education 29.66 17.37 28.00 28.02

Research 52.90 72.21 39.01 51.66

Management 9.95 7.76 24.38 13.07

Other 7.49 2.66 8.61 7.25

aNote that 53 individuals did not specify their present professional duty. bNote that 79 individuals

did not use journal articles in the past 6 months. CNote that 470 individuals were not sure of the

percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

299
Table D18. Relationship of Work Experience and Use of

Journal Articles

Average percentage of use for respondents with -

Purpose 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30 average

years years years years years percentage

work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. of usea,b,c

(n = 158) (n = 225) (n = 334) (n = 386) (n = 293) (n = 1396)

Education 36.90 31.76 26.00 26.69 25.51 28.25

Research 52.35 59.79 54.31 48.56 44.77 51.38

Management 4.59 4.07 13.39 17.18 18.86 13.09

Other 6.16 4.39 6.30 7.57 10.86 7.28

aNote that 82 individuals did not specify their years of work experience. bNote that 79 individuals

did not use journal articles in the past 6 months. CNote that 459 individuals were not sure of the

percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

Table D19. Relationship of Education and Use of

In-House Technical Reports

Average percentage of use

for respondents with - Overall

Purpose Bachelor's Doctoral average degree or Master's degree or percentage

lower degree higher of use a,b,c

(n = 393) (n = 589) (n = 438) (n = 1420)

Education 18.87 16.75 11.91 15.85

Research 46.52 49.32 64.10 53.10

Management 23.48 24.22 16.80 21.73

Other 11.13 9.70 7.18 9.32

aNote that 62 individuals did not specify their level of education. bNote that 37 individuals did not

use in-house technical reports in the past 6 months. cNot that 497 individuals were not sure of the

percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

300
Table D20. Relationship of Career and Use of

In-House Technical Reports

Average percentage of use for - Overall

average

percentage Purpose Engineer Scientist Other of use a,b,c

(n = 976) (n = 120) (n = 332) (n = 1428)

Education 16.17 11.78 16.64 15.91

Research 57.15 71.39 34.75 53.14

Management 16.40 11.00 40.61 21.58

Other 10.28 5.83 8.01 9.38

aNote that 53 individuals did not specify their present professional duty. bNote that 36 individuals

did not use in-house techrical reports in the past 6 months. CNote that 499 individuals were not sure

of the percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

Table D21. Relationship of Work Experience and Use of

In-House Technical Reports

Average percentage of use for respondents with - Overall

1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30 average

Purpose years years years years years percentage

work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp work exp of use a,b,c

(n= 155) (n=217) (n=337) (n=382) (n=320) (n= 1411)

Education 20.79 17.12 14.84 15.71 14.94 16.12

Research 58.57 62.95 55.98 47.91 46.78 53.07

Management 10.65 10.71 22.01 27.86 26.12 21.54

Other 10.00 9.22 7.17 8.52 12.16 9.29

aNote that 82 individuals did not specify their years of work experience. bNote that 37 individuals

did not use in-house technical reports in the past 6 months. cNote that 486 individuals were not sure

of the percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

301
Table D22. Relationship of Education and Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports

Average percentage of use

for respondents with - Overall

Bachelor's Doctoral average Purpose degree or Master's degree or percentage

lower degree higher of use a,b,c

(n = 342) (n = 573) (n = 495) (n = 1410)

Education 22.34 19.48 13.55 18.09

Research 48.05 50.03 67.76 55.77

Management 19.87 20.19 12.42 17.38

Other 9.74 10.31 6.27 8.75

aNote that 62 individuals did not specify their level of education. bNote that 61 individuals did not

use U.S. government technical reports in the past 6 months. CNote that 483 individuals were not

sure of the percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

Table D23. Relationship of Career and Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports

Average percentage of use for - Overall

average

percentage Purpose Engineer Scientist Other of use ab,c (n = 953) (n = 144) (n = 322) (n = 1419)

Education 18.93 13.89 17.75 18.51

Research 58.76 71.65 39.92 55.79

Management 13.21 9.77 32.26 17.18

Other 9.10 4.69 10.07 8.88

aNote that 53 individuals did not specify their present professional duty. bNote that 61 individuals

did not use U.S. government technical reports in the past 6 months. cNote that 483 individuals were

not sure of the percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

302
Table D24. Relationship of Work Experience and Use of

U.S. Government Technical Reports

Average percentage of use for respondents with - Overall

1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30 average Purpose years years years years years percentage

work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. work exp. of use a,b,c

(n = 156) (n = 218) (n =332) (n = 386) (n = 305) (n = 1397)

Education 23.48 18.49 16.94 16.72 18.16 18.12

Research 59.15 67.17 57.26 51.35 49.80 55.76

Management 6.34 8.40 12.19 23.72 21.41 17.33

Other 11.03 5.94 8.62 8.21 10.62 8.79

aNote that 82 individuals did not specify their years of work experience. bNote that 62 individuals

did not use U.S. government technical reports in the past 6 months. CNote that 475 individuals were

not sure of the percentage of use for education, research, management, or other.

303
Table D25. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Respondents

to Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Technical Problem

Number (percentage) respondents using step - Total

Source 12--------- - -- " -respondentsa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n = 2016)

Used personal store of 588 267 274 173 95 47 25 5 9 1483 b

technical information (39.6) (18.0) (18.5) (11.7) (6.4) (3.2) (1.7) (0.3) (0.6)

Discussed problem with a 203 443 323 196 98 45 17 15 4 1344 c

colleague in my organization (15.2) (32.5) (24.2) (14.7) (7.3) (3.4) (1.3) (1.1) (0.3)

Discussed problem with 247 140 127 101 85 45 26 18 49 838 d

my supervisor (29.5) (16.7) (15.2) (12.1) (10.1) (5.4) (3.1) (2.1) (5.8)

Discussed problem with a 86 154 158 196 177 61 46 34 19 937 e

colleague outside my (9.2) (16.5) (17.0) (21.1) (19.0) (6.6) (4.9) (3.7) (2.0)

organization

Discussed the problem with 183 224 232 184 90 48 32 12 2 1007 f

a key person in my organiza- (18.2) (22.2) (23.0) (18.3) (8.9) (4.8) (3.2) (1.2) (0.2)

tion to whom I usually look

for new information

Intentionally searched library 111 217 204 211 178 130 56 34 11 1152 g

resources (9.6) (18.8) (17.7) (18.3) (15.5) (11.3) (4.9) (3.0) (1.0)

Asked a librarian in my 50 68 73 93 92 75 85 56 15 607 h

organization (8.2) (11.2) (12.0) (15.3) (15.2) (12.4) (14.0) (9.2) (0.7)

Searched a data base or had 195 119 124 112 114 104 60 31 39 898 i

a data base searched (21.7) (13.3) (13.8) (12.5) (12.7) (11.6) (6.7) (3.5) (4.3)

Asked a librarian outside 21 34 34 44 34 52 37 73 80 409 J

my organization (5.1) (8.3) 8.3 (10.8) (8.3) (12.7) (9.0) (17.8) (19.6) 1

aNote that 333 individuals skipped the entire question. dbNote that 785 people did not mark this step.

CNote that 1274 individuals did not mark this step. Note that 1076 individuals did not mark this

step. eNote that 531 individuals did not mark this step. IN te that 752 individuals did not mark this

step. gNote that 676 individuals did not mark this step. rNote that 845 individuals did not mark

this step. 'Note that 349 individuals did not mark this step. JNote that 200 individuals did not mark

this step.

