A comparative analysis of the energy commitments of traumatically physically disabled sheltered workshop employees and non-disabled industrial employees

No Thumbnail Available
Schnacke, Stephen B. (Stephen Bernard), 1943-
Hollis, Joseph William
Issue Date
Thesis (D. Ed)
Other Identifiers

The main purpose of this study was to determine the differences in the energy commitments of two groups of subjects. The two groups were Traumatically Physically Disabled Sheltered Workshop Employees and Non-Disabled Industrial Employees. The second purpose was to determine the change in the energy commitments of the subjects over an intervening period of time. Thirdly, the study was concerned with the extension and utility of the theoretical foundation of the study.The theoretical framework chosen for the investigation was Energy Commitment Theory developed by Hollis and Hollis. The theory was broad and encompassing and provided the vehicle for a. comparative analysis of energy commitments, Energy commitment was defined as the consigning of the individual's personal energies and connotes a promise of energy expenditure so as to be directed toward facilitating action in a projected manner. Each energy commitment was seen as possessing three dimensions--direction, thrust, and flexibility. The dimension of direction was subdivided into three categories--people, objects, and ideas. The dimension of thrust was subdivided into the categories of priority, force, and amount.The design of the investigation was planned to have sixty hypotheses originating from four major stem statements. In the first major stem statement the two groups were compared at the time of the first Structured Interview. In the second stem statement the two groups were compared at the time of the second interview. The third and the fourth stem statements were concerned with the comparison over time of the disabled group and the industrial group respectively.Subjects for the two groups were selected by predetermined criteria. Criteria common to both groups included age, sex, education, and marital status. In addition, specific criteria were detailed for each group. For the disabled group, subjects were required to fit certain specifications regarding type of disability, time since onset of disability, and length of employment. The industrial group subjects had to meet criteria regarding type of job, and length of employment on the job.Prior to the major study, a pilot study was conducted. The major focus of the pilot study was the improvement of the Structured Interview Guides and Interview Rating Sheets. These farms were designed specifically from Energy Commitment Theory. In the major study, each subject was interviewed by one interviewer who tape recorded the structured interview. The interviews were later reviewed and classified as to each direction by a group of trained raters.By a comparison of the rating sheets prepared by the interviewer and the raters, it was shown that the interview and classifications on the rating sheets provided a consistent means of obtaining each subject's energy commitments.From the analysis of the data, it was found the disabled group had qualitatively different energy commitments from the industrial group. Further, the industrial group's energy commitments remained stable during the two months between the two interviews. The disabled group did change and did tend to become more like the industrial group during the two month period.Specifically from the data of this investigation, it was concluded the disabled individuals were more idea oriented while the industrial group was more committed toward objects. The two groups were essentially the same regarding commitments to people. For priority the two groups viewed their commitments to people most important, but the two groups differed in priority toward objects and ideas. From other data, it was found the disabled group perceived their commitments, regardless of whether toward people, objects, or ideas, as requiring more force than the industrial group. The data for amount were that the disabled group gave greater amounts (a ranking) of energy toward people and ideas while the industrial group gave more energy toward objects. Further, the disabled subjects were less flexible than the industrial group.