Do adaptors and innovators subscribe to opposing values?

Many studies reveal that adaptors are more ready to accept the status quo, whereas innovators are less likely to do so. This raises the question: Do adaptors and innovators subscribe to opposing values? A study is conducted with the following hypotheses. H1 predicts that adaptors are more likely to subscribe to CONSERVATION values like security, conformity, and tradition. H2 predicts that innovators are more likely to subscribe to OPENNESS TO CHANGE values like self-direction and stimulation. The respondents consisted of 243 students from Singapore with an average age of 17.9 years and 195 students from Australia with an average age of 19.1 years. These respondents answered a survey that contained the Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) inventory and the Schwartz value survey. For the Singapore sample, KAI was negatively correlated with CONSERVATION: r = -39, p <.0001; but it was positively correlated with OPENNESS TO CHANGE: r = .14, p <.05. For the Australian sample, KAI was negatively correlated with CONSERVATION: r = -.15, p <.05; but it was positively correlated with OPENNESS TO CHANGE: r =.32, p <.0001. A standard regression analysis indicated that CONSERVATION was the most significant predictor (P = -.43, p <.0001) of KAI, followed by OPENNESS TO CHANGE (P =.37, p <.0001) and Nationality (P =.21, p <.0001). The significant finding associated with Nationality could be attributed to the fact that the Singaporean respondents were a highly select and innovative group of individuals who were aspiring to work in the media industry.

Tradition, myth and the dilemma of Australian foreign policy

For a middle power with a relatively short history of framing a self determined foreign policy, Australia has actively sought to engage with both its immediate region and the wider world. Elite agreement on this external orientation, however, has by no means entailed consensus on what this orientation might involve in terms of policy. Consequently, two, often conflicting, traditions and their associated myths have informed Australian foreign policy-making. The most enduring tradition shaping foreign policy views Australia as a somewhat isolated bastion of Western civilisation. In this mode Australia's myth is pragmatic, but uncertain and sees Asia as both an opportunity and a potential threat which requires the support and counsel of culturally similar external powers engaged in the region to ensure stability. Against this, an alternative and historically later tradition crafted a foreign policy that advanced Australian independence through engagement with a seemingly monolithic and increasingly prosperous Asia. This paper explores the evolution and limitations of these foreign policy traditions and the myths that sustain them. It further considers what features of these traditions continue to have resonance in a region that has become more fluid and heterogeneous than it was during the Cold War and which requires a foreign policy flexibility that can address this complex and strategically uncertain environment.