304
Table D26. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Academically

Affiliated Respondents to Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or

Technical Problem

Number (percentage) respondents using step - Total

Source - 9- respondentsa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 " (n = 341)

Used personal store of 105 45 50 27 18 7 4 1 0 257

technical information (41.8) (17.9) (19.9) (10.0) (4.8) (2.8) (1.6) (0.4)

Discussed problem with a 30 63 53 28 11 7 2 2 1 197 c

colleague in my organization (15.2) (32.0) (26.9) (14.2) (5.6) (3.6) (1.0) (1.0) (0.5)

Discussed problem with 18 9 15 9 9 4 3 2 11 80d

my supervisor (22.5) (11.3) (18.8) (11.3) (11.3) (5.0) (3.8) (2.5) (13.8)

Discussed problem with a 17 31 21 28 21 6 6 3 2 13 5 e

colleague outside my (12.6) (23.0) (15.6) (20.7) (15.6) (4.4) (4.4) (2.2) (1.5)

organization

Discussed the problem with 21 24 22 20 11 6 2 2 0 108 f

a key person in my organiza- (19.4) (22.2) (20.4) (18.5) (10.2) (5.6) (1.9) (1.9)

tion to whom I usually look

for new information

Intentionally searched library 37 59 57 32 15 12 2 4 0 2189

resources (17.0) (27.1) (26.1) (14.7) (6.9) (5.5) (0.9) (1.8)

Asked a librarian in my 10 13 17 17 1I 6 10 2 1 87 h

organization (11.5) (14.9) (19.5) (19.5) (12.6) (6.9) (11.5) (2.3) (1.1)

Searched a data base or had 46 27 13 13 24 7 6 4 6 146 i

a data base searched (31.5) (16.5) (8.9) (8.9) (16.4) (4.8) (4.1) (2.7) (4.1)

Asked a librarian outside 0 6 3 7 5 6 3 11 4 45 J

my organization (0.0) (13.3) (6.7) (15.6) (11.1)(13.3) (6.7) (24.4) (8.9)1

aNote that 56 individuals skipped the entire questiqn. bNote that 34 people did not mark this step.

CNote that 8 individuals did not mark this step. "Vote that 205 individuals did not mark this step.

eNote that 177 individuals did not mark this step. hNote that 150 individuals did not mark this step.

gNote that 67 individuals did not mark this step. . Note that 198 individuals did not mark this step.

'Note that 139 individuals did not mark this step. JNote that 240 individuals did not mark this step.

305
Table D27. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by GovernmentAffiliated Respondents to Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or

Technical Problem

Number (percentage) respondents using step - Total

Source1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 respndentsa

(n = 454)

Used personal store of 120 62 69 44 30 15 8 1 4 353

technical information (34.0) (17.6) (19.5) (10.3) (8.5) (4.8) (2.3) (0.3) (1.1)

Discussed problem with a 66 104 69 47 24 10 5 3 1 329 c

colleague in my organization (20.1) (31.6) (21.0) (14.3) (7.3) (3.0) (1.5) (0.9) (0.3)

Discussed problem with 63 40 28 35 23 16 6 2 13 226 d

my supervisor (27.9) (17.7) (12.4) (15.5) (10.2) (7.1) (2.7) (0.9) (5.8)

Discussed problem with a 24 39 39 54 47 10 11 11 4 239e

colleague outside my (9.8) (15.9) (15.9) (22.0) (19.2) (6.5) (4.5) (4.5) (1.6)

organization

Discussed the problem with 39 58 65 47 20 12 9 4 1 249 f

a key person in my organiza- (15.7) (20.9) (26.1) (18.9) (8.0) (4.6) (3.6) (1.6) (0.4)

tion to whom I usually look

for new information

Intentionally searched library 24 49 34 43 53 40 15 10 3 271 g

resources (8.9) (18.1) (12.5) (15.9) (19.6) (14.8) (5.5) (3.7) (1.1)

Asked a librarian in my 10 13 19 20 18 19 26 21 3 149 h

organization (6.7) (8.7) (12.8) (13.4) (12.1) (12.8) (17.4) (14.1) (2.0)

Searched a data base or had 41 24 32 28 20 34 18 8 9 214

a data base searched (19.2) (11.2) (15.0) (13.1) (9.3) (15.9) (8.4) (3.7) (4.2)

Asked a librarian outside 3 5 10 6 9 10 9 24 28 104J

my organization (2.9) (4.8) (9.6) (5.8) (8.7) (9.6) (8.7) (23.1) (26.9)1

aNote that 66 individuals skipped the entire questiop. bNote that 35 people did not mark this step.

CNote that 59 individuals did not mark this step. urote that 162 individuals did not mark this step. eNote that 143 individuals did not mark this step. Note that 117 individuals did not mark this step.

gNote that 117 individuals did not mark this step. .ANote that 239 individuals did not mark this step.

'Note that 174 individuals did not mark this step. JNote that 284 individuals did not mark this step.

306
Table D28. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Industry-Affiliated

Respondents to Complete Most Important Technical Problem, Task, or

Technical Problem

Number (percentage) respondents using step - Total

Source I respondentsa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n =1044)

Used personal store of 314 147 139 90 46 21 13 2 5 777 b

technical information (40.4) (18.9) (17.9) (11.4) (5.9) (2.7) (1.7) (0.3) (0.6)

Discussed problem with a 97 233 184 110 58 25 9 9 1 726 c

colleague in my organization (13.4) (32.1) (25.3) (15.2) (8.0) (3.4) (1.2) (1.2) (0.1)

Discussed problem with 147 82 77 51 46 22 16 12 23 476 d

my supervisor (30.9) (17.2) (16.2) (10.7) (9.7) (4.6) (3.4) (2.5) (4.8)

Discussed problem with a 37 80 87 101 93 34 25 17 12 486 e

colleague outside my (7.6) (16.5) (17.9) (20.8) (19.1) (7.0) (5.1) (3.5) (2.5)

organization

Discussed the problem with 117 130 132 105 52 29 17 6 1 589 f

a key person in my organiza- (19.9) (22.1) (22.4) (17.8) (8.8) (4.9) (8.9) (1.0) (0.2)

tion to whom I usually look

for new information

Intentionally searched library 46 91 96 121 101 71 37 18 5 5869

resources (7.8) (15.5) (16.4) (20.6) (17.2) (12.1) (6.3) (3.1) (0.9)

Asked a librarian in my 27 38 34 51 58 41 43 31 8 33 1 h

organization (8.2) (11.5) (10.3) (15.4) (17.5) (12.4) (13.0) (9.4) (2.4)

Searched a data base or had 96 60 66 64 63 60 32 13 20 474i

a data base searched (20.3) (12.7) (13.9) (13.5) (13.3) (12.7) (6.8) (2.7) (4.2)

Asked a librarian outside 15 17 18 27 18 31 20 30 44 220J

my organization (6.8) (7.7) (8.2) (12.3) (8.2) 1(14.1) (9.1) (13.6) (20.0)1

aNote that 148 individuals skipped the entire questio. bNote that 119 people did not mark this step.

cNote that 170 individuals did not mark this step. Note that 420 individuals did not mark this step.

eNote that 410 individuas did not mark this step. 'Note that 307 individuals did not mark this step.

gNote that 310 individual:; did not mark this step. .hNote that 565 individuals did not mark this step.

'Note that 422 individuals did not mark this step. JNote that 676 individuals did not mark this step.

