A CGMPAEWON OF THE PERCEPWONS OF ST‘UQENTS AND FACULTY A? MECHE‘GAR NATE EJNWERSEW WETH RESPECT TO STUDENT PARTICIPATEON éN UNWERSEW PQLECY FORMBEARQN Them {tor Hm Degree of: Ed. D. MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Louis Frederick Hekhuis 3.967 LIBRARY Midngan State ”/55? WW W’ This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Comparison of the Perceptions of Students and Faculty at Michigan State University with Respect to Student Participation in University Policy Formulation presented by Louis F. Hekhuis has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed . D degree in W. 1 Date July 11.. 1957 0-169 AUS 1 81933 f‘ r: ‘W’ >4."\V I \l ‘h‘:N (La. -, 1.... ‘f " l ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OP STUDENTS ‘ AND FACULTY AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WITH RESPECT TO STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN UNIVERSITY POLICY FORMULATION by Louis Frederick Hekhuis The primary purpose Of this study was to compare perceptions of selected students and faculty members at Michigan State University with respéct to student involvement in university policy formulation. Six sample groups were identified for the purpose Of determining whether there was any relationship between membership in a.'group and the perception of the extent students should be involved in university policy formulation. The six sample groups were (1) student non-leaders, (2) student leaders, (3) faculty non-leaders, (4) faculty leaders, (5) academic administrators, and (6) student personnel administrators. This study was conducted during the Fall Term of 1966. At that time the instrument which was used to compare perceptions was mailed to the sample population. Responses from the sample groups ranged from 80% to 96%. Louis Frederick Hekhuis 2 The Design and Procedure Of the Study A 7l-item questionnaire based on functionally identified policy areas of the university was designed to obtain individual perceptions . On each item individuals were asked tO indicate the extent tO which they thought students should be involved in university policy formula- tion. Responses were indicated on a five point scale. The statistic chi square was used in analyzing the data and the .05 level Of confi- dence was used to determine statistical significance. In all instances, however, where significant differences in perception among the compari— son groups were found, use Of the chi square statistic resulted in the .01 level of confidence being obtained. Findings Of the 71 items listed in the questionnaire significant differences among the comparison groups were found in 51 of the items . Most respondents tended to view student participation in policy formulation related to student personnel administration as either a shared reSponsi- bility with faculty and administrators or one in which students recom- mended Or advised. Student participation in policy formulation relating to general institutional government or academic administration, however, was most often perceived as participation through recommending or advising. Student personnel administrators more often agreed with students concerning the extent Of student participation in university policy form- ulation than did faculty or academic administrators . Louis Frederick Hekhuis Although there was agreement that in certain areas university policy formulation shou1d be the primary responsibility Of either the faculty, the administration or the student body, university policy form- ulation in most areas, however, was not perceived as the sole prerog- ative Of one group to the exclusion of others . Further research concerning possible models for involving students and faculty in university policy formulation would be helpful. Although there is much agreement about the desirability Of involving students in various areas Of university policy formulation, there is considerable confusion and disagreement on how to best accomplish it. A COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS ' AND FACULTY AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WITH RESPECT TO STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN UNIVERSITY POLICY FORMULATION BY Louis Frederick Hekhuis A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology ’1967 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author expresses his sincere appreciation to the members of his Guidance Committee, Dr. Walter Johnson, chairman, Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, Dr. Max Smith and Dr. Orden Smucker for their criticisms and suggestions. As chairman, Dr. Johnson was patient, understanding and helpful in his counsel. A special note of thanks to Dr. Nonnamaker for his valued advice and encouragement and without whose help the study would not have been completed. An additional note of thanks to Miss Pat Carter for typing and editing and overall assistance in working on the study. Finally to my wife, Jean, and Karen, Mark and Susan, my everlasting gratitude for their help, encouragement and sacrifices in aiding me to complete the study. 11 Louis Frederick Hekhuis Candidate for the degree Of Doctor Of'Education Date of Examination: July 11’, 1967, 10:30 am, Erickson Hall. Dissertation: A Comparison of the Perceptions of Students and Faculty at Michigan State University with Respect to Student Participation in University Policy Formulation. Outline of Studies: Major Area - Guidance and Personnel Services Minor Area - Higher Education Cognate Area - Sociology Biographical Items: Birthdate — September 14, 1928, Grand Rapids, Michigan Undergraduate Studies - Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Bachelor of Arts 1946-1950 Graduate Studies - Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Master of Arts 1956-1958 Membership: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Phi Delta Kappa Omicron Delta Kappa Experience: High school teacher and counselor, Grand Haven High School, Grand Haven, Michigan, 1950-51, 1954-59; U.S. Army, 1951-53; Assistant Director, Men's Division of Student Affairs, Michigan State University, 1959-63; Director, Student Activities Division, Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs , Michigan State University, 1963-67. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS C HAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM H Introduction Purpose of the Study Statement Of the Problem Definition Of Terms Hypothesis Limitations of the Study Delimitations Of the Study Procedures Used in this Study Organization'of the Study mVVVmAwa (D II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Historical Perspective . . . 9 Studies Relating to the Parcitipation Of Students in University Policy Formulation . . 15 Articles and Reports Related to Student Participation in University Policy Formulation . . . . . . 27 III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . 37 The Population a-nd Method of Selection . . . 37 The Instrument and Procedures Used in Obtaining Data . . . . . - 38 Analyzing the Data . . . . 40 Iv. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . 41 Non-Significant Items . . . . 42 Significant Items - Student Personnel Administration . . . 44 Significant Items - General Institutional Government . . . 65 Significant Items - Academic Administration . . . . . 79 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) V. BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY The Problem The Design and Procedures of the Study . . . . Findings and Conclusions Areas of Agreement Areas Of Disagreement. . . Student Personnel Administration General Institutional Government Academic Administration Implications for Further Study 97 97 97 98 98 99 99 ' 102 103 108 109 112 TABLE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 LIST OF TABLES Response by Sample Group to the Questionnaire Items Showing, Agreement by Respondents . Intramural Athletics Student Publications Cultural Program‘s . Use of Student Records Student Driving and Parking Regulations Student Radio Stations . . . . . Off-Campus Speakers Women's Closing Hours Student Union Facilities Placement Center Services . Scholarship and Financial Aids Assistance Off-Campus Housing Services . . . Residence Hall Housing Services Married Housing Services Counseling Center Services Student Health and Accident Insurance Student Orientation Programs Evaluation of Students . Promotion of Dean of Students Staff Policies Relative to Student Conduct . vi Page 39 42 45 4.6. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 LIST OF TABLES (continued) 23 24 25 '26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. 42 43 44 4s 46 Tuition Charges and Fees Residence Hall Room and Board Rates Design and Construction Of New Buildings Intercollegiate Athletics Promotion Of Administrative Officers . Budget Appropriations to Colleges and Departments Within the University Faculty Driving and Parking Regulations Solicitation Of Funds by Faculty . Use of the University Mail Distribution System Degree Requirements Military Training (ROTC Program) Faculty Sabbaticals Library Resources and Procedures Policies Relative to Faculty Conduct . Cheating in the Classroom . Faculty Evaluation Faculty Selection . Course Content Class Attendance . Methods Of Instruction . Faculty Teaching Loads Grading Practices . Selection of Graduate Assistants Class Size . . . . .’ . . . vii S5 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O ‘81 £32 83 84 85 86 87 88 LIST OF TABLES (continued) 47 48 49 '50 51 52 53 Textbook Selection Academic Advising. Development of New Curricula Course Scheduling Curriculum Requirements Scheduling of Final Examinations \ viii Course Waivers . . . . 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Chapter I THE PROBLEM Introduction The present generation Of college students is forcing universities to re—evaluate existing institutional controls and methods Of policy formu— lation. The demonstrations at Berkeley served to illustrate in an extreme way the concerns of many students across the country. The formation in the pa st two years, for example, of a number Of student protest groups, such as the Students for a Democratic Society, gives further evidence Of a desire by students to question existing policies and the ways in which the policies are formulated. All of this is in marked contrast to the students of the "1950's. " Jacob in his study Changing Values in College described the latter student in the following way: There is a profile of values which hold for 75 to 80 percent of all American college students, a campus norm of values which prevails in the 1950's, coast to coast, a State university or denominational college, for the ivy leaguer or city commuter. The current student generation is gloriously contented in regard to its present day activity and its outlook for the future. Students are unabashedly self-centered in outlook, aspiring above all to material gratifications for themselves and their families. Though conventionally middle-class they have an easy tolerance of diversity and are ready to live in a society without racial, ethnic, or income barriers. The traditional moral virtues, such as sincerity, honesty, and loyalty are 1 highly valued, but there is little inclination to censor laxity, which students consider to be widespread. A need for religion is generally recognized, but students do not expect religious beliefs to govern decisions in daily living. Rather, they antic— ipate that these decisions will be socially determined. The general tendency is to be dutifully responsive toward govern- ment, but there is little inclination to contribute voluntarily to the public welfare or to seek an influential role in public affairs. Attitudes toward international affairs are strangely contradictory. Another war is predicted within a dozen years, yet international problems are the least of the concerns to which students expect to give attention in their immediate future. Finally, students tend to set great stock by college in general and their own college in particular, regarding vocational preparation and skills and experience in social relations as the greatest benefits of college education.1 The student of the 60's, however, dares to deviate from.his counterpart Of the 50's, or at least a significant number do. As Homer and Homer point out "nonconformity is replacing conformity, passivism is being replaced by activism and effervescence is being substituted for acquiescence. "2 Robert J. Wert, Dean Of Undergraduate Education at Stanford University, reports, "Undergraduate students are now demanding that they receive a fair share of the university's effort. They are insisting that the university re-organize so that they will not feel isolated or 1 Jacob, Philip E. Changing Values in College. New Haven, Connecticut: The Edward W. Hazen Foundation, 1959. 2 Horner, James T. and Rosemary L. "Student Involvement in Governance and Administration Of Higher Education, " The Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of Student Affairs. Vol. 4, NO. 2 (October, 1966) p. 60. 3 alienated from the university community. "3 Wert perceives a more basic question, however, stemming from this increased concern on the part Of students: who really is to be boss in tomorrow's university; the trustees, the president, the faculty, or the students? Perceived from this standpoint then the question is not "shall students participate" but more appropriately "how and to what extent shall they participate? " Consequently many universities have been forced to re—examine the methods and procedures used in policy formulation and. to more carefully consider the role of the students in policy making. The Purpose of the Study The extent to which students have been involved in institutional policy making at variOus institutions has been dependent upon the estab— lished educational goals of the institution; i.e. , whether student involve— ment in policy making is seen as desirable and/or appropriate. At large universities it is particularly difficult to gain some kind of consensus on the desirable and appropriate ways to involve students in policy making. The purpose Of this study is to compare perceptions among selected students and faculty members with respect to student involve- ment in university policy formulation. Such a study can be Of consider- able help in developing procedures for involving students in a more 3 Wert, Robert J. "Our Restless," Think, November—December, 1965, p. 26. 