MICHIGANS IIll/IllllMilli/IllIll/llIll/IIl/lllllllllll 9745 IN This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A CASE STUDY OF SELECTED BLACK CHAIRPERSONS AT BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF HOW THEY ATTAINED THEIR PRESENT POSITIONS AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPECTATIONS AND SATISFACTION presented by Emmanuel Agyeman Badu has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degeehlEducational Administration .r'/ 7 // , \J// l‘,’/l”/J IV Major professor Dam May 1992 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0712771 ‘mm—T LIBRARY ' Michigan State 2 University L‘.___——--——-—————- nstitution cmcmdatedwpmwfi !_______ A CASE STUDY OF SELECTED BLACK CHAIRPERSONS AT BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF HOW THEY ATTAINED THEIR PRESENT POSITIONS AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPECTATIONS AND SATISFACTION By Emmanuel Agyeman Badu A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1992 {on ABSTRACT A CASE STUDY OF SELECTED BLACK CHAIRPERSONS AT BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF HOW THEY ATTAINED THEIR PRESENT POSITIONS AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPECTATIONS AND SATISFACTION By Emmanuel Agyeman Badu The objectives of this study were (a) to examine the perceptions of black department Chairpersons at the Big Ten universities with regard to how and why they had been selected for their positions, (b) to determine their administrative expectations, and (c) to examine whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with their positions. A case—study approach was used for the study, covering aspects of the chairpersons’ selection, role expectations, and job satisfaction. In—depth personal interviews, conducted at the participants’ institutions, were used to collect the data. The following conclusions were drawn from the study findings: 1. The Chairpersons perceived that they had not been selected for the position because they were black. They believed their selection had been based on their academic accomplishments, their colleagues’ belief that they could do a satisfactory job, and the faculty members’ and dean’s confidence that they were the best individuals for the position. Emmanuel Agyeman Badu 2. The chairpersons had not experienced isolation from the university community. They were accorded the rights and privileges associated with the position and enjoyed by any chairperson. Their administrative expectations were no different from those of other chairpersons at their institutions. 3. The chairpersons had not accepted the position for monetary reasons; rather, the intrinsic rewards of the job attracted them to the position. Thus, they did not compare their financial compensation with that of counterparts at other institutions or in other fields. They were satisfied with what they were receiving. 4. The chairpersons experienced conflict between time for their classroom teaching duties and time for their administrative responsibilities because the latter required too much paperwork. 5. Even though the chairpersons did not engage in classroom teaching to their own satisfaction, they believed that did not harm their credibility as teachers among their colleagues. Neither did they suffer a loss of professional status, either from their colleagues or central administration, because they were less involved in research. DEDICATED to Thelma Holbert iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance of many individuals. First, I would like to thank my doctoral guidance committee for their able guidance throughout the program. Special thanks go to Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, the committee chairman, who has been an inspirational person to me. Dr. Nonnamaker has been my counselor, my mentor, my mediator, and my friend. I am also grateful to Dr. Louis Hekhuis, Dr. Marvin Grandstaff, and Dr. Keith Anderson, all members of my doctoral guidance committee, who contributed greatly to my successful completion of the doctoral program. I am also grateful to Earl Nelson, Director; Judy Martins, Assistant Director; and the entire staff of the Office of Minority Equity at the Michigan Department of Education for their counsel and assistance in allowing me to use their facilities in the early stages of the project. I would also like to express my appreciation and thanks to Thelma Lewis Holbert for her encouragement and financial support in times of need throughout my graduate education. She is truly a friend. I would like to thank the pastor and entire congregation of Covenant Christian Reformed Church for their Christian brotherly love, which has given me the strength to endure life as a student. My sincere thanks go to the department chairpersons who voluntarily participated in this study, for without their cooperation the project would not have been possible. Finally, my sincere thanks go to all and sundry who contributed in diverse ways to help me achieve my educational goals at Michigan State University. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ............ . .......... xiii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................... 1 Statement of the Problem . . ........... 3 Purpose of the Study . . . . . ....... . . 6 Research Questions ............. 7 Importance of the Study . . . . ....... 7 Methodology . ...... . . . ...... 9 Limitations ........ . ....... . . . . 11 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Definition of Terms . . . . . . ...... . . . . 12 Overview ......... . . . ...... . . . 13 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . ...... . . . 15 Introduction . . ...... . ......... 15 Population Distribution . . . ....... . . . 15 Labor Force . . ..... . . .......... 16 Occupational Distribution ............ 17 Participation of Minorities in Higher Education . . 17 Problems of Access, Distribution, and Retention . 17 Faculty Level ...... . . 27 Reasons for Underrepresentation of Minorities in Higher Education . . . ........... 34 Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . 52 Determinants of Job Satisfaction . . ...... 55 Theories of Job Satisfaction . ......... 57 Outcomes of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction . . 60 Role Expectations . ................ 64 Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity ..... . 66 The Process of Selecting Department Chairpersons . 70 Qualifications for the Position of Department Chairperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 The Selection Process . . . . . ..... . . . . 73 vii III. IV. Summary ..................... Participation of Minorities in Higher Education : Job Satisfaction ................ Role Expectations ................ The Process of Selecting a Department Chair- person .................... RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ........... Introduction ................... Research Design .............. The Population and Sampling Procedure . . . 1 : I : Population .................. Sampling Procedure ........... Instrumentation ............. The Personal Interview ...... . . The Interview Guide .......... Data-Collection Procedure ........ Data Analysis .............. Summary ................. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . Introduction ............. Description of the Selected Black Department Chairpersons ........... . . . Personal Information . . . . Respondents’ General Views of the Chairperson Position ............ . The Previous Position and Why Chairpersons Changed Positions .......... Summary ..................... Method of Selecting the Chairpersons and the Reasons for Their Selection . . . . Method of Selecting the Chairpersons . . Chairpersons’ Perceptions of Why They Had Been Selected .................. Blacks’ Participation in Higher Education . Summary ............... Role Expectations ........ Fulfilled and Unfulfilled Expectations Unexpected Aspects of the Position The Expected and Actual Use of the Chairperson’ s. Time .................. Summary ............. . . . . Job Satisfaction ........... Challenges of the Job . . . . . . I : : I : : Relationship With Black Faculty . . Relationship With Nonblack Faculty viii Page 77 77 78 78 78 79 79 82 82 82 83 84 84 84 85 87 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 96 97 97 99 103 112 113 114 116 117 119 120 120 121 122 V. APPENDICES A. Relationship With Students ........... Behavioral Variables .............. Unique Situations ................ Other Responses ................. Summary ..................... SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE, SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY, AND REFLECTIONS .............. Summary ...................... Major Findings .................. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents Chairpersons’ Views on the Status of Their Positions ................... How the Chairpersons Had Been Selected for the Position ................... Reasons for Accepting the Chairperson Position Chairpersons’ Perceptions of Why They Had Been Selected for the Position ........... Chairpersons’ Views on Blacks’ Participation in Higher Education ............... Advice to Prospective Black Department Chair— persons .................... Role Expectations of the Participants ...... Chairpersons’ Job Satisfaction ......... Conclusions ................... . Recommendations for Educational Practice ..... Suggestions for Further Research ......... Reflections .................... DISTRIBUTION OF FACULTY OF BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES BY SEX AND RACIAL/ETHNIC CATEGORY ........... TWO-YEAR COMPARISON OF FULL—TIME, TENURE—TRACK FACULTY OF BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES BY RACE AND SEX: 1979 TO 1987 ................. PERCENTAGE MINORITY REPRESENTATION AMONG FACULTY AT BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES: FALL 1989 ......... PERCENTAGE BLACK REPRESENTATION AMONG FACULTY AT BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES: FALL 1989 .......... ix Page 122 123 124 127 134 136 136 138 138 139 139 140 140 140 141 141 142 142 144 145 146 147 157 161 162 Page E. INTERVIEW GUIDE ................... 163 F. CORRESPONDENCE ................... 166 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 170 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Distribution of the United States Population by Race: 1990 ..................... 16 2. Distribution of Women, Blacks, and Hispanics in Selected Occupations in 1987 . . . . . ....... 17 3. Percentage of High School Dropouts, by Race and Gender, 1973 and 1983 ...... . . . ....... 21 4. 1988 College Enrollment and Two—Year Gains . . . . . . 23 5. Racial Breakdown of Americans Who Received Ph.D. Degrees in 1990 ......... . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. Recipients of Doctorates by Racial/Ethnic Group and Field of Study: 1989 ....... . . ..... . . 26 7. Higher Education Faculty and Staff by Race and Gender: 1987 ........ . . . . . ...... 30 8. Full—Time Employees in Colleges and Universities by Racial/Ethnic Group: 1989-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9. Full-Time, Tenure—Track, Minority-Group Faculty in the Big Ten Institutions: 1979 to 1989 ..... . . 32 10. College Enrollment by Type of Institution and Racial/ Ethnic Group: 1988 ........ . . . ..... . 34 11. Effects of Various Events, Conditions, and Agents on Job Satisfaction ....... . . . . . . . . . . 56 12. Types of Educational Institutions Attended by the Respondents . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . 91 13. Respondents’ Number of Years as Chairpersons . . . . . 93 14. The Average Percentage of Time Chairpersons Spent on Teaching, Research, and Administrative Duties . . 118 xi 15. Chairpersons’ Perceptions of Their Compensation in Relation to Selected Factors ............ 126 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Representation of Blacks Among Tenured and Tenure- Track Faculty at the Big Ten Universities: Fall 1989 ..................... 37 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION An academic department, as it is organized in institutions of higher education today, can be classified as the basic administrative unit of a college or university (Booth, 1982). According to Anderson (1976), an academic department philosophically gives allegiance to a discipline beyond the institution. Historical studies have shown that academic departments in the American higher education system were created to fit the fragmentation of course work that came with the end of a prescribed classical curriculum, the development of new disciplines, and the need to create a manageable unit for faculty (Booth, 1982). The first organized academic department was established at Harvard University in 1825 (Roach, 1976). In colleges and universities today, the academic department has become an important unit or section, in which most academic actions take place (Roach, 1976). Dressel and Richard (1970) noted: The academic departments in the modern colleges have become a potent force in the institutions. They decide on the stature of the university and can thwart the attempts of the university to improve its effectiveness. (p. 77) Today, academic departments enhance institutional prestige chrough research and other activities. According to Booth (1982), the tension, fragmentation, and competition that are evident today in institutions and their academic departments have been a part of institutional and departmental life since the nineteenth century. The department chairperson often inherits these tensions and, except in situations in which the department is oriented to the institution rather than to the discipline, the chairperson’s role is to seek to "improve the prestige of the department" (Dressel, Johnson, & Marcus, 1970, p. 5). This makes the role of the department chairperson a very important one on campus. As the chief administrator who has the responsibility to protect the department from the encroachment of other units, the chairperson accepts an "academic model" that seeks to increase the department’s autonomy, stature, and resources. According to Browning (1962), the three primary goals of a department chairperson are "first, to serve the cause of good teaching; second, to make sure that students profit from good teaching; and third, to seek out good teachers and keep them happy" (p. 43). The department chairperson, therefore, is the individual upon whom the success of the department depends (Mobley, 1974). He or she is key to the achievement of the institution’s primary mission. The department chairperson may exercise several functions, involving relationships with people at various levels of authority within the college community. These functions include routine contacts with personnel above him or her in the institution——for instance, the president, provost, dean, business manager, and other executive officers. Other functions include association with workers at the same level of authority——that is, other department chairpersons. Still other duties are related to more immediate contact with department faculty and those below the department chairperson’s authority. Finally, the position of department chairperson connotes a specific relationship with students enrolled in the department (Doyle, 1953). Statement of the Problem The department chairperson occupies an important position in the administrative structure of a college or university. He or she is the pivot, or go—between, at the point where the administration most directly contacts the faculty. The chairperson is key to the success or failure of the department’s program (Mobley, 1974). Although all colleges have an established procedure for introducing new courses, such as a standing committee on curriculum, primary decisions are made within the department. It is in the department that the action begins (Lee, 1972). It is also in the academic department that policy and general administrative decisions on academic matters are defined, adopted, and applied (Woodbume, 1958). For example, according to Lee (1972), in the development of an undergraduate curriculum it is essential that the department chairperson be in tune with other department chairs who might be affected by this development. The department chairperson should be closely in touch with related departments to ensure that any new program not only does not interfere with the needs of the other departments but, indeed, enhances the total offerings of the institution or college. Department chairpersons interpret institutional policies to faculty, carry them out in the department, and interpret departmental objectives and programs to the administration (Mobley, 1974). Heimler (1967) identified the following as the specific functions of the department chairperson: (a) improving instruction, (b) developing and revising courses, (c) making the semester schedule, (d) developing programs, (e) recruiting faculty, (f) evaluating faculty and staff, (9) preparing the departmental budget, (h) administering the departmental budget, (i) reviewing and approving student petitions, (j) requisitioning textbooks and library materials, (k) maintaining departmental records, (l) attending meetings and conferences, (m) making faculty schedules, (n) responding to on- and off—campus inquiries regarding college programs and regulations, (0) taking care of departmental correspondence, and (p) writing student recommendations for employment and graduate school. Mobley (1974) stated that, besides performing these functions, chairpersons often carry a moderate, and sometimes heavy, teaching load. Their professional career advancement also requires that they continue their writing and research, and other varied activities make excessively heavy demands on their time. This situation can make the work of an academic department chairperson very difficult and unattractive. Mobley further stated: Interview data and literature show that in many colleges and universities there is little motivation for a person to get the chair. The position often holds few rewards but substantial risks of professional obsolescence. (p. 322) The current setup of academic departments in higher education has made department chairpersons in most colleges and universities key people in determining the educational success of the institutions. However, they often are ill prepared for the position. In addition, they are not adequately supported (Mobley, 1974). According to Brann (1972), some of the ambivalence in carrying out the job of department chairperson is a result of vagueness of goals in higher education. Although this situation may be prevalent on many campuses, on other campuses, department chairpersons are seen as dynamic educational leaders, and candidates seek the position as an outstanding career opportunity (Mobley, 1974). The difference seems to be in the status of the chairperson, which often is dictated by the manner in which the person was selected for the position. Traditionally, in predominantly white institutions, a white male has always occupied the chairperson position. However, in recent years, increasing numbers of women and other minorities have begun to occupy this position that once was held exclusively by white males. Most of the writing and research on academic chairpersons and their roles in academic institutions has focused on college and university departments and chairpersons in predominantly white institutions and has centered on white males (Mobley, 1974). Research on black academic department chairpersons in these institutions is nonexistent. The present study was undertaken in an attempt to fill that void in the research literature. As a prelude to this investigation, the researcher examined literature relating to the selection of college academic chairpersons and the specific qualifications required for the position. Following that, the investigator interviewed selected black chairpersons and explored in depth their perceptions of the selection process and the reasons they had been selected for the position. Insight into these chairpersons’ job satisfaction was gained from examining their role expectations and the upward mobility they had experienced in their professional careers. Purpose of the Study The researcher had three specific purposes in conducting this study. The first purpose was to discover how and why selected black department chairpersons in Big Ten institutions had been selected for or appointed to the position of chairperson in these institutions. The second purpose was to determine the respondents’ expectations of their role as chairpersons. The third purpose was to examine the chairpersons’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their positions. With regard to the third purpose, the writer assumed that (a) the more able an individual is to meet the expectations of the job, the greater will be the person’s satisfaction and (b) the more satisfaction an individual enjoys in the job, the less likely he or she will be to quit, and the more loyalty and commitment the individual will bring to work (Sayles, 1989). Research Questions To achieve the study purposes, answers were sought to the following questions related to the central theme of the research: 1. What are the important factors that led to the selection of blacks for the chairperson position in predominantly white institutions? 2. In the chairpersons’ opinion, have their role expectations before assuming the position been borne out in reality? 3. Are the chairpersons satisfied with their jobs? 4. What relationship, if any, exists between the chairpersons’ role expectations and their job satisfaction? 5. If they had it to do over again, would the chairpersons accept the same position in the predominantly white institutions? 6. Is there a difference between the chairpersons’ expected roles and behavior and their actual roles and behavior? Importance of the Study Participation of blacks in higher education has been the subject of much concern and discussion in recent years because of unsuccessful efforts to recruit and retain black students in higher education (Horton, 1988). Cooks and Nussel (1990) noted that "while the aspirations of African American high school graduates include a strong interest in higher education, this interest is not often actuated by postsecondary attendance" (p. 20). In a study on blacks’ enrollment in college, Harvey (cited in Cooks & Nussel, 1990) claimed that the lack of black faculty members on university campuses was a major factor contributing to this situation and to the ultimate decline in the number of black students on college campuses. This shortage of black faculty members contributes to the lack of black role models and mentors, both of which have been considered to be essential elements for fostering an academic and social climate conducive to the success of black students on predominantly white college and university campuses (Cooks & Mussel, 1990). The presence of black department chairpersons in the Big Ten institutions is, therefore, very important. Research on black academic department chairpersons in predominantly white colleges and universities is nonexistent. Writers of many reports and books on the status of blacks in higher education have discussed the lack of involvement by blacks in the operation of the higher education system. Very little research has been done that sheds light on the reason so few blacks are involved in the administration of higher education. The findings from this study may be helpful to faculty, especially black faculty. Also, the findings may be of value to other black school officials who might aspire to the position of department chairperson. In addition, the study may provide information on the mobility strategies-—academic, vocational, and otherwise——adopted by the chairpersons to get where they are now in their careers. These strategies may be helpful to others aspiring to become academic department chairpersons. The expectations that the chairpersons held of their jobs before they assumed those positions may influence their individual job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The investigator examined the job expectations that each department chairperson brought to work, as well as the perceptions that each had developed regarding his or her job satisfaction. Based on the information gained from this study, the investigator attempted to show whether each department chairperson was satisfied or dissatisfied with respect to his or her job expectations as chairperson. There is strong evidence to support the contention that general job satisfaction represents an important force in individuals’ participation in the organization. Such evidence is seen in diverse work-group populations, organizations of various types, and different situations (Hamner & Schmidt, 1974). Methodology The research method for this investigation was a case study, as it was an empirical inquiry into a real—life context. Questions that were asked pertained to a contemporary set of events over which the investigator would have little or no control. Under these circumstances, a case study approach was an appropriate method for the present investigation. Yin (1989) suggested that: In general, case studies are the preferred strategy when "how" or "why" questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context. (p. 13) 10 All black academic department chairpersons, acting chairpersons, and assistant chairpersons from the Big Ten universities constituted the population from which a sample of four individuals was selected for this study. The decision to study black department chairpersons specifically, rather than all department chairpersons, was a pragmatic one. First, the department chairpersons in most colleges and universities are key people in determining the educational success of the institutions (McKeachie, 1968). Second, black educators are underrepresented in department chair positions. Because blacks constitute the largest group among the minority populations in the Big Ten institutions (CIC Panel on Affirmative Action, n.d.), knowledge about blacks’ experience as department chairpersons is essential. To be able to answer the "how" and "why" questions that were posed in this study, the researcher interviewed in depth the selected sample of four black chairpersons. To assist in the interviews, the investigator developed an interview guide for use in the study (see Appendix E). The investigator visited the campuses of the institutions where the sample members were employed and conducted the personal interviews there. The primary focus of this study was to examine black department chairpersons in predominantly white universities with respect to how they had been selected for or appointed to the position, their perceptions of why they had been selected, their role expectations, and whether they were satisfied with their position. A range of 11 major concerns was covered, relating to the primary theme. Significant among these concerns were (a) reasons that few blacks are serving in administrative positions, (b) the power and authority of department chairpersons, and (c) job difficulties and frustrations of department chairpersons. Limitations The following limitations were present in the study: 1. The sample comprised only four people. 2. The researcher developed the interview guide for this study and, because there was no validity or reliability check, generaliza- bility of the study findings is limited. 3. Open-ended interview questions were used in an exploratory manner. Therefore, the results are subject to the limitations associated with the use of data-gathering techniques and methods. 4. The above—mentioned limitations increased the likelihood of sampling bias. For example, by omitting department chairpersons from other institutions, there is a likelihood of sampling bias because their attitudes and perceptions might not be the same as those of the selected sample members. Delimitations This study was delimited in the following ways: 1. The study sample was delimited to four chairpersons selected from the Big Ten institutions. 12 2. The study sample was further delimited to black department chairpersons rather than including chairpersons from various minority groups. 3. The investigation did not cover the perceptions that faculty and other administrative staff members held about the department and its chairperson. 4. The study sample included black department chairpersons in predominantly white institutions. As a result, department chair- persons from predominantly black and other minority institutions were excluded from the sample. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this study. The definitions are based on past research or common usage in the fields of education and administration. Academic department. A division within an institution that gives allegiance to a discipline beyond the institution. This administrative subunit of a university or college is associated with a field of study or an academic discipline. Academic department chairperson. The designated leader of a college or university department, who is charged with teaching, research, and service. In this study, the term is used inter- changeably with academic chairperson and department head. Administrators. Those who administer the board of trustees’ policy or supervise the personnel or programs of an institution. 13 Mobility. The quality or state of having the opportunity for or undergoing a shift in status within the societal hierarchy. Lateral mobility is a shift in status whereby an individual assumes a position similar to the one he or she had before the change. This happens when there is a transfer, a lateral move resulting from organizational change, or a change of organizations. Upward mobility results from a promotion in the same organization or in a different one (Ansah, 1980). Perception. An individual’s interpretation of reality (Boles & Davenport, 1975). Position. A cognitive organization of role expectations (Sarbin, 1954). Responsibilities. The functions, duties, and/or activities that a person is expected to perform. Role model. A person who usually is effective or inspiring in some social role, job, or position and so serves as a model for others (Neufeldt & Guralnik, 1988). Status. The place in a particular system that a certain indi- vidual occupies at a specific time (Linton, 1945). Overview This dissertation is organized into five chapters. A frame of reference for the study was developed in Chapter I. Included were an introduction to the study and a statement of the problem; the purpose, importance, and methodology of the study; limitations and delimitations; and definitions of terms. Chapter 11 contains a 14 review of pertinent literature related to the study. In Chapter III, the design of the study is presented. Included are descriptions of the interview guide, the data-collection procedure, and the methods used in analyzing the data collected in the study. Results of the analysis of data are discussed in Chapter IV. A summary of the study, major findings, conclusions drawn from the findings, recommendations for educational practice, suggestions for further research, and the investigator’s reflections are presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The focus of this study was on minority department chairpersons in predominantly white institutions, their perceptions of how and why they had been selected for the position, their role expectations, and their job satisfaction. To provide insight into these topics, a search of the related literature was conducted. The literature review is presented under the following major headings: participation of minorities in higher education, job satisfaction, role expectations, and the process of selecting a department chairperson. The review of related literature on these subjects is not intended to be exhaustive but rather to provide a general understanding of the topics’ importance to this study. The sources used in the literature review included Dissertation Abstracts, ERIC documents, books, and journal articles. Population Distribution According to the United States population census of 1990, one in every five Americans was a member of an ethnic minority (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990). That is, of the nation’s 248.7 million people, 49.1 million identified themselves as members of an 15 16 ethnic/racial minority. The distribution of the 1990 United States population by race is shown in Table 1. Table 1.--Distribution of the United States population by race: 1990. Race Number Percent White 199,686,070 80.3 Black 29,986,060 12.1 Hispanic origin 22,345,059 9.0 Asian, Pacific Islander 7,273,662 2.9 American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 1,959,234 0.8 Other races 9,804,847 3.9 Total U.S. population 248,709,873 100.0 Source: "Rapid Growth Builds Minorities’ Power ’Potential,’" U§_ Today, March 11, 1991, p. 5A. Labor Force According to USA Today, by the year 2000, 30% of Americans will be Hispanics or members of a racial minority, up from 20%. Eighty percent of all new workers will be women and other minorities ("Rapid Growth," 1991). Wharton (1989) also reported that, by the year 2000, new minority and immigrant entrants into the labor market will outnumber new white entrants by three to two. By the turn of the century or shortly afterward, one in every three residents of the United States will be nonwhite (Wharton, 1989). 17 Occupational Distribution The U.S. Department of Labor (1988) reported that, in 1987, blacks and Hispanics constituted 17% of the nation’s work force. The distribution of women, blacks, and Hispanics in selected occupations is shown in Table 2. As seen in the table, college and university faculty included 9.4% blacks and 3.9% Hispanics in 1987. Table 2.-—Distribution of women, blacks, and Hispanics in selected occupations in 1987. Total Percent of Total Occupation Employed (in 000’s) Women Blacks Hispanics Administrators, education and related fields 516 48.5 9.9 3.7 Teachers, colleges and universities 3,587 73.6 9.4 3.9 Technical, sales and administrative support 35,082 64.7 8.8 5.6 Administrative support, including clerical 18,256 80.0 11.0 6.2 Service occupations 15,056 60.6 17.4 9.1 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1988), Table 39. Participation of Minorities in Higher Education Problems of Access, Distribution, and Retention The problems of access, distribution, and retention of racial minorities in higher education in the United States, as well as 18 reasons for underrepresentation of minorities in higher education, are discussed in this section. Writing about the unequal treatment that racial minorities in the United States receive, Exum (1983) wrote: No problem in U.S. society has remained unresolved longer than that of racial inequality. Many social institutions have been subject to conflicting pressure between those trying to unchange the racial privilege, and those seeking to change it. Colleges and universities have been particularly vulnerable to such pressures. On the one hand, they claim to rely on impartial meritorious standards; on the other hand, they produce knowledge, transmit culture, and bequeath status while serving an important economic function as employer. (p. 383) The participation of minorities in higher education has been a matter of interest and concern at all levels of higher education and by both governmental and private agencies that are committed to providing equal access to quality education for all individuals (Horton, 1988). Commenting on trends and success of minorities’ participation in higher education, Mingle (1988) stated that progress toward full participation of minorities in higher education in the past three decades has stalled. Large gaps must be overcome, especially in the academic preparation and retention of minorities at higher levels on the education ladder. According to Exum (1983), Attempts to get racial equality in society are mediated through institutional choice and characteristics to produce results that continue to disadvantage racial minorities, both collectively and individually. Whatever other moral, judicial, or legal issues may be involved, achieving racial equality is primarily a question of supply and demand for minority individuals in various institutional arenas. (p. 383) Kappner (1989) reported that dropout rates at the junior high, high school, and college levels for blacks and Hispanics have 19 reached crisis proportions. Enrollment at the undergraduate and graduate levels has declined seriously, and underrepresentation of minorities in faculty and key administrative positions in colleges and universities across the nation is the rule rather than the exception. The American Council on Education (cited in Education Commission of the States, 1988) offered the following data to illustrate the magnitude of the problem: Between 1970 and 1975, the number of black high school graduates who had enrolled or had completed one year of college rose from 39 percent to 48 percent, while their white counterparts remained steady at 53%. However, between 1975 and 1985, while college participation for white youth rose to 55 percent, the percentage for blacks dropped to 44 percent. (p. Kappner (1989) went on to say that even more disturbing is what is happening to black students between college enrollment and college graduation. In 1984—85, blacks made up only 9% of undergraduates in the United States and received only 8% of ‘the associate degrees and 6% of the baccalaureate degrees that were awarded. In the same period, whites comprised 80% of the undergraduate students and received 85% of the baccalaureate degrees awarded. Hill (1983) and Thomas (1986) reported that, according to data released by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Academy of Sciences, fewer blacks were enrolled in graduate school in the mid—19705 than in 1970. Approximately 5.1% of American graduate students in 1976 were blacks, whereas only 4.2% in 1982 were blacks, a difference of more than 4,000 students. Crase and 20 Walker (1988) also reported that, between 1976 and 1981, demographers noted a 16% drop in the number of blacks receiving master’s degrees, four times the decline among whites. Thomas showed that, during the 1976—77 academic year, blacks received 6.7% of the master’s degrees granted in the United States, but by 1980— 81, the percentage had dropped to 5.5%. According to Mingle (1988), minorities’ access to institutions of higher education is not sufficient to solve the problem. Successful completion of a demanding, high—quality undergraduate curriculum is the key to minorities’ success. Astin et al. (1982) completed a comprehensive review of research that had been conducted on minorities in American higher education. They noted that, with the exception of transition from baccalaureate to postbaccalaureate institutions, underrepresentation of minorities increased at every transition point in higher education (i.e., the higher the educational level, the greater the underrepresentation). They also noted that, although the ratio of bachelor’s degree recipients to first—year graduate enrollments was higher for blacks than whites in 1976, graduate dropout rates were higher for minorities than for nonminorities. In an address given at the annual meeting of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, Slaughter (1986) pointed out that enrollment of blacks in graduate education declined from 6% of the total to 4.2% of the total between 1981 and 1986. Using data compiled by the Center for Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education, Grant and Snyder (cited in Horton, 1988) 21 illustrated the differences in high school dropout rates between blacks and whites, in 1973 and 1983, by age group (see Table 3). They found that: For both time periods the black percentages are higher than the white percentages in all age groups, except the 16-17 year in 1983; the differences are particularly striking as age increases. In both groups, percent of total female drop—out exceeded that of males in 1973, while the reverse was true in 1983. Drop-out rates for both groups decreased overall between 1973 and 1983, but the black rate was still close to 1/5 of the total. (p. 2) Table 3.