307
Table D29. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Engineers to

Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Technical Problem

Number (percentage) respondents using step - Total

Source respondentsa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n = 1627)

Used personal store of 474 221 235 140 74 37 19 3 9 1212

technical information (39.1) (18.2) (19.4) (11.6) (6.1) (3.1) (1.6) (0.2) (0.7)

Discussed problem with a 178 363 255 159 82 33 13 11 4 1098 c

colleague in my organization (16.2) (33.1) (23.2) (14.5) (7.5) (3.0) (1.2) (1.0) (0.4)

Discussed problem with 215 115 108 88 69 37 22 16 39 709d

my supervisor (30.3) (16.2) (15.2) (12.4) (9.7) (5.2) (3.1) (2.3) (5.5)

Discussed problem with a 70 123 129 157 153 52 40 30 15 769 e

colleague outside my (9.1) (16.0) (16.8) (20.4) (19.9) (6.8) (5.2) (3.9) (2.0)

organization

Discussed the problem with 149 183 196 160 76 37 26 10 2 839 f

a key person in my organiza- (17.8) (21.8) (23.4) (19.1) (9.1) (4.4) (3.1) (1.2) (0.2)

tion to whom I usually look

for new information

Intentionally searched library 84 173 160 175 149 110 51 30 10 9429

resources (8.9) (18.4) (17.0) (18.6) (15.8) (11.7) (5.4) (3.2) (1.1)

Asked a librarian in my 38 61 62 77 67 65 68 49 12 499 h

organization (7.6) (12.2) (12.4) (15.4) (13.4) (13.0) (13.6) (9.8) (2.4)

Searched a data base or had 158 95 101 94 92 88 51 28 32 739

a data base searched (21.4) (12.9) (13.7) (12.7) (12.4) (11.9) (6.9) (3.8) (4.3)

Asked a librarian outside 17 25 25 33 29 46 31 58 72 336 J

my organization (5.1) (.) (7.4) (9.8) 8 .6(13.7) (9.2)1(17.3)1(21.4) L -_

aNote that 245 individuals skipped the entire questiop. bNote that 170 people did not mark this step.

CNote that 284 individuals did not mark this step. Note that 673 individuals did not mark this step.

eNote that 613 individuals did not mark this step. "Note that 543 individuals did not mark this step.

?Note that 440 individuals did not mark this step.. hNote that 933 individuals did not mark this step.

'Note that 643 individuals did not mark this step. JNote that 1046 individuals did not mark this step.

308
Table D30. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Scientists to

Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Technical Problem

Number (percentage) respondents using step - Total

Source -- 1- - -- - -- - -- - -- -respondentsa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n = 235)

Used personal store of 78 33 30 21 11 1 5 1 0 180 b

technical information (43.3) (18.3) (16.7) (11.7) (6.1) (0.6) (2.8) (0.6)

Discussed problem with a 20 54 40 23 11 8 3 2 0 161 c

colleague in my organization (12.4) (33.5) (24.8) (14.3) (6.8) (5.0) (1.9) (1.2)

Discussed problem with 21 15 11 8 10 6 2 1 8 82 d

my supervisor (25.6) (18.3) (13.4) (9.8) (12.2) (7.3) (2.4) (1.2) (9.8)

Discussed problem with a 8 20 21 25 14 8 3 3 3 105e

colleague outside my (7.6) (19.0) (20.0) (23.8) (13.3) (7.6) (2.9) (2.9) (2.9)

organization

Discussed the problem with 19 18 29 16 10 8 5 1 0 106 f

a key person in my organiza- (17.9) (17.0) (27.4) (15.1) (9.4) (7.5) (4.7) (0.9)

tion to whom I usually look

for new information

Intentionally searched library 19 31 29 28 20 14 3 2 0 1469

resources (13.0) (21.2) (19.9) (19.2) (13.7) (9.6) (2.1) (1.4)

Asked a librarian in my 8 5 4 10 20 8 10 6 2 73h

organization (11.0) (6.8) (5.5) (13.7) (27.4) (11.0) (13.7) (8.2) (2.7)

Searched a data base or had 24 15 16 14 17 12 7 2 2 109 i

a data base searched (22.0) (13.8) (14.7) (12.8) (15.6) (11.0) (6.4) (1.8) (1.8)

Asked a librarian outside 2 7 4 8 4 5 5 8 6 49J

my organization (4.1) (14.3) (8.2) (16.3) (8.2) (10.2) (10.2) (16.3) (12.2) _ J

aNote that 36 individuals skipped the entire questio~i. bNote that 19 people did not mark this step.

CNoW that 38 individuals did not mark this step. Pote that 117 individuals did not mark this step.

eNote that 94 individuals did not mark this step. 'Note that 93 individuals did not mark this step.

?Note that 53 individuals did not mark this step.. hNote that 126 individuals did not mark this step.

'Note that 90 individuals did not mark this step. JNote that 150 individuals did not mark this step.

309
Table D31. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Managers to

Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Technical Problem

Number (percentage) respondents using step - Total

Source respondents a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n = 774)

Used personal store of 197 93 105 64 45 17 14 3 4 542 b

technical information (36.3) (17.2) (19.4) (11.8) (8.3) (3.1) (2.6) (0.6) (0.7)

Discussed problem with a 84 158 124 78 32 25 8 3 0 512 c

colleague in my organization (16.4) (30.9) (24.2) (15.2) (6.3) (4.9) (1.6) (0.6)

Discussed problem with 75 46 43 39 39 23 11 9 22 307 d

my supervisor (24.4) (15.0) (14.0) (12.7) (12.7) (7.5) (3.6) (2.9) (7.2)

Discussed problem with a 41 77 80 90 70 26 15 11 3 413 e

colleague outside my (9.9) (18.6) (19.4) (21.8) (16.9) (6.3) (3.6) (2.7) (0.7)

organization

Discussed the problem with 97 102 88 79 37 16 11 2 2 434 f

a key person in my organiza- (22.4) (23.5) (20.3) (18.2) (8.5) (3.7) (2.5) (0.5) (0.5)

tion to whom I usually look

for new information

Intentionally searched library 27 47 68 73 69 47 31 18 5 385 g

resources (7.0) (12.2) (17.7) (19.0) (17.9) (12.2) (8.1) (4.7) (1.3)

Asked a librarian in my 23 34 18 20 37 23 34 29 7 225 h

organization (10.2) (15.1) (8.0) (8.9) (16.4) (10.2) (15.1) (12.9) (3.1)

Searched a data base or had 73 52 45 47 38 53 28 4 12 352 i

a data base searched (20.7) (14.8) (12.8) (13.4) (10.8) (15.1) (8.0) (1.1) (3.4)

Asked a librarian outside 11 13 14 13 13 17 12 34 31 158 J

my organization (7.0) (8.2) (8.9) (8.2) (82)(10.8) (7.6) (21.5)1(19.6)1

aNote ihat 132 individuals skipped the entire questioj, bNote that 109 people did not mark this step.

CNote that 130 individuals did not mark this step. Note that 335 individuals did not mark this step.

eNote that 229 individuals did not mark this step. 'Note that 208 individuals did not mark this step.

gNote that 257 individuals did not mark this step. .hote that 417 individuals did not mark this step. 1

Note that 290 individuals did not mark this step. JNote that 484 individuals did not mark this step.

310
Table D32. Order in Which Information Sources Were Used by Nonmanagers to

Complete Most Important Technical Project, Task, or Technical Problem

Number (percentage) respondents using step - Total

Source -- 1- - -- - -- - -- - -- -respondentsa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (n= 1110)

Used personal store of 354 166 158 98 42 24 10 2 5 859 b

technical information (41.2) (19.3) (18.4) (11.4) (4.9) (2.8) (1.2) (0.2) (0.6)

Discussed problem with a 112 257 182 108 61 18 9 11 3 761 c

colleague in my organization (14.7) (33.8) (23.9) (14.2) (8.0) (2.4) (1.2) (1.4) (0.4)

Discussed problem with 167 85 78 53 40 19 12 8 26 488 d

my supervisor (34.2) (17.4) (16.0) (10.9) (8.2) (3.9) (2.5) (1.6) (5.3)

Discussed problem with a 35 71 73 96 99 32 29 21 14 470 e

colleague outside my (7.4) (15.1) (15.5) (20.4) (21.1) (6.8) (6.2) (4.5) (3.0)

organization

Discussed the problem with 80 108 130 97 48 29 19 8 0 519 f

a key person in my organiza- (15.4) (20.8) (25.0) (18.7) (9.2) (5.6) (3.7) (1.5) tion to whom I usually look

for new information

Intentionally searched library 80 157 124 132 104 76 22 16 4 7159

resources (11.2) (22.0) (17.3) (18.5) (14.5) (10.6) (3.1) (2.2) (0.6)

Asked a librarian in my 25 34 52 65 49 48 44 25 6 348 h

organization (7.2) (9.8) (14.9) (18.7) (14.1) (13.8) (12.6) (7.2) (1.7)

Searched a data base or had 112 57 73 61 69 49 31 23 25 500'

a data base searched (22.4) (11.4) (14.6) (12.2) (13.8) (9.8) (6.2) (4.6) (5.0)

Asked a librarian outside 7 17 17 28 19 31 24 34 44 221 J

my organization (3.2) (7.7) (7.7) (12.7) (8.6) (14.0) (10.9) (15.4) (19.9)1

aNote that 143 individuals skipped the entire questign. bNote that 89 people did not mark this step.

cNote that 196 individuals did not mark this step. 2,ote that 469 individuals did not mark this step.

eNote that 487 individuals did not mark this step. 'Note that 438 individuals did not mark this step.

gNote that 242 individuals did not mark this step. .hNote that 609 individuals did not mark this step.