4 significant way in policy making by pointing out the areas Of agreement and disagreement among faculty and students. In addition, the results Of the study can have implications for student leadership training programs and the orientation Of new faculty members. Statement Of the Problem In this study the perceptions Of selected faculty and student groups at Michigan State University are compared with respect to student involvement in the formulation Of policy in 71 functionally identified areas of the university. An attempt will be made in analyzing the data to determine whether there is any relationship between membership in selected student and faculty groupings with respect to the extent students should be involved in university policy formulation. Definition Of Terms Student leader: A junior or senior student who holds any Of the following positions: living unit president major governing group president (a president of Associated Women Students Panhellenic Council Intercooperative Council Off Campus Council Men's Halls Association 5 Women's Inter-Residence Council Interfraternity Council Associated Students of Michigan State University Board member (one Of fifteen members Of the governing body Of student government at Michigan State University) Associated Students of Michigan State University Cabinet president Associated Students Of Michigan State University Cabinet vice—president or director (individuals appointed by the Cabinet president and approved by the Student Board to be responsible for various areas in the executive branch Of student government) Student non-leader: A junior or senior not holding one of the above named positions. Faculty leader: A member Of the faculty not holding an adminis- trative position but who has served within the past two years on any Of the following councils or committees: Academic Council Educational Policies Committee Lecture—Concert Series Committee Faculty Committee on Student Affairs ' University Curriculum Committee University Traffic Committee 6 University Forum Committee Board Of Publications Faculty Tenure Committee University Library Committee Faculty Affairs Committee Faculty non—leader: A member Of the faculty not holding an administrative position and who presently is not serving and has not served within the past two years on any Of the above stated committees. Student personnel administrator: Full-time professional staff members of the Dean of Students Office. Academic administrgor: A member of the faculty holding an administrative position Of dean or assistant dean. Hypothesis The study is concerned with the perceptions Of students and faculty at Michigan State University with respect to student participa— tion in university policy formulation. It is hypothesized that there is a relationship between membership in selected student and faculty groups with respect to the extent students should be involved in university policy formulation. The basis for this hypothesis is that through participation or non-participation in student or faculty govern- ments or through being a student personnel or academic administrator an individual would have a different perception of the extent to which students should be involved in university policy formulation. The chi square test for independence will be used in testing the hypothesis . 7 Limitations Of the Study The study is limited by the factors inherent in the use Of any queStionnaire. These include the difficulties in tabulating, validating and securing the complete cooperation of the respondents . Delimitations of the Study The principle delimitation Of this study is that it is concerned only with the perceptions Of students and faculty at Michigan State University . Procedures Used in this Study The population Of this study consisted Of the students and faculty members of Michigan State University during Fall Term of 1966. Six sample groups based on the degree Of participation in, and administrative responsibility for policy formulation were identified and defined. The six sample groups selected were: student leaders, student non-leaders, faculty leaders, faculty non—leaders, student personnel administrators, and academic administrators . In order to adequately compare the six groups a questionnaire listing policy areas related to particular functions of the University was developed. In answering the questionnaire individuals were asked to select one response for each item listed from the following scale: students (1) are primarily responsible for policy formulation. without faculty or administrative participation, (2) share responsibility with 8 faculty and/or administrators through serving on joint committees, (3). have opportunity to advise or recommend to faculty and/or adminis- trators with respect to the policy involved, (4) would not normally participate, and (5) no opinion or comments. Organization Of the Study For the purpose Of convenience and systematic consideration, this study is reported in five chapters . Chapter I presents an introduction of the study, the purpose Of the study, a statement Of the problem, the population examined and limitations of the study. Chapter II includes an historical perspective of_student involvement in university policy formulation and a review of research related to this study. Chapter III consists of a detailed report of the methodology used in developing the questionnaire and the procedures used in analyzing the data . The find- ings are reported in Chapter IV. A summary of the findings along with the conclusions and implications for further study are found in Chapter V. Chapter II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Historical Persgzctive Student participation in college government as Klopf points out is "neither a novelty nor a modern idea . " Most writers refer to the medieval universities Of the 12th and 13th century as examples of institutions where strong student controls existed. According to Klopf Student government in the Middle Ages developed from a genuine need on the part Of students . Scholars came from foreign lands and were thrown on their own resources . Because of oppression they were forced to form "nations" or guilds for their own protection. These organizations first appeared during the later part of the twelfth century. In no other university did they acquire so much prestige or power as they did at the University of Paris. It was from here that the idea of guilds spread throughout Europe and into England. 4 Student government in the medieval university developed for different reasons, however, than student government in American universities . As Klopf further points out Student government in the medieval university was essentially different from our present form in that a pressing social and 4 Klopf, Gordon. COllege Student GOvernment. Harper and Brothers, New York, 1960, p. 37. 9 9A economic need lay at the base of the medieval organization, while in America it arose as the application Of a democratic ideal to education. Student government has also developed in the United States as a result Of students wanting a means Of organizing and channel— ing their Opinion concerning programs, services, issues, fees, and charges, particularly those areas which affect student welfare. Student government is also seen by student personnel workers as a means of teaching not only citizenship skills but effective human relations and group procedures.S Even though initially students exercised much influence and control in the medieval universities, the faculties soon found themselves in a position of dominance. The balance was to swing to the faculties within a few hundred years as a result Of the new favored position they gained over the transient student population through acquisi— tion of permanent facilities and tenure and also because of the excesses of student action. While some vestiges Of student control persisted (the system of paying fees to the individual professor, for instance, was one of the most potent faculty rating devices ever instituted), the general atmosphere became one of faculty dominance. Falvey further points out the swing from student to faculty As the universities acquired books and property, the masters tended to remain with them and in time begain to determine policies and to assume control. As residence in university halls was enforced, student powers and privileges were curtailed. In time, the power of the "nations" declined, for by the sizteenth century the head Officials had become 5 KIOpf, op. Cit., p. 38. 5 Lunn, Harry H. The Student's Role in College Poligy—Making. American Council on Education, Washington, D.C. , 1957, p. l . 10 merely political appointees. Thus schools eventually became complete autocracies administered by the masters . By the time of the Reformation, the democratic university Of the Middle Ages had been converted into a "narrow oligarch. "7 Colonial America In colonial America the first colleges (Harvard, 1636; William and Mary, 1693; Yale, 1701) were patterned after the English college and were designed primarily to train students for the ministry. The first recorded example of student participation in American college administration was at William and Mary Probably the first example of student participation in American colleges was at William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va. , in 1779, after the college had been in existence for more than three—quarters Of a century. The political break with England and the emergence of the democratic idea were undoubtedly responsible for this development. The students elected representatives to a central body and this handled lesser details Of "general improvement, " routine discipline. The plan was very simple, but it was a beginning. Probably it had some influence on its famous alumnus, Thomas Jefferson, who later organized the University Of Virginia after an earlier movement to make a state university out of William and Mary had failed.8 William and Mary was also the first college to adopt an honor system and to introduce the elective system as well.9 The University of 7 Falvey, Frances E. Student Participation in College Administration, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1952, p. 36. 8 Falvey, Op. Cit., p. 39. 9 Falvey, op. Cit., p. 39. 11 Virginia under the leadership Of Thomas Jefferson early involved students in its administration The University Of Virginia was very liberal from the start. Outstanding features Of its organization were an elective curriculum, freedom from religious tests and practices, equality of professors, and rotation election of depart- ment Chairmen. A system of self-government includes an honor system for all examinations, control Of most student activities, and the handling of ordinary cases of discipline. 10 Findlay reports that Oberlin College founded in 1893 helped foster the development Of student government Students Of all races were admitted; women were permitted the same educational Opportunities as men; the faculty, not the administrators alone, had a large part in the adminis- tration; and there was provision for student participation and cooperation in institutional management. Not only did Oberlin flourish from the start, but students from the Atlantic seaboard traveled to Oberlin to enroll instead Of attending Harvard or Yale. These students were the "first ancestors Of student government in American higher education . "11 Sheldon surveyed 40 institutions in 1899 in an attempt to determine the extent of student government in American colleges. Included in the survey were 20 Of the smallest colleges in New England and the West and 20 Of the largest American universities . Five classes Of student participation were found: (1) student courts for those caught cheating on examinations , (2) advisory committees to the faculty, 10 MCKown, Harry C. The Student Council. MCGraw Hill, New York, 1944, p. 12. 11 Findlay, F. J. "Student Government: Medieval, Colonial and Modern Style," School Activities (April 1940) , p. 316. 12 (3) general disciplinary, (4) committees for the maintenance Of order in dormitories, and (5) student body associations that differed from the four preceding forms .12 In summary Sheldon pointed out that the majority Of the plans had been moderate successes but that the success was by no means uniform. More specifically he concluded that These student self—governing bodies must be regarded as incidental rather than essential creations of the American student spirit. Many of the most representative colleges have been without them. They do not belong to the class Of great representative student institutions, with the Class organizations, the debating society, the fraternity, and the athletic Club. 13 In the early 1900's Falvey reports that the work of the Natural Self—Government Committee, Inc. (Richard Willing, Chairman) was Of considerable influence in the further development of student partici- pation in college administration. Generally the Committee was con- cerned with the education for citizenship with student participation being a means to this end.14 One ofthe more important studies in the early part of the twentieth century was completed by Edwards, ' Artman, and Fisher in 1928. The authors studied 23 colleges and were able to identify three types of student government: paternalistic or limited student government, thorough student government, and joint faculty—student government. These three types of student 12 Sheldon, Henry D. Student Life and Customs. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1901, p. 148-151. 13 Ibid., p. 271. ' 14 Falvey, Op. Cit., p. 148—151. 13 government were described in the following way: Paternalistic government not only induces passive resistence but tends to suppress the initiative Of the more alert students. . . (It) is Obviously not a stimulant to self-government. .Wherever in the colleges studies thorough student government was practiced, students and faculty alike spoke Of a "sense Of personal responsibility, " " practice in self—imposed control, " "initiative," and "interest in government," the sense of a "student community, " "confidence between students and faculty, " and Of "holding Office in the council as a responsibility" . . . The authors believe that it (student—faculty government) tends tO develop a unified community in which faculty and students, Old and young, share in the problems and in the efforts to solve them. It intensifies the sense of individual responsiblity for the community, and of community responsibility for the individual. Service on the government board by students is looked upon as an honor and a public trust. The Significance of such experi— ence as a training ground for participation in political govern- ment is Obvious. 15 Of note at this time also was the development Of a campus community government primarily at Antioch and Benningston. Falvey reports that: In a system Of campus community government, all members Of the campus community (faculty, students, administration, and Often maintenance staff) participate cooperatively and work together in respect to the aims, interests, problems, and difficulties of all members of the community. There is no longer a separation Of student activities into academic, extra— curricular, and personal categories. Through joint committees Of faculty and students, all community matters are considered, and it is felt by schools practicing this type Of government that it affords rich and vital experiences in sharing, in cooperation, and in participation in democratic living. 15 Edwards, R.H. , Artman, J.M. and Fisher, Galen M. Unde_rgraduates: A Studyof Morale in Twenty—three American Colleges and Universities. New York: Doubleday Doran Company, 1928 . 16 Falvey, Op. Cit., p. 46. l4 Strang in 1937 noted a trend toward student-faculty cooperation in curricular as well as extra—curricular phases of school life.17 Her recommendations for future development Of student cooperation in govern- ment included participation by all members Of the student body, improve— ment Of lines Of communication tO Obtain a "two-way" interchange Of ideas and education Of administrators, teachers, and students. With the founding ‘Of the United States National Student Associ— ation in 1947 further impetus was given toward strengthening student participation in university government. As Schodde reports Its catechism was a Student Bill Of Rights, later strengthened by a list of student responsibilities, which was a frontal assault upon the time-honored college tradition of "in—loco- parentis! " Its program, according to the Association's Report Of the Constitutional Convention, was to represent an American student vieWpoint at home and abroad. . . .At‘its annual Congress, delegates meet with other student government leaders. Leading educators and national figures are invited to address the Congress. Seminars and discussions are held on such topics as academic freedom, student government, international student affairs, and the role of the American student in today's society. As a result of this two week experience, students often gain new insights into and acquire personal commitment for the part student govern— ment might play on this campus. They return and encourage students to enlarge their role in the educational enterprise by participating in curriculum planning, instructor evaluation, and institutional policy making. They ask student government to subordinate its preoccupation with calendaring social activities, planning dances, and supervising L17 Strang, Ruth. Group Activities in College and Secondary School. New York: Harper and Bros. , 1941. 