--Percentage of high school dropouts, by race and gender, 1973 and 1983. Age Group Race/ Gender 14-15 16-17 18—19 20—21 22—24 25—29 30-34 14—34 October 1973 White 2.4 9.0 14.7 13.7 14.2 16.5 22.1 14.2 Male 1.9 8.7 14.1 14.2 13.4 15.5 21.6 13.6 Female 2.8 9.2 15.2 13.2 14.9 17.4 22.5 14.7 Black 3.1 10.3 25.2 30.4 24.9 30.9 37.4 23.8 Male 3.1 10.6 27.7 27.1 23.4 28.3 36.7 22.6 Female 3.1 10.0 23.0 33.1 26.2 33.1 37.8 24.9 October 1983 White 1.6 7.1 13.7 15.0 14.3 12.9 11.5 11.6 Male 1.7 7.2 15.6 15.9 15.9 13.0 11.4 12.1 Female 1.6 6.9 11.8 14.2 12.7 12.8 11.6 11.1 Black 2.2 5.8 17.5 21.5 24.3 18.7 19.8 17.0 Male 1.6 5.5 19.6 23.6 27.5 17.2 22.4 17.8 Female 2.9 6.0 15.6 19.6 21.6 19.9 17.7 16.3 Source: Carrel Horton, Black Doctorate (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1988), p. 3. 22 Slaughter (1986) reported that college enrollment of blacks began to level off in 1977, so that, by 1983, black enrollment had declined by 1,000, whereas white enrollment had increased by 4.6%. According to Horton (1988), although they are not the most underrepresented minority, blacks still fall considerably short of normal enrollment expectations. Evangelauf (1990) reported that college enrollment of racial and ethnic groups reached a record level in 1988. Quoting the U.S. Department of Education as the source, she stated: “The proportion of college students who are members of minority groups reached a record high of 18.4%” (p. A1). Further, she stated that: Observers who follow enrollment trends called the gains in minority attendance encouraging, but they noted that the college-going rate of black and Hispanic high—school graduates had continued to trail that of whites. (p. A1) According to Evangelauf, the number of minority students rose 34.4% from 1978 to 1988 because of substantial increases in the ranks of Hispanic and Asian students. She wrote: Over the ten-year period, Asian enrollment climbed 111.5 percent, and Hispanic enrollment rose 63.1 percent. Over the same period, the number of American Indian students increased 19.2 percent while the number of black students rose 7.2 percent. (p. A37) Total college enrollment in the fall of 1988 is shown in Table 4. 23 Table 4.--1988 college enrollment and two-year gains. 1988 College Two-Year Gains Racial/Ethnic Group Enrollment (%) White 10,283,000 3.6 Black 1,130,000 4.4 Hispanic 680,000 10.0 Asian 477,000 10.9 American Indian 93,000 3.3 Foreign 361,000 4 4 Total 13,043,000 4.3 Source: Jean Evangelauf, "1988 Enrollment of All Racial Groups Hit Record Levels," he Chronicle of Higher Education, April 11, 1990, p. A1. Evangelauf (1990) commented on these enrollment gains and quoted Reginald Wilson, a senior scholar at the American Council on Education, as saying that the figures showed little progress toward the goal of equal educational opportunity. "We can’t celebrate any of the enrollment figures we’ve seen in higher education," he said. "Even with the gains, minority-group students continue to be under- represented on college campuses. The last thing I want to happen is for people to say, ’Hey, folks, the problem is over: Let’s get back to business as usual’" (p. A37). Evangelauf also reported that Antonio R. Rigual, President of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, was pleased to see that Hispanic enrollment was up. He attributed the increase largely to the substantial growth in the Hispanic population over the last decade. He said, "The 24 increase in enrollment is important, but there’s much work to be done" (p. A37). At the graduate level, minority enrollments also have not increased significantly in recent years, despite constant pressure to recruit and hire minorities (Loury, 1987). In a report for the National Center for Education Statistics, Plisko and Stern (1985) provided data that made possible a direct comparison of the proportion of black and white doctoral recipients for the academic years 1975-76 and 1980-81. According to these figures, there was only a minor change in the five—year period: In both years, slightly more than 90% of doctorates were awarded to whites, slightly more than 4% went to blacks, and the remainder were awarded to other minorities. During the 1982-83 academic year, blacks received 4% of all doctorates, compared to 78% for whites and 18% for Hispanics, Asians, and others (Ottinger, 1988). Grant and Snyder (1986) reported that, in 1983-84, 4.8% of all doctorate degrees were awarded to blacks. According to the National Research Council’s (1986) annual reports, the aggregate number of doctorates awarded in 1983, 1984, and 1985 was 75,383. Of that three-year total, 3,092 (4.1%) of the doctorates were conferred on blacks. Williams (1986) pointed out that further complicating the situation with regard to black doctorates is the fact that the proportion of doctorates awarded to blacks seems to be decreasing. According to the National Research Council, the total number of doctorates awarded to Americans in the ten—year period from 1980 to 25 1990 actually fell by 4.1% (Mooney, 1991) (see Table 5). Overall, minority—group members made up just over 10% of American doctorate recipients in 1990. Table 5.-—Racial breakdown of Americans who received Ph.D. degrees in 1990. Ten-Year Change Race 1990 (%) White 21,650 — 1.6 Black 828 —19.8 Hispanic 698 +69.4 Asian 617 +34.7 American Indian 93 +24.0 Race unknown 304 -- All American citizens 24,190 —4.1 Source: Carolyn J. Mooney, "Universities Award Record Number of Doctorates; More Than 25% Go to Students From Overseas," The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 29, 1991, p. A10. As shown in Table 6, except for Hispanics, American minority— group members earned about the same number of doctorates in 1990 as in 1989. Except for blacks, the percentage of American minority- group members receiving doctorates has increased since 1980. The number of doctorate degrees earned by blacks fell by 19.8% during the decade. However, the number increased by 69.4% for Hispanics, 34.7% for Asians, and 24% for American Indians. The number of degrees earned by whites decreased 1.6% during the same period. 26 .mm .0 .HmmH .wm 0m30=< .umcmsp< :owwmozum cm; T: we w_uw:oc;0 05H ”woczom m.H 0.0 m.0 m.0m v.0 m.m “.0 vawm chowmmmwocm m.H 0.H m.0 m.nw N.¢ H.m 0.0 mocmwum meuom m.~ 0.0 5.0 0.0m m.H N.m m.o wucwwum Fmowngm 0.H m.0 0.0 m.mm H.~ N.m m.0 mu:m_um 0000 N.H 0.0 0.0 ¢.~N ¢.H N.0~ m.0 mcwcmmcwmcm N.H 0.0 0.H N.m0 0.0 0.H «.0 000008300 H.N 0.0 0.0 N.00 0.N 0.N 0.0 mm_pwcmE:; 00m mpc< m.H 5.0 N.0 N.0w 0.m H.m «.0 mw—mwm FF< 800m0mw= cmowcme< :mowm 000:3 xUMFm :mwm< cmyvcH cmzpo :muwxmz opcmsa :mowcms< xezem to e_mwa ARV asoew uw=;8m\_mwumm .mmmH ”Acapm mo crewm 0:0 azocm owczum\_mwomc an mwpmco»oo0 mo mwcmwawuwm--.0 mFth 27 Faculty Level The National Research Council (1978) reported that complete systematic data are not readily available on minority faculty in the United States because, until the 19705, public and, in some states, private colleges and universities, as well as projects funded by the federal government, were prohibited by statute, government regulation, or individual institutions’ choice from collecting such data. Exum (1983) also pointed out that other agencies have shown little interest in such data. Therefore, what might have begun as an attempt to fight discrimination by prohibiting the identification of applicants, students, administrators, and/or faculty by race has instead helped perpetuate racial inequality by concealing the full dimension of the problem and hindering attempts to monitor progress toward eliminating such inequality. According to Taylor (1947), the history of blacks in the United States clearly illustrates that, before the Second World War, black faculty were deliberately excluded from predominantly white colleges and universities by law, as in the South, or by tradition. The first few blacks to be accepted as faculty members were obvious anomalies. An example of such an anomaly was the 18505 appointment of Charles L. Reason as professor of arts and letters at New York Central College, a school founded by abolitionists. In a report prepared for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Freeman (1976) stated that, until the 19605, employment of black and other minority faculty was largely restricted to the predominantly black colleges of the South. According to the report, 28 in 1946 fewer than 2% of black doctorate recipients were employed in white colleges and universities nationwide. Exum (1983) reported that, by 1950, only 72 out of the 1,051 white colleges and universities surveyed employed black teachers; many of them were hired only as visiting appointees for a term or a year. By 1958, only 200 blacks were teaching on a regular, full— time basis in white colleges and universities. Three years later, the number had risen to 300. Fleming, Gill, and Swinton (1978) also reported that, in 1960, blacks made up only 3% of college and university faculty, and those individuals were concentrated primarily in the historically black institutions. By 1968—69, the percentage had fallen to 2.2% of college and university faculty, and four years later the proportion had risen to 2.9%. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1982) reported that, by 1976, blacks made up only 4.4% of the total number of higher education faculty and were still concentrated in the predominantly black colleges and universities. In 1976, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that, of the 451,240 full—time faculty members at 2,882 colleges and universities, only 4.3% were blacks. According to the American Council on Education’s Office of Minority Concerns (Collison, 1987), American colleges and universities had 18,827 black faculty members in 1987, a decline of 4.3% from the 19,674 in 1977. Dorsey (1990) wrote: Concern continues over the paucity of Black professors working on predominantly White campuses as well as over the small 29 number of black graduate students in the "pipeline" leading to such positions. Even more alarming is that Blacks held fewer faculty positions in 1985 than they did in 1977. (p. 1) Dorsey continued to say that those who are aware of black history and the historical background of black faculty on predominantly white campuses understand that this loss has resulted partially from the diminishing “pressure" being exerted on behalf of black faculty. "It is common knowledge that progress is not possible without unrelenting pressure," she stated. "This is borne out historically by the fact that before 1900 the few Blacks who taught on predominantly White campuses were largely there because of political or other pressure" (p. 1). Dorsey concluded by saying that, in other instances, blacks were on predominantly white campuses because they had extraordinary talent that was needed. Vetter and Babco (1981) reported that blacks represented less than 5%, Hispanics less than 2%, Asians barely 2%, and Native Americans less than 1% of the total full—time instructional faculty in predominantly white institutions. The 1987 data on the status of minority higher education faculty and nonfaculty, as reported by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, indicated that blacks represented 4.3% of faculty members, Hispanics 1.8%, Asians 4.1%, and American Indians 0.3%. The nonfaculty statistics revealed that blacks represented 15.4% of the total staff, Hispanics 4%, Asians 2.4%, and American Indians 0.6%) (see Table 7). 30 Table 7.--Higher education faculty and staff by race and gender: 1987. Males Females Racial/Ethnic Group ________________ ____________.___ Number Percent Number Percent Faculty White 285,179 64.3 112,193 25.3 Black 10,292 2.3 8,681 2.0 Hispanic origin 5,101 1.3 2,406 0.5 Asian 14,700 3.3 3,567 0.8 American Indian 927 0 2 411 O 1 Total 316,199 71. 127,258 28.7 Nonfaculty White 327,206 31.5 479,039 46.2 Black 58,603 5.6 102,106 9.8 Hispanic origin 19,362 1.9 21,806 2.1 Asian 11,084 1.1 33,344 1.3 American Indian 2,631 0.3 2,596 0 3 Total 418,886 0.4 618,889 59.6 Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "EEO-6 Higher Education Staff Information, 1987," p. 1. (Mimeographed) The distribution of full—time employees in colleges and universities by racial and ethnic group for 1989-90 is shown in Table 8. The figures are based on reports from 3,156 colleges and universities. The numbers of full—time, tenure-track, minority— group faculty in the Big Ten institutions from 1979 to 1989 are shown in Table 9. 31 .mm .0 .fimmfl .mm pmsm=< .umcme_< corumuzvm cm; 0: mo mFUwcocgu wze ”muczom ¢0H.0H¢.H www.mm NRN.0NN 000.40 0¢0.N mmm.mkm.fi _mgoe “Hm.NHH 00N.0H mN0.m0 mem.¢ NHm.H MN0.00~ wocmcmgcwms .mow>cmm H00.Nm 0H¢.m «00.x N05 flee wNN.m0 mp0mco umFFme Nom.00H 00¢.“ 0~H.mm Nm0.0 mm“ 00m.NvH chowmmmwocamcma .Fwowcgume mx0.00N 005.0H 000.0m 0N0.0 000.H 0mm.0~m Fmeempmcumm .FmowLmF0 mchommmweoencoz mmm.00~ 0Hm.m me0.m~ M00.NH 00m.0 000.m¢m mchoemmwwoca L85.0 HHH.ONH me.m 00N.HH 000.H H04 00m.NmH mecmmmces .m>wpmcpmmcwsvm .m>wp:omxm 000.mm¢ n00.0fi www.mm NmN.¢N 00¢.H ~00.¢Hm »p_:uma m—mcowmmmeoea 000:3 uwcmamw: xuwF0 cmwm< :mwucH :aowcms< Fmpoe azoew oweepm\_eeomx .00-000H “0:000 uwcgpm\_awumc x0 mmwpwmcm>mcz 0:8 mammFFoo cw mmmonQEm warp-__=0--.0 argue 32 Table 9.--Full-time, tenure—track, minority-group faculty in the Big Ten institutions: 1979 to 1989. Total Minority Year Total Faculty Faculty Percent Minority l979 19,423 1,231 6.3 1981 19,711 1,353 6.9 1983 19,808 1,475 7.5 1985 19,948 1,527 7.7 1987 20,340 1,673 8.2 1989 26,662 4,266 16.0 Source: CIC Panel on Affirmative Action, "Female and Minority Faculty Representation at CIC and Big Ten Universities, Fall 1989," p. 1. (Mimeographed) In addition to being underrepresented, minority faculty also are not evenly distributed across the spectrum of academic fields (U.S. Department of Education, 1979). For example, 60% of the doctorates awarded to blacks in 1977 were in education and the social sciences. According to the National Research Council (1982), of the doctorate degrees awarded to blacks in 1980-81, 53% were in education and 20% were in the social sciences. Astin (1982) reported that Hispanic faculty are concentrated in education and the humanities, Asians in the physical and biological sciences and engineering, and the small number of Native American faculty in education and the social sciences. Yet, even in fields with the largest concentrations of minority-group members, the actual numbers of minorities are small. Williams (1982) asserted that minority faculty in predominantly white institutions, whether black, Hispanic, Asian, or Native 33 American, are found mainly in less prestigious colleges and universities. These institutions usually are public, rather than private, and do not grant doctorate degrees. Fleming et al. (1978) said that blacks are heavily concentrated in the 114 predominantly black colleges and universities. According to these authors, one study estimated that, during the 19705, blacks made up 0.9% of the faculty at the university level and 5.4% of the faculty in four-year colleges (but less than 2% when those in black colleges were removed from consideration). Between 67% and 75% of black faculty were employed at predominantly black colleges and universities. Minority faculty appear to be even more strikingly underrepresented in two-year colleges than in four—year institutions (Olivas, 1979). Astin (1982) reported that, in fall 1978, more than half of Hispanic and Native American students and 42% of black students were enrolled in community colleges. The 1988 college— student enrollment in private and public two—year and four-year institutions is shown in Table 10. The table shows the high percentage of minorities enrolled in two-year institutions. It is, therefore, surprising that minority faculty are not fairly represented in those very colleges that have high minority student enrollments, where they would be particularly valuable as role models, mentors, and/or mediators (Exum, 1983). 34 Table IO.--College enrollment by type of institution and racial/ ethnic group: 1988 (in percent). Public Private Racial/Ethnic Total —————————————————-—————————————————— Group 4-Year 2-Year 4-Year 2—Year American Indian 100 36.0 51.6 9.5 2.9 Asian 100 42.3 39.4 17.6 0.8 Black 100 39.7 38.3 18.4 3.6 Hispanic 100 31.7 54.6 11.8 1.9 White 100 43.3 43.1 20.7 1.9 Foreign 100 50.2 15 6 33.3 0.9 Total 100 2.5 35 4 20.2 2 0 Source: Jean Evangelauf, "1988 Enrollment of All Racial Groups Hit Record Levels," he Chronicle of Higher Education, April 11, 1990, p. A1. Reasons for Underrepresentation of Minorities in Higher Education The related literature on the reasons for underrepresentation of minorities in higher education is discussed under the following headings: academic preparation, faculty ranking, problems of supply and demand, recruitment policies, economic constraints, institutional racism, and affirmative action. Several authorities have voiced opinions on the reasons for underrepresentation of minorities among faculty and administrators of academic institutions in the United States. Wilson (1988) wrote: The development of leadership in America today is primarily an artifact of higher education and professional training. It is no longer possible to rise to high public office through self- education because of the complexity of technological advances and science and the necessity of systematic training. Although 35 some white Americans by virtue of socioeconomic class and wealth can rise to leading positions (like Henry Ford 11) without benefit of a university education, they are in the minority. Among the blacks and other minority groups, the attainment of academic and professional leadership is almost exclusively a result of graduate education and professional training in colleges and universities. Therefore, participation rate for minorities in such training is an extremely sensitive barometer of either progress or retrogression in the production of minority leaders. So, when we see a decline in minority undergraduate enrollments in colleges and universities, it triggers an alarm that the ripple effect will be felt throughout the higher education program 5pectrum--through graduate schools, professional schools, and into faculty and administrative positions. (p. 163) Academic preparation. Webster (1988) reported that several state and national studies have focused on why minority representation in higher education has been declining. Some of the reasons for this decline, as revealed in these studies, include (a) back-to—back recessions that have hit minority families particularly hard, (b) a decline in the quality of education offered to minorities in large urban schools, (c) the realization among many minority youths that a college degree does not guarantee a decent job, (d) a deemphasis on minority recruitment at many institutions, and (e) sharp increases in college costs accompanied by decreases in federal financial aid, which have placed a college education beyond the reach of many minority families. Astin et al. (1982) suggested that underrepresentation of minorities in higher education seems to be due, in part, to the poor academic preparation they received in high school. Faculty ranking. Racial minority faculty members also face a disadvantage in terms of rank and salary. According to Maxwell, Fleming and others, and the U.S. Department of Education (cited in 36 Exum, 1983), minority faculty are more concentrated than white faculty in lower ranks and in nontenured positions often connected with special programs for minority students. For example, data published by the U.S. Department of Education’s Center for Education Statistics (Plisko & Stern, 1985) indicated that, in 1983, of the 19,451 black faculty in all American colleges and universities, 12,625 (65%) were in lower ranks and nontenured positions, as compared to white faculty (47.5%). Representation of blacks among tenured and tenure—track faculty at Big Ten institutions in fall 1989 is shown in Figure 1. Problems of supply and demand. Morris (1979) reported that socioeconomic and educational barriers still confront minority groups. Large segments of these groups remain in poverty, and the education they receive is inadequate for entry to graduate school, a prerequisite for faculty positions. Many are overconcentrated in vocational or two-year associate—degree programs and thus are not eligible for admission to graduate school. For those who manage to earn a bachelor’s degree, attaining a graduate degree takes several years and can be expensive, and many minority students do not qualify for fellowships or teaching assistantships because they are part-time students. Black students often are burdened with debt from their undergraduate education, as they are two to five times more likely than white students to rely on various federal aid programs to finance their undergraduate studies. Minority graduate students are also more likely than white students to be enrolled 37 .0000 __mm "mmwuwm:m>w:= :mp 0:0 0:0 p: apF3ome xomcpiw:=:wu 0:0 00:3:00 0:05: mxoe_: eo :owpep:mmw::mm "H 00:0,: 3:5 000:5 5 2:0 22 axe: m;o_ aceoc_ m_oc:: oo— 1 ON— lovw loov thacmk I xomfiv.mhzcwh g 38 part time, to take longer to finish their graduate work, and to be more concentrated in master’s than doctorate programs. Therefore, few minority men and women possess the traditional qualifications for faculty positions. Conyers (1968) reported that some progress has been made in increasing the pool of actual and potential minority faculty. Still, according to him, the initial base is so small that the number could double, triple, or even quadruple and still be small. Conyers cited sociology as an example of a field that historically has been attractive to minorities, especially blacks. In 1968, an estimated 121 blacks in the United States held Ph.D. degrees in sociology, less than 1% of the doctorates that year. According to Wilkinson (1978), the number of minorities holding doctorates in sociology has grown, but not dramatically. In 1973, there were fewer than 250 minority Ph.D. sociologists, counting all racial/ethnic groups. Also, between 1973 and 1976, only 173 Ph.D.s in sociology were awarded to all minorities. The National Research Council (1982) reported that, from 1980 to 1981, 480 Ph.D 5 were awarded to all minorities (223 to blacks) in all social sciences combined. Williams (1986) said there has been only a slight gain in the proportion of black graduate students in sociology; they represented 7% of sociology graduate students in 1971 and 9% in 1981. Between 1973 and the end of 1979, there was little growth in the pool of potential minority faculty. For example, of the 105,981 39 doctorates in all fields awarded to American citizens between 1973 and 1976, 4,162 (4.1%) were awarded to Asians, 3,692 (3.7%) to blacks, 1,161 (1.1%) to Hispanics, and 526 (0.5%) to Native Americans. Between 1977 and the end of 1979, 67,765 doctorates in all fields were awarded to American citizens. Of these, 3,992 (4.2%) went to blacks, 3,035 (3.8%) to Asians, 1,538 (1.9%) to Hispanics, and 549 (0.7%) to Native Americans (Vetter & Babco, 1981). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (Plisko & Stern, 1985), the figures for 1979-80 showed a continuous, modest gain for some minorities. However, Vetter and Babco (1981) indicated that these modest improvements for some groups hide the continued unequal distribution of those groups in academic specializations. According to these authors, the number of black Ph.D.s in mathematics, physics, astronomy, and chemistry declined 10% from 1973 to 1979, whereas an overconcentrations of blacks in education persisted. Of the 7,684 doctorates awarded to blacks between 1973 and 1979, 4,010 (52%) were in education. 0f the 1,104 doctorates awarded to blacks in 1980—81, 589 (53%) were in education, 223 (20%) in social science, and 138 (12.5%) in mathematics and science (National Research Council, 1982). Exum (1983) summed up the situation in this way: The number of minority faculty in predominantly white colleges and universities is small, largely because the number of minority doctorate holders, though somewhat greater than in the past, is still modest and does not show significantly increased growth. (p. 387) 40 On the demand side, Exum (1983) reported that several predominantly white colleges and universities have attacked the barriers raised by a combination of racism and the ideology of meritocracy, in order to increase the number of minority faculty in their ranks. He stated, "While demand for minority faculty and administrators has increased, it has been highly variable; some institutions have tried harder than others" (p. 389). Although some of the effort to increase the number of minority faculty has been voluntary, increased demand has come largely in response to heavy pressure on college and university authorities to recruit and hire more minority faculty. For example, in a report prepared for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Freeman (1976) indicated that, in the late 19605 and early 19705, there was an increase in the demand for black faculty in predominantly white institutions. He contended that two basic forces operated to increase the demand for black faculty in that period and thus brought to an end traditional patterns of employment discrimination. The first force was substantial pressure from students and various social groups for black faculty appointments in predominantly white institutions. A second and possibly more important force for changing the market was the federal government’s pressure for affirmative action, which began in 1968 when Revised Order 4 of Executive Order 11246 (1965) obligated institutions with federal contracts to "develop and maintain a written affirmative action program" (Freeman, 1976, p. 197). Pressure also came from white faculty and administrators, who thought it was time to reduce 41 continuing internal racial inequality and perhaps wished to enhance their institutions’ competitive positions in recruiting minority students (Exum, 1983). Exum (1983) reported that external pressure also has come from the federal courts. For example, in Gr 995 v. Duke Power Company (1971), the federal court made it illegal for an employer to discriminate by using selection methods that systematically disadvantage racial minorities. In two other cases (Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum, 1979; Fulilove v. Klutznick, 1980), the courts upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in employment (Exum, 1983). The federal government also made several efforts to remove hiring barriers based on race and to gain compliance with affirmative— action programs (Exum, 1983). Gains in minority faculty hiring are, therefore, the result of both internal and external pressures. Recruitment policies. According to Washington (1986), the scarcity of black Ph.D.s can be attributed to a variety of causes. The most frequently cited causes include the declining importance that universities have assigned to recruiting and retaining minority graduate students and the discouraging job outlook for new doctorate—degree holders. Exum (1983) also indicated that low enrollment of minorities in graduate programs is due, in part, to the lack of intensity and seriousness of recruiting efforts aimed at racial minorities. Also, there are few minority faculty members in undergraduate and graduate schools to act as role models and mentors in the recruitment process. 42 In an article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jaschik (1987) reported that federal investigators have found that many colleges and universities lack satisfactory systems of recruiting black faculty members, even after years of operating under court—ordered desegregation plans. According to Jaschik, documents prepared by investigators for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) after they visited 254 colleges in the states where desegregation plans had expired revealed that: At Florida’s Edison Community College, an Affirmative Action officer told the OCR that "on the advice of legal counsel, the college does not have special recruitment procedures for black professionals." He went on to say that "the college desires to remain free from a reverse discrimination suit " At North Carolina’s Vance-Granville Community College, the dean of student affairs told the OCR: "We do nothing special to recruit blacks." At Southeastern Oklahoma State University, after OCR officials reviewed materials about the hiring of faculty members, they concluded that "it did not appear during the on- site [visits] that the affirmative—action officer is involved at any stage of the employment process." (p. 19) Economic constraints. Difficulties associated with inadequate financial support also have been crucial because financial need is a major obstacle in minorities’ enrollment in graduate programs and the completion of their education (Exum, 1983). According to the National Advisory Committee on Black Higher Education and Black Colleges and Universities (cited in Exum, 1983), the following illustrates past patterns of financial aid to black graduate students: 43 Of those blacks that received doctorates in 1978, only two students received one of the 422 National Science Foundation traineeship awards that year; blacks received 16 of the 725 fellowship awards; 243 of 13,193 teaching assistantships awarded by the university and department in which they were enrolled; and 156 of 10,206 research assistantships given by the same sources. Besides, the distribution of federal and institutional financial support has tended to reflect and reinforce the skewed distribution of black doctorates by field. For example, nearly half (10) of the 21 National Defense Education Act fellowships awarded black doctorate recipients in 1978 were in education (compared to 15.1 percent for whites); 38 percent of black teaching assistants receiving doctorates that year were in education (compared to 13 percent for whites); 48.5 percent of black doctorate recipients who received National Institute of Health Traineeships were in social science (compared with 30 percent for whites). Only 37 blacks who received doctorates in engineering and natural science were research assistants (compared with 4,049 whites, and 2,232 foreign and other minority students). Further, blacks are more dependent than white or foreign students on their earnings, federal loans, and/or other commercial loans to pay for their graduate education. (p. 388) A decade of cuts in federal financial aid programs and in grants to students, coupled with recent financial problems the institutions are currently facing, demonstrates that the problem is persisting and will continue to persist in the future. Colt (1981) reported that many minority students do not choose to pursue the kind of graduate training that is necessary for academic careers. According to him, in a tight academic job market, many of these graduates are choosing law, medicine, business, or other fields that offer better job prospects, higher salaries, and greater relevance to the needs of minority communities. For example, of the 137 black seniors in the class of 1980 at Harvard, only two chose to enter graduate work in the arts and sciences, and only two minority students of any kind in the class did so. In fall 44 1980, Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences enrolled only six new black students, half as many as it did in 1977. According to Wilson and Melendez (1985), the assertion does not hold that there has been a mass flight of black graduate students from academic-study doctorate degrees to professional-study degrees such as law and medicine for supposedly pecuniary reasons. They stated that, although some shift has occurred, that shift did not account for the overall loss. They concluded that there has been an absolute decline in the number of graduate students, echoing the decline at the undergraduate level. In sum, Exum (1983) wrote: The supply problem remains acute. Some reasons such as the historic economic and educational disadvantages that minorities face, significant as they are, may be beyond higher education’s ability to control. Nonetheless, as Prestage pointed out, "the institutions in quest of black faculty are the sole source of such faculty." The dearth of available black academic talent is a direct consequence of their failure to produce such talent. (p. 388) Smesler and Content (1980) reported that, although statutory exclusion of racial minorities has disappeared from higher education in the United States, the number of minority faculty in predominantly white colleges and universities remains small. They attributed this situation to the age—old financial crises of many institutions, as well as the decline in student enrollment during the 19805. These authors also thought that the already high proportion of tenured faculty limits the number of positions available to any prospective candidates for faculty appointments. Thus, potential minority faculty find themselves confronting an ironic dilemma: At precisely the time when political pressure for 45 increased hiring of minority faculty has resulted in some positive response from higher education institutions, economic constraints and the demographic characteristics of higher education have combined to produce fewer available jobs for faculty in general. According to Exum (1983), this situation makes efforts to accommodate new minority faculty even more difficult, while increasing the competition among all potential candidates for available jobs. This trend provides an apparently nonracist basis for resisting attempts to increase the number of minority faculty members. Further, as Alvarez (1973) observed, when social systems such as universities and colleges are faced with limitations and constriction of resources, "the cognitive fictions by which social stratification is made legitimate or justifiable are likely to receive vigorous