'Note that 457 individuals did not mark this step. JNote that 736 individuals did not mark this step.

311
APPENDIX E

DESCRIPTIVE DATA ON SURVEY TOPICS 3 AND 4

INTRODUCTION

This study was funded as part of the NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. As scholarly inquiry, the project has both an immediate

and a long-term purpose. In the first instance, it provides a practical and pragmatic

basis for understanding how the results of federally funded research diffuse into the

aerospace R&D process. Over the long term, it provides an empirical basis for

understanding the aerospace knowledge diffusion process itself and its implications

at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. The project, for

which five objectives were established, focuses on the channels used to communicate STI and on the aerospace STI social system.

BACKGROUND

Project objective 3 assumes that libraries and technical information centers

and librarians play an important, but as yet undefined, role in the aerospace knowledge diffusion process and in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace STI.

Figure 2 (page 16) presents a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded

aerospace R&D vis-A-vis the U.S. government technical report. The model is composed of two parts: the informal, which relies on collegial contracts, and the

formal, which relies on surrogates, information products, and information intermediaries to complete the transfer of knowledge form "producer" to "user." Project

312
objective 5 assumes that computer and information technology is an indispensable

part of research process and is essential to the production, transfer, and use of

knowledge. Recent advances in computer and information technology have had and

will continue to have important effects on the following three aspects of research:

data collection and analysis, communications and collaboration, and information

storage and retrieval (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, 1989).

The questionnaire used in this study contains questions pertinent to project

objectives 3 and 5. These questions were included in this study to gather baseline

data concerning library and technical information center use, importance, and

interaction; to identify the attitudes of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists toward

and their use patterns of computer and information technology; and to validate

questions that could be used in future studies concerning these topics. However,

because these questions have no direct bearing on the research questions posed for

this study, the responses are reported in this appendix and not in chapter 5.

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

The survey instrument used in this study contains five questions concerning

librarians and technical information centers and one question regarding the use of

computer and information technology. The responses to these questions, which appear herein as survey topics 3 and 4, are presented in aggregate form and organizationally, according to academic, government, and industry affiliation.

313
Survey Topic 3: The Library and Technical Information Center

Survey participants were asked if a library or technical information center

exists within their respective organizations (table El). Overall, about 89 percent of

the survey participants indicated that their organization has a library or technical inTable El. Existence of a Library or Technical Information Center

Number (percentage) having library or Overall

Library or technical information center in - number

technical information Academia Government Industry (percentage)

center (n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) (n = 1839)

Yes 322 (94.4) 425 (93.6) 876 (85.8) 1643 (89.3)

No 19 (5.6) 29 (6.4) 148 (14.2) 196 (10.7)

formation center. About 6 percent of the academically and government-affiliated respondents indicated the absence of a library or technical information center within

their organization. About 14 percent of the industry-affiliated respondents indicated

the absence of a library or technical information center within their organization.

Overall, survey participants visit a library or technical information center

about 15 times in a 6-month period (table E2). Government-affiliated respondents

make the fewest number of visits in a 6-month period (12.41), followed by industryaffiliated participants (13.36). Statistically, academics make significantly greater use

of a library or technical information center. On the average, academically affiliated

respondents visit a library or technical information center about 24 times in a 6-

month period.

314
Table E2. Use of a Library or Technical Information Center

tTotal respondents, 17 0 3 aI

Mean number of visits to a

Source library or technical information

center in a 6-month period

Overall 15.12

Academia 24.16

Industry 13.36

Government 12.41

aNote that 136 individuals did not answer this question but should have.

Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of a library or

technical information center in terms of performing their present professional duties

(table E3). Overall, a library or technical information center is rated about a 3.9

Table E3. Importance of a Library or Technical Information Center

[Total respondents, 17 9 2 a]

Source Average b (mean) rating

importance in -

Overall 3.87

Academia 4.46

Industry 3.67

Government 3.88

aNote that 47 individuals did not answer this question but should have. bA I to 5 point scale was

used to measure importance, with "1" being the lowest possible importance and "5" being the highest

possible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the importance.

by survey participants in terms of its importance in performing their present

professional duties. Statistically, a library or technical information center is

315
significantly more important (X=4.46) to academics than to other respondents in

terms of performing their present professional duties. A library or technical

information center is least important a=3.67) to industry-affiliated respondents in

terms of performing their present professional duties.

The type or kind of interaction between a library and technical information

center and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists was explored. Survey participants

were asked to indicate the extent of their interaction with a library or technical

information center in a 6-month period (table E4). The intent was to explore the

Table E4. Extent of Library or Technical Information Center Interaction

Average (mean) number of interactions Overall

in 6-month period in - average Total

Type of interaction (mean) respondents

Academia Government Industry number of (n = 1839)

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) interactions

Requested help during 4.74 3.66 6.21 5.29 1593 a

visit

Received offer of help during 3.65 4.50 5.68 5.01 1494 b

visit

Requested something in 6.14 4.39 4.74 4.90 1542 c

writing or electronically

Requested something by 2.24 3.10 3.03 2.90 1493 d

telephone

Requested something through 2.11 2.14 2.10 2.11 1386 e

a proxy

aNote that 246 individuals did not answer this question but should have. bNote that 345 individuals

did not answer this questiqn but should have. Note that 297 individuals did not answer this

question but should have. uNote that 346 individuals did not answer this question but should have.

'Note that 453 individuals did not answer this question but should have.

interface between the formal and informal components of the model depicted in figure 2. Overall means of 5.29 and 5.01 interactions, respectively, are recorded for

"requested the help of a librarian or technical information specialist during their

316
visit" and "received an offer of help from a librarian or technical information

specialists during their visit." To the extent that visits and interactions constitute a

valid comparison, an interaction initiated by either the information intermediary or

the user occurs about two-thirds of the time.

To further explore the type or kind of interaction between a library and

technical information center and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, survey

participants were asked to indicate the number of times they request something in

writing or electronically, by telephone, or through a proxy. An overall mean of

4.90 interactions is recorded for "requested something in writing or electronically

from a library or technical information center," followed by overall means of 290

and 2.11, respectively, for "requested something by telephone" and "requested

something through a proxy."

Organizationally, a mean of 6.21 interactions for "requested the help of a

librarian or technical information specialist during their visit" is recorded for

industry-affiliated respondents. A mean of 6.14 interactions for "requested

something in writing or electronically from a library or technical information center"

is recorded for academics. A mean ,. 4.50 interactions for "received an offer of

help from a librarian or technical information specialists during their visit" is

recorded for government-affiliated participants.

Overall, about 93 percent of the survey participants use a library or technical

information center in a 6-month period. Survey respondents were asked to indicate

their reasons for not using a library or technical information center (table E5).