15 student parking in favor Of a more responsible role in university affairs . 18 The USNSA has enjoyed continued growth since its inception and there is little doubt concerning the impact it has had on the development on student government in particular and higher education in general. The first half Of the twentieth century saw student government evolve with a primary function Of supervising social activities. However as Klopf rather prophetically pointed out in 1950 In many institutions the role Of student government will perhaps always remain as that Of dealing with student activities. Some colleges may add various conduct and honor system responsi- bilities. But as higher education progresses in America, there will be more thought given to increasing the responsibility Of the student in governing his college.19 Studies Relating to the Participation Of Students in UniversityPOlicy Formulation A number Of studies in recent years have dealt with student participation in university policy formulation. Some are compilations Of questionnaires surveying the degree Of participation by students in various policy areas. Others discuss more specifically the reasons for or against student participation in university policy formulation. 18 Schodde, Stephen C. "The NSA and Student Government, " Journal Of Deans Of Students and Student Personnel Administrators. October, 1964, p. 15. 19 KlOpf, Op. Cit., p. 42. 16 Relevant findings and conclusions Of selected studies will be reported in this section. One Of the more loosely structured studies concerning student participation in university government was instituted by the United States National Student Association during the early 1950's and compiled by Friedson in 1955.20 Student government leaders and deans Of students in over 400 schools were questioned concerning student participation in a variety Of areas. One Of the more interesting questions asked related to the committee structure and major actions of student governments. Four hundred and eighty—six student governments were asked to list their standing committees. Among those listed most frequently were: elections, student social and economic welfare needs, calendare ing student activities and publications. Among the committees infre— quently mentioned were: curriculum, debate or forensics and student housing. In the same study student government presidents were aSked to identify "those areas for which the student government body has originated a study group or initiated a program. " The areas Of interest and actiOns’most frequently cited were: social policies, charity drives, student discipline and training Of college leaders. The areas of interest infrequently mentioned were: curriculum, tuition policies, 20 Friedson, Eliot. Student Government, Student Leaders and the American College (Philadelphia: U.S. National Student Association, I955). 17 student loans, location and need Of new buildings . In another question deans Of students were asked to indicate areas in which students should have control or as the replies indicated areas in which students should have a voice in participation. There were few, if any, areas where the deans felt that students should have final control. The areas most Often cited were: promoting student participation in extra-curricular activities, planning charity campaigns, problems of student apathy, conducting freshman orientation and select— ing speakers. Those areas infrequently mentioned by the deans were: college calendar, intercollegiate athletics, academic policy, admissions policy and tuition.21 In this instance there appeared to be more agreement than disagreement concerning the areas in which student government was actually involved and the areas in which deans Of students thought students should participate. Other areas were surveyed in the study. With respect to the evaluation, selection, and promotion Of faculty members and adminis- trative Officers for example The USNSA study showed that 72 student governments (out Of 486) had taken action to initiate such programs during the 1953-54 year and perhaps suprisingly, revealed 274 deans of students felt this to be an activity in which students are capable of a positive contribution.22 21 Friedson, Op. cit. , chapter 1. 22 Lunn, op. Cit., p. 35. 18 In the area Of student government finances the report states that . . . 72% of 449 deans indicated that the major source of the financial support for student government is an activities fee levied by the college on every student and disbursed to student government. " The implication thus is that student government does not have the power to levy its own taxes. Deans also were asked to indicate all parties who must approve the student government budget. Two out of three Of the major approving agencies included the administration.23 With respect to student participation in policy formulation related to institutional grounds and facilities, the study showed that . . .actions related to better use Of existing campus facilities rated seventh in order Of importance and traffic programs eighth, though no student government reported taking action on the need or location of new buildings. In a ranking Of areas of student competence in planning and administration of thirty—five areas Of college policy derived from the USNSA questionnaire to deans, safety programs ranked tenth, controlling dormitory policies, eleventh; parking regulations twelfth; direction Of college unions, fifteenth; library policies, nineteenth; and selecting sites for new buildings, twenty-—ninth.24 Student publications were also a concern Of this study and in general it was concluded that Student government activity in the publications field is established on many campuses-~214 of the 486 student government presidents reporting in the USNSA study indicated that their organizations had standing committees in this area. Student policy participation centers in three areas on campus-- student newspaper and other periodicals, college public relations , and institutional publications . 25 23 Friedson, Op. cit., p. 15. 24 Lunn, Op. Cit., p. 48. 25 Lunn, op. cit., p. 52. 19 In the area Of intercollegiate and intramural athletics, the study revealed . . .intercollegiate athletics ranked eleventh in the list of areas covered by student government action in the 1954—55 year, 63 Of the 486 responding governments indicating action during that year. Deans were not optimistic about the validity of student policy participation in this area, however. They ranked it thirty-second out of thirty-five areas in which they felt students were competent to act. 26 Student participation in curriculum planning was also surveyed and 514 Of the 424 deans who participated expressed the view that .students have a contribution to make in the area of curriculum planning. It is notable that more than one in seven Of the responding student government heads (69 Of 470) reported the existence on their campuses Of student curriculum committees . 27 Finally in the area of discipline, the study showed that . . .64 percent Of the 486 student body president queried in 1954 indicated there was some formal disciplinary body on campus in which students participate. Many Of these are all-campus bodies and in most cases include students, faculty, and administration representatives. Rarely is the court composed Of students alone. In 67 percent of 311 cases the student members were selected by the student government or student body. In most instances the student or student- faculty disciplinary body decision is attested in the study by the fact that at 97 percent Of the 163 institutions in which the administration had reviewed recent cases, the verdict Of the student court was upheld. 28 In another study supportive Of the USNSA findings, Hynes, in a survey of 70 co-educational colleges and universities, reported 26 Lunn, op. cit., p. 59. 27 Friedson, op. cit. , Table A-66. 28 Friedson, Op. cit., pp. 8, 9. 16. 20 increased student representation, since 1945, on university committees Of an administrative nature. The committees most frequently cited as having student representation were: fiscal policies and procedures, scholarship and admissions . 29 One Of the more comprehensive reports on student participation in college administration was compiled by Harry H. Lunn for the American College on Education. Of particular note is Lunn's discussion Of problem areas in developing student participation in policy making. Lunn noted four problems specifically (l) establishment of avenues for student participation, (2) definition of scope and degree of student participation, (3) development Of effective student participation, and (4) overcoming of traditional thinking and procedures as well as the development Of adequate inter—personnel relationships . Lunn then covers student participation in (I) the general govern- ment of the institution, (2) academic administration, and (3) student personnel administration. Much Of his material is drawn from the Student Government Research Study Of 1955 by the United States National Student Association and from various college and university program 5 . With respect to faculty evaluation, for example, Lunn quotes 29 Hynes, Dorothy. "A Study of the Range Of Student Govern- ment Function at Seventy Coeducational Colleges and Universities" (Masters thesis, Cornell University), p. 46. 3O Lunn, op. cit., p.11. 21 Mueller as reporting in the American Association of University Professors Bulletin in 1951 that . . .more than a quarter of the 804 colleges and universities which replied tO his questionnaire were using student ratings and planned to continue them. 31 In the area of university public relations Lunn cites an experi— ence at the University of Minnesota. Taken from Minnesota Senate meetings the report states that In the 1951 University of Minnesota faculty committees, at the request Of President J. L. Morrill,‘ surveyed the possibilities of student participation. In deciding tO add student represent— ation, the Senate Committee on the Relations of the University to Other Institutions Of Learning replied through its chairman to the president: . . .the Senate Committee. . .has discussed the desirability Of adding student members and increasing communications with students at its first two fall quarter meetings . Because certain activities of our committee involve the accredit— ation Of Minnesota high schools and colleges and the various institutional relationships which this involves, we did not feel willing to extend voting privileges to student members. We did however agree that students ought to participate in discussion and all other committee activities and have defined this condition as "associate membership. " With this background I was requested to inform you that the Senate Committee on Relations is willing to extend associate membership to two students for two-year overlapping terms; the students to be chosen in such a way as to represent the student body. As in the past the Committee will endeavor to secure and increase 31 Lunn, op. cit., p. 38. 22 student cooperation and aid in our high school— university conference on problems of transition and other activities Of a similar nature. 32 In discussing the participation Of students in the chartering Of student organizations Lunn reports that The USNSA research project Obtained the information shown in the tabulations below from answers to a questionnaire to student government presidents, revealing the great extent to which students, alone or with the faculty and administration, have influence over the chartering and review Of major campus groups: Granting Of Charters Method Number Student governing body, subject to administrative review . . . . . . 1 14 Student governing body, without administrative concurrence necessary . . . . . 112 Student governing body after administrative approval . . . . . . . . 74 Joint student—faculty committee on student organizations . . . . . . . 73 Administration without consultation with student government body necessary . . . . 72 Other . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Review Power Over Major Organizations Area Percent of those reported Residence hall organizations . . . . . . 77 Interfraternity or Panhellenic Council . . . . 53 Newspaper or other student publications . . . 5233 In the area Of scholarships Lunn feels that Student participation in policy-making-on scholarships and other financial aids is more likely to develop through student 32 Lunn, op. cit., pp. 54—55. 33 Lunn, Op. cit., p. 93. 23 interest in establishing certain types of aids than through their concern over selection of recipients Of such aid. Innumerable examples could be cited Of small scholarship funds originated by students within departments or colleges, many times to symbolize the work of a particularly respected faculty member or a student killed in wartime.34 Finally with respect tO student participation in the area Of health insurance Lunn Cites a procedure at the State College Of Washington where the Campus Health Advisory Committee includes three students who work with seven faculty and staff members. The committee 1 . Serves as a resource committee in recommending policies of student health, college community sanitation, and student health education to the college administration . Promotes greater awareness on the part of students, faculty and the administration Of the importance Of health protection for students and faculty. Serves as an advisory group for the dean of students, the director Of student health, and the campus sanitarian on matters Of student health and campus sanitation. Advises the Education Policies Committee on organization and SCOpe of health and hygiene (mental and physical) courses for inclusion in the curriculum. More recently Cowan and Williamson surveyed 1000 regionally- accredited four-year baccalaureate-degree granting institutions of more than 100 students with respect to student freedom of expression. Five individuals in each university were questioned: president, dean Of students, student body president, student newspaper editor, chairman of the faculty committee on student affairs . Cowan and Williamson proceeded in this fashion because as they state 34 Lunn, op. Cit., p. 95. 35 Lunn, op. cit., p. 96. 