social and cultural environments of those populations which are designated as disadvantaged. The values and strengths which are associated with being a black in America or a member of a non-English speaking group in an Anglo culture or an Indian in a white man's civilization become the starting points for finding oneself and the building of relations to others. I have seen numerous examples of this in programs now under development in several places. The approaches used obviate the danger of making disadvantaged populations simply the subjects of interventions by others, and recognize that fruitful transactions with the dominant middle class culture become possible only on a basis of the awareness of what the submerged groups can contribute to the enrichment of that culture. To this end a studied attempt is made to enable members of the population which are the targets of the intervention to become contributors to the architecture of intervention. Increasingly the residents of inner-city ghettos, the residents of areas distant from the major centers of population, and members of groups whose languages and/or cultures differ significantly from those of the majority are being involved in helping to decide what they want for their chil dren and for themselves and how they can be helped to widen the choices open to them.

We have learned to distrust the assumption that improvement in education will result from piecemeal reforms such as introducing new media of instruction, revising instructional materials, regrouping learners, organizing teachers into teams, or adopting programed instruction. The history of innovation shows that any substantial gain in effectiveness depends on many factors operating to the common effect. Well conceived educational research and development operations involve helping school personnel acquire needed skills and competence in new roles as well as developing improved instructional materials and management systems. Moreover it is recognized that effective use of a new product or subsystem may require carefully worked out adaptations both in the new elements, and in the school, communities, and other systems affected.

I have been speaking of research and development as a function or set of operations performed by organizations established and maintained for the purpose of devising and perfecting alternative strategies, products, and systems to facalitate the achievement of specified objectives. This is true to the extent that he characteristics. which I have been describing find their fullest expression in such organizations. Let no one imagine, however, that the urgently needed improvements in education will result simply from having one type of organization design and develop products for use in schools, colleges, and other educational agencies. The adaptation of educational institutions to the needs of our times requires both incremental and reconstructive changes. These changes cannot produce the desired effects unless there exists within the adopting agencies a predisposing set of conditions.

The success of innovations is increased when:

(1) a preceding analysis by members of the adopting agency has identified poorly achieved objectives, low performance of functions to which the agency is committeed, and/or newly identified needs for education which require attention;

(2) the effects which the adopting organization wishes to achieve have been specified as explicitly as possible;

(3) the choice of a particular innovation or set of innovations has been made after a careful examination of available alternatives;

(4) personnel in the adopting organization are given help in making the changes in their own roles and behaviors which are required to gain the full benefits of innovation;

(5) the clientele to be served, including students, parents, and others in the community affected are involved in the definition of needs and decisions as to the nature of the changes desired. The research and development function will become institutionalized in education only when schools, colleges, and educational agencies generally incorporate in their own operations what I have called the "effects orientation" and use appropriate problem-solving processes to specify and achieve the desired outcomes. The first requirement is that all education agencies engage constantly in a searching assessment of the needs for education of those whom they seek to serve. The assessment must be conducted in such a way as to move from symptoms such as dropouts, poor school attendance, and low academic achievement to the underlying causes in the inappropriateness or inadequacy of educational treatments. A second requirement is that the assessment of needs lead to the identification of specific objectives or effects which are perceived as important by those to be educated as well as by educational personnel. The third requirement is a vigorous search for strategies and instrumentalities which seem well adapted to production of the desired effects. These aspects of probing and problem solving need to go on in every district, in every school, in every community educational agency, and in every institution of higher learning. Assistance in the various phases of this "system improving" operation, hopefully will be forthcoming from state education agencies, from regional service centers, from experimental projects, and from the organizations specialized to research and development in education. The latter organizations have a central responsibility not only for providing tested products and systems, but also for assisting educational personnel to incorporate in their own agencies the kinds of processes and mechanisms essential to con tinuing revitalization.

It must be understood that the characteristics I have been describing are nowhere fully realized; but they do underlie the operative values in the more successful educational research and development organizations. These incipient characteristics will emerge more clearly when encouraged by the commitment of needed additional resources to those operations that demonstrate them most fully.

The purpose of this section has been to expose the perspectives from which my own views of educational research and development are derived. The next section offers a summary of views of others who occupy key posts for observation of R&D operations in education; and the third (and final) section presents generalizations drawn from a reexamination of the past, present, and hoped-for future.

In order to gain the current views of a number of participants in and observers of research and development operations in education, inquiries were addressed in late February 1971 to 120 persons who have followed closely the course of educational research and development. Of these 50 are employed by R&D organizations: 10 directors of educa tional research and development centers, 14 directors of regional educational laboratories, and 26 additional staff members of centers and laboratories. Identical questions were addressed to 70 persons not on R&D staffs: 11 chief state school officers, 29 local school administrators, 8 university deans, 10 professors, and 12 leaders in other organizations. All of those queried have had unusual opportunity to study educational research and development operations, with the exception of the 29 local administrators, most of whom were selected at random from education directories.

The inquiry form raised five questions:

1. What do you regard as the chief achievements of educational R&D?

2. What have been the chief obstacles to effective operations?

3. What steps are most vital to the increased effectiveness of educational R&D?

4. What are the most valuable lessons to be learned from our experience up to this time with research and development in education? 5. What is your general assessment of the major strengths and weaknesses of educational research and development at the present time?

To facilitate replies, the first three questions were followed by checklists of seven or eight factors which are frequently cited as contributing to the relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness of research and development in education. Space was given after each of these questions for added items and for free-ranging comments. Correspondents were asked to double-check the two or three items considered crucial. Questions 4 and 5 were followed only by a blank for the respondents' use. (A copy of the inquiry form and covering letter are appended to this report.)

Seventy-eight replies were received and analyzed to determine the preponderant views and to reveal significant divergencies among and within the several categories of respondents. When the returns were analyzed in mid-March, replies had been received from only 11 of 29 local school administrators queried. This in itself may be an indication that only a minority of local school people have felt any impact from R&D operations. Completed replies were received from over 70 per cent of all other persons addressed, and in no other category did the returns fall as low as 50 per cent. Of the 78 respondents, 73 completed the checklists for the first three questions and the remaining five ignored the checklists but offered comments. Of the 73 respondents completing the checklists, 35 are members of center and laboratory

staffs and 38 are observers not employed by these organizations. The latter group includes 8 chief state school officers, 11 local administrators, 6 university deans, 8 professors, and 5 who are recognized as authorities on the application of research and development to education. Analysis revealed some differences of opinion among observers within and without R&D organizations but no clear differences among the several categories of "internal" and "external" respondents.

The following pages give sampling of the comments of respondents in answer to each of the five questions. For the first three questions, tabulations of the checklist responses are also provided. The tables show the percentages of those within and without educational R&D organizations rating each checklist item as crucial or important. It may be noted that in no case did the items at the top of the checklist elicit the highest number or percentage of responses.

MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS CITED

Respondents were asked to indicate their views of the relative importance of seven suggested achievements by checking once all items regarded as important, and twice those regarded as crucial. Inasmuch as no major differences appeared among the responses from center directors, center staff members, laboratory directors, and laboratory staff members, all of these are grouped together in the 35 responses from R&D staff members. Analysis also showed no important differences in the responses of school administrators and other respondents who are not members of laboratory or center staffs. In the tabulation, therefore, comparison is made between the responses from those employed by R&D organizations and those not so employed. (See Table I.)

TABLE I.-Responses to Checklist on Chief Achievements of Educational R. & D. Showing Percentages Rating Each Item as Crucial and Important

Crucial

Important

Combined

Crucial

Combined