317
Table ES. Reasons for Library or Technical Information Center Nonuse

Number (percent) who Overall

specified a reason for nonuse in - number

Reasons for nonuse (percentage) Academia Government Industry specifying

(n = 341) (n = 454) (n = 1044) reasona

No information needs 11(29.7) 11 (58.4) 33(47.1) 55(43.0)

(n = 37) (n = 21) (n = 70)

Information needs met some 31(70.5) 24 (100.0) 67 (89.3) 122 (85.3)

other way (n = 44) (n = 24) (n = 75)

Library unable to help in 5 (13.5) 1 (5.0) 9 (14.5) 15 (12.6)

previous attempts (n = 37) (n = 20) (n = 62)

Library physically too far away 8 (15.4) 7 (33.3) 24 (36.9) 39(29.6)

(n = 39) (n = 21) (n = 65)

Library staff not cooperative 12 (5.3) 2 (10.0) 5 (8.2) 19 (7.6)

or helpful (n = 38) (n = 20) (n = 61)

Library staff does not 5(13.2) 3 (15.0) 8(13.1) 16(13.4)

understand individual's (n = 38) (n = 20) (n = 61)

information needs

Library does not have 11(28.2) 7 (35.0) 20 (33.3) 38 (31.9)

information individual needs (n = 39) (n = 20) (n = 60)

No need for library; individual 17 (41.5) 9 (45.0) 22 (35.5) 48 (39.0)

has own personal library (n = 41) (n = 20) (n = 62)

Library too slow in getting 11(28.9) 3 (15.0) 11(18.3) 25 (21.2)

needed information (n = 41) (n = 20) (n = 60)

Required to pay to use library 4 (10.5) 1 (5.0) 2 (3.3) 7 (5.0) (n = 38) (n = 20) (n = 61)

Discouraged from using 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (3.3) 2 (1.7)

library (n = 38) (n = 20) (n = 61)

aNote that 1711 individuals either visited or requested information and therefore did not answer the

question.

318

Hi DHHU nH Di~a HHHD 
Only about 7 percent of the respondents dO not use a library or technical

information center in a 6-month period. Data contained in table E5 were used to

construct the following list of the five most frequently cited reasons for library and

technical information center nonuse.

Reasons for Library and Technical Information Center Nonuse

by Survey Respondents

Percentage (Number of

Respondents) Specifying

Reason Reason for Nonuse

Information needs met some 85.3 (122)

other way

No information needs 43.0 (55)

No need for library; individual 39.0 (48)

has own personal library

Library does not have information 31.9 (38)

individual needs

Library physically too far away 29.6 (39)

For the most part, the reasons for nonuse are largely "user" centered rather

than "library" centered. With the exception of "library does not have the

information the irdividual needs" (31.9 percent; 38 respondents) and "library

phyically too far away" (29.6 percent; 39 respondents), library-centered reasons

such as "library too slow..." (21.2 percent; 25 respondents), "library staff does not

understand information needs" (13.4 percent; 16 respondents), and "library unable to

help in previous attempts" (12.6 percent; 15 respondents) are infrequendy cited as

reasons for nonuse. Only 5.0 percent of the nonusers (7 respondents) indicated that

they are required to pay for using a library or technical information center. Less

than 2.0 percent (2 respondents) indicated that they are discouraged from using the

library.

319
Survey Topic 4: Computer and Information Technolo2v

The use of 15 computer and information technologies by U.S. aerospace

engineers and scientists was investigated. Survey participants were asked to

determine their use, potential use, and nonuse of selected computer and information

technologies in terms of preforming their present professional duties (table E6.)

Table E6. Overall Use of Computer and Information Technology

Number (percentage) responding - Total

Information technology I already I don't use it, I don't use it, respondents

but may in and doubt (n = 1839) use it the future I will

Audiotapes and cassettes 659 (37.3) 574 (32.5) 535 (30.3) 1768 a

Motion picture film 513 (29.0) 530 (30.0) 726 (41.0) 1769b

Videotape 1094(61.4) 494(27.7) 193 (10.8) 1781 c

Desktop-electronic publishing 974 (55.1) 614 (34.7) 180 (10.2) 1768 d

Floppy disks 1494 (83.5) 221 (12.3) 75 (4.2) 1790'

Computer cassette-cartridge tapes 707 (40.3) 603 (34.4) 443 (25.3) 1753 f

Electronic mail 968 (54.4) 659 (37.0) 154 (8.6) 1781 g

Electronic bulletin boards 530(30.1) 896 (50.9) 334 (19.0) 1760.

Fax or telex 1606 (89.4) 153 (8.5) 37 (2.1) 1796.

Electronic data bases 1025 (57.2) 650 (36.3) 116 (6.5) 1791 J

Videoconferencing 369 (21.0) 938 (53.3) 452 (25.7) 1759 k

Teleconferencing 991 (51.2) 595 (33.4) 274 (15.4) 17801

Micrographics and microforms 1145 (64.3) 356 (20.2) 280 (15.7) 1781m

Laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM 135 (7.8) 1130 (65.1) 472 (27.2) 1737 n

Electronic networks 782 (44.4) 773 (43.9) 207 (11.7) 17620

aNote that 71 individuals did not answer this question but should have. bNote that 70 individuals

did not answer hi question but should have. 'Note that 58 individuals did not answer this question

but should have. Note that 71 individuals did not answer this question but should have. eNote that

49 individuals did not answer this question but should have. Note that 86 individuals did not

answer this question but should have. gNote that 58 individuals did not answer this.question but

should have. "Note that 79 individuals did not answer this .question but should have. 'Note that 43

individuals did not answer this question but should have. JNote that 48 individuals did not answer

this question but should have. 'Note that 179 individuals did not answer this question but should

have. "Note that 59 individuals did not answer this question but should have. mNote that 58

individuals did not answer this question but should have. nNote that 102 individuals did not answer

this question but should have. °Note that 77 individuals did not answer this question but should

have.

320
As shown in table E6, survey respondents use a variety of computer and

information technologies. The percentage of "I already use it" responses ranged

from a high of 89.4 percent (fax or telex) to a low of 7.8 percent (laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM). The five most frequently used computer and information technologies for survey respondents, in descending order of use, follow.

Computer and Information Technology Used Most Frequently

by Survey Respondents

Percentage

Technology Using

Fax or telex 89.4

Floppy disks 83.5

Micrographics and 64.3

microforms

Videotape 61.4

Electronic data bases 57.2

A further look at table E6 reveals several computer and information

technologies for which a considerable number of "I don't use it, but may in the

future" responses are recorded. These responses range from a high of 65.1 percent (laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM) to a low of 8.5 percent (fax or telex).

The five computer and information technologies receiving the highest percentage of

the "I don't use it, but may in the future" responses a - pear, in descending order of

possible future use, on the next page.

321
Computer and Information Technology Which May Be Used in the Future by

Survey Respondents

Percentage Indicating

Technology Possible Future Use

Laser disk, videodisk, or 65.1

CD-ROM

Videoconferencing 53.3

Electronic bulletin 50.9

boards

Electronic networks 43.9

Electronic mail 37.0

Table E6 also reveals the computer and information technologies for which

survey participants indicate "I don't use it, and doubt if I will" responses. The

percentages of these responses range from a high of 41.0 percent (motion picture

film) to a low of 2.1 percent (fax or telex). The five computer and information

technologies receiving the highest percentage of the "I don't use it, and doubt I

will" responses appear below in descending order of nonuse and unlikely use.