24 We assumed thatleach of these people could respond in three capacities. Each was a perceiver of the status quo: he could tell us how much freedom he perceived on his campus with respect to the specific issues we designated. He was a leader who could Speak with authority about the forces which influenced him in making decisions and the principles which he personally tried to apply. He was also in a position to assess the strength Of the forces at work to eXpand or restrict the extent Of student freedom, and to judge whether these forces were increasing or diminishing.36 Of importance to this study, Of course, Was the information compiled concerning the role Of the student leader. Cowan and Williamson report that in 61 percent Of the schools responding to our survey, according to deans , students hold membership in administrative policy—making committees and in almost 85 percent of these schools this membership brings with it the right to vote. In order to appraise the efficacy of student participation in these committees, they asked the president and dean of students: "How relevant or helpful do you appraise the contributions Of such participation to be?" They also asked the student body president, "In your Opinion, what, if any, benefits accrue to the university and students by their participation in policy making?" Again, there was a wide range Of response including agreement, qualifi- cation, and disagreement with the ideas that participation is beneficial. A considerable number of benefits and disadvantages were identified by both students and administrators. 37 36 Williams, E.G. and Cowan, John L. "Students and Academic Freedom, " A Report of Commission VIII, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Washington, D.C. , 1965. 37 Ibid.. pp. 134-135. 25 The following reasons were Offered by students who felt their participation in policy making was useful: First, student participation in policy-making enables the administrator to "preview" student opinion, while students have an opportunity to Change "unrealistic" administration- proposed policies. Second. . .the usual faculty communica— tions between students and administration are improved: students are less likely to protest policy changes which are as much theirs as the administrations. (The student) point Of view, though Often lacking years Of experience, can provide a fresh approach to college problems. The students learn the complexities which affect policy—making decisions. Actually, the arrangement makes sense when one considers that the administration wants to offer the environ— ment for the best education. The student wants the best education available to him. This "responsible freedom" allows opportunity for the full growth of the student. 38 College presidents were also quoted as being enthusiastic in describing the benefits Of this student participation: They (students) often shed a different light on a given situation and assist the administration in gaining the proper perspective on problems Of policy. It also serves as training in citzenship for the student representatives. . .We have a good deal of respect for the serious thinking Of our student leaders.39 Cowan and Williamson conclude Students participate in policy—making committees in a majority Of schools and have the Opportunity to suggest changes in many more. They have pressed for change or clarification of policy at about half the schools and have been successful in about one-third. Some formal channels Of student participation in policy-making seem to be Open at nearly all schools. Whether 38 Williamson and Cowan, Op. cit. , p. 135. 39 Williamson and Cowan, op. Cit. , p. 136. 26 this participation is useful to students and/or administrators is a highly individual matter, and isprobably the result Of the design Of the formal framework, the weight Of tradition, and the prejudices and tact of both students and adminis- trators. Where the participation works it seems to work to the immense satisfaction of all concerned and where it fails the administrators' remarks are intolerant, and the students' comments are bitter and sarcastic.40 Golden and Rosen determined the areas Of college administration where students desired to participate and investigated the relationship between attitudes toward such participation and authoritarianism as a personality trait by surveying three separate college campuses in New York State. The findings indicated that: (1) students seem tO be the most concerned with those areas which have an immediate influence on their everyday campus lives; i.e. , policies affecting where they live, when, where and how they study and how they are evaluated in their endeavors . (2) Students that perform better academically are likely to be more favorably disposed toward student participation in university decision- making than are their more poorly performing counterparts . They con- clude by stating that "students like employees in industry are a force to be reckoned with and that recognition Of this fact by faculty and J administrative officials, in our opinion, must not be long in coming.41 40 Williamson and Cowan, Op. cit. , p. 142. 41 Golden, Patricia M. and Rosen, Ned A. "Student Attitudes Toward Participation in University Administration: An Empirical Study Related to Managerial Prerogatives, " Journal of College Student Personnel. November 1966, pp. 323—330. 27 Additional Articles and Reports Related to Student Participation in University Policy Formulation A number Of articles and reports have appeared in various periodicals during the last few years discussing student participation in university policy making. Those articles pertinent to this study will be reviewed. Recently, Martin identified the principle arguments Of those Opposed to substantive. student participation in academic policy formulation and institutional governance. An abstract Of responses selected from a stratified sample of full-time faculty members by Martin indicated that: l . Students are immature and lacking in experiences appropriate to such responsibilities, impressionable at best, at worst they are irresponsible. 2 . Students have a short—term connection with the school and correspondingly limited loyalty. They lack a sense of history or tradition and can bear no legal responsibility for the institution. 3. Students would be bored and impatient with what goes on at most faculty committee meetings and should thank God they are not obliged to attend. Furthermore, they have nothing positive to con— tribute to them. 4. Finally, if students can do a better job than faculty, they ought to be doing the teaching.42 42 Martin, Warren B. " Student Participation in Academic Governance. " Paper presented to Group 5 on " Student Participation in Governance of the Institution" at the 22nd National Conference on Higher Education sponsored by the Association Of Higher Education, Chicago, March 6, 1967. 28 Martin feels that the implication is that there would be no Objection to greater student involvement if students could measure Up to the standards Of educated adults. His immediate response is, first, students measure up well enough tO make important contribu— tions tO the community of learning and second, if they are not granted participation, it will not be because Of their inadequacies but because faculty and administrators do not want arrangements disrupted that now work to their convenience and advantage.43 Williamson feels that if student participation is tO be effective, the issues must be of consequence to the students. We cannot create imaginary problems and inconsequential activities tO keep them Occupied and "Out-Of-Our-hair. " It is not enough to give students responsibilities for other students, as in student government, without giving them any participating responsibility for the institution which sets limits for the students to enforce through judiciary processes. Really, then, the secret Of "training" students in leadership is tO involve them in important campus administration and to accept them as worthwhile individuals. The eXperience they gain will be used in their post-college lives and participation in local, national, and international affairs and government. Students must, therefore, be accepted as a part of the academic institution, and not as merely passive recipients of instruction, who pay their fare and passively ride the route to graduation, then to be handed a transfer to life in the community at large. 43 Martin, Op. cit. 29 We must early identify the gifted few and persuade them to become actively involved so that they, in turn, may cultivate the desire for participation and leadership in all students for the full development Of humane persons.44 Jacob supports Williamson's vieWpoint in stating That when students are given significant responsibility in their educational experience, they gain a far better under- standing Of the function Of the academic community and its role in the larger community. They perceive the university's responsibility tO society in a new light and with this percep— tion comes a new appraisal of their own responsibility as a citizen.45 Henderson also feels that students dO not participate meaning— fully because "authority has not been sufficiently delegated to enable the student government to assume genuine reSponsibility. " He discusses three models of university governance (1) govern- ance as a vertical hierarchy Of power and authority, (2) governance as mediation among subgroups, and (3) governance through group partici- pation in decision—making. In discussing the latter model he notes that If one looks at the classroom or the laboratory where the education and the research take place, it is Clear that the professor must play a strong role in determining goals and methods. It can also be contended that since the student is the learner, he tOO will do a better job Of learning if he 44 Williamson, E.G. "Training Student Leaders," Paper presented to Group 15 on "Finding and Developing Student Leaders" at the 22nd National Conference on Higher Education sponsored by the Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March 6, 1967. 45 Jacob, Philip E. "Student Leadership, " Education for Social Responsibility, Washington, D.C. The American Red Cross, May 1961, p. 19. ' 3O helps map out the goals and the methods. Thus it can be reasoned that the professors and also the students should have a wider participation in determining the overall goals, the program, and the evaluation procedures. 46 Henderson concludes by stating The group participative plan among the three models described takes the best account of the complexity of the individual and group interests. It is the best means of resolving problems that arise because Of influences that come from the sociometric pattern, from the processes Of informal communication, and through the utilization of various forms Of power exercised by individuals or subgroups. The group participative plan is an orderly pattern for the involvement of people in relation to their ability to contribute, with all efforts being coordinated 'and with the final control appropriately vested in the adminis- tration and the governing board/17 Gardner feels that the question of anonymity and impersonality Of student life is a real issue in many institutions. Consequently he feels: We need new patterns for the organization Of student life. There must be orderly channels for the expression of student grievances. There must be Opportunities for students to work Off their idealistic urges in constructive projects-- preferably projects Of their own devising and under their own management. There must be Opportunities for them to exercise emerging capacities for leadership and decision.48 Gardner concludes that 45 Henderson, AlgO D. "Effective Models Of University Governance, " Paper presented to Group 34 at the 22nd National Conference on Higher Education, sponsored by the Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March 7, 1967. 47 Ibid. 48 Gardner, John W. "Agenda for the Colleges and Universities," Tthournal Of Higher Education, Vol. 36, NO. 7, (October 195 6) . 31 The problem Of the student's place on the campus might be simpler if the college or university community were a coherent whole. But on many, perhaps most, campuses there is a breakdown of communication among various elements Of the university community: trustees, administration, faculty, and students. The resulting cleavages trouble me, because I believe that most academic institutions are going tO have some difficulty in surviving as coherent and significant communities. The difficulty will be magnified if they are expending their best energies in civil war.49 Falvey reports that in the 1950's Bluffton College in Ohio revised its policy concerning organizational relationships between the faculty and the student body. Under the new plan: Students were to become full—fledged members Of all stand— ing committees, including the administrative committee. In turn, to the student council were added two faculty members with full voting power. Students on the committees do not merely sit in on meetings but have all the privileges of discussion, Of initiating resolutions, and Of voting. Faculty members on the ’student council are not merely advisory but are bonafide members Of the council.50 McGuire has reported on some Of the available research on areas in higher education in which students have been able to participate and in which they prefer to participate. He includes: "academic standards, admissions, curriculum planning, discipline, finances, public relations, faculty selection and evaluation, and student activities. "51 The student association of the University Of 49 Gardner, op. cit. , p. 67. 50 Falvey, Op. cit., p. 38. 51 McGuire, Edward C. "The Role of the Student in College Policy Making, " Personnel and GuidanceJournal, Vol. 38, January 1960. pp. 378-384. 32 Minnesota adopted a new constitution in 1960 which rejected the traditional autonomous structure of student government and created a structure of student government which combines leaders, staff and faculty members in a co- partiCipant relationship quite different from the customary student—advisor relationship.52 Not all colleges and universities, however, have gone tO this extent in involving students in policy formulation nor do many deem it advisable. Kerins, for example, believes that conflicts between students and administrators in college affairs are not only inevitable but also desirable. He opposes the pseudo—participation by students in decision making and advocates that administrators should make clear the actual scope Of student autonomy and should do so with neither apology nor deception.53 Kate Mueller also appears to have some reservations concerning the total involvement Of students in university policy making. She lists three principle difficulties encountered in student participation in policy making. These are "(1) the distrust which both students and administration have of each other, (2) the failure of students to distinguish between 52 Bloland, Paul A. "A New Concept in Student Government, " Journal of Higher Education, Volume 32, February 1961 , pp. 94-97. . 53 Kerins, Frances J. " Student Autonomy and Administration Control: The Fallacy Of Absolute Cooperation Between Student and Administrator, " hurnal of Higher Education, Volume 30, February 1959, pp. 61-66. 