endorsement" (p. 124). Institutional racism. Harvey (cited in Washington, 1986) attributed the shortage of black faculty to institutional racism. He contended that, when vacancies occur at predominantly white institutions, those who are charged with the responsibility for filling such vacancies tend to be white males. According to Harvey, the evidence has shown that a white male will most likely make selections in the following order: white male, white female, black male, and, finally, black female. Dwight Andrew, the first black graduate student in music theory at Yale University (cited in Washington, 1986), observed that "often minority students come but don’t finish. Many get left by the wayside, especially when it comes to mentoring and finding some 46 advocates" (p. 5). Finding mentors or role models becomes 'more difficult as the decline in the number of minority graduate students continues. Researchers have found that scholars tend to act as mentors to students who are most like themselves. Consequently, with the situation that presently exists, the instructional system is geared to support the white male student (Washington, 1986). Affirmative action. In many colleges and universities, affirmative action is the primary mechanism of achieving racial change in faculty and nonfaculty composition. Affirmative action is intended to equalize minorities’ access to jobs and their opportunities for advancement. In higher education, it has increased both the demand for and the supply of minority faculty and administrators. In the larger sense, affirmative action is an attempt not only to address the problems of supply and demand, but also to increase equality and justice. According to Exum (1983), because it aims at changing the employment status quo, affirmative action is strongly opposed by many who benefit from traditional arrangements and practices, although opposition is usually expressed in terms of larger values rather than personal self—interest. Affirmative action requires discriminatory (e.g., nonmeritocratic) procedures for selection; therefore, opponents often use negative-sounding terms such as "quotas," "preferential treatment," and "reverse discrimination." In addition, opponents have argued that the government has no right to interfere with an institution’s prerogative to choose its own 47 faculty and personnel or to intervene in the normal procedures for filling faculty positions, procedures that have worked well in the past in providing qualified candidates. Affirmative action also has been plagued with problems of implementation, monitoring, and enforcement. For example, Harvey (cited in Washington, 1986) cited the failure of affirmative action as a second reason for the shortage of black faculty. He contended that affirmative-action officers cannot veto the hiring of one faculty member or administrator in favor of another. Most affirmative-action officers serve as processors who tell others about the availability of minority candidates. In actuality, affirmative-action officers can do little about the final selection of faculty members. Harvey went on to say that also impeding the progress of affirmative action is a general relaxation of pressure by the federal government. Steele and Green (1976) reported that, although recruitment procedures have changed and some minorities have been recruited, the final decision is often the same: The nonminority candidate gets the job. According to Washington (1986), since the inception of affirmative—action procedures, white females have made significantly more progress with respect to faculty positions than have black males or other minorities. Some of the problems that seriously limit the success of the affirmative—action program involve issues of institutional commitment and administrative leadership, search and recruitment, and evaluation processing (Exum, 1983). Affirmative action requires 48 commitment and leadership from administrative authorities. This commitment must involve a willingness to apply pressure to see that affirmative-action requirements are met conscientiously. The problem facing academic administrators is that, whereas the hierarchical character of the institution gives them power, exercise of that power is constrained by departmental autonomy and academic freedom. It is also constrained by the need to maintain the normative consensus and collegial relationships inherent in academic institutions. These constraints can limit the will, as well as the effectiveness, of administrative leaders with regard to affirmative action (Exum, 1983). This situation explains how the organization of academic institutions limits change. Colleges and universities are complex organizations. Etzioni (1976) called them normative organizations; that is, they pursue essentially cultural rather than economic goals, and cooperation is achieved primarily through normative consensus, rather than through coercion. In such organizations, any change that threatens this consensus, such as controversy over affirmative action, is likely to be resisted. Further, colleges and universities play crucial roles as the gatekeepers of status and defenders of culture, roles that legitimize existing social arrangements and provide real, if limited, access to privilege. Thus, they are normative organizations that need to maintain not only consensus among a variety of often-competing groups, but also 49 the appearance of fairness in their dispensation and operation. Affirmative action threatens both. According to Kanter (1977), all complex organizations resist interference in their operations from external sources, as well as from internal sources deemed not to have the legitimate right to interfere. This situation makes possibilities for reform in complex organizations limited. In academic institutions, the ideologies of merits and autonomy provide a legitimate "nonracist" basis for resisting demands for racial change as embodied, for example, in affirmative-action programs. Besides, colleges and universities are complex organizations dominated by professional people (faculty and administrators) who stress the importance of merit and autonomy (Larson, 1977). Thus, the ideologies of merit and autonomy are reinforced and supported by the values of the professional culture of those who run academia (Exum, 1983). Astin (1982) reported that the most fundamental obstacles facing minority faculty are the institutionalized commitment to meritocratic values and autonomy. According to him, one observer argued that "continued reliance on meritocratic values in American higher education poses the single most serious obstacle to the educational progress of disadvantaged minorities" (p. 154). These beliefs and values conflict with definitions of equality and with attempts to achieve greater minority representation. Such conflicts, in themselves, serve as a basis for resisting change, especially by those who believe they have what Parsons and Platt 50 called a "fiduciary" responsibility to uphold traditional institutional values. According to the Carnegie Council on Public Studies in Higher Education (1975), this resistance to change is persuasive because meritocratic values appear to be neutral, objective, achievement based, universalistic, and thus fair—-a protection against rather than a source of discrimination. Besides, these values are seen as responsible for many virtues and achievements of American higher education institutions. At the same time, these objective standards often have been criticized as vague, inconsistent, and weighted toward subjective judgments; neutrality often has been absent from academic deliberations. According to Benet (1972), the value placed on institutional and departmental autonomy is essential for academic freedom and the unfettered search for knowledge, although American colleges and universities rarely have been as independent as the ideology of autonomy would suggest. Glazer (1978) believed that, because the ideology of autonomy appears to be neutral and racially nondiscriminatory, those who defend the status quo in terms of these values often consider themselves liberal on racial questions. They argue that autonomous, meritocratic institutions provide minorities the best protection against discrimination. However, Wartofsky (1973) believed that these values serve as barriers to any large increase in the number of minority faculty because they justify standards and policies that are not easily surmounted by historically disadvantaged minorities. Further, public adherence to 51 these values disguises how often the values are modified or violated in practice in ways that do not benefit minorities. According to Daniel, Lewis, and Smelser and Content (cited in Exum, 1983), most colleges and universities use a merit system for hiring. However, it is not an objective, competitive system, but rather a patronage system of merit. Publication, achievement, and performance are important in such a system, but so are ascriptive traits, personal qualities of style and manner, conforming behavior, and mentors and sponsors. This means that mobility--in this case, access, promotion, and tenure--is not simply a result of an individual’s research and teaching. Rather, sponsorship becomes an important element of mobility in a successful academic career. Patrick Swygert (1991), President of the State University of New York at Albany, said that relatively few blacks have had the opportunity to lead academic institutions other than the 117 historically black colleges and universities. Hispanics head only 2% of American colleges; Asian Americans and Native Americans together hold less than 1% of college presidencies. He attributed this situation to the patronage merit system that is practiced in American higher education. Minorities, whose racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds are not common or highly valued in academia, find it difficult to succeed in a patronage merit system. Public adherence to the competitive merit system disguises the real character and imperfections of the merit system, while legitimizing the exclusion of minority faculty. 52 Job Satisfaction The concept of job satisfaction has been of great importance to social scientists dealing with the problem of work in modern society. Muchinsky (1990) described job satisfaction as an emotional affective response"; he defined affect as "feelings of like or dislike" (p. 303). Job satisfaction, therefore, is the extent to which a person derives pleasure from a job. According to Vroom (1964), the definition of job satisfaction may vary from study to study, but there seems to be general agreement that it refers to effective orientation by individuals toward the roles of the jobs they are presently occupying. Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences" (p. 392). According to Muchinsky (1990), job satisfaction, unlike morale, which is a group response, is strictly an individual response. The morale of a group could be high, but a person in the group could be dissatisfied; the converse could also be true. Similarly, satisfaction is distinct from job involvement. People who are highly involved in their jobs take their work seriously, and their feelings are strongly affected by job experiences. Involved individuals will probably feel very satisfied or dissatisfied with their jobs, depending on their degree of success in them. People have feelings of liking a job, ranging from very low to very high. Muchinsky (1990) described this as "global job 53 satisfaction" (p. 304). People can have different feelings about their co—workers and their pay, and both can contribute to their overall feelings about their jobs. Thus, two people could have the same level of global job satisfaction but for different reasons. People also can feel differently about various aspects of their jobs, and psychologists realizing this have begun to examine job- facet satisfaction (Muchinsky, 1990). Locke (1976) defined a "job" as: . . not an entity but a complex interrelationship of tasks, roles, responsibilities, interactions, incentives and rewards. Thus, a thorough understanding of job attitudes requires that the job be analyzed in terms of its constituent elements. (p. 301) Jobs differ, and certain facets are more prevalent in some jobs than others. Muchinsky (1990) said that the identification of job facets has proceeded along two lines: statistical and conceptual. The statistical approach involves analyzing employees’ responses to job—attitude questions, such as, "How much do you like your boss?" and "How satisfied are you with your pay?" Responses are intercorrelated, and clusters of factors are created, based on similarities of responses. These factors thus become the facets of a job, as perceived by the employee. The conceptual approach involves specifying the facets to be examined in light of the research goal. Several types of explanations have been proposed to explain why people are satisfied with their jobs. One of these explanations might be called a materialistic one, in that it attempts to link job satisfaction directly to material conditions. According to 54 Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959), as well as Schwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark (1963), the underlying assumption of this theory is that job satisfaction is a direct reflection of the structural facets of a job. For example, job facets such as pay, opportunity for promotion, job security, fringe benefits, working conditions, and so on, are considered to be major factors contributing to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Another explanation of why people are satisfied with their jobs links the level of job satisfaction to personality characteristics. According to this theory, differences in job satisfaction exist because individuals react differently to the same working conditions. Therefore, job satisfaction is a consequence of the varying adaptation patterns of different personality types (Schwartz et al., 1963). Based on this assumption, dissatisfied individuals are believed to be incapable of adjusting to particular working conditions because of peculiar traits in their personalities. The third explanation of job satisfaction combines both of the views expressed above: Job satisfaction is seen as determined both by "objective" characteristics of the job and by individual motives and evaluation of various features connected to the job. According to this view, job satisfaction may best be explained by perceived job characteristics and the values associated with the job (Kalleberg, 1977). According to Kalleberg, one way of knowing and understanding the meanings that individuals attribute to their work activities is to ”specify the range of gratification that is 55 available from work in a working community and to assess the degree to which an individual values each dimension" (p. 127). Wieland and Ullrich (1976) said that at least two different factors contribute to a feeling of morale. The first is satisfaction with the status quo. The second is satisfaction derived from anticipation of future rewards. With the advent of the human-relations movement, several attempts have been made to measure job satisfaction (Ansah, 1980). Underlying these attempts have been the assumptions that a person’s job performance, the individual’s absenteeism, and the number of job changes are related to a person’s job satisfaction. Although there is no simple explanation for satisfaction with one’s job, research findings have supported the conclusion that an employee’s satisfaction is an important aspect of organizational policy, as well as a fundamental aspect of the quality of working life for the individual (Ansah, 1980). Determinants of Job Satisfaction Research evidence has suggested that job satisfaction is greatly influenced by a variety of facets. Locke (cited in Muchinsky, 1990) summarized the facets contributing to employee satisfaction (see Table 11). According to Locke, the job facets shown in the table are fairly common to all jobs. He distinguished events (conditions at work) from agents (people). Events, he said, are ultimately caused by someone or something, and agents (supervisors) can be liked or disliked as they are connected to 56 Table 11.-—Effects of various events, conditions, and agents on job satisfaction. Source Events or Conditions Work itself: challenge Work itself: physical demand Work itself: personal interest Reward structure Working conditions: physical Working conditions: goal attainment Agent Self Supervisors, co-workers, subordinates Company and management Fringe benefits Effect Mentally challenging work that the individual can successfully accomp- lish is satisfying. Tiring work is dissatisfying. Personally interesting work is satisfying. Just and informative rewards for performance are satisfying. Satisfaction depends on the match between working conditions and physical needs. Working conditions that facilitate goal attainment are satisfying. High self-esteem is conducive to job satisfaction. Individuals will be satisfied with colleagues who help them attain rewards. Individuals will be satis- fied with colleagues who see things the same way they do. Individuals will be satisfied with companies that have policies and pro- cedures designed to help them attain rewards. Individuals will be dissat- isfied with conflicting and/or ambig- uous roles imposed by the company and/ or management. Benefits do not have a strong influ- ence on satisfaction of most workers. Source: Paul M. Muchinsky, Psychology Applied to Work: An Intro- duction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3rd ed. (Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1990), p. 305. 57 certain events. Similarly, employees (agents) can be dissatisfied with their work (events) because their abilities are not being fully used (they are the agents). Theories of Job Satisfaction Muchinsky (1990) indicated that several theories have been proposed to explain why people feel satisfaction with their jobs. Four of the theories he discussed are elaborated in the following paragraphs. Intrapersonal—comparison theory. McCormick and Ilgen (1980) proposed the intrapersonal-comparison theory. According to these researchers, The most widely accepted view of job satisfaction assumes that the degree of affect experienced [by a person] results from some comparison between the individual’s standard and that individual’s perception of the extent to which the standard is met. (306) McCormick and Ilgen were saying that the degree of satisfaction is the difference between what the individual perceives as the job standard and the actual standard of the job. The intrapersonal- comparison theory compares what a person wants (the standard) with what he or she receives; the smaller the difference, the greater the feeling of satisfaction. According to Muchinsky (1990), the intrapersonal-comparison theory is based on the extent to which a job is perceived to meet a person’s needs or values. If there is a wide discrepancy between what is needed or desired and what is obtained, job dissatisfaction will result. A previously satisfying job could become dissatisfying 58 if the strength of a person’s needs changed or if new values were acquired. To carry the theory to an extreme, if a person worked in a social vacuum (no other people), but his or her needs were met, satisfaction would result. Interpersonal-comparison theory. According to Salamcik and Pfeffer (cited in Muchinsky, 1990), the basis of the interpersonal- comparison theory is the belief that people compare themselves to others in assessing their own feelings of job satisfaction. Rather than being intrapersonal (based on needs or values), comparisons are made within a social system-~that is, interpersonally. An individual observes others in similar jobs and infers how satisfied they are. The person compares himself or herself to these other people and then derives feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, based on how these people feel about their jobs. What the interpersonal—comparison theory has in common with the need- or value-based comparison theory of job satisfaction is the belief that affective feelings about work are comparative. The two theories differ on the basis of what types of comparisons are made. If a hypothetical individual worked in a social vacuum, the interpersonal-comparison theory would say that he or she could not assess job satisfaction. Eguity theory. Equity theory was proposed by Adams (cited in Muchinsky, 1990). According to Muchinsky, equity theory was developed from the principle of social comparison; that is, the theory has perceptual and social bases. Under equity theory, either 59 underreward or overreward can lead to dissatisfaction, although the associated feelings might be different. The theory assumes that overreward leads to a feeling of guilt, whereas underreward leads to a feeling of unfair treatment (Hamner & Schmidt, 1974). Muchinsky (1990) divided equity theory into four major parts: 1. The individual perceives himself or herself in comparison to others. The person who does the perceiving is called "person." 2. The individual to whom a person compares himself or herself is called "other." 3. All of the assets a person brings to the job constitute the third component, which is collectively referred to as inputs. Inputs can include the person’s education, intelligence, experience, skill, seniority, effort level, health, and so on. Inputs are anything of perceived value or importance that a person brings to the job. 4. All benefits a person derives from the job are the fourth component, collectively referred to as outcomes. Outcomes can include pay, benefits, working conditions, status symbols, seniority benefits, and so forth. They are those factors a person perceives as being derived from employment. Equity theory assumes that a person forms a ratio of his or her inputs to outcomes, compares it to perceptions of the other’s input- and-outcomes ratio, and comes to a conclusion about whether he or she is satisfied or dissatisfied (Muchinsky, 1990). Fulfillment theory. Vroom (1964), the propounder of the ful- fillment theory, viewed job satisfaction in terms of the degree to 60 which a job provides a person with positive, valued outcomes. He equated satisfaction with valence. Valences are the employee’s feelings about the outcomes provided (Muchinsky, 1990). They are usually defined in terms of attractiveness or anticipated satisfaction to the individual. Valences are generated by the employee; that is, he or she would rate the anticipated satisfaction from (ascribe a valence to) each outcome considered. Rating is usually done on a -10 to +10 scale. The individual can indicate whether an outcome has positive or negative valence. If the employee anticipates that all outcomes will lead to satisfaction, varying degrees of positive valence will be given. If the employee anticipates that all outcomes will lead to dissatisfaction, varying degrees of negative valence will be assigned. Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) stated: Valence refers simply to the degree to which the individual desires the outcomes in question. Thus, valence may be either positive or negative, depending upon whether the outcome is one which is sought or avoided by the person. An outcome can become valent for an individual in two ways: (1) It can be directly satisfying of one or more of the person’s needs. (2) An outcome can become valent because it leads to other outcomes which satisfy an individual’s needs. (p. 55) Outcomes of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction The satisfaction—performance controversy. The human-relations movement, with its emphasis on the well—being of the individual at work, has led many people to believe that job satisfaction influences job performance. According to Greene (1977), after four decades, the two opposing views of the satisfaction—performance 61 . relationship are still the subject of controversy on the part of both practitioners and researchers. He wrote: Several researchers have concluded, in fact, that "there is no present technique for determining the cause—and-effect of satisfaction and performance." Current speculations, reviewed by Schwab and Cummings, however, still imply at least in theory that satisfaction and performance are causally related although, in some cases, the assumed cause has become the effect, and, in others, the relationship between these two variables is considered to be a function of a third or even additional variables. (p. 92) Satisfaction causes performance. According to this proposi— tion, high job satisfaction causes high performance. This proposition is grounded in theory, but it also reflects the popular belief that "a happy worker is a productive worker" and the notion that "all good things go togetherJ' It is far more pleasant to increase an employee’s happiness than to deal directly with his or her performance whenever a performance problem exists. Therefore, acceptance of the satisfaction—causes—performance proposition as a solution makes good sense, particularly for the manager, because it represents the path of least resistance. Furthermore, high job satisfaction and high performance are both good; therefore, they ought to be related to one another (Greene, 1977). At the theoretical level, Vroom’s valence-force model is a prime example of theory—based support of the satisfaction—causes—performance case. Performance causes satisfaction. The view that performance causes satisfaction is best represented by the work of Porter and Lawler (1977). They explained this viewpoint as follows: If we assume that rewards cause satisfaction, and that in some cases performance produces rewards, then it is possible that 62 the relationship found between satisfaction and performance comes about through the action of a third variable--rewards. . Briefly stated, good performance may lead to rewards, which in turn lead to satisfaction; this formulation then would say that satisfaction rather than causing performance, as was previously assumed, is caused by it. (pp. 20, 28) Job satisfaction and turnover absenteeism. Research evidence has indicated that employees’ decisions about whether they will go to work on a given day and whether they will quit are affected by their feelings of job satisfaction. Brayfield and Crockett (1955) and Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell (1957) found evidence of a strong relationship between employee dissatisfaction and turnover or absenteeism. After reviewing the literature related to job satisfaction and turnover/absenteeism, Vroom (1964) reported that there was evidence of a negative relationship between job satisfaction and the propensity to leave. He postulated that, the more satisfied the individual, the greater the force on that person to remain in the situation and the less the probability of his or her voluntarily withdrawing from it. Much research has been done on aspects of job satisfaction for college administrators. One such study was done by Solomon and Tierney (1977), who investigated the relationship between certain aspects of job satisfaction and organizational role, which fits the selection of college administrators. The researchers focused on the following job facets: salary, fringe benefits, status of the institution, status of the position, autonomy, influence, responsi- bility, job security, and scholarly pursuits. They found that college administrators were satisfied with most aspects of their 63 work; senior administrators were more satisfied than middle administrators. Solomon and Tierney also found that organizational role congruence may bring about administrators’ job satisfaction if administrators consider the congruence dimension desirable. In their analysis of the results, the researchers noted that: Of the nineteen aspects of job satisfaction, the distribution of responses to all but five items was positively skewed, with a majority in the "very satisfied" category. Thus, a generally high degree of job satisfaction among college administrators is immediately apparent. Even salary, while not positively skewed, is definitely satisfactory for most college administra- tors; less than 10 percent of the respondents indicated that they are not satisfied. For the four remaining aspects of job satisfaction, two patterns emerge. First, college administrators generally are less satisfied with both the vertical and lateral transfer aspects of their job. Second, over a third are not satisfied with the "opportunity for scholarly pursuits," "availability of time to spend with family," and "the opportunity for leisure time." Thus, due to constraints upon their time, college administrators are not satisfied with the opportunity for out- side activities. (p. 418) Porter (1985) also found a positive relationship between level within the managerial hierarchy and degree of job satisfaction. He attributed this relationship to the fact that higher-ranking managers have a greater opportunity to satisfy needs for esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization. It is believed that people act on perceptions of what they regard to be "real," rather than "reality." Therefore, job satisfaction is expected to vary to an extent with variables measuring people’s perception of their relative positions. In their study relating to differences in job-satisfaction for varying occupational statuses or levels, Zurin, Veroff, and Feld (cited in Vroom, 1964) found only small differences in reported 64 satisfaction for various occupational levels. When they combined the "very satisfied" and "very dissatisfied" responses into one group and then performed the calculations, they got satisfaction values ranging from 65% for unskilled workers to 83% for profes- sionals. Comparing skilled workers with managers and proprietors also indicated no significant difference (values of 76% and 80%, respectively). These findings suggest not only that there were different standards for each occupational level, but also that comparing different occupations with respect to levels of job satis- faction might be meaningless because, in measuring job satisfaction for different occupations, one might not be measuring the same quality. Role Expectations Role expectations are those valuative standards that are applied to the performance or behavior of an individual who occupies a given organizational office or position. They can be expressed either verbally or nonverbally. They can be in a conscious or an unconscious form, depending on the manner in which a person is expected to behave in a given role. According to Katz and Kahn (1978), a given role expectation can be described in conceptual terms. For example, a chairperson of an academic department is expected to be a leader, or to develop curriculum. However, the manner in which the conceptual expectation is translated into specific activities that make up the role is the crucial factor that determines behavior. The formal role expectations are usually 65 stated as rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities in a written position description. The three major elements of role theory are the position, the role, and the self. The position is "a cognitive orientation of role expectations" (Sarbin & Allen, 1954, p. 224). It is the point around which rules are organized. hi a formal organization, the position represents a location in organizational space. The role is "a patterned sequence of learned actions or deeds performed by a person in an interaction situation" (Sarbin & Allen, 1954, p. 225). According to Katz and Kahn (1978): In their pure organizational form, roles are standardized patterns of behavior required of persons playing a part in a given functional relationship regardless of personal wishes or interpersonal obligations irrelevant to the functional rela— tionship. (p. 37) The self, the third element of role theory, is "the experience of identity arising from a person’s inter-behaving with things, body parts, and other persons" (Sarbin & Allen, 1954, p. 523). The self is a cognitive structure through which a person perceives what the role entails and acts on that basis. The department chairperson has a dual role. Individuals who are chairpersons are first and foremost teachers and scholars. They have come from the rank of professor within the department or institution. Anderson (1968) pointed out that "the chairperson’s basic loyalty is to his department and his discipline" (p. 112). As a chairperson, he or she is considered a part of the administrative hierarchy, the bureaucracy of the institution (Strong, 1963). Carson (1975) put it this way: 66 He or she has the dual obligation of interpreting to the administration the needs and wishes of the department and the basis for decisions made by the dean, the president, the trustees, or the more remote state coordinating agency. (p. 250) It is with respect to this dual obligation that controversy exists concerning chairpersons’ role expectations. According to Dressel et al. (1970) and Hill and French (1967), a chairperson is caught in the middle between administrative demands on one side and faculty demands on the other. Because he or she is faced with these choices, The chairperson may consider himself or herself primarily a faculty member--that is, first among equals or primarily as an academic administrator. Second, he or she may consider himself or herself primarily as conveyor and coordinator or primarily as an educational leader. (Ahmann, 1972, p. 188) Carson (1968) stated that the roles of department chairpersons vary, as the departments that they are expected to lead vary. Dressel and Richard (1970) also found two different breeds of chairpersons in their research on academic departments: One breed was found in those departments that, by the nature of their discipline, found themselves heavily dependent on the university as their source of funds. In these departments, faculty looked to their chairperson to provide the best pos- sible working condition. In departments receiving extensive funding from outside the university, the players displayed little concern and sometimes disdain for dean and central uni- versity administration. (p. 276) Dressel and Richard also discovered that the chairperson’s operating style appeared to be related to the prestige of the department. Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Role conflict. Katz and Kahn (1978) defined role conflict as the simultaneous occurrence of two or more role expectations, such 67 that compliance with one would make compliance with the other more difficult. Role conflict can be classified into three types: interrole conflict, intrarole conflict, and self-role or person-role conflict. Interrole conflict occurs when the role expectations of two different roles occupied by the same person are contradictory. Intrarole conflict exists when contradictory role expectations for the same role are held by two or more groups. Self-role or person- role conflict is the degree to which qualities of the self-—traits, values, or beliefs--and requirements of the role exhibit fittingness or overlap (Sarbin & Allen, 1954). In another way, Katz and Kahn (1978) stated that role conflict exists when "role requirements violate the needs, values, or capacities of the focal person" (p. 185). According to Muchinsky (1990), role conflict in an organization is caused by a variety of things. It may be a function of conflicting messages. The conflict may be between the deadline and the request for high—quality work. Role conflict also can occur with promotion. A new head of an organization or department might feel a conflict between new responsibilities and loyalty to former co—workers. Role ambiguity. Role ambiguity refers to the difference between what people expect of us on the job and what we feel we should do. This causes uncertainty about what our role should be. There can be three reasons for this. One is that the employee doesn’t understand what is expected. Second, the employee may not know how to meet expectations. Finally, an employee may think the job should be different. (Muchinsky, 1990, p. 294) 68 Katz and Kahn (1978) described role ambiguity as uncertainty about what the occupant of a particular office is supposed to do. Muchinsky (1990) believed that role ambiguity can cause problems on the job. It can be related to stress, tension, and low job satisfaction. According to Brann (1972), the department chairperson is the foreman in higher education--that is, the person who sees that the work in the department gets done. Brann stated that, although the role of the academic department chairperson is similar to that of the foreman in an assembly plant, the role of the chairperson is often difficult, ambiguous, and ill-defined. Roach (1976) described the situation by observing that sometimes there is no job description, and when a description exists, it may be largely seen as "a hodgepodge of duties described by some as a ’laundry list’ of undone duties and responsibilities pulled from throughout the school" (p. 13). In a study of what department chairpersons, faculty, and administrators in 12 public two-year colleges in Michigan expected of their chairpersons, Ansah (1980) found that the lack of a clear definition of the chairperson’s role appeared to be a major problem confronting the institutions. The chairperson’s conflicting roles. The chairperson is directly or indirectly responsible to students, the faculty, and administrators, such as the dean or provost. The demands these three groups of individuals make on the chairperson are not always congruent and are sometimes conflicting. Brann (1972) described the problem in these words: 69 The department chairperson is caught between students who want a relevant education and sense they are being short-changed, faculty who believe he should provide them with ever-increasing salaries, decreasing teaching loads and such benefits as secretaries, space, books, and travel funds and above him is a dean and a central administration who want every penny pinched and accounted for who produce a myriad of rules and regulations that limit the chairman’s flexibility and options. (p. 6) This role conflict makes the job of the chairperson a difficult one. The position has a high potential for exposing the individual to displeasure, censorship, and criticism. In his article "Memo to New Department Chairmen," McKeachie (1968) described the chairperson’s vulnerability to criticism in this way: "In many departments, the attitude of the faculty toward a colleague who accepts the department chair is much like that of nuns toward a sister who moves into a house of prostitution" (p. 221). In many departments, two competing forces are present (Ansah, 1980). On one hand, there exist vigorous faculty members who are constantly proposing new department activities; on the other hand, there are resource limitations. Thus, not all activities the department faculty would like to engage in can realistically be undertaken, because of resource limitations. The chairperson must therefore interpose himself or herself in the faculty dialogue and mediate differences. Roach (1976) commented: The department chairperson is often caught in the middle of academic and territorial battles-—caught between reform and faculty conservatives and sometimes caught between what he considers good personnel procedures and union (or other organization) rules and restrictions. (p. 216) Brann (1972) also noted: 70 The seat of the chairman is an uneasy one in an era of societal change. He must make the existing system function while keep— ing an open ear and mind toward the cries for academic reform. Rushing toward him from one direction is the puzzling and some- what alarming specter of unionism and from another, the often ill-informed political representatives of a dissatisfied public. Central administrations aided by computers and long overdue applications of management principles are becoming increasingly powerful and efficient, leaving the chairman little room to maneuver or juggle budgetary categories. His faculty is insecure and resistant to change. His students scream "relevance" and want to abolish traditional standards. (p. 27) The Process of Selecting Department Chairpersons The process and criteria for selecting department chairpersons may vary, not only among colleges and universities but also from one academic department to another on the same campus. Some selection procedures may be very comprehensive and involve much time and effort on the part of many individuals. Qualifications for the Position of Department Chairperson Historically, the position of department chairperson was usually "given or accepted primarily as a friendly gesture for meritorious service, in a few cases for ability, and in most cases for some reason other than supervisory qualities" (Scheufler, 1973, p. 22). In his study of 33 Catholic liberal arts colleges, Doyle (1953) noted that the selection of department chairpersons was based on the following criteria: (a) outstanding teaching ability, (b) previous teaching experience, and (c) administrative talent. Chairpersons’ proven achievements took precedence over such quali— ties as advanced degrees, rank (seniority), promise of research, 71 publications, national reputation, church activities, and ability to get along with others. In his book The Challenge of Leadership in Higher Education, Gibson (1964) suggested the following criteria for the selection of department chairpersons and faculty: (a) evidence of the candidate’s scholarship, (b) emotional stability and maturity conducive to a wholesome relationship with students and professors, (c) successful experiences, (d) creative ability, (e) interest in teaching and in community service, and (f) critical and discriminating ability in meeting new and difficult situations. Gunter (1964) found the following criteria to be important in the selection of department chairpersons: (a) administrative talent, (b) outstanding teaching ability, (c) previous teaching experience and departmental seniority, and (d) research and scholarship. Ramer (1963) conducted a survey at The Ohio State University and found the following description of the personal and professional characteristics that are most important for the able chairperson. He or she (a) is reasonably accomplished in the elements of academic scholarship; (b) possesses a genuine interest in and an aptitude for effective administration; (c) is committed to democratic values and procedures; (d) is humane and is sensitive to the needs and desires of his or her associates; (e) possesses those character traits and leadership abilities that inspire confidence and that motivate personnel to high achievement; (f) is loyal to and ethical in his or her discipline, department, and supporting institution; (9) enjoys vibrant physical and mental health; (h) is sensitive to the 72 educational needs and personal welfare of students; and (i) will seek to rise above the parochial and provincial in his or her personal and professional commitment. Comparing the criteria for selecting department chairpersons in small and large colleges, O’Grady (1973) found that: There were no differences between the two groups of chairmen as to importance on their selection in the following six areas: teaching experience, teaching ability, ability to deal harmoniously with others, productive scholarship, degree held, and departmental seniority. (p. 270) Ravetch (1973) suggested that a candidate for the chairperson position should possess the qualities of the “effective chairperson" in order to be selected for the position. According to Ravetch, the effective chairperson (a) provides his or her faculty with open, varied, and frequent communication; (b) is readily available for individual and group meetings; (c) holds formal meetings that are structured, focused, and productive; (d) listens to faculty members and hears them; (e) respects faculty members and consults with them, but accepts the responsibility for making and implementing decisions; (f) is friendly, sympathetic, supportive, and enthusiastic; (g) is democratic, impartial, flexible, and tolerant; (h) tries to anticipate problems and acts quickly to resolve them; (i) maintains the currency of his or her resources through reading, conferences, and consultation; (j) leads with subtlety and sensitivity; (k) stimulates and serves; and (l) exhibits candor and selflessness. 73 Spector (1973) said that the ideal chairperson . . should be of quiet, easy- going, common— sense, good- humored disposition, with an ability to see things in proper perspective. He must be willing and able to listen, to understand swiftly and to be sympathetic without a concomitant loss of balance. He must be willing to move when he can correct a difficulty, and willing to sit tight when his judgement indicates 50. (p. 48) The Selection Process A clear understanding of the role and functions of the department chairperson is necessary to choose intelligently among the alternative methods of selection. According to Mobley (1971), every academic department is a unique organization, and the role and function of the chairperson will vary somewhat with each department. Because the chairperson is both teacher and administrator, this places him or her in a difficult position in dealing with certain issues. If the chairperson has been appointed by the administration, he or she must maintain administrative allegiance while cultivating faculty confidence. 1f the chairperson’s source of power is the faculty, he or she must maintain this source while developing the confidence of the administration. Mobley (1971) wrote: In maintaining this dual confidence, the chairman must be sufficiently democratic to please the faculty, yet decisive and consistent enough to achieve results and to obtain mutual faculty administrative goals. (p. 322) It is against this background that the chairperson must be chosen to serve the department and the college or university. Various selection methods are available to colleges and universities, ranging from the autocratic head appointed by the 74 administration with no faculty input, to the chairperson elected by the faculty with no input from the dean. Mobley (1971) analyzed some of the possible methods for choosing a department chairperson and identified the following selection methods that he thought formed the basis for almost all selection procedures: (a) "omnipotent dean," a method in which "the dean appoints a department head who usually serves for life or until the dean chooses to make a change"; (b) "appointed committee," a method in which the dean appoints a "committee to search for and screen candidates. The committee then makes its recommendation to the dean"; (c) "appointment of the chairman by the dean after he confers privately with each faculty member in the department"; (d) II II "elected committee, a method in which a committee elected by the faculty makes its recommendation to the dean, from which he makes a selection"; (e) "faculty participation, in which the chairperson is elected by the department faculty. The dean then has the option to approve or disapprove the selection; and (f) "powerless dean," a situation in which the dean cannot review the selection when the faculty makes the final choice (pp. 323-325). Brann (1972) said that department chairpersons are commonly selected by one of four methods: (a) they are appointed by the dean or president (those who come to the position in this way are often known as department heads instead of chairpersons), (b) they are selected by their fellow faculty members, (c) they are selected by 75 the dean in consultation with the faculty members, and (d) the position is rotated among the tenured faculty members. Freligh (1974) elaborated the following methods of selecting department chairpersons: 1. Faculty selection of chairperson. This method of selection includes automatic rotation of qualified (defined) members of the department; election by all qualified (defined) members of the department, subject to veto by the dean; and appointment by a department committee selected for that purpose and subject to the dean’s veto. 2. Joint faculty-administrative selection of chairperson. This method of selection includes administrative appointment from two or more department nominations, administrative appointment after consultation with department members (consultation taken to mean open discussion and/or identification of candidates), administrative appointment after consultation with other chairpersons, and administrative appointment after consultation with collegewide committee (e.g., president’s cabinet, administrative council, academic council/senate). 3. Administrative selection of chairperson. This selection method includes administrative appointment without consultation or discussion with department members (may include consultation with other administrators) and administrative appointment after casual discussion with informally selected department members (i.e., in passing, unplanned conversation). 76 Of the methods of selection described above, Freligh found in his survey that in university-branch, multi-campus, and single- campus institutions, the three most frequently reported selection methods were (a) election subject to administrative veto, (b) admin- istrative appointment without consultation, and (c) administrative appointment after casual department contact. Gunter (1964) compared the methods of selection practiced in selected small and large state universities. He found that the difference lay in the nomination process that occurred before the university president approved and eventually recommended appointment by the board of trustees. In small universities, the common practice was nomination by the dean, whereas in large universities the common practice was nomination by the dean, after consultation with department members. O’Grady (1973) also compared the chairperson-selection processes employed in large and small state colleges. He found that: Nearly all large-college chairmen were nominated by the deans, approved by the college president, and appointed by the governing board. Less than one—half of the small-college chairmen were selected by the president and appointed by the governing board. (p. 270) Similarly, in his survey of seven midwestern state—supported universities, Englund (1968) found that: Virtually all selections are made within the school or college, with approval of upper—echelon administrators and the board of control being for the most part a formality. In many instances, the dean also plays only a small role in selection, so that it can almost be said selections are made by the department. (p. 4846A) 77 In the four colleges he surveyed at the University of Alabama, Bullen (1970) found that procedures employed in the selection of a chairperson were not standardized and were left to the direction of the college dean. According to Bullen, most participants in the survey had never participated in the selection of a department chairperson. The faculty members who took part in his study concurred that, in known cases, their participation was too superficial and restricted. Summary A review of literature related to the study was presented in this chapter. The presentation was organized under the following four headings: Participation of Minorities in Higher Education In this section, the labor force and selected occupational distributions of minorities relative to nonminorities were reviewed. The discussion of participation in higher education indicated that, although the minority population is growing, their participation in higher education is lacking. Suggested reasons for the lack of involvement by minorities in higher education were discussed; these included lack of appropriate academic preparation, lack of prospects of promotion for minority faculty, problems of supply and demand, lack of proper recruitment policies, economic constraints, and institutional racism. Affirmative action also was discussed. 78' Job‘Satisfaction A discussion of three different theories of job satisfaction from the literature was presented in this section. The first theory concerned the link between level of job satisfaction and personality characteristics. The second theory expressed the view that job satisfaction is determined both by objective characteristics of the job and by individual motives and evaluation of various features of the job. The third theory was an elaboration of Porter’s point of view, which equates relative position to job satisfaction. Role Expectations The literature pertaining to the chairperson’s role expectations was reviewed in this section. The three elements of role theory—-the position, the role, and the self-—were discussed. Writings on role conflict, role ambiguity, and the chairperson’s conflicting roles also were presented. The Process of Selecting a Department Chairperson Different views of how the department chairperson should be selected were presented in this section. Reports on different methods commonly used by colleges and universities in selecting department chairpersons also were discussed. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Introduction The primary focuses of this study were the process by which the black department chairpersons chosen for the sample had been selected for their positions, their administrative expectations, and their job satisfaction. According to Hamner and Schmidt (1974), Katzell (1968), and Dunnette, Arvey, and Banas (1973), some researchers have suggested that satisfaction exists if one’s role expectations are congruent with reality. This research was conducted as a case study. Best and Kahn (1989) described a case study as: . . a way of organizing social data for the purpose of viewing social reality. It examines a social unit as a whole. The unit may be a person, a family, a social group, a social institution, or a community. The purpose is to understand the life cycle or an important part of the life cycle of the unit. The case study probes deeply and analyzes interaction between the factors that explain present status or that influence change or growth. (p. 76) Best and Kahn stated that, in a case study, the element of typicalness rather than uniqueness is the focus of attention, for an emphasis on uniqueness would prevent scientific abstraction and generalization of findings. As Bromly (cited in Best & Kahn, 1989) noted, ”A ’case’ is not only about a ’person’ but also about ’that 79 80 kind of person.’ A case is an exemplar of, perhaps even a prototype for, a category of individuals" (p. 92). Personal interviews with the subject(s) are one of a wide variety of methods that may be used to gather data in case-study research. According to Best and Kahn (1989) and Yin (1989), a single case study emphasizes in—depth analysis. Although in some cases it may be fruitful to develop hypotheses to be tested, the study should not be directed toward making broad generalizations. Because one cannot generalize from one case, to the extent that a single case may represent an atypical situation, this is a sound observation. But if the objective analysis of an adequate sample of cases leads investigators to consistent observation of significant relationships between and among variables, hypotheses may be confirmed, leading to valid generalizations. In this regard, Yin stated: The case study has long been stereotyped as a weak sibling among social science methods. In spite of this stereotype, case studies continue to be used extensively in social science research—~including the traditional disciplines (psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, history, and economics) as well as practice-oriented fields such as urban planning, public administration, public policy, management sciences, and education. The case study method also is a frequent mode of thesis and dissertation research in all of these disciplines and fields. (p. 10) Best and Kahn (1989) also noted: Case studies are not confined to the study of individuals and their behavioral characteristics. Case studies have been made of all types of communities, from hamlet to great metropolis, and of all types of individuals . . . and institutions. These studies have been conducted for the purpose of understanding the culture and the development of variable relationships. (p. 93) 81 This study, therefore, was an in-depth account of selected black department chairpersons with respect to how they perceived their selection process, their role expectations, and their job satisfaction. The researcher also sought the chairpersons’ opinions on blacks’ participation in the administration of higher education in general and, in particular, their perceptions of why there is such low participation of blacks in higher education. This report is organized in a linear-analytic structure. Yin (1989) described the linear—analytic structure as: . . . a standard approach for composing research reports. The sequence of subtopics involves the issue or problem being studied, the methods used, the findings from the data collected and analyzed, and the conclusions and implications from the findings. (p. 183) The methodology used in this research makes it unique because, from the literature review that was conducted, the researcher found that this study is not a duplication of the efforts of others. Several investigations have been undertaken on the department chairperson/head, in general, but no specific research was found on the black department chairperson’s experiences in predominantly white institutions. Information for this study was collected through participants’ oral responses in personal interviews. The research design and the detailed procedures used in the study are described in this chapter. The characteristics of the population, the sampling procedures, the instrumentation, and the data—collection and data—analysis proce— dures also are presented. 82 Research Design The research design for this study was a case study and covered four black department chairpersons’ perceptions of their selection process, role expectations, and job satisfaction. The case-study approach was considered to be the best method to use. Yin (1989) and Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (1972) supported the use of case studies for research of this nature. This study was an inquiry into a phenomenon in a real-life context, and according to these authors, case~study research is designed to obtain information concerning a contemporary phenomenon within some real—life context. According to Van Dalen and Meyer (cited in Ansah, 1980), one of the objectives of the case study is to find "the nature of prevailing conditions, practices and attitudes—-seeking accurate descriptions of activities, objects, processes and persons" (p. 82). The Population and Sampling Procedure Population All black academic department chairpersons or department heads, acting chairpersons, assistant chairpersons, and associate chairpersons from the Big Ten universities constituted the population for this study. Directors or heads of schools, institutes, centers, and nonacademic departments were excluded from the population. The investigator had a difficult time identifying the people who constituted the target population because most of the schools officially refused to disclose the names of individual chairpersons. Their reason was that such information is 83 confidential. The investigator’s faculty friends and other students were an alternative source for identifying black chairpersons from the institutions that refused to reveal chairpersons’ names. No distinction was made among chairpersons, acting chairpersons, associate chairpersons, and assistant chairpersons. They were all referred to as chairpersons. The total population comprised eight individuals. Sampling Procedure In selecting the sample, the names of all eight black chairpersons who were identified (six males and two females) were written on a piece of paper in alphabetical order; each was given a number in sequence. The first, third, fifth, and seventh names were drawn; thus, four chairpersons were selected for the sample (three males and one female). In this study, the chairpersons were exam- ined as individuals. No attempt was made to compare one chairperson with another. The writer assumed that the individuals selected for the sample would be willing to participate in the study and support it by sharing their ideas and expertise. It was also assumed that the participants would provide open and honest responses to the interview questions. The interviewees were assured that their responses would remain anonymous and would be entirely confidential. 84 Instrumentation The Personal Interview The method the investigator thought would be most appropriate for gathering data for this study was the personal interview. According to Van Dalen (1962), "many people are more willing to communicate information verbally than in writing and, therefore, will provide data more readily and fully in an interview than in a questionnaire" (p. 258). Kerlinger (1965) said: [An] interview is a face-to-face interpersonal role situation in which one person, the interviewer, asks a person being interviewed, the respondent, questions designed to obtain zggwers pertinent to the purpose of the research problems. (p. To obtain the information needed to answer the research questions, it was necessary to prepare an interview guide that would assist the investigator in ascertaining the respondents’ perceptions of the process by which they had been selected for the position of chairperson, their administrative expectations as chairpersons, and their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their positions as chair— persons . The Interview Guide The Interview Guide (Appendix E) was designed to obtain the sample members’ opinions with respect to their selection, role expectations, and job satisfaction. The interview was also expected to foster an interpersonal relationship between the investigator and the interviewees. According to Van Dyke, Bingham, Victor, and 85 Gustad (1959), the interpersonal relationship is a valuable asset in conducting a personal interview. They noted: Sources of unreliability inhere in an interviewer, in the person interviewed, and in the relationship between the two. Paradoxically, it is precisely these same elements which make the interview a valuable instrument. The difference lies in the conduct of the interview and the quality of the relation- ship. (p. 9) To maintain uniformity, the same questions were asked in all of the interviews. The questions that constituted the Interview Guide were based in part on the literature review. Also, the works of Ansah (1980), Aguon (1977), and Skubal (1980) provided the investi- gator with a framework and ideas for constructing the interview questions. The questions were shown to several senior faculty members, who reviewed them and provided suggestions for changes. After a series of changes, the Interview Guide was adopted for use in the study. Data—Collection Procedure After the researcher’s proposal and the Interview Guide were approved by his doctoral guidance committee and the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, the investigator wrote to the Affirmative Action Offices of all the Big Ten institutions and requested the names of black individuals who held the positions of chairperson, assistant chairperson, associate chairperson, and acting chairperson in their institutions. Some of the institutions refused to grant this request for names because they considered such information to be confidential. 86 The investigator then traveled to the institutions that refused to release the chairpersons’ names. Upon arriving on these campuses, the investigator went first to the offices in charge of minority affairs and introduced himself to the secretaries, stating the purpose of the visit and asking for assistance in locating the black department chairpersons in their institutions. The secretaries either provided the necessary information or directed the researcher to a faculty member or student who could help identify the black department chairpersons. Four black chairpersons were selected for the sample, as described earlier. The researcher initially contacted the participants by mail during the first week of June 1991. A letter was sent to the selected candidates (see Appendix F), requesting their voluntary participation. In the letter, the prospective participants were given a brief description of the research project and were informed that the data would be collected through personal interviews. A copy of the proposed Interview Guide was enclosed with each letter. The letter also stated that the interview would take about 30 minutes. About two weeks after the letters were mailed, the investigator telephoned the prospective participants as a follow-up to the letters. During each call, the investigator introduced himself, explained again what the study was about, and attempted to schedule an appointment for the personal interview. All four of the chairpersons who were contacted expressed their willingness to participate in the study. An interview date was set 87 with each participant, and the investigator traveled to the participants’ institutions on the dates appointed for the interviews. The interview dates and times were scheduled at the chairpersons’ convenience (all took place in July 1991). Three of the interviews were conducted in the chairpersons’ offices. One chairperson chose to be interviewed in the evening at his residence because of other engagements during the day. Just before starting the interview, the investigator asked permission to record it. The investigator was well received at each interview. Excellent rapport was established between the investigator and the chairpersons before the interviews began. All four chairpersons expressed a sincere interest in the study. The participants’ responses were tape recorded, and the tapes were later transcribed. After that, the tapes were destroyed. Letters of appreciation were sent to the participants following the interviews (see Appendix F). In these letters, the interviewees were again assured that their responses would be treated with strict confidence. Data Analysis The data that were analyzed in this study consisted of the chairpersons’ responses during the personal interviews. The responses were analyzed to determine (a) the department chairpersons’ perceptions with respect to how and why they had been selected for their positions, (b) their administrative expectations and whether these expectations had been met, and (c) the job 88 satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the chairpersons, as signified by job difficulties, frustrations, feelings of unfairness with regard to compensation, and/or confirmation of retrospective role expecta- tions. Summary The purpose of this chapter was to describe the design and procedures of the study. A case-study method was used to examine four black department chairpersons’ perceptions of why and how they had been selected for their positions, their administrative expecta- tions, and their job satisfaction. The population and the method of selecting the sample were also discussed in this chapter. The data were collected by means of a personal interview with each of the four sample members. The findings are reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This study focused on four selected black department chairpersons in Big Ten institutions with respect to why and how they had been selected for their positions, their role or administrative expectations, and their job satisfaction. The researcher attempted to identify (a) factors that led to the selection of the individual chairperson for his or her present position, (b) whether the role expectations the chairpersons had before they assumed their positions had been met, and (c) the individual chairpersons’ satisfaction with their jobs. The literature indicated that very few blacks are serving in administrative positions in higher education. Hence, the researcher sought the participants’ views on why so few blacks hold administrative positions in higher education. This chapter is organized into the following sections: description of the selected black chairpersons, reasons for their selection, participation of blacks in higher education, role expectations, and job satisfaction. The findings are presented in descriptive form. The interview responses are cited verbatim. 89 90 Description of the Selected Black Department Chairpersons A description of the selected black department chairpersons from the Big Ten institutions is presented in this section. Included is personal information on the respondents, as well as their general views of the position, previous positions held, and reasons for changing positions. Personal Information Age. All four of the participants were over 40 years of age. However, none of them was 50 or older. The participants’ ages ranged from 42 to 49 years. Marital status. Three of the participants were married; one indicated otherwise. When questioned about the effect their marital status had had on their positions as chairpersons, the married individuals indicated positive effects. One remarked: Being married, I think, is certainly a plus. There are many social activities that the department chair also is responsible for. That’s welcoming new faculty, welcoming new students, and events where we are entertaining candidates for jobs. Through activities like these it really involves or makes the wife a part of the department. Most of these activities are organized by my wife. She feels a part of the whole process, as it has been the case for the past 25 years where in other roles she had to serve a similar function. All of the chairpersons also indicated that they did not think being single would have had any adverse effect on their position. Education. All four chairpersons had terminal, advanced degrees (Ph.D.s). All but one had been educated from high school through graduate school in the United States. The one exception had received his high school, undergraduate college, and part of his 91 graduate college education in a foreign country. All of the chairpersons’ academic majors during their undergraduate and graduate schooling were in the disciplines toward which they were heading. All but one of the chairpersons indicated that they had obtained their graduate education at one of the Big Ten universi- ties; the other had gone to a university other than a Big Ten institution for graduate education. The types of institutions the chairpersons had attended since high school are shown in Table 12. The respondents’ academic majors in undergraduate and graduate school represented a wide range of disciplines, from natural science to social science to humanities. Table 12.--Types of educational institutions attended by the respondents. Undergraduate Graduate High School College School Private 1 1 0 Public 3 3 4 Respondents’ General Views of the Chairperson Position Position title. All of the department chairpersons who par- ticipated in this study held the rank of professor and were tenured faculty members. Their position title was referred to as "chair- person" and represented an administrative head of an academic unit. 92 Power and authority. The participants believed that the posi- tion of chairperson carried some power and authority. When asked to comment on the power and authority of academic chairpersons relative to their responsibilities to students, faculty, staff, and other administrators in their institutions, one chairperson responded: Yes, I would say that I have power. It is an advice I would offer that, never misuse power. It’s very easy sometimes when you think, "Gee, I can do what 1 want.“ I always treat people fairly, regardless of whether or not they have done something that I didn’t like. I do not hold a grudge or become vindictive, which I could do. I mean, I could manipulate money, I could do what I want. When you are an administrator, or you are chair, I mean, you are powerful. I think a clever thing would be to not misuse that power. So anyway, that’s what I would say here. I have ultimate power in the department. One also stated: Well, I’m the department head. I’m the CEO of this department, so what I say carries weight. I decide salaries, I approve teaching schedules, I sign—off on very important documents of students, faculty, and staff alike, and I set up [approve] vacation schedules. So I do have power. Another respondent remarked: In order to answer your question, I have to be clear what it is we’re talking about. My power, relative to students——it’s not clear to me what that is. Faculty members can’t discipline before referring to other head persons. I’m sure if we try to discipline a student, there would be procedures to follow in the department. Every good university has procedures regarding expulsion and things of that nature. In terms of admitting students, yes, I play a major role in deciding what students get admitted into graduate programs. In terms of curriculum, the chair has a major role. In terms of appointing faculty, it requires my approval. In determining what raises faculty members get each year, I have a major role in that. I make the recommendation to the dean, and normally that’s the final word on it. I appoint staff, I evaluate staff; I reassign staff as necessary. So I’ve never felt that I didn’t have the power to do what is required to build the department that we want. 93 Years of experience. The respondents had held their chairper— son positions for periods ranging from two to six years. Their length of service as academic chairpersons is found in Table 13. Table 13.