Computer and Information Technology Not Used and Unlikely To Be Used

in the Future by Survey Respondents

Percentage Indicating

Technology Nonuse and Unlikely Use

Motion picture film 41.0

Audiotapes and cassettes 30.3

Laser disk, videodisk, or 27.2

CD-ROM

Videoconferencing 25.7

Computer cassette- 25.3

cartridge tapes

322
Table E7. Use of Computer and Information Technology in Academia

Number (percentage) responding - I Total

Information technology I already I don't use it, I don't use it, respondents useait but may in and doubt . =41) use it the future I will

Audiotapes and cassettes 137 (41.9) 103 (31.5) 87 (26.6) 327 a

Motion picture film 128 (38.9) 102 (31.0) 128 (30.1) 329 b

Videotape 192 (58.5) 104 (31.7) 32 (9.8) 328 c

Desktop-electronic publishing 190 (57.9) 110 (33.5) 28 (8.5) 328 d

Floppy disks 285 (86.6) 37 (11.2) 7 (2.1) 329 e

Computer cassette-cartridge tapes 140 (43.3) 113 (35.0) 70(21.7) 323 f

Electronic mail 184 (55.9) 122 (37.1) 23 (7.0) 329 g

Electronic bulletin boards 81(24.8) 180(55.0) 66 (20.2) 327 h

Fax or telex 279 (84.5) 43 (13.0) 8 (2.4) 330

Electronic data bases 185 (55.9) 130 (39.3) 16 (4.8) 331 J

Videoconferencing 30 (32.6) 178 (43.6) 116 (23.8) 324 k

Teleconferencing 107 (9.3) 143 (54.9) 78 (35.8) 328

Micrographics and microforms 226 (69.1) 61(18.7) 40(12.2) 327 m

Laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM 35 (10.1) 219 (67.8) 69 (21.4) 323 n

Electronic networks 145 (44.2) 153 (46.6) 30 (9.1) 328 0

aNote that 14 individuals did not answer this question but should have. bNote that 12 individuals

did not answer this question but should have. Note that 13 individuals did not answer this question

but should have. uNote that 13 individuals did not answer this question but should have. eNote that

12 individuals did not answer this question but should have. Note that 18 individuals did not

answer this qtestion but should have. Note that 12 individuals did not answer this. question but

should have. "Note that 14 individuals did not answer this .question but should have. 'Note that 11

individuals did not answer this qpestion but should have. JNote that 10 individuals did not answer

this queftion but should have. LNote that 17 individuals did not answer this question but should

have. 'Note that 13 individuals did not answer this question but should have. mNote that 14

individuals did not answer this question but should have. nNote that 18 individuals did not answer

this question but should have. °Note that 13 individuals did not answer this question but should

have.

As shown in table E7, academically affiliated respondents use a variety of

computer and information technologies. The percentage of "I already use it"

responses range from a high of 86.6 percent (floppy disks) to a low of 9.3 percent

(teleconferencing). The five most frequently used computer and information

technologies for academically affiliated respondents, in descending order of use,

follow.

323
Computer and Information Technology Used Most Frequently

by Academically Affiliated Respondents

Percentage

Technology Using

Floppy disks 86.6

Fax or telex 84.5

Micrographics and 69.1

microforms

Videotape 58.5

Desktop-electronic 57.9

publishing

A further look at table E7 reveals several computer and information

technologies for which a considerable number of "I don't use it, but may in the

future" responses are recorded. These responses range from a high of 67.8 percent

(laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM) to a low of 11.2 percent (floppy disks). The

five computer and information technologies receiving the highest percentage of "I

don't use it, but may in the future" responses from academically affiliated

respondents, in descending order of possible future use, appear below.

Computer and Information Technology Which May Be Used in the Future

by Academically Affiliated Respondents

Percentage Indicating

Technology Possible Future Use

Laser disk, videodisk, or 67.8

CD-ROM

Electronic bulletin 55.0

boards

Teleconferencing 54.9

Electronic networks 46.6

Videoconferencing 43.6

324
Table E7 also reveals the computer and information technologies for which

academically affiliated participants indicate "I don't use it, and doubt I will"

responses. The percentages of these responses range from a high of 35.8 percent

(teleconferencing) to a low of 2.1 percent (floppy disks). The five computer and

information technologies receiving the highest percentage of the "I don't use it, and

doubt I will" responses appear below in descending order of nonuse and unlikely

use.

Computer and Information Technology Not Used and Unlikely To Be Used

in the Future by Academically Affiliated Respondents

Percentage Indicating Technology Nonuse and Unlikely Use

Teleconferencing 35.8

Motion picture film 30.1

Audiotapes and cassettes 26.6

Videoconferencing 23.8

Computer cassette- 21.7

cartridge tapes

325
Table E8. Use of Computer and Information Technology in Government

Number (percentage) responding - Total

Information technology I already I don't use it, I don't use it, respondents use it but may in and doubt (n = 454)

the future I will

Audiotapes and cassettes 156 (35.5) 152 (34.5) 132 (30.0) 440 a

Motion picture film 136 (30.9) 138 (31.4) 166 (37.7) 440 b

Videotape 284 (64.1) 116 (26.2) 43 (9.7) 443 c

Desktop-electronic publishing 260 (59.2) 139 (31.7) 40 (9.1) 449 d

Floppy disks 386 (87.1) 44 (9.9) 13 (2.9) 443 e

Computei cassette-cartridge tapes 162 (37.1) 159 (36.4) 116 (26.5) 437 f

Electronic mail 289 (64.8) 124 (27.8) 33 (7.4) 4 46 g

Electronic bulletin boards 177 (40.3) 197 (44.9) 65 (14.8) 439 h

Fax or telex 390 (87.4) 48 (10.8) 8 (1.8) 446 i

Electronic data bases 281 (63.3) 128 (28.8) 35 (7.9) 444 J

Videoconferencing 113 (54.1) 242 (32.7) 82 (13.3) 437 k

Teleconferencing 240 (25.9) 145 (55.4) 59 (18.8) 4441

Micrographics and microforms 282 (63.5) 95 (21.4) 67 (15.1) 444 m

Laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM 39 (9.0) 289 (66.6) 106 (24.4) 434 n

Electronic networks 230 (2.0) 167 (37.8) 45 (10.2) 4420

aNote that 14 individuals did not answer this 0luestion but should have. bNote that 14 individuals

did not answer this1 question but should have. Note that 11 individuals did not answer this question but should have. Note that 5 individuals did not answer this queption but should have. eNote th

11 individuals did not answer this question but should have. Note that 17 individuals did not

answer this qtrstion but should have. gNote that 8 individuals did not answer this question but

should have. Note that 15 individuals did not answer this. question but should have. Note that 8

individuals did not answer this qoestion but should have. JNote that 10 individuals did not answer

this queption but should have. Note that 17 individuals did not answer this question but should

have. Note that 10 individuals did not answer this question but should have. mNote that 10

individuals did not answer this question but should have. nNote that 20 individuals did not answer

this question but should have. °Note that 12 individuals did not answer this question but should

have.

As shown in table E8, government-affiliated respondents use a variety of

computer and information technologies. The percentage of "I already use it"

responses range from a high of 87.4 percent (fax or telex) to a low of 2.0 percent

(electronic networks). The five most frequently used computer and information

technologies for government-affiliated respondents appear, in descending order of

use, on the next page.

326
Computer and Information Technology Used Most Frequently

by Government-Affiliated Respondents

Percentage

Technology Using

Fax or telex 87.4

Floppy disks 87.1

Electronic mail 64.8

Videotape 64.1

Micrographics and 63.5

microforms

A further look at table E8 reveals several computer and information technologies for which a considerable number of "I don't use it, but may in the future"

responses are recorded. The percentages of these responses range from a high of

66.6 percent (laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM) to a low of 9.9 percent (floppy

disks). The five computer and information technologies receiving the highest

percentage of "I don't use it, but may in the future" responses from governmentaffiliated respondents appear below in descending order of possible future use.

Computer and Information Technology Which May Be Used in the Future

by Government-Affiliated Respondents

Percentage Indicating

Technology Possible Future Use

Laser disk, videodisk, or 66.6

CD-ROM

Teleconferencing 55.4

Electronic bulletin 44.9

boards

Electronic networks 37.8

Computer cassette- 36.4

cartridge tapes

327
Table E8 also reveals the computer and information technologies for which

government-affiliated participants indicate "I don't use it, and doubt if I will"

responses. The percentages of these responses range from a high of 37.7 percent

(motion picture film) to a low of 1.8 percent (fax or telex). The five computer and

information technologies receiving the highest percentage of the "I don't use it, and

doubt I will" responses from government-affiliated responses appear below in descending order of nonuse and unlikely use.