33 freedom and license, and (3) the failure to differentiate policy from the decision making which flows from it. "54 Virginia Gildersleeve feels that the function Of the faculty and the administration is to decide what measure Of self-government or student government is conducive to good education. If the faculty, for example, thinks that a stern disciplinary regime would be most effective educationally, then it is the duty Of the faculty to impose such a system. If the faculty, however, believes that a considerable measure Of self—government gives experience to students Of genuine educational values, then it's the duty of the faculty to provide the largest measure Of self-government conducive to these educational ends .55 Schoen points out that confusion concerning the student's role in policy making occurs when the basic dichotomy between citizenship rights and student privileges is not clearly understood. The basic problem he feels is One Of communicating to the many college publics those areas Of responsibility that the university reserves and for which it has complete authority, those areas Of endeavor that may be delegated to students, and those areas in which joint faculty-student consultation and 54 Mueler, Kate H. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Houghton Miflin Company, Boston, 1961, pp. 307-394. 55 Gildersleeve, Virginia C. "The Abuse of Democracy, " The Saturday Review, Volume 39, November 24, 1956, pp. 15 ,16. 34 discussion may result in the most judicious decision- making process. It should be noted that this separation of responsibilities is in no way concerned with nor does it affect the individuals' basic constitutional rights. 55 Schoen concludes by stating We must ensure students freedom Of expression and self— government, and above all the freedom to think, to act, and to make mistakes. We must in addition inform them of their areas Of responsibility, however broad or narrow those areas are, and allow them to exercise their prerogatives freely. All concerned must be equally Clear on just what areas are reserved for faculty and administrative jurisdiction. Let us not, however, confuse nor equate lassez faire with democracy, nor the just administration of one's duty with tyranny.57 ’ In reviewing the literature relative to student participation in university policy formulation there was an occasional reference tO similar problems in business management and the labor-industrial relations area. One reference merits mentioning: Organization and Innovation by Chris Argyris . Argyris suggests that most organizations have a pyramidal structure and that such organizations imply a strategy of effective human relationships emphasizing (l) the centrality Of organizational objectives, (2) the suppression Of relevant feelings and the emphasis upon intellective, cognitive thinking, and (3) the use of power and control to botain the compliance Of the participants . 58 56 Schoen, Walter Thomas. "Clarification and Delineation of Areas of Student and Faculty Responsibility," The Journal of College Student Personnel, (June 1965) , p. 245. 57 Ibid. ,p. 246. ' 58 Argyris, Chris. Organization and Innovation. Dorsey Press, 1965, Homewood, Illinois, p. 239. 35 Such a strategy he feels implies basic values about effective human relationships that result in the following consequences: Argyri 5 People will focus primarily upon "selling" their ideas. Contribution made by others would not be heard as intended. Frustration will be high, but not dealt with because feelings are not admissable. Struggle will be frequent for "air time" to get across one's view and/or to defend an already made position. Listening will be primarily in terms Of those views one can agree with or one can safely compete against.59 poses no specific solution but concludes TO my knowledge, there is no single plan available that can be used by organizations to become less compulsive and more effective in their problem solving. Each organiza- tion must examine itself. It must be able to look within, at precisely those factors that it has been unable to date, to discuss Openly. An organization can go from one that is problem creating to problem solving, if its members are able to own up to how they really feel, become more Open and receptive, take more risks and support the norms of individuality, concern, and trust. In short, again I return to the requirement that (assuming high intellectual and technical competence) the first step toward increasing organizational health is for the top to increase its inter- personal competence.60 One other reference was made tO Argyris by Mulford in discussing self actualization. Mulford states Argyris has found that "job enlargement," or the broadening Of the roles industrial workers play in the organization, leads to increased self-actualization. NO one knows for certain 59 Argyris, op. cit., p. 240. 50 Argyris, Op. cit. , p. 241. 36 what the results Of this would yield in an educational setting. The implications, however, clearly suggest that maximum personal development will not occur until students are given significant roles to play in the organization's life.61 In this chapter a brief history Of student participation in university policy formulation was presented along with a review Of relevant studies . In addition a number of articles and reports discussing student participation in university policy formulation were discussed. It is apparent that although a number Of surveys have been conducted with respect tO student participation in university policy formulation there has not been a specific attempt to compare perceptions of selected student and faculty groups at a particular university with respect to the extent that students should participate in university policy formulation. Such a study should be Of help in more accurately determining areas of conflicting perceptions and could provide a basis for more realistic planning in considering student involvement in university policy formulation. In the next chapter the design and methodology of the study will be discussed. 51 Mulford, Charles L. "Self Actualization in a Small College Environment, " Journal of College Student PersonnelJ Vol. 8, #2, March 1967. Chapter III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The Population and Method of Selection The population of this study consisted Of the students and faculty at Michigan State University during the academic year 1966—67 . The following six sample groups were identified: student leaders, student non—leaders, faculty leaders , faculty non—leaders , student personnel administrators , and academic administrators.62 In the student leader group 308 students were identified as meeting the definition and 100 were picked at random from the sample. Of the 100 chosen 96 returned the questionnaire. The student non—leader sample of 100 was selected through random procedure from the Michigan State University Fall Term 1966 Student Directory. The Student Directory is published each fall term and lists the student's address, sex, major, and class standing (fresh- man, sophomore, junior Or senior). If a student selected did not meet the criteria as defined, his name was eliminated and another name 62 Operational definitions are found in Chapter I. 37 38 selected. Of the 100 selected in this way, 89 responded. Eighty—four leaders were identified as defined in Chapter 1. Because Of the relatively small number, the total population was sampled with 72 responding. One hundred faculty non—leaders were selected from a list including assistant professors, associate professors and professors. Faculty identified as administrators (department heads, directors, assistant deans and deans) that did not having teaching as a primary responsibility were not included in the sample selected. Of the 100 selected, six were on leave or away from the university during fall term Of 1966. Eighty out Of the sample Of 94 responded. Forty—four individuals were identified as academic administrators (deans and assistant deans) and 36 responded by returning a completed questionnaire . Forty-nine individuals were identified as being student personnel administrators and 44 responded. The Instrument and Procedures Used in Obtaining the Data The final questionnaire of 71 items was developed in the follow- ing way.63 Policy formulating areas were suggested by other researchers, 53 A complete copy of the questionnaire is found in Appendix 38A Specifically Lunn, 64 Falvey, 65 and Cowan and Williamson. 55 In addition selected student personnel administrators, university Officials, faculty and students at Michigan State University were interviewed to gain their ideas. Finally current practices at Michigan State University as indicated in the University Catalogue, the Ordinance Book, and the Student Handbook were reviewed. TO aid the respondents in determining the extent to which they thought students should be involved in university policy formulation, a definition of university policy formulation was developed. University policy formulation was defined as a step in the decision—making process designed to develop a consensus of thought concerning a function or area Of the university resulting in a course of action or a set of procedures to be adopted. A five—point response scale was then developed to present an opportunity for the respondent to indicate the degree or extent of student participation in policy formulation rather than a forced yes—no answer. Through personal interviews with selected faculty and students, studént personnel administrators, university Officials, and academic administrators, individuals were invited to criticize the questionnaire as to content, clarity and purpose. The Office of Institutional Research at Michigan State University was helpful in pointing out policy areas where one might logically expect 54 Lunn, op. cit. , pp. 33-99. 55 Falvey, op. cit., pp. 53—135. 55 Cowan and Williamson, Op. cit. , pp. 39—150. 39 agreement or disagreement with respect tO student participation. This office was also helpful in developing the definition of policy formulation and in refining the response scale. A personal letter along with the questionnaire, a five place answer sheet, and instructions in completing the questiOnnaire was sent to each respondent. TO assure a minimum 80 percent response in all categories, a follow-up letter was sent to individuals in the academic administrators and faculty leader samples . The responses by sample groups are summarized in Table l . TABLE 1 Response by Sample Group to the Questionnaire Number in Number Percent Follow—up sample responded responded letter sent Student leader 1 00 96 96 no Student non-leader 100 89 89 no Faculty leader 89 72 85 yes Faculty non—leader 94 80 85 yes Student personnel administrator 49 44 90 no Academic administrator . 44 36 80 yes 40 Analyiing the Data In developing the instrument the questionnaire was designed so the data could be processed on the IBM 3600 computer. The basic research hypothesis for the study was stated in Chapter I. TO be tested statistically it is formulated into an Operation or null hypothesis. It is: There is no relationship between membership in selected student and faculty groups and the extent tO which students should be involved in university policy formulation. The statistic chi square was employed in determining independence Of relationship. In interpreting the statistical data the .05 level Of confidence was used to determine statistical significance. The responses by all sample groups were also reported in percentages in order to more easily draw conclusions concerning the perceptions Of the extent to which students should be involved in university policy formulation. Chapter IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter includes an analysis Of the data concerning the perception Of selected faculty and student groups with respect to the extent Of student participation in university policy formulation. Specifically the null hypothesis tested in the part Of the study was: There is no relationship between membership in selected student and faculty groups and the extent to which they believe students should be involved in university policy formulation . The statistic chi square was employed in determining independ— ence of relationship and the .05 level Of confidence was used to determine statistical significance in interpreting the data . In addition all items are reported in percentages as well as raw scores. As indicated in Chapter III a questionnaire covering 71 policy areas within the university was sent to selected student and faculty groups. A total of 419 individuals from six sample groups responded. In analyzing the data items were grouped under three main headings (1) General Institutional Government, (2) Student Personnel Administration, and (3) Academic Administration. The items that were not statistically Significant will be discussed first followed by an examination of those items in which the null hypothesis was rejected. 41 42 Non—Significant Item 5 Of the 71 items covering functional areas Of university policy formulation listed in the questionnaire, the responses to 17 items reveal- ed no statistically significant differences among groups and consequently the null hypothesis was accepted. In order to further test the hypothesis an additional computation omitting response 5 (no Opinion) was completed for all items. This resulted in the acceptance Of the null hypothesis for three additional items. Table 2 summarizes the results for those items that were not statistically significant. The most frequently selected response from the total sample is given along with the percent- age of the total sample. TABLE 2 Items Showing Agreement by Respondents . Most Item Policy Formulation Related to: Frequently Percent No Selected of Total , Response* Sample STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 20 Solicitation of funds by students 2 46. 5 33 Student organizations financial accounts 2 44, 7 34 Student government structure and function 1 82 . 2 38 Chartering or registration of student organizations 2 54 . 2 39 Selling or advertising of activities, goods, or services by students 2 51 .3 40 Supervision of social events 2 61 . 6 43 Most Item Policy Formulation Related to: Frequently Percent NO Selected of Total Response* Sample 41 Health Center services 3 64.7 50 Student employment services 3 46.8 57** Student sponsored conferences 1 52 . 2 62 Eligibility for membership in fraternities and sororities l 55 . 6 64** Functions Of religious advisors 3 46.6 66 Selection Of dean Of students staff 4 , 62.0 GENERAL INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT l Admission Of new students 4 85.4 2 Selection Of administrative Officers (i.e. , president, vice president, provost, ' deans of colleges) 4 83 . 6 18 Campus police services 3 52.5 19 Alumni programs 3 42 . 9 26** Selling or advertising Of activities, goods , or services by faculty 4 47.4 55 Registration and enrollment procedures 3 64.0 ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATION 31 Faculty salaries 4 84.9 70 Faculty promotion 4 74.7 * Response scale; students: (1) primarily responsible, (2) share responsi- bility, (3) recommend or advise, (4) would not normally participate, (5) no Opinion ** When response 5 (no Opinion) was omitted from the computation 44 An examination Of Table 2 shows that 12 of the items indicating agreement by respondents are found in the area Of student personnel administration; 6 are found in the area Of general institutional govern— ment and 2 are found in the area Of academic administration. Further inspection Of the table reveals that the most frequently selected response for student personnel administration items was response 2 (students share responsibility), while responses 3 (students recommend or advise) and 4 (students would not normally participate) were the most frequently selected responses in the areas of general institutional government and academic administration. Significant Items - Student Personnel Administration Of the 71 items listed in the questionnaire 51 were found to be statistically significant. Those items categorized under the heading Of student personnel administration will be discussed first. Item 7 in the questionnaire dealt with policy formulation in the area Of intramural athletics. An examination of Table 3 reveals that student leaders and student non—leaders differed from the other sample groups by more frequently selecting response 1 (students are primarily responsible). The four remaining sample groups largely agreed in selecting response 2 (students share responsibility) with much smaller percentages selecting response 3 (students recommend or advise). 