-—Respondents’ number of years as chairpersons. Number of Years Number of Chairpersons 2 1 3 1 5 1 6 1 The Previous Position and Why Chairpersons Changed Positions Previous positions held. All of the participants had had previous academic administrative experience or some administrative experience in nonprofit business organizations. When asked how they would rank their present chairperson position in comparison to their previous positions, none of the respondents ranked the present posi- tion as higher than his or her previous position. Therefore, they did not consider the move to their present position as upward mobil- ity from their previous position. Reasons for changing positions. The interviews with the chair- persons revealed that a combination of personal and professional issues had resulted in the participants changing positions. When the participants were asked their reasons for changing positions, one respondent stated: 94 The reason for coming from . . . to . . . is that it was an opportunity to participate in a major rebuilding of high-energy matter, which is one of the major projects for this department, and to have more time to devote to my own research, which is not possible working as provost. Another stated: I think you change when you reach a certain level of satisfaction and gratification in one job. I’ve been fortunate in that I had just that in each situation. I think I had been able to move up the ladder a little bit to improve my own professional standing. So in that sense, I guess those were the main reasons--an opportunity to lead, an opportunity to have a little bit more power, have a little more political clout, ultimately with the idea of being able to have a bigger voice in education and to have more influence. And ultimately those were the reasons why I changed. A third respondent replied: Well, to get a better job--you change positions. There is no question at all about it. I changed positions because I want to develop. Another person remarked: My primary reason for accepting this position was to increase my challenges and the opportunity to be near one of the country’s largest research institutions. The chairpersons were then asked, "What was your reaction when the position was first offered to you?" One responded: At first, I didn’t want to accept it because I had not prepared for . . . and I thought that I would face some difficulties in the department. But after a long conversation with the dean, I finally accepted the position. Another stated: When the position was first offered to me, I was not sure I wanted to do it, mainly because I can do administrative work but it’s not my first choice for a job. I much prefer freedom, more freedom than administration allows for. So my initial reaction was cautious, reserved, reticence about it. I wasn’t clear on what I wanted to do. And then I decided, yes, okay, I could do what was needed and I’ll do it. 95 A third chairperson asserted: I’m not trying to not answer it. I guess if I had to answer it, my first reaction was that I was not particularly interested. Another chairperson answered the question regarding his reaction to the position when it was first offered to him in the following way: I turned it down initially. I said I wasn’t interested in it. And people convinced me that I should take it. I mainly wanted to get things done together here. I felt this department had a great deal of potential that was not being realized because of some internal bickering and fighting and other things. I was interested in getting the department beyond that. From the chairpersons’ responses concerning their reasons for and reactions to changing positions, the researcher made the following observations: 1. They wanted challenge in their professional careers, and they perceived that by accepting the chairperson position they would experience a challenge. 2. They wanted to play a major role in the rebuilding of an academic department. They had a special agenda for the department, which they thought would help improve departmental life. 3. They thought the position would help them in their profes— sional development. 4. Explicitly or implicitly, the chairpersons indicated they were afraid they might not succeed as administrators. 5. The chairpersons’ reasons for accepting the position had not been based on personal financial gains. They had accepted the position because of their strong desire for a better academic 96 department. They also thought they could use their new position to change things and to have authority to implement their agendas for the department. Summary This section contained (a) a brief profile of the four selected chairpersons, (b) the nature of their previous positions, and (c) why they changed positions. Respondents’ age, marital status, education, position, years of experience in the position, and the power and authority of their position were discussed. All four chairpersons viewed their current position as "first among equals." They believed it was a leadership position that carried power and authority. The respondents’ opinions of why they had changed positions were discussed. All but one of the chairpersons had been full-time tenured faculty members with the rank of professor before they accepted the chairperson position. The one who was the exception had been a provost before becoming chairperson. All of them had been drafted or nominated by their colleagues. None of them considered the move to their current position as upward mobility from their previous position. All four participants had similar reasons for accepting the position of chairperson. They all indicated that they wanted a challenge, to improve or rebuild a department, and to increase their professional development. 97 Method of Selecting the Chairpersons and the Reasons for Their Selection This section contains a discussion of the responses of the chairpersons concerning (a) how they had been selected for the position of chairperson, (b) their perceptions of why they had been selected, (c) their opinions of why there are so few black adminis- trators in higher education, and (d) their advice to prospective black chairpersons. Method of Selecting the Chairpersons The literature review revealed that there are several ways of selecting department chairpersons. According to Brann (1972), chairpersons are commonly selected by one of the following methods: (a) they can be appointed by the dean, the president, or someone in central administration; (b) they can be elected by their fellow faculty members; (c) they can be chosen by the dean in consultation with the faculty; or (d) they can become the chairperson by a system whereby the senior faculty or all tenured faculty of a department take turns holding the job for a specified period. The interviews with participants about their selection process revealed that one of them had been drafted from another university. The rest had been nominated from within their own institution by the dean, upon strong recommendation by the faculty. When the chairpersons were asked how they had learned about the position and what process they had passed through to win the position, one chairperson had this to say about the process: 98 The approach here is that the dean sends out a memo to each faculty member at the end of the term of a chair. The letter asks, or the letter would state, “Such and such is concluding a term and has indicated that he/she does not want to continue as chair.“ Or the letter could say, "This person has concluded his/her chairperson period and what do you feel is the next step?“ "What should we do?" "Would you give an assessment of where we are and what we should do?" So, each faculty member responds individually, either in writing or through making an appointment to meet the dean personally. So that’s what happens. Then whichever name comes up the most, with the rationale, then the dean considers that person. If a couple or three names come up, the dean will consider all three and make a decision, basing it on the input from the faculty, as well as his knowledge of the person and knowing what the person’s administrative skills could be and what the person’s agenda or vision may be. So that’s how I became a chair. Another chairperson remarked: I was approached by the provost of the university, after he consulted with faculty members, and asked me to consider it. One respondent recounted how he had become a chairperson in this way: The previous chair . . . well, we had one person . . . who had been chair for 12 years, and when he stepped down we had an acting chairperson for a year. And then another person was hired and he was here for two years and left suddenly. I then was chosen by the dean upon the recommendation of faculty members to become acting chair for a year. Then I was appointed permanent chair last year. I accepted a two-year term. I have just completed the first year of a two-year term. So this coming year will actually be my third year that I’ve been sitting in this chair. Another chairperson recounted how he had been given the position: In 1987, the dean set up a committee called Study Committee of the Department of . . . to study the development of new programs for the department. I was a member of that committee. At the end of the year the committee submitted its report to the dean. The committee came up with the suggestion that the programs in the department should be organized into two major programs--French and Italian in one program and Spanish and Portuguese, also, in another program. The dean again set up a standing committee to further study the suggestions by the first committee, and that committee also agreed with our committee suggestions. So the suggestions were implemented. 99 At this time, the dean, probably having seen leadership qualities in me, advised me to remain in the department to help build it. Then in 1988, the former chairperson of the department resigned. Upon the recommendation of the faculty members, the dean approached me and offered the position to me. Chairpersons’ Perceptions of Why They Had Been Selected When the participants were asked "What do you think were the most influential factors that led to your nomination as chairperson?" their responses were as follows. Ability to lead. Leadership ability was one of the qualities that some participants stressed as a factor that had led to their nomination by colleagues to the chairperson position. One respondent stated: From high school I have always been a leader, and at my university too. In high school . . . we had a house called Lincoln House. I was a leader of that house. Also in high school, there was a group who organized the students to take them home during vacation and bring them back to school again when school opened. I was the leader of that group. Another chairperson observed: Well, this was sort of easy for me because I’m in . . . depart- ment. The faculty members clearly saw I had the abilities and the clout on campus and the visibility and their respect that I could do the job. Social and political activism. One chairperson indicated that his involvement in social activities in his early years gave him the qualities that led to the chairperson position. He stated: I grew up in the 19605 during the civil rights movement in this country, that is, during Dr. King’s civil rights movement. I was very active during the whole struggle. Civil rights, as a major component, had a liberating impact on these educational institutions, so the quest for black studies came about. In a large measure, it was due to the students’ struggle that went on during that period as well. I was a part of that and I 100 became interested in wanting to know about my own roots and background, and quest for identity and questions about Africa, and so on. So being a product of that 19605 quest, my own consciousness was raised. And I’ve always been hungry for knowledge, and I wanted to be a problem solver. That meant that one would have to attack a lot of the problems, face them head up, issues that faced the black communities, not only here but worldwide. My involvement in this civic movement gave me social and political consciousness and also developed in me leadership qualities that I possess now; and these have been qualities that have allowed me to have a voice. So I guess those would be my reasons for why I have this position. Dedication and long service. One chairperson emphasized his dedication to his discipline and long service as two of the quali- ties that had led to his selection as chairperson. He stated: I guess I really don’t know how to answer your question. I’ve been a teacher and a physicist for almost 30 years now, and it is quite natural that during that period one might be department chair. Track record. Another chairperson believed that his previous track record had been a major influential factor in the selection decision: I had a successful track record before becoming chair. Before becoming chair, I conducted an ensemble that was incredibly successful nationwide, and that is what led to my visibility throughout the campus before I became chair. My name was a known name in almost every office on campus. Anywhere I go on campus, people would say, "Oh, you’re . . . ; yes, I’ve heard of you." And, so, that made a difference. Personal attributes. One chairperson cited personal attributes as qualities that were taken into consideration for his selection. He observed: Being a department chair requires certain qualities. And I can think of it from my position as a faculty member and participating in the selection of the chairman of our department at, let’s say, the University of . . . 15 years ago. I want someone who is discreet. If I come and talk to the person and tell him something very personal, I wouldn’t want him to go and broadcast it to anyone else. I’d like someone 101 who is efficient; if he tells you that he will get back with you with an answer to your question, that he will do it and not forget it. I would want someone who would be very cautious about hiring new faculty members into the department to make sure that they have high qualities and high standards. I would want someone who would have entree to the president of the university. If there were a big issue and I needed to see the president tomorrow to explain something to him and ask him to intervene, I would want to have a chair that could call up the president and say, "We have to see you tomorrow." I want a chair who could go to Washington and be recognized in Washington at the funding agencies. And the list goes on. I would hope that, in a department like this, they went through a process like this, and had great difficulty to find somebody with such personal attributes, and so they decided to look outside for someone like me. Another chairperson retold the story like this: Well, I wasn’t even here, to tell you the truth. I was on leave when my name was suggested to the dean by the faculty members . . . and by the same token, another university has looked at me and has inquired about my interest in other administrative roles and I have said, "No, I don’t want to be an administrator." If I had an interest in going on, I know I would be selected to go on, but it already has been also made very clear, in fact the dean told the whole department and made a public statement, that I was one of the best, if not the best chair the college has ever had. Achievement. All four chairpersons agreed that their records of achievement in their fields also were important factors in their selection as chairperson. One interviewee stated: I have a very good rapport with all the administrators on this campus. The dean of my college, the vice—president, the chancellor, they all know me very well, and I had a good strong academic track record before I became a chair. And when I became a chair I made a lot of inroads in many areas and raised the visibility of the department and the respect of the department throughout the campus. And then as a scholar I have a good track record. My scholarship is respected, so that I think also that’s another key factor here, in terms of how successful a department can be, or what the unit you’re running can be. 102 Another chairperson remarked: I won the distinguished teaching award at . . . State Univer- sity in 1983 and in 1989. I have also published. I don’t think you can get recognition in this university without publishing, particularly for my kind of background. The chairpersons were asked to comment on and give particular instances of their achievements during the period they had been in the position of chairperson. One individual responded: I think one of my achievements as the department chairperson is having the department recognized throughout the nation as having one of the best programs. In fact, Ford Foundation rates our department as being in the top five of the best in the arts and humanities. I perceive that as a great achievement. This achievement had led us to win a $300,000 grant. Also, I have been able to attract other funds. I think attracting external funding is one of my big accomplishments. I have also computerized the entire department as well as influenced faculty members to become computer literate, which they are now. I was the only person who was computer literate when I first became chair. Another chairperson commented on his achievement by saying: First, it is under my leadership that the department was split into two. Second, I have introduced new curriculum. Third, I have been lucky to get a good dean who is cooperating very nicely with the department by making available the necessary funds that have been used to equip the department. As a result of that, I have been able to recruit excellent faculty for the department. I regard these as achievements. A third chairperson commented: I think my department under my leadership has made more than 20 very fine faculty appointments. Having good, high-quality faculty is the heart of any department, and I have brought in several very highly respected, well—known faculty into our midst. So, perhaps that would be the great single achievement. The other is a major change in physical facilities available to the department. Under my leadership the department has acquired a whole new building in addition to that building and the existing buildings. We have also developed a proposal for another new building, which has been approved at the university level and is waiting for appropriation at the state level. 103 Another chairperson responded by saying that he had created an atmosphere in the department that made both the faculty and the staff feel happy and comfortable. He said: I do not intimidate people. I hope that people see me as being fair, open, and honest with them. If that’s the case, then I think that is my greatest achievement. I think I am a superb teacher. I haven’t talked very much about my own field, my own specialty, but I do have some professional accomplishments that I’m very proud of. Blacks’ Participation in Higher Education The chairpersons who participated in the study were asked to respond to the question, "Literature indicates that very few blacks, or Ininorities, are serving in administrative positions in higher education. What do you think accounts for the fact that there are so few minority administrators serving in the higher education system?" The investigator asked them to focus their responses on the following: (a) lack of awareness of career opportunities in higher education, (b) relative ability, (c) cultural attitudes and socialization, (d) lack of encouragement and/or confidence, and (e) the effect of racial discrimination. Responses to the question are discussed in the following paragraphs. One chairperson questioned the premises of the statement and did not focus his response on the specific topics indicated above. Therefore, his responses are not included in the discussions under the specific subheadings below. He did, however, make the following general statement regarding the reasons he believed there are so few black administrators in higher education. 104 I guess, first of all, I’d have to question whether these premises are correct. In most of the institutions that I have been involved in, there has been a relatively significant fraction of African Americans in administrative positions. At . . . University I was Vice—President for Academic Affairs, and I am black. The Vice-President for Student Affairs also was black, but I think that was on a provisional basis. But one of the reasons for the number being low nationally, perhaps, is relative to the fact that the number of black Americans going ahead to graduate school and getting the doctorate degree is low, and one of the things required for one to be a college administrator or faculty is to get the terminal, advanced degree. I don’t think, looking at the list here, that it’s clear that no one particular is a bigger contributor to the small numbers as to the fact that there is a relatively small number who go ahead and get final, advanced degrees. Lack of awareness of career opportunities in higher education. The chairpersons did not agree on the statement that "There are few black or minority administrators in higher education because of lack of awareness of career opportunities in higher education." One chairperson observed: Well, as to why there are so few, I don’t think it’s so much a lack of awareness of opportunities. I’m sure that depends on whatever population you are talking about. People who are in the field of education know that there are opportunities. I would say that, generally speaking, that’s not the biggest factor. What we are having is a situation where there are fewer and fewer black students going into the field of education because of the opening up of a lot of areas that had been long closed to them, with just a few exceptions, of course. Whereas years ago, it was quite common for minority people, black people especially, to aspire to teaching in elementary and secondary schools, they could not aspire to work in other fields. I don’t think we have that nearly as much as we once did-~going into the educational field--because of the opening up of other areas to them. I have read of studies that speak of that. So I think there are problems with fewer in terms of numbers. Certainly, I understand since schools with segregation are no more, I think that the percentages have fallen, particularly in elementary and secondary schools, in terms of percentage of black people in teaching. Higher education, well, the situation is perhaps a little different there. I think people who are in higher education know that 105 the opportunity is there. It comes down to one’s willingness to pursue the courses that are necessary in order to acquire what it is that he or she is looking for. One chairperson agreed with the statement that lack of awareness of career opportunities in higher education is one reason there are few black administrators in higher education. He remarked: Yes, I would agree with some of the other reasons that literature is saying. Yes, I would say that lack of awareness of career opportunities in higher education is one of the causes of why there are so few black higher education administrators. First, I think that you would have to know of them. Most blacks who are in administrative roles in higher education are in black colleges. So the problem comes in being in a white school and getting in the track, you got to get experience, and where do you get the experience? You got to start somewhere in the track to have the experience to move up. Another chairperson remarked briefly that lack of awareness could be a factor contributing to the lack of black administrators in the higher education system. Relative ability. All four chairpersons responded that rela— tive ability should have no bearing at all on the number of blacks in administrative positions in higher education. One respondent noted: Well, from my experience here at this university, there have been a number of minorities, particularly black men, who have been interested in administrative positions and they have been passed over. I thought two of them were extremely qualified for the positions. I think that they were passed over not because of ability to work but because of the network, what they call the "old boys network." They were not in that network, although they were known to be very qualified. There were about four or five, to be honest, black faculty members who left this institution because they could not advance in the administrative ranks the way they wanted to or at the academic level they wanted, and two of them left and became presidents of other colleges. I think that, slowly, that is changing. 1 see that in the past five years at this university the unseen 106 barrier has been lifted, and those who are interested and want to advance into administration could do so. The university also now recognizes that and is taking advantage of the talent. Another chairperson remarked: That is nonsense; I don’t buy that at all. I am black, and I am heading a department that is composed of people from Europe, people from Latin America, America, and so forth. I do not lack ability. The fact is, black people have not been given the opportunity. You are talking about the sharing of power. For example, if you are chairperson of a department, you are part of the sharing of power in the university. So, because they don’t give you the chance, does not mean that you don’t have the ability. One chairperson responded in this way: I don’t think that relative ability has anything to do with it, unless you’re going to apply that across the board to other areas-—that is, to other disciplines. I don’t think that’s what stops somebody from wanting to become an administrator in higher education. 1 think that there are some who simply like administration, and some who simply do not like administration. They would rather be into 100 percent teaching and not have to worry about supervising others. They pretty much just want to deal with their own students. Cultural attitudes and socialization. Almost all of the chair- persons agreed with the statement that one of the causes of lack of blacks in higher education administrative positions is cultural attitudes and socialization. One respondent noted: I remember an incident involving our dean of students for the entire university, who is black. I remember when he was selected: Oh! Folks had a fit! There were two camps. One problem was that his degree was not in higher education administration. However, he had an affinity for the position. He is just good for the students and, therefore, was high on students’ lists. There were two problems. I think one was that he did not have the higher education degree in student personnel (whatever you want to call it), and, second, I think, clearly the race factor played an issue there. Once he moved in, there were some who just didn’t want to work with him because he was black. And others, of course, were able to camouflage their feelings about his race by using the fact that he didn’t have a degree in higher education to oppose him. But he has proven to be more effective--or very effective——more 107 than the one who preceded him, whose degree was in higher education. So, I would say that it has a lot to do with cultural attitude and socialization. Another chairperson remarked: I consider this discrimination. Disguised racism exists in many forms in this country, and that is what people holding power now use to perpetuate the status quo and deny opportunity to the people from another color or people from lower social status. Lack of encouragement andZor confidence. The chairpersons were asked to comment on the statement that lack of encouragement or confidence is one of the factors that has contributed to the lesser participation of black people and other minorities in higher educa- tion administration. One chairperson thought that lack of role models has been a major factor contributing to the lack of blacks in higher education administration. One respondent observed: I think that, until recently, blacks, in general, have not been encouraged because there are not many blacks in higher education administration who can be seen as role models for others to follow in their footsteps. What we need is more role models to serve as mentors to minority students who are in graduate schools and help them to see the career opportunities in higher education. Another chairperson rejected the statement and said he did not think that lack of encouragement was one of the major factors accounting for why there are so few black administrators in higher education in the United States. He noted: Well, I think that there has been some erosion of support, particularly in the black community. I don’t know if that necessarily accounts for why there are so few African American administrators in higher education. One chairperson believed that lack of encouragement should be counted and that this lack of encouragement is caused by racial discrimination. She remarked: 108 The lack of encouragement is clearly one factor. I think that there are many who do not have the confidence and know that they can do it, but they are not encouraged to go on. Of course this is the effect of discrimination. Racism, I think, is ultimately the first reason. The racism keeps you out from the track and, therefore, out of the network. So what can you do? It is always going to be there, the racial factor, whether you like it or not. Once the final decision is made, there is not much you could do. In the case of the two people that I indicated earlier, I think race had something to do with it. They were not a part of that network, so the whole issue comes back to the race factor. The effect of racial discrimination. The chairpersons who responded to this question were asked to comment on the statement, "One of the reasons for why there are so few black administrators in higher education is the effect of racism." Their individual responses are given below. One chairperson observed: 1 think of a couple of instances. They were both passed over because of their color, and also they were not a part of the system. I don’t think that the immediate reason why they were passed over was because they were blacks. I think that was the secondary reason. I think that the primary reason is that they were not a part of the system (the network from which they pool people to fill a position). They were in faculty positions, and they also had the necessary qualifications to hold administrative positions, but that was not high enough to qualify them to be in the network that would have helped them to move to the top. If you look at the historical reason for that, racism is clearly a reason for that. Once you are not in, it is very difficult to get into the track. You know that blacks are not in the track because of their skin color or race. I think, slowly but surely, this is changing. I can only speak for this university. From what I’ve seen here in the last five or six years, I think the university realizes that it has cheated itself by not having more diversity in the track, and so, in the last five years, there have been more blacks/minorities advancing to administrative positions, in fact, key administrative positions. I would say that part of the reason for change that I see in this university is the fact that the leadership of the institution has changed from being all white men, the way it was before (when basically all minorities, including women, were outside the track—-there might have been one or two women). But over the last three or four years the leadership 109 has changed to Jewish, and that has made a difference. So we have a minority, given the Midwest, in leadership. They have the other minorities on certain levels, and, also, they have made it more acceptable to other minorities. And so it has changed from all white Anglo—Saxon males in the leadership to Jewish males that feel other minorities should be a part of the track for administrative position, and they should be given the opportunity to advance. And so, for example, I’ve seen advancement of women within the administrative track, and also blacks and other minorities. Another respondent remarked: Well, racism exists. It has always been there. It is not going to go away anytime soon. I think success for black people will be largely determined by those who can work in a racist environment, and who can learn how to live in a racist world, or how to thrive in that world. Unquestionably, race, I think, has had a lot to do with who gets appointed in all of these positions, and particularly in higher education. Higher education has just an incredibly poor record for hiring black academicians. A third chairperson replied: Here, in this university, no racism is practiced. No administrator will attach racism to any school laws or regulations. However, within the department, there are individuals who have some racist attitudes. I have seen that in many cases. I have seen that even in a couple of cases this year. For example, in one department that I do not want to name, there were two black candidates that nobody wanted to consider for department—chair-post positions in some depart- ments simply because they were not of the "proper race." So, I think that in some cases, the effect of race discrimination has greatly contributed to the whole situation of lack of minority involvement in the higher education system. Other reasons. The chairpersons agreed with one chairperson’s remark that he believed another reason why there are few blacks and other minorities in higher education administration is that opportu- nities have opened up for them in other employment areas, such as law, medicine, and other professions that were closed to them about 25 or 30 years ago. One chairperson remarked: 110 I think that the biggest thing is that the last generation has seen opportunities open up, getting into the business world, the corporate world. You could be a black teacher in the 19305 and the 19405, but you couldn’t be an airplane pilot, you couldn’t be expected to be an attorney in a major white law firm. A lot of things have opened up now, and, no doubt that the field of education has lost——probably lost--some African American folks to some other areas. I don’t doubt that. Advice to prospective black department chairpersons. During the interviews, the investigator asked the chairpersons what advice they would offer to black faculty members and administrators who were aspiring to become academic department chairpersons. The interviewees offered the following advice: 1. People who are aspiring to become department chairpersons should strive to excel in research in their fields and also to do a good job in teaching. However, one chairperson remarked that he did not know of any reason why a typical faculty member who is doing an outstanding job in research and in teaching would want to become a department chairperson. He stated: My primary advice to anyone who wants to have an outstanding career in the department chair position is to do all he or she can to excel in his or her research areas. For a typical faculty member who is doing an outstanding job in research, or an outstanding job in teaching, particularly, why would he or she want to become a department chair? Unless he or she had some administrative agendas, such as if he or she likes to organize things, set goals, see that things get done, it should not be a career goal for an individual. Another chairperson advised that: I think the person should establish himself professionally as an excellent teacher, as well as researcher, and also be dedicated to his or her duties. I tell you, the chairperson job is not a pleasant job. That person must be aware of that also. 111 2. Individuals who want to become department chairpersons should demonstrate honesty and practice fairness in their dealings with other faculty and students. One chairperson remarked: Be fair with people, be open, communicate with them. Get to know them. Be ready to have what you do get questioned. You’ll have to become thick-skinned. But I think the key thing is to stand on principle. Do be flexible. Stand on solid ground, and that’s basically where I’m at. Another chairperson remarked: I think that person must be perceived to be an honest person. He Inust be perceived to be a quality—oriented person. His language (speech) must be seen to be distinguished. He must be known to be a respectful person by the faculty, staff, and students. I think it is good if the person has a little knowledge of administration. 3. One chairperson suggested that an aspiring administrator should be one who can get along with people in a work setting; that is, the person should be good in human relations. He stated: I think that anybody who wants to be a chairperson should develop a good relationship with students, faculty, staff, and central administrators. 