Computer and Information Technology Not Used and Unlikely To Be Used

in the Future by Government-Affiliated Respondents

Percentage Indicating

Technology Nonuse and Unlikely Use

Motion picture film 37.7

Audiotapes and cassettes 30.0

Computer cassette- 26.5

cartridge tapes

Laser disk, videodisk, or 24.4

CD-ROM

Teleconferencing 18.8

As shown in table E9, industry-affiliated respondents use a variety of

cemputer and information technologies. The percentage of "I already use it"

responses range from a high of 91.9 percent (fax or telex) to a low of 6.2 percent

(laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM). The five most frequently used computer and

information technologies for industry-affiliated respondents appear, in descending

order of use, on the next page.

328
Table E9. Use of Computer and Information Technology in Industry

Number (percentage) responding - Total

Information technology I already I don't use it, I don't use it, respondents

use it but may in and doubt (n = 1044) the future I will

Audiotapes and cassettes 366 (36.6) 319 (31.9) 316 (31.9) 1001a

Motion picture film 249 (24.9) 290 (29.0) 461 (46.1) 1000 b

Videotape 618(61.2) 274(27.1) 118(11.7) 1010 c

Desktop-electronic publishing 524 (52.3) 365 (36.5) 112(11.2) 1001 d

Floppy disks 823 (80.8) 140 (13.8) 55 (5.4) 1018e

Computer cassette-cartridge tapes 405 (40.8) 331 (33.3) 257 (25.9) 993 f

Electronic mail 495 (49.2) 413 (41.1) 98 (9.7) 10069

Electronic bulletin boards 272 (27.4) 519 (52.2) 203 (20.4) 994 h

Fax or telex 937(91.9) 62 (6.1) 21 (2.0) 1020.

Electronic data bases 559 (55.0) 392 (38.6) 65 (6.4) 1016J

Videoconferencing 226 (56.0) 518 (30.5) 254 (13.6) 998 k

Teleconferencing 564 (22.6) 307 (51.9) 137 (25.5) 1008

Micrographics and microforms 637 (63.1) 200 (19.8) 173 (17.1) 1010 m

Laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM 61 (6.2) 622 (63.5) 297 (30.3) 980 n

Electronic networks 407 (41.0) 453 (45.7) 132 (13.3) 9920

aNote that 43 individuals did not answer this 0luestion but should have. bNote that 44 individuals

did not answer thi% question but should have. Note that 34 individuals did not answer this question

but should have. 'Note that 43 individuals did not answer this quistion but should have. eNote that

26 individuals did not answer this question but should have. Note that 51 individuals did not

answer this question but should have. gNote that 38 individuals did not answer this. question but

should have. Note that 50 individuals did not answer this.question but should have. 'Note that 24

individuals did not answer this qvestion but should have. JNote that 28 individuals did not answer

this quettion but should have. KNote that 46 individuals did not answer this question but should

have. 'Note that 36 individuals did not answer this question but should have. mNote that 34

individuals did not answer this question but should have. nNote that 64 individuals did not answer

this question but should have. 0Note that 52 individuals did not answer this question but should

have.

Computer and Information Technology Used Most Frequently

by Industry-Affiliated Respondents

Percentage

Technology Using

Fax or telex 91.9

Floppy disks 80.8

Micrographics and 63.1

microforms

Videotape 61.2

Videoconferencing 56.0

329
A further look at table E9 reveals several computer and information

technologies for which a considerable number of "I don't use it, but may in the

future" responses are recorded. The percentages of these responses range from a

high of 63.5 percent (laser disk, videodisk, or CD-ROM) to a low of 6.1 percent

(fax or telex). The five computer and information technologies receiving the highest

percentage of "I don't use, but may in the future" responses from industry-affiliated

respondents appear below in descending order of possible future use.

Computer and Information Technology Which May Be Used in the Future

by Industry-Affiliated Respondents

Percentage Indicating

Technology Possible Future Use

Laser disk, videodisk, or 63.5

CD-ROM

Electronic bulletin 52.2

boards

Teleconferencing 51.9

Electronic networks 45.7

Electronic data bases 38.6

Table E9 also reveals the computer and information technologies for which

industry-affiliated participants indirated "I don't use it, and doubt if I will"

responses. The percentages of these responses range from a high of 46.1 percent

(motion picture film) to a low of 2.0 percent (fax or telex). The five computer and

information technologies receiving the highest percentage of the "I don't use it, and

doubt I will" responses from industry-affiliated respondents appear, in descending

order of nonuse and unlikely use, on the next page.

330
Computer and Information Technology Not Used and Unlikely To Be Used

by Industry-Affiliated Respondents

Percentage Indicating

Technology Nonuse and Unlikely Use

Motion picture film 46.1

Audiotapes and cassettes 31.9

Laser disk, videodisk, or 30.3

CD-ROM

Computer cassette- 25.9

cartridge tapes

Teleconferencing 25.5

For purposes of data analysis, the 15 computer and information technologies

are grouped into the following 3 categories: mature, maturing, and nascent. The

titles are contrived to provide a label for identification only. The placement of the

computer and information technologies within the three categories is, for the most

part, arbitrary. The intent is to establish a context in which "use" by U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists might be viewed and discussed.

Mature Maturing Nascent

Audiotapes and cassettes Laser disk, videodisk, Electronic networks

Motion picture film or CD-ROM Electronic mail

Videotape Teleconferencing

Fax or telex Videoconferencing

Computer cassettes- Electronic data bases

cartridge tapes Desktop-electronic

Micrographics and publishing

microforms

Floppy disks

The aggregrate responses of the survey respondents are compiled for the

three categories. Responses for each caregory are displayed in terms of use,

possible future use, nonuse, and unlikely use.

331
Use of Mature Computer and Information Technologies by

Survey Respondents

Percentage Percentage

Indicating Indicating

Possible Nonuse and

Percentage Future Unlikely

Technology Using Use Use

Audiotapes and 37.3 32.5 30.3

cassettes

Motion picture film 29.0 30.0 41.0

Videotape 61.4 27.7 10.8

Fax or telex 89.4 8.5 2.1

Computer cassettes- 40.3 34.4 25.3

cartridge tapes

Micrographics and 64.3 20.2 15.7

microforms

Floppy disks 83.5 12.3 4.2

Overall, survey respondents are using the mature computer and information

technologies. Respondents are about evenly divided on their use, possible future

use, and nonuse and unlikely use of the more mature computer and information

technologies such as audiotapes and cassettes, motion picture film, and computer

cassettes-cartridge tapes. Fax or telex (89.4 percent), floppy disks (83.5 percent),

and micrographics and microforms (64.3 percent) enjoy the highest current use and

the lowest possible future use, nonuse, and unlikely use.

332
Use of Maturing Computer and Information Technologies by

Survey Respondents

Percentage Percentage

Indicating Indicating

Possible Nonuse and

Percentage Future Unlikely

Technology Using Use Use

Laser disk, videodisk, 7.8 65.1 27.2

or CD-ROM

Teleconferencing 51.2 33.4 15.4

Videoconferencing 21.0 53.3 25.7

Electronic data bases 57.2 36.3 6.5

Desktop-electronic 55.1 34.7 10.2

publishing

Over 50 percent of the survey respondents are using electronic data bases

(57.2 percent), teleconferencing (51.2 percent), and desktop-electronic publishing

(55.1 percent). The percentages indicating possible future are highest for laser disk,

videodisk, or CD-ROM and videoconferencing. The percentages indicating nonuse

and unlikely use for the maturing computer and information technologies are

relatively low.

Use of Nascent Computer and Information Technologies by

Survey Respondents

Percentage Percentage

Indicating Indicating

Possible Nonuse and

Percentage Future Unlikely

Technology Using Use Use

Electronic networks 44.4 43.9 11.7

Electronic mail 54.4 37.0 8.6

About 88 percent of the survey participants are either using or will possibly

use electronic networks in the future and about 91 percent are either using or will

possibly use electronic mail in the future. Nonuse and unlikely use is very low.