45 57 SNL - Student non—leaders SL - Student leaders FNL - Faculty non—leaders FL - Faculty leaders AA — Academic administrators SPA - Student personnel administrators l-PR - Primarily responsible Z-SR - Share responsibility 3~RA - Recommend or advise 4-WNNP - Would not normally participate 5—NO - No opinion TABLE 357 Scale: l-PR Z—SR 3-RA 4-WNNP S-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N °/o % N % N % SNL 39 43.8 40 44.9 6 6.7 2.2 2 2.2 89 100 SL 42 43.7 40 41.6 13 13.5 0.0 1 1.0 96 100 FNL 25 31.2 47 58.7 8 10.0 0.0 0 0.0 80 100 FL 16 22.2 47 65.2 7 9.7 0.0 2 2.7 72 100 AA 7 19.4 24 66.6 4 11.1 0.0 l 2.8 36 100 SPA 6 13.9 30 69.7 5 11.6 4.6 0 0.0 43 100 DF 20 X2 41 .197 Significant at .01 level 46 With respect to student publications (Item 9) Table 4 reveals an even greater difference Of Opinion between student leaders and student non—leaders and the other, sample groups. Both student groups by large majorities selected response 1 (students are primarily responsi— ble) while respondents in the remaining sample groups most frequently selected response 2 (students share responsibility). TABLE 4 Scale: ' 1-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 62 69.6 26 29.2 1 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 89 100 SL 77 80.2 16 16.6 3 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 96 100 FNL 33 41.2 41 51.2 5 6.2 1 1.2 0 0.0 80 100 FL 32 44.4 36 50.0 4 5.6 o 0.0 o 0.0 72 100 AA 16 44.4 18 50.0 2 5.6 o 0.0 o 0.0 36 100 SPA 17 38.6 25 56.8 1 2.3 o 0.0 1 2.3 44 100 DF 20 X2 62.122 Significant at .01 level 47 The responses to Item 10 (cultural programs) listed in Table 5 suggests that faculty leaders and faculty non—leaders are more reluctant than the other sample groups tO involve students in sharing the respon— sibility for policy formulation in the cultural program area. Academic administrators tend to agree with student non-leaders and student personnel administrators more nearly agree with student leaders. TABLE 5 Scale: l-PR 2 -SR 3—RA 4-WNNP 5—NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SN1. 16 17.8 55 61.1 17 18.9 1 1.1 1 1.1 90 100 SL 17 17.7 69 71.9 10 10.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 96 100 FNI. 2 2.5 43 53.7 33 41.2 2 2.5 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 41 56.9 31 43.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 72 100 AA 5 13.9 22 61.1 6 16.7 2 5.6 1 2.8 36 100 SPA 4 9.1 34 77.3 6 13.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 72.908 Significant at .01 level 48 Item 12 in the questionnaire was listed as use Of student records. As inspection Of Table 6 reveals that student leaders and student non- leaders most frequently selected either response 1 (students are primarily responsible) or response 2 (students share responsibility). The majority Of individuals in the remaining sample groups selected response 3 (students recommend or advise). TABLE 6 Scale: 1—PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP S-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNI. 18 20.0 32 35.6 21 23.3 15 16.7 4 4.4 90 100 SL 13 13.5 43 44.8 22 22.9 12 12.5 6 6.2 96 100 FNL. 5 6.2 16 20.0 42 52.5 16 20.0 1 1.2 80 100 FL 1 1.4 12 16.7 42 58.3 16 22.2 1 1.4 72 100 AA 1 2.8 12 33.3 19 52.8 4 11.1 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 1 2.3 9 20.4 25 56.8 9 20.4 0 0.0 44 100 DF 15 x2 49.232 Significant at .01 level 49 Item 13 in the questionnaire concerned student driving and park— ing regulations. As indicated in Table 7 respondents from all but two Of the sample groups (faculty leaders and faculty non-leaders) most frequently selected response 2 (students share responsibility). The majority of the faculty respondents selected response 3 (students recommend or advise). Student leaders and student personnel adminis- trators were almost identical in their responses to this item. The results leave little doubt that the majority Of the respondents feel that students should share in the responsibility for formulating policy with respect to student driving and parking regulations . TABLE 7 Scale: l-PR 2—SR 3-RA 4—WNNP S—NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N °/o N % N % N °/o SNL 7 7.8 46 51.1 32 35.6 5 5.6 0 0.0 90. 100 SL 6 6.2 60 62.5 28 29.1 2 2.1 0 0.0 96 ‘ 100 FNL 2 2.5 25 31.2 42 52.5 11 13.8 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 23 32.4 44 62.0 4 5.6 0 0.0 71 100 AA 2 5.6 19 52.8 14 38.9 1 2.8 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 1 2.3 28 63.6 13 29.5 2 4.5 0 0.0 44 100 DF 15 x2 49.232 Significant at .01 level 50 In Table 8 the responses tO Item 16, student radio stations, are listed. An inspection Of the table quickly reveals why the null hypothesis was rejected. Student leaders and student non—leaders most frequently felt that students should have primary responsibility while the respond— ents with remaining groups most frequently felt that this should be a shared responsibility. TABLE 8 Scale: ' l—PR 2-SR 3—RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL ' Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 61 67.8 25 27.8 3 3.3 0 0.0 1 1.1 90 100 SL 67 69.8 29 30.2 0 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 96 100 FNL 28 35.0 40 50.0 11 13.7 1 0.0 0 0.0 80 100 FL 28 38.9 41 56.9 3 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 72 100 AA 15 41.7 19 52.8 1 2.8 0 0.0 1 2.8 36 100 SPA 16 36.4 26 59.1 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 2.3 44 100 DF 20 x2 66.221 Significant at .01 level 51 Item 17 was concerned with Off—campus speakers. As indicated in Table 9 student leaders and student non—leaders differed from the other sample groups by more frequently selecting response, 1 (students are primarily responsible). The remaining sample groups, however, felt that this should be a shared responsibility. A significant percent- age Of the faculty non—leaders (30%) and of faculty leaders (25%) , however, selected response 3 (students recommend or advise). TABLE 9 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3—RA 4-WNNP S—NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 40 44.4 26 28.9 14 15.6 3 3.3 7 7.8 90 100 SL 41 42.7 41 42.7 7 7.3 1. 1.0 6 6.2 96 100 FNL 14 17.5 40 50.0 24 30.0 2 2.5 0 0.0 80 100 FL 11 15.2 41 56.9 18 25.0 1 1.4 1 1.4 72 100 AA 4 11.1 28 77.8 3 8.3 O 0.0 1 2.8 36 100 SPA 9 20.4 31 70.4 4 9.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 81.403 Significant at .01 level 52 The responses given for Item 32 , women's Closing hours, are found in Table 10. Although student leaders and student non-leaders selected response 2 (students share responsibility) most frequently, 37.8% Of student non—leaders along with 33 .3% Of the student leaders felt that students should be primarily responsible. Academic adminis- trators and student personnel administrators, however, in their responses felt that students should share in the responsiblity while faculty non- leaders more frequently indicated (45%) that students should recommend or advise . TABLE 10 Scale: l-PR Z-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP S—NO TOTAL Sample Gromgs N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 34 37.8 43 47.8 12 13.3 1 1.1 0 0.0 90 100 SL 32 33.3 52 54.1 11 11.5 1 1.0 0 0.0 96 100 FNL 17 21.2 24 30.0 36 45.0 3 3.7 0 0.0 80 100 FL 9 12.5 34 47.2 26 36.1 2 2.8 1 1.3 72 100 AA 4 11.1 22 61.1 9 25.0 1 2.8 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 5 11.4 30 68.2 9 20.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 68.183 Significant at .01 level 53 Item 36 concerned the use Of student union facilities. Although an inspection of Table 11 reveals that response 2 (students share responsibility) was the most frequently selected response by all sample groups, 33 . 3% Of the student non-leaders and 42% Of the student leaders felt that students should be primarily responsible. Consequently the null hypothesis was rejected. TABLE 1 1 Scale: ‘ 1-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP S—NO TOTAL Sample Gropps N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 30 33.3 53 58.9 5 5.6 0 0.0 2 2.2 90 100 SL 41 42.7 48 50.0 7 7.3 0 0.0 O 0.0 96 100 FNL 11 13.7 56 70.0 12 15.0 1 1.2 O 0.0 80 100 FL 13 18.1 47 65.3 11 15.3 1 1.4 0 0.0 72 100 AA 6 17.1 26 74.3 2 5.7 1 2.9 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 5 11.4 35 79.5 4 9.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 X2 48.919 Significant at .01 level 54 The responses for Item 43, the Placement Center, are listed in Table 12 . Academic administrators and student personnel adminis— trators differed from the remaining sample groups by more frequently selecting response 3 (students recommend or advise). Faculty leaders had the highest percentage (40. 3%) Of individuals selecting response 2 (students share responsibility) while student leaders and student non- leaders had the highest percentage Of individuals selecting response 4 (students would not normally participate). TABLE 12 Scale: l—PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 3 3.3 28 31.1 42 46.7 12 13.3 5 5.6 90 100 SL 2 2.1 31 32.3 48 51.0 11 11.5 3 3.3 96 100 FNL 5 6.2 25 31.2 47 58.7 3 3.7 0 0.0 80 100 FL 1 1.4 29 40.3 37 51.4 5 6.9 0 0.0 72, 100 AA 0 0.0 9 25.7 25 71.4 0 0.0 1 2.9 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 5 11.4 34 77.3 S 11.4 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 X2 40.492 Significant at .01 level 55 Item 44 was concerned with scholarships and financial aids. An inspection Of Table 13 reveals that student leaders differed from the other sample groups by more frequently selecting response 4 (students would not normally participate). Faculty leaders on the other hand selected reSponse 4 less frequently than any other sample groups and had the highest percentage (66.7%) Of individuals that felt students should recommend or advise. Student non—leaders tended to agree with student leaders that students should not be primarily responsible or even share responsibility for policy formulation in this area. TABLE 13 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups i N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 0 0.0 20 22.2 39 43.3 29 32.2 2 2.2 90 100 SL 2 2.1 18 18.9 34 35.8 38 40.0 3 3.2 95 100, FNL 0 0.0 14 17.5 49 61.2 17 21.2 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 14 19.4 48 66.7 10 13.9 0 0.0 72 100 AA 1 2.9 5 14.3 21 60.0 8 22.9 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 4 9.1 23 52.3 16 36.4 1 2.3 44 100 DF 20 x2 39.301 Significant at .01 level 56 The responses tO Item 46, Off-campus housing, are found in Table 14. Once again the differences are a matter Of degree. Student non-leaders and student leaders felt that students should be either primarily responsible or share the responsibility. Individuals in the other sample groups were more inclined to feel that students' should recommend or advise with respect to policy formulation in Off—campus housing. TABLE 14 Scale: l—PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP S-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 23 25.6 33 36.7 25 27.8 3 3.3 6 6.7 90 100 SL 14 14.6 42 43.7 33 34.4 3 3.1 4 4.1 96 100 FNL 7 8.7 27 33.7 39 48.7 3 3.7 4 5.0 80 100 PL 8 11.1 26 36.1 33 45.8 1 1.4 4 5.6 72 100 AA 3 8.6 9 25.7 18 51.4 4 11.4 1 2.9 35 100 SPA 2 4.5 17 38.6 25 54.5 2.3 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 X2 36.991 Significant at .01 level 57 The responses for Item 47,, residence hall housing services, are listed in Table 15 . Student leaders and student non-leaders were more inclined to feel that students should share the responsibility for policy formulation in this area . The majority Of individuals in the other sample groups, however, felt that students should recommend or advise . TABLE 15 Scale: 1 -PR 2-SR 3—RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNI. 7 7.8 43 47.8 27 30.0 9 10.0 4 4.4 90 100 SL 1 1.0 51 53.1 41 42.7 2 2.1 l 1.0 96 100 FNI. 4 5.0 25 31.2 48 60.0 2 2.5 1 1.2 80 100 FL- 0 0.0 30 41.6 39 54.1 2 2.8 1 1.4 72 100 AA 0 0.0 12 34.3 20 57.1 2 5.7 1 2.9‘ 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 17 38.6 25 56.8 2 4.5 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 44.543 Significant at .01 level 58 Item 49 is listed in the questionnaire as married housing services. An inspection Of Table 16 reveals that the majority Of respondents in all the sample groups with the exception Of the student leaders and student non—leaders felt that students should recommend or advise with respect tO policy formulation in this area . Student non—leaders were more inclined than student leaders to favor greater participation on the part Of students . It is interesting to note, however, that 10% Of the student non-leaders and 14. 6% of the student leaders felt that students would not normally participate in policy formulation for this area. TABLE 16 Scale: l—PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 12 13.3 33 36.7 26 28.9 9 10.0 10 11.1 90 100 SL ' 4 4.1 27 28.1 42 43.7 14 14.6 9 9.4 96 100 FNL 6 7.5 27 33.7 42 52.5 4 5.0 1 1.2 80 100 FL 2 2.8 26 36.1 40 55.6 2 2.8 2 2.8 72 100 AA 0 0.0 12 34.3 19 54.3 3 8.6 1 2.3 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 11 25.0 30 68.2 3 6.8 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 ' x2 52.918 Significant at .01 level 59 The responses for Item 52, Counseling Center services, are listed in Table 17 . The most frequently selected response by all sample groups was reSponse 3' (students recommend or advise) . Student leaders and student non—leaders, however, felt to a greater extent than the other sample groups that students should share the responsi- bility for policy formulation in this area . It is interesting to note that student personnel administrators more frequently selected response 4 (students would not normally participate) than any Of the other sample groups. TABLE 17 Scale: 1 -PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP S-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 4 4.4 18 20.0 50 55.6 14 15.6 4 4.4 90 100 SL 4 4.2 30 31.2 50 52.1 11 11.4 1 1.0 96 100 FNL 4 5.0 12 15.0 60 75.0 4 5.0 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 14 19.4 53 73.6 5 6.9 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 3 8.6 31 88.6 1 2.9 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 2 4.5 32 72.7 10 22.7 0 0.0 44 100 DF'20 x2 54.962 Significant at .01 level 60 The responses given for Item 53 , student health and accident insurance, are found in Table 18. An inspection Of the table reveals that faculty non-leaders and faculty leaders more frequently selected response 1 (students primarily responsible) than did student leaders and student non—leaders. Similarly academic administrators and student personnel administrators along with faculty leaders and faculty non- leaders selected response 2 (students share responsibility) more frequently than student leaders and student non—leaders. On the other hand student leaders and student non—leaders more frequently selected response 4 (students would not normally participate) than any Of the other sample groups. It is interesting to note that at Michigan State University student leaders are in fact primarily responsible for policy formulation in this area. TABLE 18 Scale: _ 1-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4—WNNP s-No TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL. ' 9 10.0 22 24.4 35 38.9 18 20.0 6 6.7 90 100 SL 14 14.6 23 24.0 31 32.3 18 18.7 10 10.4 96 100 FNL. 11 13.7 31 38.7 32 40.0 6 7.5 0 0.0 80 100 PL 12 16.7 29 40.3 27 37.5 1 1.4 3 4.1 72 100 AA 7 20.0 17 48.6 10 28.6 1' 2.9 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 9 20.4 20 45.4 13 29.5 2 4.5 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 53.626 Significant at .01 level 61 Item 56 was concerned with student orientation programs. An inspection of Table 19 reveals that the majority Of student leaders and student personnel administrators felt that students should share the responsibility for policy formulation in this area . Student non—leaders, faculty leaders, faculty non—leaders and academic administrators, however, favored students recommending or advising with reSpect to policy formulation . TABLE 19 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 5 5.6 30 33.3 44 48.9 6 6.7 5 5.6 90 100 SL 12 12.5 53 55.2 28 29.1 2 2.1 l 1.0 96 100 FNL 7 8.7 28 35.0 36 45.0 9 11.2 0 0.0 80 100 FL 1 1.4 27 37.5 42 58.3 2 2.8 0 0.0 72 100 AA 1 2.9 13 37.1 20 57.1 1 2.9 0 0.0 35 100 SPA l 2.3 29 65.9 13 29.5 1 2.3 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 59.693 Significant at .01 level 62 The responses given for Item 59, evaluation Of students, are listed in Table 20. Student leaders and student non-leaders in compari— son with the other sample groups more frequently felt that students ShOLlId either be primarily responsible or should share the responsibility for policy formulation in this area. Faculty leaders, academic adminis— trators and student personnel administrators more frequently felt, Faculty non— however, that students should recommend or advise. leaders most frequently felt that students would not normally participate. TABLE 20 Scale: l-PR Z—SR 3-RA 4-WNNP S—NO TOTAL Sample Groups N %_ N % N % N % N % N % SNL 11 12.2 30 33.3 16 17.8 26 28. 