4. Another respondent remarked that achieving power, fame, and monetary gain should not be the sole goals of the person aspiring to be a chairperson. . . . That would be for wrong reasons. For one to say, "I can control," "I can be powerful," "I can make more money,” or "I can be more visible and, therefore, more popular on campus" are wrong reasons to be an administrator—~that is, chairperson. This would be my advice to someone who wants to be a chairperson. Choose to be an administrator because you feel that you can make a difference. Money, fame, and power should be by—products, and should not be the goal. If that is the goal, you will never make the difference. If you allow money, fame, and power to be your goal, you will be so preoccupied in pursuing those things that it may force you to take shortcuts, underhandle things, or move in a direction that may not be the most feasible one, because there is that tendency to always be in a hurry to accumulate money, the fame, or the glory of 112 whatever you are doing, and thereby neglect the right thing for the department. One chairperson said that another important quality that a prospective chairperson should possess is patience: . . I think something else that is very important is to be Willing to be patient and to be willing to take a beating, to take a verbal beating, and be willing to make unpopular deci- sions. I would say that an administrator should try to develop the quality of self—confidence, commitment to the job, and willingness to . . . consider all issues in making a decision and not feel that, "Because I am chair . . . " This is where the power becomes a problem. To say, "Well, I am chair, therefore, I will do what I want to do," or to be money hungry . . . that is, when it comes to the time of funds appropriation, instead of appropriating the money fairly, you try to take most of it for yourself, as opposed to fair division among the faculty and staff. Another chairperson commented: I think being fair, being patient, having a mission that benefits everybody within the scope of the organization, and outside, if you’re trying to make a difference to other people or in the eyes of other people, I guess it should be things that you don’t do for the glory. You do them because you’re truly committed and know that you would take a beating most of the time. If one cannot do these things, then the person is not ready for the chairperson position. Summary The findings presented in this section represented the chairpersons’ responses to the interview questions concerning (a) how they had been selected for the chairperson position, (b) their perceptions of why they had been selected, and (c) their opinions of why there are so few blacks participating in the higher education system. It was found that the selection procedures varied little from one institution to another. However, all of the chairpersons 113 indicated they had been selected by mutual agreement of the faculty members and the dean. The factors that had led to their selection for the chairperson position included their leadership ability, dedication to work and long service, academic achievements and credentials, personal attributes and track record, experience and social activism, and respect and good relationships with other faculty members. When the chairpersons were asked to give their opinions on why there are few blacks serving in administrative positions in higher education, all of them agreed that this situation was not caused by relative ability. They all thought the situation had been brought about by a combination of factors, such as lack of awareness of career opportunities in higher education, cultural attitudes and socialization, lack of black role models, lack of encouragement, the effects of discrimination, and the opening up of opportunities for blacks in other careers that formerly had been closed to them. The respondents offered the following advice to black faculty members and administrators who aspire to become department chairpersons: Excel in research, maintain professional excellence, demonstrate honesty and fairness, and develop good interpersonal relationships. Role Expectations Role expectation has been defined as the expectation that an individual has of his or her job/position in an organization. In the literature review, a reference was made to the relationship 114 between role expectations and job satisfaction. According to Connellan (1979), members of organizations, although they might be highly qualified, often fail to perform with maximum effectiveness just because they do not understand the roles they are expected to perform in the organization. According to Brann (1972), the department chairperson position is a very important one in the American higher education system. All the same, the roles inherent in this position are poorly defined. He wrote: The department chairman or head is the foreman in higher education-—the person who sees that the work gets done. It is a difficult and ambiguous role, and so ill-defined that at many colleges no description of his duties appears on paper. . Despite the ambivalence and the vagueness of the role, the department chairman is the person who makes the institution run. He really is the foreman. As one chairman put it, "He’s the guy who gets hell from everyone. (pp. 5-6) In this section, the participants’ views on their role expecta- tions as chief executive for a department are presented. The chairpersons’ responses concerning their retrospective role expecta- tions for the position also are discussed. Fulfilled and Unfulfilled Expectations The chairpersons were asked to respond to the questions, "Before you assumed this position, what were your expectations of the role of an academic department chairperson? Which of your expectations have been fulfilled, and which have not?" All four chairpersons indicated that their expectations of the role of chairperson before they assumed the post had actually been realized 115 in the experiences they had had since assuming office. One chairperson said: One of my principal roles, if I were to comment on it, was to come here and oversee the major expansion of the department, and that expectation has been fulfilled. We have, in terms of construction, this bridge which has just been built. We have just got occupancy of the building next door. We are also undergoing a $12 million renovation of this other building. Numerical strength of our faculty has increased. For the last four years, I have hired over 21 new faculty. Another respondent said: As I have indicated earlier, before I became a chair, I felt that this department had a great deal of potential that was not being realized. Well, I think that I have strengthened the faculty at least. I hope that faculty believe that my office is one that is comfortable and that is fair and just. All of my decisions have not been popular ones. I don’t expect them to be. But, I’ve done my best to be fair and supportive to every faculty member, to realize his or her potential. This expectation is one that is continuous. I hope that it won’t stop anytime soon. One chairperson responding to the same question replied: I think the expectations that I had in mind were what I ended up doing. The department took a look at me as having ideas about where it would like to go in the future and gave me that trust. The expectations were clear to me from the beginning, and it has been fulfilled. I think of what I was able to do in the past six years: This department is ranked in the top five in the country, and number one in the best of the arts and humanities. We are very much a part of the main university structure. We are not viewed as a little ghetto existing apart from the mainstream. Our courses fulfill major requirements of the university, and our courses also fulfill requirements for degrees in other departments. So we are very much integral to the university structure, and that is one of the expectations that people had before, and I definitely have fulfilled, as well as leading toward the master’s ranking that we have. A respondent described his achievements in his department in this way: You know I was one of the key figures who were involved in creating this department, and I also have told you how I became a chairperson. Since this department is fairly new, compared 116 with other departments, the expectation was clear to anyone who became chairperson: [You] should see it grows or expands. I have been able to nourish this department into the growth stage to the point that I was able to break the department into two. I regard this as difficult and a very important achievement. The dean was afraid that the faculty would be opposed to such division. To my surprise, and to the dean’s surprise, the faculty cooperated with me fully. I have also, with the same cooperation from the faculty and the dean, revised the curriculum to meet first-class standards and, as far as the curriculum is concerned, our department ranks among the top five in the nation. On the whole, my expectations for this department have been fulfilled. Another chairperson replied: My simple answer to your question is "Yes." I have been Vice- President for Research of . . . University and the State University of . . . for five years. The deans used to report to me; I know what deans do and what chairpersons do. It is no surprise that the job turned out to be exactly what I thought it would be. Unexpected Aspects of the Position When the chairpersons were asked to comment on some of the things they never had expected to take place, but that had occurred, all of them cited the kind of support they had received from the faculty as one positive, unexpected thing they had experienced since taking over the chairperson position. One respondent noted: Both the staff and faculty were very cooperative, though sometimes resistant to the change and the [rapid] pace in which I wanted to make change. Not all of the unexpected aspects of the role were positive for the chairpersons. The respondents said they had not expected the lack of financial resources to be so acute. One remarked: We have an acute financial problem. We have a deficit that is a very real deficit. I’m hoping to take some steps to better the fiscal structure. 117 Number one, we are underfunded to begin with. We’re the only . . . department on campus. We have the largest number of black faculty here, so when it gets to funding we have our share of having to deal with all kinds of politics. People attack us just because we’re black. People question us just because we are black, so the fleas come with the dogs, but that is part of it. The four chairpersons also indicated that they never had expected their jobs to involve so much thinking, time, and energy. One interviewee responded: I did not know the depth of work the job entailed. I did not know that it would cut deep into my private hours. The department is always in my mind, whether on campus or at home or somewhere else. I am always thinking about the department. I think about it when I go home in the evening, when I go to bed at night, and in the morning when I get out of bed. All the chairpersons agreed that general cutbacks in university funding by the states had somewhat affected their abilities to undertake some of the things they had hoped to do. The Expected and Actual Use of the Chairperson’s Time The chairpersons were asked to respond to this question: "As a chairperson, what percentage of time is normally needed for teaching, research, and administrative duties and what percentage of time do you actually get to spend on each of the three roles mentioned?" Responses to this question varied widely. They ranged froni an expectation of 0% to 25% for teaching, 15% to 30% for research, and 30% to 75% for administrative duties. The respondents indicated that, in reality, they spent less time on teaching and more time on administrative duties. 118 The average percentages of time the chairpersons expected to spend on their various duties and the percentages of time they actually spent on them are shown in Table 14. As shown in the table, the chairpersons had expected to spend more time on teaching and research and less time on administrative duties than they actually spent. However, administrative duties took more time than the respondents actually had expected. Some chairpersons expressed general concern about this unexpected use of time. Table 14.-—The average percentage of time chairpersons spent on teaching, research, and administrative duties. Percentage of Time Percentage of Time Role Expected to Spend Actually Spent Teaching 17.50 10.50 Research 27.50 23.25 Administrative duties 55.00 66.25 One chairperson remarked: I love to teach. Before I became a chairperson, I expected the administrative duties to take about 50% of my time, and then I expected to divide the remaining 50% between research and teaching. Oftentimes my administrative duties occupy about 75% of my time. That means 1 only have 25% left, which is split between teaching and research, and sometimes it is only given to research. Another chairperson said: I have not been teaching classes, although I have some students whom I supervise or whom I work with on an individual basis in research. It has been a tradition here that the chairperson does not teach because of big volumes of administrative duties. I have been very deeply involved in my own research and have established in the department an energy-funded research group, 119 and we are carrying on experiments. I would say I spend roughly 30% of my time on research and 70% on administrative duties. Still another chairperson observed that teaching is important to any person who regards himself or herself as faculty, but in his situation, teaching took very little of his time. Well, I would say that teaching takes very little [time]. As an administrator, I found that I could not spend most of my time in the classroom, even if I wanted to. Research is also very important to me, because I do not want it to go down in history that I neglected research when I became a chairperson, which one could easily do because of the heavy demands of the administrative duties. So I spend about 65% to 70% [of my time] on administration, 25% on research, and about 5% on teaching. One chairperson remarked that he had expected to spend about 40% of his time on administrative duties, 40% on teaching, and 20% on research, but he had found that to be impossible. He actually spent about 60% of his time on administrative duties, 30% on teaching, and 10% on research. Summary In this section, the chairpersons’ responses concerning how they viewed their role expectations were presented. The respondents’ comments on their fulfilled and unfulfilled expectations and their unexpected roles also were discussed. The chairpersons indicated that they were satisfied with their expectations regarding most aspects of their roles. One area in which their expectations had not been fulfilled was in the allocation of time to their three major roles: administrative duties, teaching, and research. Even though all four chairpersons 120 considered teaching a part of their role, lack of time for quality teaching appears to have been a major setback for fulfilling that role. Job Satisfaction As noted in the literature review on job satisfaction, researchers have found that job satisfaction is negatively correlated with job withdrawal and absenteeism (Muchinsky, 1990). Thus, it is believed that the more satisfied a person is with his or her work, the less likely that individual will be to resign or quit the position. This section deals with the chairpersons’ satisfac- tion and dissatisfaction with their jobs. Challenges of the Job The investigator wanted to know the kinds of job challenges the interviewees had encountered since taking office as chairperson. Therefore, respondents were asked: "As a black department chairperson in a predominantly white institution, what are your greatest challenges at your job?" In response to this question, all of the chairpersons indicated that they faced many challenges, but no particular challenge was common to all respondents. They all had their individual agendas to meet, which differed somewhat from each other’s. For example, at the beginning of this investigation, the researcher believed that, because of the financial constraints that had resulted in major budget reductions for academic institutions, and because of the rising costs of departmental and institutional 121 operations, the funding of their departments would be foremost in the chairpersons’ minds. Although they were aware of this challenge, the respondents thought that it was no more significant than other concerns. Indicating some areas of real challenge, one chairperson stated: Well, anything that I do has always been a challenge. I mean, I’m the only black department chair in the whole university, which is criminal, inexcusable, and unfortunate. So certainly it’s not easy. It’s a challenge, but it’s one that I accept, and I try to do what I can. The chairpersons were then asked to discuss their challenges related to (a) their relationship with black faculty in their institutions, (b) their relationship with nonblack faculty, (c) their relationship with the students in general and black students in particular, and (d) behavioral variables. Their responses are discussed in the following paragraphs. Relationship With Black Faculty One chairperson commented: My relationship with black faculty is great. It was that way before I became a chair. And so it is with all blacks, both faculty and staff, in all departments. I grew up in the South, and we black people in the South look at black people anywhere as family. It did not matter where you were, we made you a part of family or community. That is what I have done over here. So my relationship with black faculty, in general, is good. Another chairperson responded: I have spoken about my relationship with black faculty; some of them are my own faculty. I try to treat everybody fairly; in fact, I do treat everybody fairly. I am a fair-dealing person. I have made some decisions that I have wrestled with, and I didn’t come down on the same side of the pike as, perhaps, some people might have wanted me to, so that has caused some flack 122 there. But, I think, generally, that my relationship with them is good. But it is a challenge. Relationship With Nonblack Faculty One chairperson responded: My relationship with nonblack faculty is good, largely because from day one that I have been in this institution, I have always taken a stand. You can always count on the bag I’m going to come out of. And it is a bag that is always looking to bring about a contribution or make known the contributions and presence of black people. I am known for that. I do not waver, I don’t bow down to pressure when it’s in vogue. I mean, I try to be fair in the ways that I approach a situation, so my relationship with nonblacks, both faculty and staff, has been positive. That is not to say that there is not racism. There are people who wish I would go away. There are such who do exist on this campus because I’m unrelenting in my movement towards equality. So I’m not saying that I am liked by everybody, and I don’t really care whether somebody likes me or not, but where it counts is in terms of me having my respect. That is all I care about and being able to accomplish my goals. Another chairperson remarked on his relationship with nonblack faculty as follows: I am so busy dealing with everything here, I’m not even concerned about others. I see them about once a month when I’m at a meeting, if I can get there. Anyway, I don’t think that I’m being excluded from participating in some real way. Relationship With Students Commenting on the special relationship with students, one chairperson stated: I have a very good relationship with students in general, and black students in particular. I work closely with them and mentor them. Because of that I just know everybody. They all come to me all the time. I have been their mama, their sister, and everything to the group of students that I work with every year. And that was a real honor for the students. Also, I am known by the majority of students because of the ensemble that I conducted. Very early, from almost day one when I arrived here, my involvement in many activities has been widely known by the black students. All students in general, especially 123 white students and other nonblack students, have found in my class that I treat people as people. I try to get nonblacks to understand the black perspective and their views of life and what has happened to them. I try to get all students to understand the cultural differences. I don’t pretend we blacks are not different culturally-—I make that very clear, and I list why we are different--and that, of course, will affect the way we see the world in a cultural sense. On his relationship with students, another chairperson stated: I think I have always had good relationships with students. I think I’m truly a superb teacher. When I get in a classroom, I come alive, and students, both blacks and whites, like me, and I like them too--black and white alike. Behavioral Variables One chairperson commented that behavioral variables could be looked at as being cultural. In general, she found some differences in the ways whites interact and approach tasks during committee meetings. She remarked: The reason why I’m probably more tolerant, and understanding, and can work around a situation, and work through it and get other people to alter their opinions or approach somewhat, is because of my field. You see, I’m an anthrop—musicologist, and I deal with music as culture, so one of my research areas is understanding why people do what they do. Therefore, I’m more tolerant because I see this as cultural factors and, therefore, do not allow myself to get caught up in much of the emotion. In terms of consideration and cooperation, I think I work very effectively with them. That is one of the reasons the dean likes to work with me; because I try to understand, the same with students, and the same with faculty and staff. Another chairperson commented: Well, I don’t have a problem with self-control. I think I am considerate. I think also that I’m cooperative, and I think I can work toward the solution of problems. I am willing to change. I could be a better communicator. I don’t think I communicate enough, and my management ability needs to be improved. It will because I’m hiring a vice—chair, so I think the whole managerial aspect of the operation will definitely improve. You know, one can grow into a job. . . . I mean . . . 124 this is a new ball game for me on this campus in this capacity, so you have to learn things. And I think I’m getting better and I’m getting stronger. I feel more confident, I feel I’m seeing things better. I really think that my operation will become more efficient. Unigue Situations In this study, the unique position of academic department chairpersons in academic institutions was emphasized. Equitable representation of blacks in administrative positions in higher education institutions has experienced slow and peripheral growth, especially in predominantly white institutions. This is because of what Patai (1991) called "surplus visibility," a phenomenon at work not only in academe, but also in society at large. Patai described one aspect of surplus visibility as: . . the shift that occurs in public perceptions as traditionally powerless and marginalized groups challenge the expectation that they should be invisible and silent. For those who long have been in positions of dominance, any space that minorities occupy appears excessive, and any voice they raise sounds loud and offensive. (p. A52) The investigator wanted to discover whether the chairpersons had encountered any unusual situations as a result of their very visibility on campus. Hence the interviewees were asked: "What unique situation(s) or problem(s) have you faced that other department chairpersons have not faced?" The department chairpersons’ answers to this question varied and were difficult to categorize. The respondents’ initial answers indicated their firm grip on any situation, whatever it might be. For example, one chairperson responded: 125 There are unlimited issues. Every day generates a set of new problems. Whether designing a new building, hiring new faculty, or setting faculty salaries, most of the problems you face are unique. One of the jobs of the department chairperson is to tend to the well-being of faculty members, ranging from dealing with personal health problems (i.e., discovery of a brain tumor) to celebrating with them when they receive some external honor. These are some of the unique situations, or problems, that the chairperson must attend to each day. Another chairperson stated: I have been sued. I have had to deal with some legal cases that are being arbitrated. That’s obviously the down side of it. The up side of it is that I’ve had the opportunity to work . . . to move forward, when my physical health has not been good. These are real challenges, and unique ones, too. Responding to the same question, another interviewee stated: I would say as head of a . . . department, the unique problem was establishing a structure and an agenda that, even though we are separate as a department, would make us part of the university, clearly integral to the university structure. And I would say that was the unique problem that I faced. How do we become clearly entrenched in the system so that we could not be overlooked and ignored? I have successfully achieved that integration for the department. The participants were asked, "How do you perceive your compensation that you receive as chairperson in relation to (a) your professional qualifications, (b) the time and energy you put into the job, (c) what your colleagues (faculty) in your department receive, (d) what administrators of similar qualifications and experience outside of your academic area receive?" A summary of their responses is shown in Table 15. 126 Table 15.-—Chairpersons’ perceptions of their compensation in rela— tion to selected factors (in percent). Compensation 15: Factor ——————————————————————— Adequate Inadequate Professional qualifications 25 75 Time and energy 50 50 Colleagues’ pay and benefits 75 25 Compensation of administrators of 50 50 similar qualifications, skills, and experience who are outside academic area When the chairpersons were asked how challenging their jobs were, all of them indicated that being the department chairperson was very challenging. They said they valued a challenging job. The chairpersons were asked how they perceived their compensation relative to that of their colleagues. As shown in Table 15, all but one of them indicated that they thought what they received was equitable. Commenting on this, one chairperson remarked: I would say that my compensation . . . and, again, I think this may vary from person to person . . . but as far as my compensa- tion is concerned, I feel it is appropriate. It reflects on my qualifications and the time and energy that I spend on my duties as chairperson. Even though I work all the time, including weekends, evenings--I am up all the time--I am willing to do whatever is necessary to get the job done. I do not do this for financial gain. I am, therefore, satisfied with my compensation. You see, one thing should be clearly stated: I did not seek this job solely for personal gain. As a chair, I look after the department. Whenever there is a certain opportunity for the department, I go for it. My priorities always have to do with the majority of the 127 department. I always approach things . . . and I think this may be more of the ways blacks tend to look at things . . . as a community. We look at the welfare of a lot of people, and not ourselves only. I remember, once, the dean looked at me very strangely when I told him what I wanted, which all had to do with the department and not with me. I have in my agenda that I have to create an environment and a climate in which the faculty in my department can be productive. Responding to a question about how they perceived the compensation they received as chairpersons relative to that of administrators of similar qualifications and experience who were outside of the academic area, one chairperson stated that such a comparison would depend on what he or she was doing. "I have a good salary, but for what I have to do I think I’m underpaid." Another person responded: I think that I’m underpaid for the time and energy that I put into the job. Certainly for the amount of time and issues that I have had to deal with as head of this department, I can say that I’m way underpaid. All the same, I don’t complain. I am satisfied. All of the chairperson indicated that they liked the work they were doing, although the job was not easy. Other Responses The chairpersons were asked, "Being a member of the university community, do you achieve status and credibility among university administrators and faculty members generally because you are a department chairperson or because of your contributions in research and teaching?" All of them agreed that research and teaching are the sole activities that command respect for members of an academic 128 community. The following are some of their responses to the question. One chairperson remarked: Well, people knew me for many years here before I became the department head. I think my reputation was established then. I would like to think that one of the reasons that I’m department head is because of the reputation that I had established previously. Another chairperson responded: Nobody gives you credibility and status just because you are chairperson. It may depend on how the department is run. One thing about a university which is as large as our university is, if the department is doing well in terms of faculty members publishing books and articles or doing research, or if they are active in other scholarship activities, then I think the person who heads the department gets some credibility as chairperson. Otherwise, it is the chairperson’s own works and also his teaching. You just don’t get status and credibility by being a chairperson only. Another chairperson stated: In an academic community, you achieve credibility and status through the contribution you have made to the advancement in the field you have made. There is an added stature. The faculty of the department has chosen you as their chairperson. It is not one or the other. There is no value to being a department chairperson for whom there is no general knowledge, or for anyone who has no stature as a researcher or teacher. One participant also remarked: I would say that here at this university, they would like to have leaders, chairpersons, and administrators who have established a scholarly record. And that’s really what enables you to be respected. If you do not really have an established scholarly record, your respect is just not the same. So I would say that what you’re known for is first of all what allows you to be respectable as an administrator. So, I would say that my contribution in research, and also my general recognition, had won me a status and respect and credibility on this campus, but not my position as chairperson. The chairpersons had indicated in some of their responses that they were happy with their work. However, when they were asked to respond to the question "Now that you have been in the position and 129 know what is involved, will you seek another term in office when your current term expires?" all but one expressed the view that they would not want another term in office when their current term expired. One chairperson remarked: I have held this post for six years. I have spent six years giving my sweat and blood for this job, and I’m very proud of my accomplishments. The faculty wanted me to go on for another term. In fact, the dean has asked me if I would consider another term, and I said no. The reason is that when I first accepted this position, I had a sense of what I could accomplish. That is how I approach all tasks. Once I have accomplished my goals, I want to go on to something else. At the end of six years I feel that I have nothing new or innovative to bring to the position. I have fulfilled my goals, and that is it. I don’t have anything new at this time, and I don’t want to be in a position until I am burned out. I’m not a person who likes to hang on for glory, and, in fact, I tend to let go when I have accomplished my goals, which means the unit, or whatever I’m representing, is at its pinnacle. It is up to the next person to decide what to do with it at that point. One chairperson answered the question in this way: My answer to your question is "No." Research is very important to me. After my term is expired, I would like to spend most of my time on research and writing. I do not think that I can do that if I accept another term of office, given the stress and the volume of work that are involved in that position. Another chairperson indicated that he would probably like to seek another term of office, but with certain conditions or specifications that would be more demanding. Therefore, he might not seek another term because he believed that the university could not meet those demands. He stated: The position is political. And I like to think that I’m a faculty advocate. That is, I’m working on behalf of my faculty, and that’s my perception of my role. I work for them. 130 The chairpersons were asked, “Being a black in a predominantly white institution, what has made your job as department chairperson difficult or easier?“ One chairperson responded: No perceptible reason, or ways which I think had significant impact one way or the other. If there were any, I don’t think it’s made any difference one way or the other. I’ve been able to hire new faculty in the way any other chairperson would do. I think there are some challenges that any chairperson would have in the midst of building a program for a department. So far, I think we’re on track. But it is so easy for things to go wrong. Another chairperson stated that his major complaint was a kind of disrespect that some faculty on campus had for his department. He stated: I guess sometimes I get a little disappointed when some faculty show disrespect, not to me personally, but to the department. We as a community, we as blacks, should know how to treat one another. That has been the biggest problem to me. You know, we do more harm to each other than we have harm done to us by others, and that I can say would be my biggest complaint. One chairperson said that an observation he had about the chairperson’s position was that it consisted of many administrative duties, but it seemed to him that the selection committee usually based its decisions more on the candidate’s research and teaching abilities than his or her administrative ability and skills. He stated, As chairperson they expect you to be a good teacher, to be a good researcher, and, at the same time, to be a good administrator. It is more difficult to do than a lot of jobs. Another chairperson responded: I would say that my complaint is no complaint more than it is a reality, and that is, as a department head or someone in charge, you can see the big picture that no one else can see. You are always having to move toward accomplishing that goal which involves the big picture. Others don’t quite understand 131 why you are doing whatever you are doing. So you are often toiling along by yourself and trying to pull other people. So that would be it. As I say, it’s not a complaint, but a reality that no one can ever see the big picture as well as the person who is in charge and looking at everything. Unless you sit at the top of the mountain, you are not going to look down and see the whole ground. If you are sitting at the bottom of the mountain, you cannot see the ground the way someone sees it from sitting at the top of the mountain. That is the way that I see the chairperson position. I cannot say that is a complaint. If there are any, it would be that sometimes faculty members would be slow in turning things in that I might need from them and which would have allowed me to stay on schedule more if I had gotten all the information I needed to write my reports, etc. That is not a complaint. It is just something that I worry about. Look! It is the choice I made to be chair. It is a thankless job; an administrative job is thankless. So when you go in, you do not go in expecting accolades everyday, nor do you go in expecting that everybody is going to like every decision that you make. And so, I think it has a lot to do with your attitude as to how you feel about yourself and expending a great deal of energy and somehow feeling that no one appreciates you. But you do not become chairperson because you want someone to appreciate what you are doing. You become a chair because you want to make a difference. As far as the other question is concerned, I would say it is easy because I am a chair of the . . . department. I will also say that because I am one of a few minority administrators, regardless of the fact that it is over a . . . department, I command a bit of respect, mainly because the department is successful. The department stays in the newspapers all the time. There is always something going on. That is one of the things that I work on. I had felt that our department, which is also true for other . . . departments, does not spent enough time putting its accomplishments where others could review them. And I embarked on a very major press release (PR) campaign, making sure that what we do becomes public record. That made a difference, because it brought about an awareness of the unique contributions of our faculty. But, again, that is something that is my responsibility. The chairpersons were asked to comment on and give an instance of the biggest problem they had faced during the time they had been in the position. One cited a problem involving two faculty members’ promotions as one of his biggest problems as chairperson. He said 132 that he turned down one faculty member for promotion to full professor, and he also made a recommendation for the denial of tenure to another. These two actions created a major problem that nearly destroyed all of the achievements he had been able to make since becoming chair. Another chairperson replied that there was nothing of that sort that he could think of or discuss. One chairperson cited his position as a go-between for the faculty and the dean as a big problem for him: My job as go-between [for] the dean’s office and the faculty sometimes resulted in me being viewed as the bad person by either the faculty or the dean, especially when there was a dispute between the faculty and the dean. Another chairperson responded: I could not really say that I have had any big problems. What I have been confronted with has been trying to bring order and structure to a unit. You know, we are 20 years this year, and we have moved through what I will characterize as four phases of development. We are now in the last stage. During these stages, the department has grown in rank and stability. We’re finally at that point at which we understand what that stability should be. So, if you want to call it a problem, it is just bringing order and redefining structure and procedure to accommodate our growth over 20 years to accommodate advancements in technology. When the chairpersons were asked to comment on their future plans, one of them responded: Well, I am assuming you mean in the field of education. Well, I’m just going to take it a year at a time. I’m excited about this coming year. I hope that it will be a good year, and I look forward to it being a good year. I intend to work hard to see that it is. Then, one day I will step down from this position as chair to be just a full-time faculty member once again. I do have some aspirations. I would like to be vice— president, and, ultimately, I would like to be president. 