333
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The process by which U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists obtain the

information they use to complete projects and tasks and solve technical problems

affects their use of libraries and technical information centers. The results of the

several engineering information use studies reviewed in chapter 3 and the results of

this study reported in chapter 5 support this position. The process also illustrates

the interface between the two parts of the model found in figure 2.

Engineers appear to assume personal responsibility for meeting their

information needs. They apparently prefer a personalized and informal approach to

obtaining information. Previous research does not indicate that this finding varies

from one engineering discipline to another. Only after they have exhausted their

personal store of information and have consulted with their colleagues do they turn

to formal information sources such as libraries and technical information centers. In

doing so, U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists tend to assume personal

responsibility for fulfilling their information needs by trying to find the information

themselves before soliciting the help of a librarian or technical information

specialist.

The findings permit the formulation of the following general statements

regarding libraries and technical information centers:

1. Libraries and technical information centers are used and are important to U.S.

aerospace engineers and scientists.

334
2. Overall (X=3.8655), U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in academia rate the

importance of libraries and technical information centers higher (X=4.4559) than

do their counterparts in government (X=3.8814) and industry Q(=3.6673).

Overall

(X=15.1180), U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in academia visit a library

or technical information center more times (X=24.1619) in a 6-month period than

do their counterparts in government a=12.4089) and industry (X=13.3583).

3. Library and technical information center nonuse appears to have more to do with

the process by which U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists obtain information.

Finally, readers should note that the original plan was to compare data

regarding the "number of visits to a library in a 6-month period" with "distance."

The intent was to test the hypothesis that library use decreases as a function of

distance. Unfortunately, the questions were improperly phrased. Number of visits

was keyed to "your library" and distance was keyed to "a library."

Computer and information technology continues to have a significant and

widespread impact on the conduct of research in terms of data collection and

analysis, communication and collaboration among researchers, and information

storage and retrieval. Overall, Shuchman (1981) found that computer and

information technology has "high" potential usefulness but relatively low use among

engineers. Shuchman reported that, among the six engineering disciplines studied,

aeronautical engineers were heavy users of existing computer and information

technology and showed high potential for using the new and emerging computer and

information technologies. The results of the pilot study (Pinelli, et al., 1989)

confirm this finding.

335
The findings permit the formulation of the following general statements

regarding computer and information technology:

1. The relatively high use and potential use of computer and information

technology by U.S. aeronautical engineers and scientists reported by Shuchman

(1981) and the pilot study (Pinelli, et at., 1989) was also found in this study.

2. Although the exact purpose was not determined by this study, overall and

organizationally U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists make considerable use

of computer and information technology.

3. U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists are using the mature computer and

information technology. They are also using and indicate potential use of the

the maturing computer and information technology, and they are likely to use

the nascent computer and information technology.

REFERENCES

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of

Medicine. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Information

Technology and the Conduct of Research: The User's View. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1989.

Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca 0. Barclay.

Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Study.

TM-101534, Part 1, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, February 1989. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA

89N26772.)

Shuchman, Hedvah L. Information Transfer in Engineering. (Glastonbury, CT:

The Futures Group, 1981.)

336
NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION

RESEARCH PROJECT PUBLICATIONS

Rep~orts

Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca 0. Barclay.

Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory

Study. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA TM-101534, Report 1, Part 1. February 1989. 106 p. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 89N26772.)

Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Walter E. Oliu; and Rebecca 0. Barclay.

Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory

Study. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA TM-101534, Report 1, Part 2. February 1989. 84 p. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 89N26773.)

Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Rebecca 0. Barclay; and Walter E. Oliu.

Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory

Study -- An Analysis of Managers' and Nonmanagers' Responses.

Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA

TM-101625, Report 2. August 1989. 58 p. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA; 90N11647.)

Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Rebecca 0. Barclay; and Walter E. Oliu.

Technical Communications in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory

Study -- An Analysis of Profit Managers' and Nonprofit Managers'

Responses. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. NASA TM-101626, Report 3. October 1989. 71 p.

(Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 90N15848.)

Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to

Phase 1 Respondents. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. NASA TM-102772, Report 4. January 1991. (Available

from NTIS, Springfield, VA.)

Pinelli, Thomas E.; John M. Kennedy; and Terry F. White. Summary Report to

Phase 1 Respondents Including Frequency Distributions. Washington, DC:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-102773, Report

5. January 1991. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA.)

Pinelli, Thomas E. The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government

Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists and

Selected Institutional and Sociometric Variables. Washington, DC:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-102774, Report

6. January 1991. 350 p. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA.)

337
Papers

Pinelli, Thomas E.; Myron Glassman; Rebecca 0. Barclay; and Walter E. Oliu.

The Value of Scientific and Technical Information (STI), Its Relationship

to Research and Development (R&D), and Its Use by U.S. Aerospace

Enginetrs and Scientists. Paper 1. Paper presented at the European Forum

"External Information: A Decision Tool" 19 January 1990, Strasbourg,

France. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 90A21931.)

Blados, Walter R.; Thomas E. Pinelli; John M. Kennedy; and Rebecca 0. Barclay.

External Information Sources and Aerospace R&D: The Use and Importance of Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists.

Paper 2. Paper prepared for the 68th AGARD National Delegates Board

Meeting, 29 March 1990, Toulouse, France. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA; 90A30132.)

Kennedy, John M. and Thomas E. Piaelli. The Impact of a Sponsor Letter on

Mail Survey Response Rates. Paper 3. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lancaster,

PA, May 19, 1990.

Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. Aerospace Librarians and Technical

Information Specialists as Information Intermediaries: A Report of

Phase 2 Activities of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion

Research Project. Pape" 4. Paper presented at the Special Libraries

Association, Aerospace Division - 81st Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA,

June 13, 1990.

Pinelli, Thomas E.; Rebecca 0. Barclay; John M. Kennedy; and Myron Glassman.

Technical Communications in Aerospace: An Analysis of the Practices

Reported by U.S. and European Aerospace Engineers and Scientists.

Paper 5. Paper presented at the International Professional Communication

Conference (IPCC), Post House Hotel, Guilford, England, September 14,

1990.

Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion in the

Academic Community: A Report of Phase 3 Activities of the NASA/DoD

Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper 6. Paper

presented at the 1990 Annual Conference of the American Society for

Engineering Education - Engineering Libraries Division, Toronto, Canada,

June 27, 1990.

Pinelli, Thomas E. and John M. Kennedy. The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge

Diffusion Research Project: The DoD Perspective." Paper 7. Paper

presented at the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) 1990 Annual

Users Training Conference, Alexandria, VA, November 1, 1990.

338
IVASA Report Documentation Page Na ~nd An rau ~cs and

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

NASA TM-102774 1

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government January 1991

Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and 6. Peomig Organization Code

Scientists and Selected Institutional and Sociometric

Variables

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Thomas E. Pinelli

10. Work Unit No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 505-90

NASA Langley Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No.

Hampton, VA 23665-5225

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Tecnica Memoradu

Washington, DC 20546-0001 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Report Number 6 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project.

The information presented in this report was offered as a thesis in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana,

November 1990.

16. Abstract

A study was undertaken that investigated the relationship between the use of U.S. government

technical reports by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists and selected institutional and

sociometric variables. Survey research is the methodology used for the study. Data were collected

by means of a self-administered mail questionnaire. The approximately 34 000 members of the

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) served as the study population.

The response rate for the survey was 70 percent. A dependent relationship was found to exist

between the use of U.S. government technical reports and three of the institutional variables

(academic preparation, years of professional aerospace work experience, and technical discipline).

The use of U.S. government technical reports was found to be independent of all of the sociometric

variables. The institutional variables best explain the use of U.S. government technical reports

by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists.

17. Key Words (Suggested by Authors(s)) 18. Distribution Statement

Knowledge Diffusion Unclassified-Unlimited

U.S. Government Technical Reports

Knowledge Transfer

Information Use

Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Subject Category 82

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security ClassiL (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 122. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 353 A16

NASA FORM 1626 ocr ss

For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161-2171

NASA-Langley, 1991