7 7.8 90 100 SL 10 10.4 39 40.6 24 25.0 15 15. 8 8.3 96 100 FNL 2 2.5 12 15.0 29 36.2 36 45. 1 1.2 80 100 PL 0 0.0 14 19.4 30 41.7 23 31. 5 6.9 72 100 AA 0 0.0 8 22.8 18 51.4 8 22. 1 2.9 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 14 31.8 21 47.7 9 20. 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 74.754 Significant at .01 level 63 Item 68 concerned the promotion Of dean Of students staff. The responses are listed in Table 21. The most frequently selected response by individuals in all sample groups was response 4 (students would not normally participate). However, 28.5% Of the academic administrators and 26.2% Of the faculty non-leaders along with 20.8% Of the student leaders felt that students should recommend or advise with respect to policy formulation in this area. TABLE 21 Scale: l—PR Z-SR 3—RA 4-WNNP S-NO TOTAL Sample GI'OLHDS N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 3 3.4 7 7.9 13 14.6 59 66.3 7 7.9 89 100 SL 0 0.0 7 7.3 20 20.8 67 69.8 2 2.1 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 8 10.0 121 26.2 48 60.0 3 3.7 80 100 PL 1 1.4 l 1.4 14 19.4 53 73.6 3 4.1 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 28.5 24 68.5 1 2.9 35- 100 SPA 0 0.0 1 2.3 5 11.4 38 86.4 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 32.163 Significant at .05 level 64 The responses given for Item 69, student conduct, are listed in Table 22. Response 2 (students share responsibility) was the most frequently selected response by all the sample groups. Twenty-three percent Of the student non—leaders along with 17.7% Of the student leaders, however, felt that students should be primarily responsible. Forty percent Of the faculty non-leaders and 34.7% Of the faculty leaders felt that students should recommend or advise. TABLE 2 2 Scale: l-PR Z-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 21 23.3 50 55.5 15 16.7 4 4.4 O 0.0 90 100 SL 17 17.7 69 72.0 7 7.3 3 3.1 0 0.0 96 100 FNL 11 13.7 32 40.0 32 40.0 5 6.2 0 0.0 80 100 FL 3 4.1 42 58.3 25 34.7 2 2.8 0 0.0 72 100 AA 2 5.7 22 62.9 9 25.7 2 5.7 0 0.0 35' 100 SPA 2 4.5 30 68.2 11 25.0 1 2.3 0 0.0 44 100 DF 15 x2 52.693 Significant at .01 level 65 Sigpificant Items — General Institutional Government The responses tO Item 3, tuition Charges and fees, are found in Table 23. Although a majority Of the respondents in all the sample groups but one felt that students would not normally participate in policy formulation dealing with tuition charges and fees, significant percentages felt that students should recommend or advise. Student non-leaders and student leaders specifically felt that students should be involved to a greater degree by either having the responsibility, or recommending and advising with respect to policy formulation in this area. TABLE 23 Scale: 1-PR Z-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP S—NO TOTAL Sample Gropps N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 0 0.0 14 15.6 33 36.7 39 43.3 4 4.4 90 100 SL 1 1.0 11 11.5 31 32.3 51 53.1 2 2.1 96 100 'FNL 0 0.0 4 5.0 24 30.0 52 65.0 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 27.8 52 72.2 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 11.1 32 88.9 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 27.9 31 72.1 0 0.0 43 100 DF 20 X2 54.495 Significant at .01 level 66 The responses to Item 4., residence hall room and board rates, are given in Table 24. An inspection Of the table reveals that both student leaders and student non-leaders felt that students should be involved to a greater degree with (respect to policy formulation in this area than the other sample groups. Academic administrators and student personnel administrators were the most reluctant to involve students while faculty leaders and faculty non—leaders were more inclined towards greater student participation. TABLE 24 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample . Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 0 0.0 17 18.9 37 41.1 33 36.7 3 3.3 90 100 SL 1 1.0 15 15.6 32 33.3 47 49.0 1 1.0 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 7 8.7 32 40.0 41 51.2 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 l 1.4 32 44.4 39 54.2 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 33.3 24 66.7 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 2 4.5 11 25.0 31 70.4 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 X2 43.901 Significant at .01 level 67 Item 5 dealt with the design and construction Of new buildings. An inspection of Table 25 reveals that the majority Of both student leaders and student non—leaders felt that students should be involved in either sharing the responsibility or recommending and advising with respect tO the design and construction Of new buildings. The majority Of faculty leaders and faculty non—leaders felt that students should not normally participate although many indicated that students should recom- mend Or advise. The high number Of student personnel administrators that selected response 3 (students recommend or advise) undoubtedly recognized the contribution students can make with respect to the design Of living units . TABLE 25 Scale: l—PR Z-SR 3—RA 4-WNNP 5—NO TOTAL Sample Grows N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 0 0.0 12 13.3 40 44.4 36 40.0 2 2.2 90' 100 SL 0 0.0 8 8.3 55 57.3 32 33.3 1 1.0 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 3 3.7 35 43.7 42 52.5 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 0 0.0 33 45.8 39 54.2 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 44.4 18 50.0 2 5.6 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 2 4.5 36 81.8 6 13.6 0 0.0 44 100 DF 15 x2 51.874 Significant at .01 level 68 The responses to Item 6 (intercollegiate athletics) in the questionnaire are found in Table 26. Student non—leaders most frequently felt that students should share the responsibility for policy formula- tion. in this area although many (24.7%) felt that students should not normally participate. Student leaders along with faculty non—leaders most frequently selected response 3 (students recommend or advise). The majority of faculty leaders, academic administrators and student personnel administrators felt that students should recommend or advise although rather significant percentages felt that the responsibility should be shared . TABLE 26 Scale: 1-PR Z—SR 3—RA 4-WNNP S-NO TOTAL Sample Groug N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 4 4.5 31 34.8 30 33.7 22 24.7 2 2.2 89 100 SL 10 10.4 32 33.3 38 39.6 14 14.6 2 2.1 96 100 FNL 1 1.2 30 37.5 38 47.5 10 12.5 1 1.2 80 100 FL 1 1.4 26 36.1 39 54.1 4 5.6 2 2.8 72 100 AA 0 0.0 10 27.8 23 63.9 3 8.3 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 11 25.6 23 53.5 8 18.6 1 2.3 43 100 DF 20 x2 39.232 Significant at .01 level 69 Item 8 in the questionnaire dealt with the promotion of adminis- trative Officers . An inspection Of Table 27 reveals that a majority of the respondents in all the sample groups felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation in this area. Student non— leaders along with student leaders and faculty non—leaders, however, selected response 4 in lesser numbers than the other sample groups and indicated a desire tO involve students through recommending or advising. TABLE 27 Scale: l-PR Z-SR 3-RA 4—WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 0 0.0 9 10.0 16 17.8 64 71.1 1 1.0 90 100 SL 0 0.0 2 2.1 24 25.0 69 71.9 1 1.0 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 6 7.5 12 15.0 62 77.5 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 13.9 62 86.1 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 8.3 32 88.9 1 2.8 36 100 SPA 1 2.3 0 0.0 5 11.4 38 86.4 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 38.881 Significant at .01 level 70 The responses to Item 11 , budget apprOpriations to colleges and departments within the university are found in Table 28. An inspection of the table reveals that the majority of respondents in all sample groups felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation in this area. Significant percentages, however, in the student non—leader group (23. 3%) and the student leader group (24%) felt that students should recommend or advise. Academic administrators and faculty leaders in particular felt that students had little to Offer by participating in policy formulation in this area. TABLE 28 Scale: l-PR 2—SR 3—RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groupg N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 1 1.1 6 6.7 21 23.3 61 67.8 1 1.1 90 100 SL 0 0.0 3 3.1 23 24.0 68 70.8 1 2.1 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 3 2.5 6 7.5 72 90.0 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.8 70 97.2 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.8 35 97.2 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 6.7 41 93.3 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 53.020 Significant at .01 level 71 Item 14 was listed in the questionnaire as faculty driving and parking regulations. An inspection of Table 29 reveals that faculty leaders and faculty non-leaders by substantial majorities felt that students should not be involved in policy formulation in this area. Student non-leaders and student leaders along with academic adminis- trators and student personnel administrators, however, were more inclined to involve students through recommending or advising or sharing the responsibility for policy formulation. TABLE 29 Scale: l-PR 2—SR 3—RA 4—WNNP 5—NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 1 1.1 21 23.3 25 27.8 43 47.8 0 0.0 90 100 SL 0 0.0 21 21.9 30 31.2 44 45.8 1 1.0 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 8 10.0 11 13.7 61 76.2 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 5 7.1 15 21.1 51 71.8 0 0.0 71 100 AA 0 0.0 7 19.4 12 33.3 17 47.2 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 9 20.4 15 34.1 20 45.4 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 X2 38.682 Significant at .01 level 72 In Table 30 the responses to Item 15, solicitation Of funds by faculty, are summarized. The most frequently selected response by individuals in all Six sample groups was response 4 (students would not normally participate) . Student non-leaders, student leaders , and student personnel administrators, however, by their selections, indi- cated strong support for involving students either by having students share the responsibility or through students recommending or advising in this area Of policy formulation. The greater number Of responses in the no opinion category for this item as compared with other items could indicate a lack of concern on the part of many Of the respondents for this area Of policy formulation. TABLE 30 Scale: 1—PR 2—SR 3—RA 4—WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 3 3.4 15 16.8 19 21.3 38 42.7 14 15.7 89 100 SL 0 0.0 18 18.7 19 19.8 41 42.7 18 18.7 96 100 FNL 2 2.5 6 7.5 15 18.7 45 54.2 12 15.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 2 2.8 6 8.6 39 55.7 23 32.8 70 100 AA 0 0.0 3 8.3 2 5.6 19 52.8 12 33.3 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 7 15.9 11 25.0 21 47.7 5 11.4 44 100 DP 20 X2 43.997 Significant at .01 level 73 Item 21 was listed in the questionnaire as use Of the university mail distribution system. The results are presented in Table 31 . An inspection of the table reveals that student non-leaders, student leaders and student personnel administrators largely agree that students should either share in this responsibility or should recommend or advise. Faculty non—leaders, faculty leaders and academic administrators, however, are more inclined to involve students through recommending or advising. A significant number Of respondents in the latter three groups felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation in this area. TABLE 31 Scale: 1-PR 2—SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 4 4.5 35 39.3 28 31.5 17 19.1 5 5.6 89 100 SL 4 3.2 44 46.3 33 34.7 13 13.7 2 2.1 95 100 FNL 0 0.0 15 18.7 35 43.7 28 35.0 2 2.5 80 100 FL 0 0.0 11 15.3 34 47.2 22 30.6 5 6.9 72 100 AA 0 0.0 6 16.7 18 50.0 12 33.3 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 17 38.6 19 43.2 8 18.2 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 55.704 Significant at .01 level 74 The responses tO Item 32, degree requirements, are listed in Table 32. The majority Of the respondents in all the sample groups with the exception of the student leaders and student non—leaders felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation in this area. The majority Of respondents among both the student leaders and the student non—leaders felt that students should either recommend and advise or share the responsibility for policy formulation with respect to degree requirements. It can also be observed that while the majority Of the respondents in non-student groups felt that students should not normally participate, Significant numbers selected response 3 (students recommend or advise) . TABLE 32 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4—WNNP 5—NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 0 0.0 9 10.0 38 42.2 42 46.7 1 1.1 90 100 SL 0 0.0 15 16.0 41 43.6 36 38.3 2 2.1 94 100 FNL 0 0.0 2 2.5 27 33.7 51 63.7 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 2 2.8 19 26.4 51 70.8 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 36.1 23 63.9 0 0.0 ’36 100 SPA 0 0.0 2 4.5 15 34.1 27 61.4 0 0.0 44 100 DP 15 x2 38.237 Significant at .01 level 75 Item 29 was listed in the questionnaire as military training (ROTC programs). The responses are given in Table 33. Student leaders and student non—leaders differed from the other sample groups by more frequently indicating that students should be primarily responsible or should share the responsibility for policy formulation in this area . Faculty non-leaders, faculty leaders, academic administrators and student personnel administrators on the other hand were more inclined to involved students through recommending or advising. TABLE 33 Scale: 1-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 18 20.2 19 21.3 24 26.9 16 18.0 12 13.5 89 100 SL 14 14.6 21 21.9 30 31.2 16 16.7 15 15.6 96 100 FNL 6 7.5 16 20.0 37 46.2 18 22.5 3 3.7 80 100 PL 1 1.4 8 11.1 33 45.8 21 29.2 9 12.5 72 100 AA; 1 2.8 5 13.9 20 55.6 9 25.0 1 2.8 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 9 20.4 22 25.0 11 25.0 2 4.5 44 100 DP 20 x2 53.092 Significant at .01 level 76 The responses given for Item 35, faculty sabbaticals, are found in Table 34. An inspection Of the table reveals that the large majority Of the respondents in all sample groups felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation in this area. Student leaders, however, frequently indicated (20%) that students should be involved through recommending or advising. To a lesser degree student non- leaders (10.1%) and student personnel administrators (ll .3%) also indicated a preference for involving students through recommending or advising. TABLE 34 Scale: l-PR Z-SR 3-RA 4—WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 0 0.0 3 3.4 9 10.1 72 80.9 5 5.6 89 100 SL 2 2.1 2 2.1 19 20.0 60 63.2 12 12.6 95 100 FNL 0 0.0 1 1.2 7 8.7 72 90.0 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 5.6 67 93.1 1 1.4 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 8.6 32 91.4 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 l 2.3 5 11.3 38 86.4 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 49.599 Significant at .01 level . 