133 Another chairperson answered: This coming year is my fifth year of my five-year appointment. My fondest hope right now is that I can return just to being a faculty member and spending more time on my own research. I have a large experiment coming up. I have a research project coming up. I have a research project here funded by the Department of Energy, and I am looking forward to being able to spend more time on it. One chairperson commented that she intended to return to teaching and research. She stated: I am going on sabbatical this year, and I intend to complete a book and then refuel myself in a different kind of way, and then get back to the classroom. I love teaching, and I think I have a lot of ideas, and I want to totally develop them. I will continue to contribute to the department in whatever way the chair will ask me to. When the interviewees were asked whether they were satisfied with their jobs as chairperson, all of them answered "Yes." At the conclusion of the interview, each participant was asked to give a general view of the role of black department chairpersons in predominantly white colleges and universities. The following is a summary of their responses: 1. The role of a black department chairperson or faculty mem- ber should not be different from the role of a nonblack department chairperson or faculty member. 2. A department chairperson should ensure that the depart~ ment’s educational program is maintained constantly, while being conscious of professional development. 3. A department chairperson and faculty members should support each other professionally and socioemotionally. 134 4. A chairperson should provide leadership, initiating pro- grams and strategies to accomplish the long-term goals of the department. 5. A department chairperson should coordinate the long-term goals of the department to achieve growth. 6. A chairperson should provide an environment for achieving the maximum potential from the faculty, as well as from students. 7. A chairperson should understand that racism in his or her institution must be accepted as a reality but that it should be dealt with immediately when it is raised as an issue. 8. A chairperson should be a facilitator and meet the depart— mental responsibilities demanded by the general public. 9. A chairperson should make every effort to ensure that minority faculty in the department have opportunities for profes- sional growth and development. 10. A chairperson should ensure that all students receive fair treatment in the department and that minority students have favor— able chances to complete their programs in the department. Summary In this section, job satisfaction of the department chair- persons was discussed. The discussion covered (a) challenges of the job of the chairpersons, (b) theories of job satisfaction as related to the job satisfaction of the chairpersons, and (c) other responses. 135 All of the chairpersons anticipated that their positions would be challenging. They accepted the challenge and valued it in such a way that all of them expressed satisfaction with their jobs. The chairpersons’ views of their job satisfaction were analyzed according to job-satisfaction theories; they were all found to be satisfied with their jobs. Their satisfaction was not based on external rewards, such as pay, fringe benefits, and so on. Rather, they derived satisfaction from the intrinsic rewards they received from the job. The chairpersons also discussed how they achieved status and credibility among their peers, whether they would seek another term of office after their current terms ended, their major complaints and job difficulties, their achievements as chairperson, and their future plans. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE, SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY, AND REFLECTIONS Summary This study focused on the views of selected black department chairpersons at Big Ten institutions with respect to how and why they had been selected, their role expectations, and their job satisfaction. The investigation was in the form of a case study. The researcher had several reasons for undertaking this study. First, the literature indicated that relatively few blacks have had the opportunity to lead academic institutions other than the 117 historically black colleges and universities. The impetus for this study was the investigator’s personal interest in black department chairpersons at predominantly white colleges and universities, particularly with regard to how they had been selected for their positions in academic institutions, for as one college president remarked: "The system we have relied on to choose academic leaders is really no system at all, but a combination of traditions, networking and happenstance" (Swygert, 1991, p. 11A). Second, the need to search for some answers to the unresolved national problem of inadequate participation of blacks and other minorities in the administration of higher education provided 136 137 additional impetus to this study. Some of the benefits this study might offer are as follows: 1. To provide additional information on black administrators in higher education and thereby contribute to the body of knowledge on administrators in higher education. 2. To describe the chairpersons’ perceptions of mobility strategies (academic, vocational, or otherwise) they had adopted to get where they are now in their careers, that could be helpful to others aspiring to be department chairpersons. 3. To provide a research base for understanding the role of black administrators at traditionally white institutions for those black people who aspire to be chairpersons. 4. To provide the academic community and other organizations that are concerned about blacks’ participation in higher education with insight into the views on the subject held by black department chairpersons. 5. To identify the retrospective role expectations of the chairpersons and their actual experience on the job. The views held by black department chairpersons at the Big Ten universities with respect to how and why they had been selected as chairperson, their role or administrative expectations, and their job satisfaction were the focus of this research. The department chairpersons’ views on why there are so few blacks participating in higher education administration also were explored. To achieve the study purposes, answers were sought to the following questions related to the central theme of the research: 138 1. What are the important factors that led to the selection of blacks for the chairperson position in predominantly white institutions? 2. In the chairpersons’ opinion, have their role expectations before assuming the position been borne out in reality? 3. Are the chairpersons satisfied with their jobs? 4. What relationship, if any, exists between the chairpersons’ role expectations and their job satisfaction? 5. If they had it to do over again, would the chairpersons accept the same position in the predominantly white institutions? 6. Is there a difference between the chairpersons’ expected roles and behavior and their actual roles and behavior? The case-study method was used to obtain the views from the participating chairpersons and to attempt to answer the preceding questions. The researcher conducted in-depth interviews with the chairpersons. Interview questions were developed, in part, from the review of literature relating to the study. No statistical formula was used to analyze the data gathered in the interviews. Rather, responses to the interview questions were handled descriptively. Major findings are discussed in the following section. Major Findings Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents All four participants were over 40 years of age; none of them was 50 or older. The participants, three of whom were married, did 139 not perceive marital status as having a negative effect on their position; in fact, some participants indicated that being married was a positive influence. They reported that their spouses were very helpful to fulfilling their positions as chairpersons. All four chairpersons possessed a terminal, advanced educational degree, which was one of the basic qualifications required by their institutions for the chairperson position. Chairpersons’ Views on the Status of Their Positions The participants believed that they were the chief executive of their department and that the position carried with it both administrative power and authority. However, the respondents did not think that the position had been a promotion from their previous positions. The chairpersons reported that they spent most of their time on administrative duties. They would have liked to spend less time with administration, but, under normal conditions, most of their time was spent administering the department. That made their role as classroom teacher seem less important, in terms of time allocations. However, the chairpersons did take their teaching roles seriously. How the Chairpersons Had Been Selected for the Position The findings indicated that the chairpersons had either been nominated for the position or drafted by the dean after consultation with faculty members. Respondents indicated that they had been 140 persuaded by their fellow faculty members or the dean to accept the position. Reasons for Accepting the Chairperson Position The chairpersons’ reasons for accepting the position were both personal and professional. The findings indicated that the chair- persons needed some challenge in their lives, and they thought the position would give them the kind of challenge they were seeking. Professionally, they thought the position would help them in their career development. They also had accepted the position because they thought they could use it to change things in the department. Chairpersons’ Perceptions of Why They Had Been Selected for the Position The chairpersons cited many factors that had been influential in their selection for the position. Among the reasons cited were their credentials and the importance of their academic work, their history of both professional and social activism, leadership ability, dedication to their field of work, past and present achievements, and the trust and confidence that the deans, faculty members, and friends had in them. Chairpersons’ Views on Blacks’ Partici— pation in Higher Education The findings indicated that the chairpersons did not consider the lack of awareness of career opportunities in higher education and relative ability of black educators to be factors influencing the low participation of blacks in the higher education system. 141 Their responses indicated that cultural attitudes and socialization, lack of mentors, and the effect of race discrimination were some of the factors influencing the low participation of minorities in higher education. Advice to Prospective Black Department Chairpersons The participants offered extensive advice to prospective black department chairpersons. They suggested that excellence in research and teaching were important and indicated that aspiring black chairpersons would have to excel in research in their fields and also in teaching. They advised that chairpersons should be honest and fair in dealing with students, as well as faculty. Aspiring department chairpersons also should be humane and try to establish for themselves a record as a prominent teacher and researcher who will enhance the reputation of the department, one who "could go to Washington and be recognized in Washington and by the funding agencies." Role Expectations of the Participants The findings indicated that there was no difference between the experiences chairpersons expected to encounter on the job and their actual experiences as chairpersons. The chairpersons reported that, most of the time, the job expectations they had in mind before accepting the position were what they ended up doing. From this finding, one might infer that the chairpersons were satisfied with their role expectations as chief administrators of academic 142 departments. Some of the unexpected aspects of the position the chairpersons encountered were the strong cooperation they received from the staff and faculty and the acute financial problems they faced in their departments. Chairpersons’ Job Satisfaction The findings also indicated that there was no difference between the chairpersons’ expected behavior on the job and their actual behavior. Respondents reported that most of the job expectations they had held before accepting the position had been fulfilled. Also, the chairpersons’ satisfaction was not derived from external rewards but from a combination of things, such as love of the job and fulfillment of their goals and objectives. Conclusions The researcher’s purpose in this study was to examine selected black department chairpersons at Big Ten universities with respect to how they had been selected for the department chair position, why they thought they had been selected, their role expectations, and their job satisfaction. Through personal interviews with four selected chairpersons, data were collected for analysis. The following conclusions were drawn from the major findings of the study: 1. The chairpersons perceived that they had not been selected for the position because they were black. Rather, they believed that their selection for the position had been based on their 143 academic accomplishments, their colleagues’ belief that they could do a satisfactory job, and the trust and confidence the faculty and dean had that they were the best individuals for the positions. 2. The chairpersons did not believe they had experienced isolation from the university community. They had been accorded the rights and privileges associated with the position and enjoyed by any chairperson. Their job experiences were no different from those of other chairpersons at their institutions. 3. The chairpersons had not accepted the position because they wanted to make more money; rather, the intrinsic rewards of the job had attracted them to the position. Therefore, they did not compare their financial compensation with that of their counterparts at other institutions or in other departments. They were satisfied with the remuneration they were receiving. 4. The department chairpersons encountered conflict between allocating time for their classroom teaching duties and spending time on their administrative responsibilities because the amount of paperwork attached to their jobs as chairpersons was so great. 5. Even though the chairpersons did not have time to engage in as much classroom teaching as they desired, that did not harm their credibility as teachers among their colleagues. Neither had they suffered a loss of professional status, either from their colleagues or from central administration, because they were less involved in research than before. 144 Recommendations for Educational Practice Based on the findings and conclusions from this study, the following recommendations are offered for educational practice: 1. The literature, as well as the participants, indicated that the position of academic department chairperson is very important and carries with it a measure of power and authority. Despite this fact, however, the chairpersons thought it had not been a promotion. Therefore, because of the importance of the chairperson position and the power and authority the position entails, it is suggested that the position be elevated in such a way that faculty can consider it a promotion. 2. The chairpersons in this study were unhappy about the disproportionate amount of time they spent on administration, as compared to teaching and research. Therefore, it is suggested that the dean’s office should assume some of the paperwork functions of the chairperson’s position. This would give the chairpersons a more adequate amount of time to spend on teaching and research. 3. More than 50% of the chairpersons’ duties involved administration. For this reason, it is suggested that, in selecting the right person for the chairperson position, primary consideration should be given to candidates’ ability and skills in administration, rather than in teaching and research. 4. Inservice training or orientation should be organized for candidates for the position of department chairperson who have had no previous administrative preparation or experience. 145 Suggestions for Further Research 1. All of the chairpersons who took part in this study indicated that they had been reluctant to accept the position when it first had been offered to them. Therefore, there is a need to conduct a study with a larger sample of chairpersons to identify what leads some newly appointed chairpersons to be reluctant to accept the appointment. 2. The participants indicated that, contrary to their expectations, they spent more time on administrative duties than on research and teaching. Thus, there is a need to reevaluate the paperwork required of chairpersons, so that it can be minimized and they can spend more time on teaching and research. 3. Because of the study limitations and the small population from which the sample was taken, further research should be under- taken with a larger population before the findings and conclusions can be generalized. 4. A similar study should be conducted, comparing the department chairpersons at Big Ten institutions with those in other conferences, or comparing black chairpersons with white chairper— sons, regarding the topics of concern this study. 5. Another possibility for further research would be to conduct a similar study comparing the views of black department chairpersons at predominantly white schools with those of black department chairpersons at predominantly black institutions, concerning the topics that were investigated in this study. 146 Reflections This research provided several valuable opportunities to the investigator. A visit to other Big Ten institutions offered an excellent opportunity for the investigator to familiarize himself with new environments and to meet new people. The chairpersons’ willingness to share their rich professional experiences provided a valuable learning experience for the writer, who aspires to similar career objectives in the future. Throughout the interviews, the chairpersons did not evidence any feeling of being threatened in giving their responses. Thus, those responses were assumed to be honest and without reservation. The chairpersons were very busy. The demands placed on them by students, faculty, staff, and other administrators, as well as their families, in terms of time, were great. However, despite their busy schedules, they were willing to devote time to the personal inter— views; this further indicates their high degree of professionalism. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION OF FACULTY OF BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES BY SEX AND RACIAL/ETHNIC CATEGORY 147 8% 32.05 :23. 0.03 as: “839... $—.0 $vé $0.0 $v.0 $.00. $0.0— $N.0 $0.5 $—.— $0.0 $—.—5 $0.00 000.. 0.0.0... °$0.0 $5.0 $0.— $n.0 $m.5w $0.00 $0.0 $0.00 $ TN $0. 0 $0. 5 $N.V5 v 0.. 5£0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $065 $0.0 $0.0 $N.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 —0 205.000 $0.0 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0N $0.0 $0.0m $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 . $0.0 $0.00 $5. — v N — 2203.3 0. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $Nd— $0.0m $0.0 $0.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $105 w m 20330.1 ..mm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 P $0.00 — m 20320:. damm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.w~ $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00— 0 3023.05 $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $0; $F.NN $5.00 $0.0 $0.0— $5.F $0.— $0.0v $0.00 000 ”5:300”. 550 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 °5.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 5:. O $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 m . m. 3. om .. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.0N $0.0 $0.0 $0.”... $0.0 $.50 $0.45 5 30.0330. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 axe—.50 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.— $0.~0 $... —5 000 3030.05 ..mm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $06 $060 $0.0m $0.”. $0.0.. $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.05 0 N 20330.1 .oOmw< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0m $0.0m $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 N 23 20.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $—.5N $0.00 $0.0 $0.5 $0.0 $0; $m.5 axe—#5 v00 ”5:200“. xompéicwh $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 $2.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 m . m _ 2. o m .. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 m . o. o 3 ._ . w c. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.00 $~.N5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5m $0.5N 0 F 20320:. ..mm< $0.0 $0.0 $0; $0.0 . $0.? $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.; $5.0 $0.N5 $0.00 0 .v 30320.1 .uOmw< $0.0 $0.0 $—.0 $0.0 $5.0 $05 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $0.00 $000 0 05 20320:“. $.20 $v.0 $v.0 $0.0 $00— $m.N— ..$.N.0 $0.0 $fi— $5.0 $0.05 $—.50 50— — 5:300... 00500... . ZS< .n.< m_I 505 2.55 .205 Z<.< .n.< m... xufim 22>... .900 4(...O.r BEE , was. 550. .0 5:23.50 003 :0”. 550200 220520.03. 0:0 30 >0 5:300“. 148 as ”51.0% :03: b Oww man. “359% $0.0 . 0.0 . $0.0 $2 $900 $5.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0; $0.05 $0.55 . 000. m.m.o.. $o.o $0.0 $o.o $o.o $0.3 $0.3 $0.0 $o.o $o.o $0.0 $o.om $0.8 N 550 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $90 $93 $03 $0.0 $0.0 $05 $o.o $0.2. $0.9. a n m 5533 $o.o $o.o $o.o $o.o . $0.0 $o.o $o.o $0.0 $0.0 $o.o $0.0 $0.0 o 222.sz $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $.35 $v._5 5 203291 ..mm< $0.0 $0.0 $o.o $0.0 $98 $6.8 $0.0 $od $06 $0.0 $5.8 $5.3 n «53221 .uomm< $06 $o.o $o.o $0.0 $3. .50... $05 $o.o $0.0 $0.0 $o.oo. $98. v . 23.33:. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $m... $93 $2.. $o.o $o.o $o.o $o.o $5.3 $5.3 mm ”53m“. 550 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 SEC $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 . o 2.33qu $0.0 $0.0 $06 $o.o $o.o. $od $0.0 .\_.o.o $o.o $o.o $0.0 $0.0 o m _ o _ u a . _ m c. $0.0 $0; $0.0 $v.0 axe—.00 $.20.” $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.— $v.mm $0.00 30 20320:. ..mm< $o.o $0.0 $o.o $0.0 $2...” $0.8 $o.o $0.0 $o.o $.90 $03 $500 an 28335 .033. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0..» $m.5~ $98 $3. $w.m $m.m $o.o $0.3 $5.3 m _ 233.9". $0.0 $0; $0.0 $0.0 $m.mw $.60 $0.0 $06 $0.— $m.— $5.00 $0.00 000 ”5:32”... «32565:: $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 . $0.0 $o.o $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 o 550 $0.0 $o.o $o.o $o.o $0.0 .36 $05 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $o.o $0.0 o w _ m 5 _ u m .. $o.o $06 $0.0 $o.o $o.o $o.o $o.o $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.03 $0.8. . 223:2: $0.0 $0.0— $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 $0.9. 00 20320.1 ..mm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.— $0... $060 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $5.— $5.— $0.00 $0.5 000 20320:. .oOmw< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 . $0.0 $0.0. $5.3 $0.0 $5.0 $0.0 $2 $560 $0.00 0mm 233.05 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $0.3 $0.5— $0.0 $...N $0.0 $0.. $0.55 $000 0mm “5:33“. 092:3 23... E... 2: .55 BE; :28. z<_< :2 2: .85 223 E8. 450.. . wizmu m...> _m_o._. Z<_< E< E: qum EE>> .SOk ._m 5.300“. 150 o3 32.03 Ext: 903 SE .858 $0.0 $90 {and o\o~.o examd— {afom $06 #36 {ofi— Qamd £6.05 exam.m5 vmwN m _ mach $0.0 $m.w 95.0.0 95.0.0 {afar o\oN.NN D566 {and $0.0 {and e\oN.N5 $955 w m .05 O $0.0 $0.0 rxeod $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 n$0.0 $0.0 {90.0 35.06 °5.0.0 o m 0 m _ 3 00 4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 o\oo.mm «5.06m uxaod {crew D\..o.o {no.0 {omdv $0.mv o v 30.033»: $0.0 $m.w {and $0.0 .\am.mN $N.No {no.0 95.9w axamd 355.0 axomdm exem..5w m — F gamma—oi ._mm< $0.0 {and $0.0 30.0 4%.: 95.0.: 39.0 °5.0.5 $90 $0.0 o\a F65 {no.wm n v 20320.1 .00mm< $0.6 $0.0 e5.0.0 {no.0 {and {and $9.0 $5.0 .$5.6 $0.0 $0.0m °5.56m v m mammm—oi $0.0 95.5; {and $0.0 {afimw o\ofi5N $0.0 o\cN.m $04 $56 «\oodw a\..m.N5 FmN “5:300”. 550 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a5.0.0 n$0.9 e\eod $0.0 95.0.0 o 550 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 n\eod $0.0 95.0.0 a\aod $0.0 a5.0.0 $06 $06 °5.5.9 o w 0 a. 3 00 ._ 05.0.0 95.0.0 a\co.o ..\..o.o $0.0? $0.0? $0.0 $0.0 {:06 95.0.0 «\zodw e\¢o.ow m 20.03:...” r: 30.0 ii; (5.0 o\o~.o .\c~.mw .5.me {no.0 {3.5 o\o—.— o\.—.— .566.» oxuméw mnv gamma—oi ._mm< $0.0 a\uod {no.0 a\ood oxowd— {umdp $0.0 u\o5.Nw {cod $0.0 $5.0m «5.0.; N N 203295 .00mm< $0.0 o\..o.o 30.0 355.0 30.0 e\aod ..\..0.0 {90.0 oxoo. o $0.0 $0. 0 who. D o m 5 w m m _ o _ a $0.0 95;.— .\&.0 a\uN.o $92.. $0.; 95.0.0 {cod 95;; o\c—.— {cmdm $0.0m va ”3.30mi «.03....05005 $0.0 $0.0 ,ax..o.o $0.0 {afiw {16 {no.0 god axe—.0 o\eo.m e\.5.wm obmdm m m .550 (00.0 a\eod $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 95.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $9.0 o m . E 3 _ o o 4 $0.0 $0.0 °5.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 95.0.0 95.0.0 4.0.0 a5.0.0 $0.0 a5.0.0 $0.0 o m ._ o. o a .. _ w c_ #06 a\cm.— Qua.— oxoné axe TQV o\om.—m 95.0.0 ..5.0.0 ion." $0.0 $6.0? axe—.mv 5 5 20330.1 4mm< u\o~.o Quad o\eN.o {and examdw «\nmfim o\e~.o o\oN.v o§md $0.0 e\e~.mm $565 ovw 203205 .oomm< $0.0 «\emd $0.0 cine $06 .566 65.0.0 {.96 ohm; a\..N.o {cwéw {ovdm wmow mammgoi $—.o axowd {nfio {and . .5.th 43...”: . a\o_..o a\o—.v ohm; $0.0 $055 {swam Fomw ”bio—Nu 005:3. .2<_< Ea. m_I xoflm 0:65 .28. ZS< _l< w_I xoflm o=z>> Each 4<._.O._. \ w4<2wu . m40; {$.— o\om.0w $0.05 000* m _ SOP $0.0 $0.0 {eq— o\..0.0 {DYNN a\aN.N0 $0.0 $0.00 «5.0.— 956.— nbmém aEH50 N mp 850 °\ood Quad {AWN $0.0 .\90.Nv {a .20”. a5.0.0 $0." $0; o\a0.— {afimv exam. —m v or 20::qu $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 «\owfim $060 e5.0.0 $0.0 °5.0.0 $0.0 e\av.vv oxovév m m : o _ o 3 z m :_ $0.0 .\o0.m $0.0 $0.0 °5.5.mN $5.; °5.0.0 30.n— o\e5.— n$0.0 $5.3 $0.00 00 303205 ..mw( $0.0 flow..." e5.0.0 a00.0 $0.0 (in: e5.0.0 $fi: a\o0.0 c$0.0 $0.55 $0.00 0 _. 203295 .0034 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ..\e0.mN o\o0.mN e\o0.0 a5.0.0 a\e0.0 a5.0.0 a5.0.05 a\..0.m5 v Eamnfloi $0.0 $06 {avé $0.0 fiLdN $0.00 30.0 $0.5w o\cN._. a\emd $5.3. $5.00 50.0 uxzzomu EEO °5.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a\e0.0 e\a0.0 $0.0m e\aod a5.0.0 o\o0.0m °5.0.02 N 550 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a56.0 °\90.0 o5.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 e590.0 o m 5 _ E u 0.. $0.0 $0.0 .\n—.: $0.0 $0.00 o\..v.vv a5.0.0 a\..0.0 e\o0.0 o\c—.— — o\av,vv o\cw.mm 0 30.03.35 $0.0 $0.0 .\cv.o °5.0.0 {ofivw o\oN.wN $0.0 $.70— ..\o5.— o\ov.0 $0.6 a90.05 5mN 203205 .394 $0.0 .\uw.— $0.0 $0.0 . axomNN a\uN.¢N °5.0.0 $0.: $0.— e\..0.0 $0.N0 o\a0.m5 N0 203205 .oOmm< $0.0 °\a0.0 $0.0 $0.0 «\omd $0.0 a5.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 n$0.0 :5. F .vm .x. v .v0 5 — m 5w m 2 o h a $0.0 30.0 500.0 °5.0.0 oxamNN $me $0.0 $0.0 ohm; a\nwd $0.00 $065 5N0 ”5:300“. 0.03.705:me $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 °\a0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 n\..0.0 e\u0.0 u\..0.0 $0.00? °\..0.00_. N 550 e>00 I\..0.0 $0.0 $0.0 95.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 e\ood e\..0.0 $0.0 95.0.0 0 m : a 5. o a .0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a00.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 e\a0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 w : 2 o a ._ _ w :— o\..0.0 $0.0 $0.0 .\e0.0— .\a0.0N 500.00 600.0 $0.0F o90.0 e\a0.0 °5.0.00 ‘$0.05 0— gamma—OE 4mm< $0.0 35.0.0 {and {and $V.—N exam.NN $0.0 $0.0 exam; .\o5.N °5.0.50 o\om.55 N00 203205 .oOmm< °50.0 a5.0.0 °\uo.0 n5.0.0 a5.0.5 $5.5 $0.0 e\cm.m o\cN.0 65.0.0 ..\o T00 o\o5.Nm 0: 20320.1 $0.0 $0.0 oond «5.0.0 . .\cm.: nx.0.N— ..5.0.0 .556 $0.0 {ové $0.00 $0.00 v00 nxzaumu 005:3. . 2.3 :2 2: v.85 2.5.3 8.0:. Z<_< F3 21 xoflm 0:53 .23. 41:00. m4<2wm . w4<2 3332:: 5332582 $3 :9. 30360 2:25:23: ucm 30 3m 3.3m“. 152 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0. 0 $0. 0 $0. 0 $0. 0 $0. 0 $0. 0 $0. 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Z<_< $N. F $0.0 . $v. F $0.N $0.0 $0.0 $v.0 $v.N $0.0 $0.0 $0.N $v. F $0.0 $0.0 $0. F $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ..\9N.0 $0.0 E< $0.0 $0. 0 $N.N $0. 0 $0. 0 $0. 0 $0.0 $0. 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0. F $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $v.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $ F.0 $0.0 $0.0 21 $0; $0.0 $v. F $0. F $0. F $0.0 $0.0 $0. F $0.0 $0.0 $ F.0 $0.N $0.0 $0.0 $0.N $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $ F.v $0. F $ F.0 $0.0 x020 043200 $N. _ N $0.0 $0.vv $0.NN $0.0 F $0.0 F $v.0 $5.F.N $0.0 $0.0 $0.0v $0.5N $0.0N $0.0 $5.0N $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.Nv $0.2 $5.0 $0.0F BE>> $0.F.N $0.0 $0.0v $0.5N $0€N $0.0 F $0.0 $v.0N $0.0 $0.0 $F.vm $N. F 0 $0. F 0 $0.0 $N.v0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.5v $N._N $F.5 $0.0F .23. $F.0 $0.0 $0.0 $N.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $ F.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 .5. F .0 $0.0 Z<_< $56 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $0.N F $0.0 F $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0. F $0.0 $m.N F $0.0 $ F.m $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a\vN.F $F.m $F.v $F.v E< $0.F $0.0 $N.N $0.0 $0. F $0.5 $F..0 $0. F $0.0 $0.0 $0.N $v. F $0.0 $0.0 $0. F $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 m _I 000F :0“. 5802.5 2:50:38”: ucm xmw >0 330m”. $0. F $0.0 $N.N $0.0 $06 $0.0 $F..0 $5. F $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.N $0.0 $0.0 $0.N $N. F $0. F $0. F $0. F «.050 w4<2 $v.00 $0.0 $0.0? $N.00 $0.N0 $0.05 $v.N5 $0.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3. $0.0m $0.9. $0.0 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $5.5? $N.00 $N. F5 $5.00 $0.05 0:23 $0.05 $0.0 $F..00 $F.N5 $0.05 $0.00 $ :6 $0.05 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0v $0.00 $0.00 $0.0 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $5.N0 $0.05 $0.Nm $5. F0 .300. 0000 00F 00v FmF 0v 0N 5F0 0m ¢v0 0F 005 vv FVN va v00 000w 4(505 0g m<>f0<< ERNE 0.0mm ma. 63:3 0:20... 850 23203 222.,sz 20322: .33 20322: .032 203205 ”5:33 650 550 22:33 20:5sz 20320.5 .33 20322: .032 20322: ”5:32..”— xumfiéng 350 000.2500.— 220355 20.3205 ._mm< 2333.: dong 50320:: “5:38... 85:3 . 3633:: 380 2:0 152 3% 2263.. Ext: $80 32 .533 $0.0 $N.F $0.0 $0.F $N.FN $060 $F.0 $54. $0.F $0.F $v.00 $0.05 0000 0:30.... $0.0 $0.0 . $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 .050 $0.0 $v.F $N.N $v.F $0.?v $0.0v $0.0 $0.0 $N.N $N.N $0.0v $v.00 0 0F m.o.:.um.. $0.0 $0.N $0.0 $0.F $0.~N $0.50 $N.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $N.00 $F.N5 . 0 0v 20.03....” 0_ $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.F $0.0F $060 $0.0 $0.5 $0.F $0.v $0.N0 $0.05 FOF 20320.0 ..mw< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0F $0.0F $0.0 $0.NF $0.5 $0.0 $0.05 $0.00 0v «5320.0 .oOmw< $0.0 $v.n $0.0 $0.0 $v.n $0.0 $0.0 $0.0F $10 $v.0 $F..N5 $F.0m 0N 30.30.05 $0.0 $10 $0.0 $0.F $5.F.N $de $F.0 $0.0 $0. F $5. F $0. F0 $0.05 5 F0 ”5:300 $2.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 .0; . O $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 m . a . 3. 00.. $0.0 $0.N $0.F $F.n $0.0F. $F.v0 $0.0 $0.F $0.N $0.0 $0.9. $0.0v 00 20.00.30. $0.0 $v.F $0.0 $0.N $0.5N $N.Fn $0.0 $0.0 $F...F $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 F. «0 20330:”. ..mm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0N $0.3” $0.0 $0.0F $0.0 $0.0 $0.0v $0.00 0 F 20320.0 .oomm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $00 0 m .Om m 0 . o. n. $0.0 $0.F $v.0 $0.~ $5.0m $N.F.0 $0.0 $F.0 $0... $0.N $0.00 $0.00 \ 0 05 ”5:300". xum.....w.acm._. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 .0... O $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 205.23 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.N $5.5v. $0.00 v v 20.03.; 0. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $F.v $0.3. $0.5? $0.0 $~F $0.0 $N.F $0.00 $5.00 Fvw 30320.0 .32. $0.0 $0.0 $F.0 $0.F $0.0F $N.FN $0.0 $F.0 $0.0 $0.F $N.F5 $0.05 Fv0 20320.0 .oOmw< $0.0 $N.0 $0.0 $F.0 $5.0 $F.5 $F.0 $F.v $0.0 $0.F $5.00 $0.N0 v00 20320.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0F $0.0F $0.0 $F.v $0.0 $0.F $0.05 $5.F0 0000 ”3.3000 005:0... . Z(.< _n_( 21 xoafi 0:23 .505 Z<.< _n.< w.I x050 m..:>> .90... . ..<..O.. 0.2.20“. 0452 3332:: 220 0.50 00.3 :0“. 5002.5 0.5002522. ucm 30 >0 530$“. 153 as 306$ :85. @000 m3. .333. axe—.0 $v.— $0.0 $0.0 $0.0— $0.5— $—.0 $0.0F $5.0 $5.0 $.05 $—.00 000— w _ 0.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 .050 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00— $0.03 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 F m . 0. 0. 00 4 $0.0 $5... $0.— $0.0 $0.0v $0.00 $0.0 $0.0F $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $5.vv 00 20.00.30. $0.0 $v.0 $v.0 $0.0 $0.0— $0.5— $0.0 $0.00 $5.0 $0.0 $0.0v $5.00 000 20320.0 .32.. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3. $0.0 $0.3 $—.5v $0.00v 5 — 20320.0 damm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0— $0.0 $0.0 $0.05 $0.0op 0 — 20020.20 $0.0 $56 $0.0 $0... $0.5— $060 $0.0 $0.00 $0.— $0.P $v. 3 $0.05 0 5 0 ”5:300... .050 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 .050 $0.0 . $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 m . 0. 0. 004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.00 $5.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 0 20.00.30. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.00 $0.00 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $—.— $0. —0 $0.00 000 20320.0 ..mw< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.: $0.: $0.0 $5.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.05 $0.00 0 0 20320.0 .uOmw< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 m . cu m 0.0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $0.0 $00 $0.00 $—.00 $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $0; $0.—0 $0.00 0 :. ”5:000... xuw.....0.0:0... $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 . 050 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 m .0 . 0. o 04 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0v $0.0». $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 0 m . o . o 0 . . m 0. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.50 $0.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 — 0 20320.0 ..mm< $0.0 $—._. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0— $5.5— $0.0 $0.”. $0.0 $0.0 $0.55 $0.00 «5v 20320.0 .00wm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $00 $0.v $0.0 $—.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $5.00 v v0 20320.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.0— $0.: $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $0.00 V5F — ”b.0000 005:0... Z<.< .0< m.I x020 0.._..>> .mEH Z<.< .04. m_I x020 2.5.5 .20.. 45.0.. 045200 0452 3.2030: 030.00 00m; :00 5.00200 2050:0500 0:0 .80 50 3.3000 154 as m<>.,0<< taut w.0mw mum. 32:3 o\o—.o o\..w.o o\ov.o $5.0 $0.”: o\=v.—N o\o~.o $0.0 {ama— °\ew‘0 . o\=m.mn $0.2. mmnw w _ SOP eond {afi— . °bod $04 {omdn o\oN.mm . e\aN.o . exuoé {afiw oxuwd $5.0m oxomém th .050 o\ood o\om.— a\ao.o $06 $06? $fimv a$0.0 ism.— ..\em.w $0.0 {afimv $0.—m v m 23300.. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a\eod $0.0 °$0.0 e\ood e$9.0 $0.0 °\eod $0.0 $0.0 0 20:5sz $0.0 °\aoé e\aed $0.0 $0.0 e\cod $0.0 e\ood c\eo.o a\eod $0.0 $0.0 o 303205 ._wm< $0.0 e\aod a\aod .$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a\oo.o . $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a\eod e\._o.o 0 fang—0i damm< $0.0 $0.0 °\noé o\eod a\..0.o a\eod . $0.0 e\ood °\eod °\sod $0.0 $0.0 o . m .Om m 2 o 0 m o\&.o uxa—é 30.0 $—.— o\oo.vm {undo . a\cm.o $0.0 a\o—._ $0.0 £9me o\om.nw wNm ”bio—mu 550 $000 °\_.0.0 a\eod {no.0 a\..o.o h..\oo.o e\..o.o . a\..0.o a\..0.o $0.0 R$0.0 $0.0 o .550 $0.0 $0.0 e\oc.o $0.0 $0.0 °\aod $0.0 n$0.0 a\eod e\eod a\eod °\cod o m .0. 3 9...: {code— ..\..o.o «\cod e\eed a\nod $0.00— o\oo.o {no.0 B\ccd °\cod e\aod a\aod _V m _ 0 ~ 0 3 _ _ m c_ oxnod $0; o\..V.— .xov; {:on {no.mm o\u~.o exowé oxqu. oxowd $0.0m $Néw w on 203205 ._mw< $0.0 °>040 °\eod $0.0 $0.0 e\eod $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0 2032001 .00mm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 °\acd a\..o.o °\aod $0.0 ebod ebod $0.0 °\eod o m .0m m 0 _ o. a oxeNd $0; 3v; uxav; $o.~m o\cm.mm o\o~.0 o\c_.v o\..v.m «\nwd {omdm a\o—.vw hon ”xzzomu xumF.05:0k $0.0 °$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 °\eod °\nod $0.0 a\..o.o a\aed °\cod o 550 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a>90 $0.0 $0.0 °\aod $0.0 $0.0 °\sod -30.0 o m _ o 2: 00.— 306 $0.0 $0.0 a\aod {sodo— .\..o.oo— $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 o\o0.0 N 30333 c. $0.0 n$0.0 $0.0 $06 $0.09 $0.0F °\eo.o o\..0.¢ $0.0 . {no.0 exemdh $0.—m —N 203205 4mm< 3nd {and <56 $0.0 $md— $0.—N {and $06 o\e—.N $0; {nods $0.05 wan manna—oi damm< '$0.0 50.0 #10 exvmd o\ov.0 {and {and o\om.o ohm.» flop; $0.0 V a\andm w I: 203205 $2.. {and .\oN.o {and {arc—p {amdw .\oN.0 oxen.” axon; $0.0 $0.8 Qumflm mmnv ”tion“. 005:2. z<_< E< w_I xofim BE; EB». 442.00. mix—2m”. . m3<_2 . com—022 .m Emcoomzs .o 3.23:5 2:: :0“. 5002.3 o_:£m\_m_omm can xmm 5 3.30m”. 155 in F6 3% 22.05 E5: wémm ma. 6938 o\nmd o\cV.0 o\..m.o Quad? 3v. _ N °\eod .on6 {and $04 {and a\om.mw n N mN w _ m u 0 P $1.0 $6.0 «\avd oxen; $92. {cmNm $0.0 $0.0 00 $0.0 a\eod o m : 0 .3. u 0.. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 e>0.0N °kodN e\aod $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0m m m : o . o 3 : . w :. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 o\oN.mn {andm °\..o.o a\aod {ovfi e\aod $0.0 {gnaw NNv 30320.1 ..mm< $0.0 a\aod $0.0 $0.0 4°de $de a\aod $0.0 $0.2 ~$0.0 a\ged $v.~m —N 30320:... damm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 °\ood o\ow.v— $0.”; e\sod °\eod 3nd a\ov.h {no.0 {:65 NN 203205 o\oN.0 exam; o\em.o $5.0 $0.3 $0.3? a\aod e\..o.0 excmH axon; {emd o\am.mv v 0v Scion”. 52.0 30.0 °\ood a\oo.o °\aod $0.0 °5.0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 °\eod .$0.0 $0.0 0 350 a\cod {no.0 e\co.o $0.0 U\oo.o $0.0 $0.0 n$0.0 e\eod a\aod e\aod ekod 0 m _ m : 30 0. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 °$0.0 $0.0 .o\ao.o e\eod . °\oo.o $0.0 a90.0 h$0.0 o\..o.o 0 30.03:? :. $0.0 o\a—.— <1.— ..xoh... °\sQwN .\._N.om. $0.0 oxovd {id exovd $0.0 $0.0m omv A203205. ..mm< e$0.0 -$0.0 $0.0 °\aod $0.0 axood e\ood e5.0.0 o\uo.mN a\..o.o a\..o.o 2.93. N F 20320:. damm< $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a\eod $0.0m e\aodm {no.0 e\ood a\eod a>05 e\ood e\aodm N 203205 $0.0 <1.— oxa—.— $N.— .\on.mN oxomdw $0.0 o\o¢.o {and e\ov.o {and a\=m.mm vnv ”2.300.... xom_h.05:0h $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a\..o.o $0.0 $0.0 o\oo.o e$0.0 $0.0 h.\eo.o °\eod $0.0 o :0: .O e\aoé e\aod $0.0 °\aod. $0.0 $0.0 n$0.0 $0.0 o\cod $0.0 $0.0 °\..o.o 0 m :w _ 3.0 o A a\eoé $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 e\..0.o a\..o.o e\aod o\..0.o a50.0 $0.00.. $0.00.. a 20.0.3.9: a\..o.o -\o—.w °\eod o\..—.w $mém $5.0m. a\eod $0.0 $06. e\eod $0.00 {no.mn mm 30320;. ..mm< $0.0 Que.— ..\aN.o oxemd Qumd— {omdp .\oN.o {and «\cNé exec; «\omdh gvdm mmm 20320:". .00mm< (id $30 {1.0 {and 30d exams ..\uN.o $0.5 $0.. oxomd ohmdm e\eN.Nm v _ o F 20320;. {1.0 {and <16 $6.0 {oodw {Lam— o\uN.0 {and 9...; $5.0 o\oo.mn $0.00 mvw— $5.300“. 005:3} 2<_( .n.< m.I «.005 0:52, .20P Z<.< .n.< 2T. xoflm 2.2.5 .20... 41:0... w4<2wu m...0 3.30m". 156 3% 23.05 5%: 98m $2 53% $0.0 o\..m.N $2 $0; $.qu axov. _ 0 eond $N.N <90.— .\..0.F e00.3 $0.00 2K — m . m . o P 30.0 {and $N.N $5.0 $0.9. 3 ...0m $0.0 $N.N e\e0.0 oxo —.N $0.00 $0.3. n 0F $2.0 $0.0 $0.0 °\..0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 . $0.0 e\aed $0.0 e00.0 e\..0.0 o 2238.. e00.0 {and °\eod $0.0 ox» _ Kn $v. E °00.0 $0.0 axons." °\eod {amen $0.3. m m m : 0.0 3:. :. $0.0 $0.5 $5.0 {$6 $500 abzm °00.0 {3.3 a\uNN $50 $0.00 $0.3. 23 2030.29. .73... $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 .$0.0 $0.0m $0.0m e\..0.0 {und— a\._0.0 $0.0 $0.00 $505 00 20320:. .0033. $0.0 $0.3 e00.0 $0.0 $0.9 .\.0.0N a\..0.0 e\..0.0N $0.0F a\ood B\oodm 30000 0 F 203.20.: $0.0 {0.0 «on; $0... .\o—.0v $0.0m $0.0 $0.... exam; exam; $0.00 «it? 000 ”330m“. 550 e\..0.0 a\..0.0 u\..0.0 o\..0.0 $0.0 .\..0.0 .5.0.0 e00.0 e\..0.0 a\..0.0 e00.0 a\..0.0 0 550 .>00 ..00.0 $0.0 °>00 e00.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a>00 ~$0.0 $0.0 0 m : 2 2 ow . 30.0 300.0 30.0 .\..0.0 $0.0m $0.0m e00.0 e\..0.o $0.0 $0.0 $0.0m °\eodm 0 — m _ o . o a _ . m c. °00.0 axe—N .xemé 30;. $050 $0.; °\..0.0 $0.0 oxo—d o\cm.— «1...; $0.0m nwm 20329: .32 $0.0 e\..0.0 $0.0 a00.0 a00.0 e\..0.0 600.0 30.00 e\..0.0 a\..0.0 , $500 $0.00— 0 20320:. .032 o>00 $0.0 °00.0 $0.0 600.0 --00.0 $0.0 °>00 a\..0.0 $0.0 e\c0.0 e\..0.0 0 . m 0 3 m o . En. $0.0 {LN ism... 30.0 $000 $0.3 °00.0 $~d {id exam.— .xovHv {cfimm own 5.3%“. xumfiésg... $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a\_.0.0 $0.0 e\aod a\..0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 a\e0.0 $0.0 o 550 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 °00.0 a00.0 $0.0 °\._0.0 e>00 $0.0 $0.0 o00.0 $0.0 0 m :m : 2. um .. a\sed a\..0.0 $0.0 ~$0.0 oxenfiw Stan °\.0.0 o00.0 $0.0 e\..0.o $0.00 $0.00 — — 30.03.35 $0.0 a\..0.0 °\o0.0 33w $0.00 {3.8 $0.0 $0.0. $5 $3.0 $0.9. $0.0m t. 20320:“. ..wm< $0.0 {cad ox...— .\ov.0 exigw u\av.mN $5.0 {1.0 3: <1.— .xom.mw $0.: 03. 20320:. 60.0.3. 30.0 $5— $10 {emd <1. .. F $10— .500 exotm e00.0 a>00 {grams $0.00 0 n v 2030.9: 30.0 no ausuonswu no .mvmm: acoeuymawv no mason wv=NUCH uo: mwoo 0.0 m.o 00H 0m 0.N N.w NmH mNN m.N w.m mm 00 m.N N.0 mzfi :mN :.m N.: mNN ooa N.w m.m NNH HON o.w 0.x mad NNN 0.N m.o mza MMH .z.z .NON N.0N .ZMN .m> 0NmH N..m N>N.:0<¢ ¥0N== uHo uwzuo you sumo O.O N.O OOO OOO NON}-.qu NO OO N.O 0.0 NO OO O_O O.O NNN OO O.N N.O NO OO 0.0 0.0 NO ON O.N N.N NO ON N.O N.O NON OO 0.0 0.0 OO NO N.O N.O OO ON N.O N.O NNN OON mm----wm NONOO_O< m. w. ON ON N.N 0. MN N m. w. NH ma 0.H m. mm NN N.N N.N ma NH N.N 0.N mN ON mm Hm 0.z no zumuoaswu no umvmo: ucuEuummwv No mcmwv uv=HUCN you mwoo N.N N.N Nmm 0mm .NONI---OON 0N mm m. N. MN NN m.~ m.~ ow 0N 0.N w.H NN ma m.N o.N mm Nm N.N N.N ON NN 0.m o.m so an m. 0.N ON ON O.N N.N 0O NO O.N N.N 0m ON NW ..... .W xu<4m mwmfi ONO Nwma ON. Lo NLmLcaEwu Lo Nmumu; NCoEugmuou Lo manna uua.uc. no: “000 :xumgpnco uvgscupncoz: ucm :vwgacup: .u Eam cg“ "mmo— uCM nmo— .NmN \ugcnoz enemu N.NN ”Lam :. vuugonuu m< N.N m.N N.m N.ON NcN mNN mm mm .z.= .NON N.NN O.NN mmm O.mN NNN m.0N Oom m.mN ONm m.0N Nmm N.mN NNN N.mN ONw O.mN mmm mm .ZNN .O> mmmN ...O.:0 v—IC‘ r—iv—i HI—I r—i 3N HO mm Z‘N Nv—i v—‘IH 0:. mm:< OOOLOO o<< N.O O.O NOON OOO NNW---WNW NO ON N.O O.O OON OO 0.0 N.O NON ONN O.N O.O NN NN O.O N.O OON OO O.O O.O ONN NO O.O O.O OON OO O.O O.O NO OO O.O O.O NNN ONN N.N O.O OON NON Mm----wm .ONOOOOO ONN O. NON OON NNN--NN- ON NN O. O. O O N— ”- NN NN N. m- N ON O. O. ON ON N.N O. ON ON O. O. ON ON O.N O.N ON ON O.N O.N OO OO N.N O.N ON NN MO----WW O.OOOO.O N.co unnamu :.~E wgm mCONNJNNUmCN Lmzuo .Nm Namumxm mL.UCm mzu LON wgm m.mOoO mcn.n:N m Nu.:umN oc.u.wN> Lo thsonemy go «away; ucmsugmnmu Co memwn mvs.u:. No: moon :xumgh :o vogacehucoz: van :nuhzcmh: .0 saw wzu "Nwo— ncm mwoO .Nmu Nugouoz enemw NNNN “gnu :. weaken»; m< N.N O.N N0m mmm mam ON 0N m. 0.N mN mN m.N N.N MN NO O.N N.N ON ON O.N N.N mm OO 0. m. NN mN N.m N.m m0 O0 0.N 0.N mN mN N.N N.N Nm mm N.N O.N ON 0m MO ..... WW Ngjm N.N N.N N0 mm .z.z ..0O 0.wN N.NN Nm mm .ZNN .NON 0.00N 0Om0N 0.00N mmNN Nw >N.00 mmmN ...0 NNN.00 26:5 Om 2:0 :52 a :22 6:2 2,2 $22. xomc..m._DCO.—. fl DQ=NCQP a «ENCHOODCmF 35:3 I mmmr :mL 2235?. cab 9m .< 3.323 acoE< cozficwmoawm 2:052 .2835 $0. $0. m o\oo.oO o\oo.mr o\oo.ow o\oo.mm o\oo.om o\oo.mm o\oo.ov APPENDIX D PERCENTAGE BLACK REPRESENTATION AMONG FACULTY AT BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES: FALL 1989 162 Q9“ M5: ..O<< 8:5 265; am 220 22 £55.: 2.2:: o\nb. o\oo.m o\oo. v r o\oo.w O. o\oo.w r o\oo.oN xumfiéacoh a “55:: E erhéScmO 35th I mwmw :mu 28:22.9: :2 9m 2 330a”. acoE< coszmmmamm xoflm :38: r o\oo.NO APPENDIX E INTERVIEW GUIDE 10. 11. 163 INTERVIEW GUIDE Briefly, give your educational history, beginning with high school. Include the following: a. School name b. Years attended c Major and minor d Diploma or degree awarded Briefly, give your job history since high school graduation. What were your reasons for changing positions? How long have you been in your present position? What factors were most influential in your career path leading to this position? Literature indicates that very few blacks are serving in administrative positions in higher education. What do you think accounts for the fact that there are so few black administrators in higher education? Please focus on the following: a. Lack of awareness of career opportunities in higher educa— tion Relative ability Cultural attitudes and socialization Lack of encouragement and/or confidence Effect of racial discrimination (institutional racism) Others (please specify) -hmo.oo' How did you learn about your current position? How did you react the first time this position was offered to you? Before you took this job, what were your expectations of the role of the academic department chairperson/head of department? Which expectations have been fulfilled? Which have not? Why? As a chairperson, what percentage of your time is normally needed for the following activities? a. Teaching b. Research c. Administrative duties-—planning, budgeting, meetings, etc. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 164 What percentage of time do you actually get to spend on the above three activities? As an academic department chairperson or head of department, what unique situations (problems) have you faced? How do you make areas of concern about your department, faculty, staff, students, and facilities known to the dean, provost, and/or other higher administrators? How do you perceive the compensation that you receive as chairperson/department head in relationship to: Your professional qualifications? The time and energy you put into the job? What your colleagues (faculty) in your department receive? An administrator of similar qualifications and experience who is outside of the academic area? 0.00"!” Being a member of the university community, do you achieve status and credibility among university administrators and university faculty members generally because you are a depart- ment chairperson/head or because of your contributions in research and teaching? Now that you have been in the position and have known what is involved, if you were offered the position right now, would you accept it? Why or why not? What are your major complaints about the position of department chairperson/head? In what way(s), if any, has being a minority person made your position as chairperson/head difficult or easy? As a black department chairperson/head in a predominantly white institution, what are your greatest challenges? Please make reference to the following: a. Your relationship with black faculty in your institution b. Your relationship with nonblack faculty c. Your relationship with students in general and black stu— dents in particular d. Behavioral variables (requirements), such as self—control, consideration, cooperation, problem solving, change, com— munication, and management ability What are your biggest problems? Please give examples. What is your greatest achievement? Please give examples. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 165 What advice would you like to give to black faculty members and administrators who are aspiring to become academic department chairpersons or department heads? Please comment on your power and authority relative to your responsibilities to students, faculty, staff, and other admin- istrators in this institution. What are your future plans? What comments would you like to make on: a. Your mobility to this position? b. Your role expectations before you assumed this position? c. Your job satisfaction? What is your age? Thank you very much. I would like to assure you again that your responses and comments will be treated strictly confidentially. APPENDIX F CORRESPONDENCE 166 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY m OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN - “RH-1046 AND DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL April 30, 1991 Mr. Emmanuel A. Badu College of Education 429 Erickson Hall Dear Mr. Badu: Subject: Proposal Entitled, "A Case Study of Selected Minority Chair- persons in Big Ten Institutions with respect to their perceptions of how they attained their present positions, their expectations and their satisfactions” IRB#9l-ll3 The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol has been reviewed by another committee member. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to April 18, 1992. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. erely, Da id E. Wright, Ph.D. Chair, UCRIHS DEW/deo cc: Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker ,IHI 'u .m .1/{muutu-u .4. [mm/[54.4.11()ppmmm/yImnlumm 167 Date The Department Chairperson’s Name Name of Department Name of University City, State, Zip code Dear Chairperson: I am a doctoral student in Higher Education Administration at Michigan State University. 1 am doing my doctoral research dissertation on minority department chairpersons in big ten institutions. The purpose of the study is to examine a selected number of minority academic department chairpersons in the big ten institutions with respect to how they were selected for the position, their perceptions of why they were selected, how they feel about their role expectations, and whether or not they are satisfied with the position. It is anticipated that the study will result in conclusions that may be of interest to many in the college communities as well as those agencies or organizations which are concerned with minority participation in higher education. You were identified through a random-sampling of minority department chairpersons as a possible participant in this study. I am aware that as chairperson, you are busy at this time of the year. All the same I hope that you will ' find some time to contribute to this research. The study will be in the form of a short interview. It may last for about thirty minutes. Enclosed is a copy of the proposed interview guide. I want assure you that your participation is optional; you may withdraw any time. During the interview, you may refuse to answer some questions if you wish. Your participation in this study will be kept strictly confidential. In no way will participating department chairperson, the department or college be identified. The highest degree of confidentiality is assured. 168 I will call you in two weeks time to discuss a possible interview date with you. Thank you very much in advance for your time, ideas and any other way by which you may contribute to this study. Sincerely yours, Emmanuel A. Badu. 913L Cherry Lane East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone: (517) 355-7967 169 Date Chairperson’s Name Name of Department Name of University City, State, Zip Code Dear Chairperson: I am writing to thank you very much for your participation in my research study. Though, like other academic department chairpersons, you were very busy, yet you did give me some time to interview you. I very much appreciate your interest and willingness to take part in the study, the time you gave to support the project, and any form of assistance you provided to make the interview and for that matter the whole study a success. I am glad I had the opportunity to interview you. I will say thank you very much. Once again I would like to assure you that your responses in the interview will be kept strictly confidential. Participating department chairpersons, departments, and colleges will not be identifiable in the report. I thank you very much for your support and input in the study. Sincerely, Emmanuel A. Badu 913—L Cherry Lane East Lansing, MI 48823 Telephone: (517) 355-7967 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Aguon, S. F. (1977). Status of department chairpersons as per— ceived by academic college deans, department chairpersons, and faculty at Western Michigan University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University. Ahmann, J. S. (1972). The emerging role of the departmental chairman: Be an activist. In J. B. Brann & T. A. Emett (Eds ). The academic or division chairman: A complex role. Detroit: Balamp Publishers. Alvarez, R. (1973, August 8). Comment. The American Sociologist, pp. 124-126. Anderson, J. K. (1968). The ambivalent department. Educational Record, 59(2), 206—213. Ansah, G. T. (1980). A comparative study of the academic depart- ment chairman and chairwoman at Michigan State University with respect to their upward mobility to their present positions, their retrospective role expectations and their job satisfac— tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Ary, 0., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1972). Introduction to research in education. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., Green, K. C., Kent, L., McNamara, P., & William, M. R. (1982). Minorities in American higher educa— tion: Recent trends, current prospects, and recommendations. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Benet, J. (1972, February). California’s regents: Window on the ruling class. Change, 59, 34. Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1989). Research in education (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Boles, H. W., & Davenport, J. A. (1975). Introduction to educa— tional leadership. New York: Harper & Row. 170 171 Booth, D. B. (1982). The department chair: Professional develop— ment and role conflict. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Brann, J. (1972). An impossible job about to become tougher. In J. Brann & T. A. Emmet (Eds.), The academic department or divi— sion chairman: A complex role. Detroit: Balamp Publishers. Brayfield, A. H., & Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitude and employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 396—424. Browing, E. R. (1962). The ideal department chairman. National Business Education Quarterly, 39(4), 43. Bullen, R. A. (1970). A study of the perceptions of selected deans, departmental chairmen and faculty on the role of departmental chairmen at the University of Alabama (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 3213A. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies on Higher Education. (1975). Making affirmative action work in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carson, J. J. (1968). Governance of colleges and universities. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chronicle of Higher Education almanac. (1991, August 28). CIC Panel on Affirmative Action. (n d.). Female and minority faculty representation at CIC and Big Ten universities, fall 1989. Mimeographed report. Collison, M. N. K. (1987, August 5). New national organization aims at representing interest of black professors. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 810. Colt, G. H. (1981, September—October). Will the Huggins approach save Afro—American studies? Harvard Magazine, BA, 38—70. Commission on University Governance. (1970). Internal report: Departmental governance (Durham, NC: Duke University). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 041 553) Connellan, K. T. (1979). Objectives as antecedents to behavior. How to improve human performance: Behaviorism in business and industry. New York: Harper & Row. Conyers, J. F. (1962, Fall). Negro doctorates in sociology. Phylon, 29, 209-222. 172 Cooks, H. C., & Nussel, E. J. (1990, Summer). African American high school students: Will they attend college? Journal of Educational Opportunity, 5(1), 20. Crase, D., & Walker, H., Jr. (1988, October). The black physical educator: An endangered species. Journal of Physical Educa- tion, Recreation and Dance, 58(8), 65-69. Dorsey, C. A. (1990). Blacks at predominantly white colleges and universities. Western Journal of Black Studies, 14, 1. Doyle, E. A. (1953). The status and functions of the departmental chairman. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. Dressel, P. L., Johnson, F. C., & Marcus, P. M. (1970). Ihg confidence crisis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dressel, P. L., & Richard, D. J. (1970, May). The university department: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Higher Education, 41(5), 77-81. Dunnette, M. D., Arvey, R. D., & Banas, P. A. (1973, May-June). Why they leave. Personnel, §Q(3), 25—39. Education Commission of the States. (1988). One third of a nation: A report of the Commission on minority participation in educa- tion and American life. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1988. Englund, T. H. (1968). The selection, orientation and education of department chairmen in selected schools and colleges of educa- tion (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International, 28, 4846A. Etzioni, A. (1976). A comparative analysis of complex organiza- tions (rev. ed ). New York: Free Press. Euwema, B. (1953). The organization of the department. Educa- tional Record, 34, 34—38. Evangelauf, J. (1990, April 11). 1988 enrollment of all racial groups hit record levels. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A1, A37—A42. Exum, W. H. (1983, April). Climbing the crystal stair: values, affirmative action, and minority faculty. Social Problems, 39(4), 383-395. Faricy, W. H. (1974). Grouping department. Journal of Higher Education, 45, 98—111. 173 Fleming, J. E., Gill, G. R., & Swinton, D. H. (1978). The case for affirmative action for blacks in higher education. Washington, DC: Howard University Press. Freeman, R. B. (1976). Black elite: The new market for highly educated black Americans (Report prepared for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education). New York: McGraw-Hill. Freligh, E. A. (1974). An investigation of the qualifications, methods of selection, and terms of office of department and division chairmen in selected public two-year colleges in the United States (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 2719A. Gibson, R. C. (1964). The challenge of leadership in higher education. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. Glazer, N. (1978). Affirmative discrimination. New York: Basic Books. Grant, W. V., & Snyder, T. D. (1986). Digest of education statis— tics, 1985-86. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Greene, C. N. (1977). The satisfaction-performance controversy. In J. M. Ivancevich, A. D. Szilagyi, Jr., & M. J. Wallace, Jr. (Eds.), Readings in organizational behavior and performance. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. Gunter, C. G. (1964). The role of departmental chairmen in the governance of state universities (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, 1964). Dissertation Abstracts International, 25, 2826A. Hammer, C. W., & Schmidt, F. L. (1974). Contemporary problems in personnel. Chicago: St. Clair Press. Hansen, B. J., & Petrizzo, R. D. (1976). Faculty and administra- tive attitudes toward and expectations concerning collective bargaining at the College of Dupage as compared with empirical findings. Practicum: Nova University, 1976. Heimler, C. H. (1967, Spring). The college department chairman. Educational Record, p. 159. Herzberg, F., Mausner, 8., Peterson, R. 0., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinions. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh. 174 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). 155 motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hill, S. T. (1983). Participation of black students in higher education: A statistical profile from 1970-71 to 1980-81. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Hill, W. W., & French, W. L. (1967). Perceptions of the power of department chairmen by professors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 548—574.‘ Horton, C. (1988). Black doctorate. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Jaschik, S. (1987, May 6). Recruiting plans found lacking at many colleges in states where desegregation plans have expired. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 19. Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job reward: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42, 124—143. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kappner, A. S. (1989, Spring). Black Americans and educational leadership. Educational Record, 19(2), 18. Katz, 0., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Katzell, M. E. (1968). Expectations and dropouts in schools of nursing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 154. Kerlinger, F. N. (1965). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lawler, E., & Porter, L. (1967). The effect of performance on job satisfaction. INdustrial Relations, 1, 20-28. Lee, C. B. T. (1972). Relationship of the department chairman to the academic dean. In J. Brann & T. Emmet (Eds.), The academic department or division chairman: A complex role. Detroit: Balamp Publishers. Lester, A. G. (1976). Organizational diversity. In J. C. Smart & J. R. Montgomery (Eds.), Examining departmental management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 175 Linton, T. R. (1945). The cultural background of personality. New York: D. Appleton-Century. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organiza- tional psychology. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally. Loury, G. C. (1987, March 25). Why preferential admission is not enough for blacks. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 100. McCormick, E. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). Industrial psychology (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McKeachie, W. J. (1968, Spring). Memo to new department chairmen. Educational Record, p. 221. Mingle, J. R. (1988, February). Minorities in higher education: Trends in higher education participation and success. 35;, p. 19. Mobley, T. A. (1971). Selecting the department chairperson. Educational Record, 52(4), 321. Mooney, C. J. (1991, May 29). Universities award record number of doctorates: More than 25% go to students from overseas. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. AI-AIO. Morris, L. (1979). Elusive eguality. Washington, DC: Howard University Press. Muchinsky, P. M. (1990). Psychology applied to work: An intro- duction to industrial and organizational psychology (3rd ed ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. National Research Council. (1978). A century of doctorates. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council. (1982). Survey of earned doctorates. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1982. National Research Council. (1986). Doctoral recipients from United States universities. Washington, DC: Office of Scientific & Engineering Personnel. Neufeldt, V., & Guralnik, D. B. (Eds.). (1988). Webster’s new world dictionary (3rd college ed.). New York: Webster’s New World. O’Grady, J., Jr. (1973). The departmental chairman. Improving College and University Teaching, 21(4), 270—272. 176 Olivas, M. (1979). The dilemma of access: Minorities in two—year colleges. Washington, DC: Howard University Press. Ottinger, C. A. (1988). 1986—87 facts book on higher education. New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Pub— lishing. Parsons, T., & Platt, G. (1973). The American university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Patai, D. (1991, October 30). Point of view. Chronicle of Higher Education. Plisko, V. W., & Stern, J. D. (Eds.). (1985). The condition of education: Statistical report 1985. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Sta- tistics. Porter, L. W. (1985). Job attitudes in management: Perceive deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 375—384. Porter, W. L., Lawler, E. E., III, & Hackman, J. R. (1977). Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw—Hill. Ramer, H. R. (1964). Perceptions of university departments and of the role of their chairmen: A study of some attitudes and opinions of selected professors, department chairmen, deans, and central administrators of The Ohio State University (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts International, 24, 5144A. Rapid growth builds minorities’ power "potential." ((1991, March 11). USA Today, p. 5A. Ravetch, H. W. (1973). Responsibilities, activities and attitudes of selected Southern California community college department/ division chairmen (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cali- fornia, Los Angeles, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional, 33, 5522A. Roach, J. H. L. (1976, Winter). The academic department chair- person: Functions and responsibilities. Educational Record, p. 13. Rudolph, F. (1977). History of the American undergraduate course of study since 1636. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Salmon, L. C., & Tierney, M. L. (1977, July—August). Determinants of job satisfaction among college administrators. Journal of Higher Education, 43(4), 412-431. 177 Sarbin, T. R., & Allen, V. L. (1954). Role theory. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Addison- Wesley. Sayles, L. R. (1989). Building commitment and motivation. Leader— ship: Managing in real organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Scheufler, J. H. (1973). A middle management position in post secondary education in Colorado (paper presented at the meeting of the Colorado Association of Deans). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 085 067) Schwartz, M. M., Jenusaitis, E., & Stark, H. (1963). Motivational factors among supervisors in the utility industry. Personnel Psychology, 15, 45-53. Seashore, S. E. (1970). Defining and measuring the quality of working life. In L. E. Davis & A. B. Cherns (Eds ), Ihg quality of working life (vol. 1). New York: Free Press. Skubal, J. M. (1980). An analysis of the administrative support needs of the academic department chairperson. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Slaughter, J. (1986, August). Communicator, 13(6), pp. 9-12. Smelser, N. J., & Content, R. (1980). The changing academic market. Berkeley: University of California Press. Spector, R. M. (1973). Faculty chairmanship: A medieval institution in 20th century service. Intellect, 102, 48. Steele, C. M., & Green, S. G. (1976, July/August). Affirmative action and academic hiring. Journal of Higher Education, 41, 413-435. Strong, E. W. (1963). Shared responsibility. AAUP Bulletin, 109— 113. Swygert, P. H. (1991, October). College presidents: No revolving door. USA Today, 31, 11A. Taylor, J. E. (1947). Negro teachers in white colleges. School and Society, 15, 268—273. Thomas, G. E. (1986). The access and success of blacks and Hispan— ics in U.S. graduate and professional education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (1990). Press clippings. Washington, DC: Public Information Office. 178 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (1991, March 11—15). Press clippings. Washington, DC: Public Information Office. U.S. Department of Education. (1979). Access of black Americans to higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1988). Employment and earnings. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1976). Egual employment opportunity report: Minorities and women in higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1987). EEO-6 hi her education staff information, 1987. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. l U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (1982). Higher education eguity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Van Dalen, D. V. (1962). Understanding educational research. New York: McGraw-Hill. Van Dyke, M., Bringham, W., Victor, B., & Gustad, J. (1959). flp_ to interview. New York: Harper & Brothers. Vetter, B. M., & Babco, E. L. (1981). Professional women and minorities (2nd ed., Supplement 1). Washington, DC: Scien- tific Manpower Commission. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wartofsky, M. W. (1973, Summer). Affirmative action in higher education. A report by the Council Commission on Discrimi- nation. American Association of University Professors Bulle- tin, 49, 178-183. Washington, E. M. (1986). Western Michigan University’s black college program. Swelling the faculty cohort. Washington, DC: National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. Webster, J. (1988). Minority enrollment in Michigan colleges and universities. Lansing: Public Policy Advisor. 178 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (1991, March 11-15). Press clippings. Washington, DC: Public Information Office. U.S. Department of Education. (1979). Access of black Americans to higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1988). Employment and earnings. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1976). Egual employment opportunity report: Minorities and women in higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1987). EEO-6 higher education staff information, 1987. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (1982). Higher education eguity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Van Dalen, D. V. (1962). Understanding educational research. New York: McGraw—Hill. Van Dyke, M., Bringham, W., Victor, B., & Gustad, J. (1959). Hp_ to interview. New York: Harper & Brothers. Vetter, B. M., & Babco, E. L. (1981). Professional women and minorities (2nd ed., Supplement 1). Washington, DC: Scien— tific Manpower Commission. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wartofsky, M. W. (1973, Summer). Affirmative action in higher education. A report by the Council Commission on Discrimi- nation. American Association of University Professors Bulle- tip, 49, 178—183. Washington, E. M. (1986). Western Michigan University’s black college program. Swelling the faculty cohort. Washington, DC: National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. Webster, J. (1988). Minority enrollment in Michigan colleges and universities. Lansing: Public Policy Advisor. 179 Wharton, C. R., Jr. (1989, June 16). Education is the key to U.S. economic survival in 21st century. Detroit Free Press, p. A-13. Wieland, G. F., & Ullrich, R. A. (1976). Organizations: Design and change. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Wilkinson, D. W. (1978, November). A profile: Minorities in sociology and other behavioral sciences. American Sociological Association Footnotes, 5, 6-8. Williams, L. (1986, August). Communicator, 13(6), 6. Williams, P. R. (1982, December). Minorities and women in sociol— ogy: An update. American Sociological Association Footnotes, 13, 6-9. Wilson, R. (1988, December). Developing leadership: Blacks in graduate and professional schools. Journal of Black Studies, 13(2), 163—173. Wilson, R., & Melendez, S. E. (Eds ). (1985). Fourth annual status report on minorities in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Woodbume, L. S. (1958). Principles of college and university administration. Stanford, CA: University Press. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications. illlllililllllllillilllliiIllilllllllliililllllillllllil 31293009