77 Item 61 was listed in thegquestionnaire as library resources and procedures. The responses are listed in Table 35 . In examining the table it is clear that the majority of the respondents felt that students should be involved in policy formulation for this area through recommending or advising. Student non—leaders, however, were almost equally divided in their thinking between involving students through recommending or advising. Academic administrators, on the other hand, by a large majority (85. 7%) indicated their preferences for involv- ing students through recommending or advising with respect to policy formulation in this area. TABLE 35 Scale: 1 -PR 2—SR 3-RA 4—WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample 1 Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL. 2 2.2 37 41.1 40 44.4 8 8.9 3 3.3 90 100 SL 3 3.1 20 20.8 62 64.6 8 8.3 3 3.1 96~ 100 FNT. 1 1(2 15 18.7 54 67.5 10 12.5 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 13 18.1 55 76.4 3 4.2 l 1.4 72 100 AA 0 0.0 4 11.4 30 85.7 1 2.9 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 9 20.4 33 75.0 2 4.5 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 41.671 Significant at .01 level 78 The responses for Item 30, faculty conduct, are found in Table 36. An inSpection Of the table reveals that faculty leaders in particular felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation for this area . Although the majority of faculty non—leaders, academic administrators and student personnel administrators agreed with the faculty leaders, many Of the former felt that students should be involv- ed through recommending Or advising. The majority Of both the student leaders and student non-leaders felt that students should be involved either through sharing the responsibility or through recommending and advising with respect to policy formulation in this area. TABLE 36 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5—NO TOTAL Sample Grows % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 1.1 14 15.6 34 37. 37 41. 4.4 90 100 SL 1.1 16 16.7 45 46. 29 30. 5 5.2 96 100 FNL 0.0 4 5.0 32 40. 43 53. l 1.2 80 100 FL 0.0 2 2.8 18 25. 51 70. l 1.4 72 100 AA 0.0 2 5.6 14 38. 19 52. 1 2.8 36 100 SPA 0.0 l 2.3 14 31. 28 63. 1 2.3 44 100 X2 46.186 Significant at .01 level 79 Significant Items - Academic Administration Of the 51 items listed in the questionnaire that were found to be statistically significant, 17 can be categorized under the heading Of academic administration. The first item under this heading in the questionnaire was Item 23, cheating in the classroom. The responses are found in Table 37. Student leaders, faculty leaders, academic administrators and student personnel administrators pretty much agree that students should be involved in policy formulation in this area through sharing the responsibility. Student non-leaders and faculty non-leaders, however, were not as strong in their support Of students sharing the responsibility as the other sample groups. Of the student non—leaders, for example, 44. 5% felt that students should recommend . or advise or should not normally participate. A similar percentage can be observed in viewing the reSponses Of the faculty non-leaders . TABLE 37 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3—RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SN1. 17 18.9 32 35.6 25 27.8 15 16.7 1 1.1 90 100 SL 16 17.0 59 62.8 14 14.9 5 5.3 0 0.0 94 100 FNL. 6 7.5 34 42.5 28 35.0 12 15.0 0 0.0 80 100 PL 2 2.8 45 62.5 20 -27.8 4' 5.6 1 1.4 72 100 AA 0 0.0 24 66.7 12 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 2 4.5 25 56.8 12 27.3 5 11.4 0 0.0 44 106— DF 20 x2 55.581 Significant at .01 level 80 The responses to Item 24, faculty evaluation, are listed in Table 38. An inspection of the table reveals that faculty non-leaders, faculty leaders, academic administrators and student personnel adminis- trators largely agree that students should participate in policy formula— tion in this area through recommending or advising. Student leaders and student non—leaders, on the other hand, strongly indicate that students Should share) in this responsibility. Many student non- leaders (28.9%) felt that students should have primary responsibility for policy formulation in this area. TABLE 38 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP ‘ 5-NO TOTAL Sample . Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNI. 26 28.9 45 50.0 15 16.7 4 4.4 0 0.0 90 100 SL 14 14.9 60 63.8 14 14.9 6 6.4 0 0.0 94 100 FNL. 5 6.2 25 31.2% 38 47.5 11 13.7 1 1.2 80 100 PL 5 6.9 24 33.3 38 52.8 5 6.9 0 0.0 72 100 AA 3 8.3 13 36.1 19 52.8 1 2.8 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 17 38.6 25 56.8 2 4.5 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 93.600 Significant at .01 level responses are given in Table 39. Item 25 in the questionnaire dealt with faculty selection. 81 The There is little question that faculty non-leaders, faculty leaders, academic administrators and student personnel administrators felt that students should not normally partici— pate in policy formulation in this area. Student leaders and student non—leaders, however, were not as strongly inclined to favor this position with many of the respondents indicating that students should be able to participate through recommending or advising. For example , 37 .8% of the student non-leaders and 36.5% of the student leaders selected response 3 (students participate through recommending or advising) . TABLE 39 Scale: 1—PR 2 —SR 3 -RA 4-WNNP 5 -NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % % N % N % N % N % SNL 1 1.1 8 8.9 34 37.8 47 52.2 0 0.0 90 100 SL 0 0.0 9 9.4 35 36.5 51 53.1 1 1.1 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 1.2 15 18.7 64 80.0 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 12.7 62 87.3 0 0.0 71 100 AA 0 0.0 2.8 4 11.1 30 83.3 1 2.8 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 4.5 12 27.3 30 68.2 0 0.0 44 100 DP 20 x2 53.613 Significant at .01 level 82 The responses to Item 27, course content, are given in Table 40. With the exception Of the faculty leader sample, the majority of the respondents in all the sample groups felt that students should participate in policy formulation in this area through recommending or advising. The majority of the faculty leaders felt that students should not normally participate. Student leaders, on the other hand, had a . significant number (27.1%) that felt that students should share the responsibility for policy formulation in this area . TABLE 40 Scale: 1 -PR 2 -SR 3 -RA 4-WNNP 5 -NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL , 1 1.1 14 15.7 55 61.8 19 21.3 0 0.0 89 100 SL 1 1.1 26 27.1 58 60.4 11 11.5 0 0.0 96 100 FNL 1 1.2 2 2.5 43 53.7 34 42.5 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 2 2.8 29 40.3 41 56.9 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 2 5.6 24 66.7 10 27.8 0 0.0 36 100 SPA 0 0.0 4 9.1 25 56.8 15 34.1 0 0.0 44 100 DF 15 x2 72.135 Significant at .01 level 83 Item 28 in the questionnaire was concerned with class attend- ance. The responses are listed in Table 41 . Differences in the percep— tion Of student involvement in policy formulation in this area are clearly apparent. Student non—leaders and student leaders were strong in their support of students being primarily responsible or in sharing the responsi— bility for policy formulation in this area. Faculty non-leaders and faculty leaders, on the other hand, were more inclined to support the position that students should not normally participate. The majority of academic administrators and student personnel administrators, however, felt that students should participate in policy formulation through recommending or advising. TABLE 41 Scale: 1-PR 2—SR 3—RA 4—WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 34 37.8 20 22.2 24 26.7 12 13.3 0 0.0 90 100 SL 32 33.3 32 33.3 24 25.0 6 6.2 2 2.1 96 100 FNL 6 7.5 21 26.2 21 26.2 30 37.5 2 2.5 80 100 PL 15 20.8 7 9.7 24 33.3 25 34.7 1 1.4 72 100 AA 1 2.8 8 22.2 21 58.3 4 11.1 2 5.6 36 100 SPA 1 2.3 6 13.6 26 59.1 9 20.4 2 4.5 44 100 DF 20 X2 107.408 Significant at .01 level 84 The responses given for Item 37, methods of instruction, are ‘ listed in Table 42. Respondents in all the sample groups primarily agreed that students should be involved in policy formulation in this area through recommending or advising. Student non-leaders and student leaders, however, who did not perceive recommending or advising as a means of participation in policy formulation felt that students should share in the responsibility. On the other hand faculty non-leaders, faculty leaders, academic administrators and student personnel administrators who did not perceive students as participating in policy formulation through recommending or advising most frequently felt that students should not normally participate. TABLE 42 Scale: 1—PR Z-SR 3—RA 4—WNNP 5—NO TOTAL Sample . Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 0 0.0 18 20.0 59 65.6 13 14.4 0 0.0 90 100 SL 1 1.1 24 25.0 65 67.7 6 6.2 0 0.0 96 100 FNL 1 1.2 8 10.0 50 62.5 21 26.2 0 0.0 80 100 FL 1 1.4 4 5.6 45 62.5 22 30.6 0 0.0 72 100 AA 1 2.8 3 8.6 23 65.7 8 22.8 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 3 6.8 29 65.9 12 27.2 0 0.0 44 100 DF 15 x2 37.732 Significant at .01 level 85 Item 42 in the questionnaire was concerned with faculty teach— ing loads. The responses are 'summarized in Table 43. The majority of respondents in all sample groups agreed that students should not normally participate in policy formulation in this area . Through an inspection Of the table, however, it can be observed that many student leaders, student non—leaders and student personnel administrators in particular felt that students should be involved in policy formulation in this area through recommending or advising . TABLE 43 Scale: 1-PR 2-SR 3—RA 4—WNNP s-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 0 0.0 3 3.3 24 26.7 58 64.4 5 5.6 90 100 SL 0 0.0 9 9.4 33 34.4 50 52.1 4 4.2 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 2 2.5 18 22.5 60 75.0 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 0 0.0 14' 19.7 57 80.3 o 0.0. 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 17.1 29 82.9 0 0.0 35 100 SPA o 0.0 1 2.3 13 29.5 30 68.2 0 0.0 44 100 DP 15 x2 37.069 Significant at .01 level 86 In Table 44 the responses to Item 45, grading practices, are given. The majority Of respondents in all sample groups, with the exception of the faculty non-leaders, felt that students should partici- pate in policy formulation in this area through recommending or advising. Student leaders who did not perceive students as participating in policy formulation through recommending or advising most often felt that students should share this responsibility with faculty and administrators. On the other hand, faculty non—leaders, faculty leaders, academic administrators and student personnel administrators who did not perceive students as participating through recommending or advising most Often felt that students should not normally participate. TABLE 44 Scale: 1-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4—WNNP S-NO TOTAL Sample Gropps N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 2 2.2 20 22.2 47 52.2 21 23.3 0 0.0 90' 100 SL 0 0.0 28 29.2 55 57.3 11 11.5 2 2.1 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 5 6.2 37 46.2 38 47.5 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 4 5.6 40 55.6 28 38.9 0 0.0 72 100 AA 1 2.9 3 8.6 19 54.3 12 34.3 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 3 6.8 28 63.6 13 29.5 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 65.785 Significant at .01 level 87 Item 48 in the questionnaire was selection Of graduate assist- ants. An inspection of Table 45 reveals that the majority of respondents in all the sample groups, except the student leader group, felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation concern— ing the selection Of graduate assistants. Although student leaders most frequently selected response 4 (students would not normally participate), 34.4% felt that students should participate through recommending or advising. Significant percentages Of student non-leaders (32.2%) along with student personnel administrators (29 .5%) also felt that students should participate in policy formulation in this area through recommend— ing or advising . TABLE 45 Scale: l-PR Z-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 1 1.1 6 6.7 29 32.2 52 57.8 2 2.2 90 100 SL 1 1.0 11 11.5 33 34.4 46 47.9 5 5.2 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 1 1.2 22 27.5 57 71.2 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 16.7 59 81.9 1 1.4 72 100 AA 0 0.0 2 5.7 6 17.1 27 77.1 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 29.5 31 70.4 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 44.883 Significant at .01 level 88 Item 51 in the questionnaire was concerned with policy formulation as related to class size. The responses are summarized in Table 46. With the exception of the academic administrator group, the majority of respondents in all the sample groups felt that students should participate in policy formulation in this area through recommending or advising. Of the academic administrators, 45.7% felt that students should participate through recommending or advising with 40% indicating that students should not normally participated in policy formulation related to class size. A further examination of the table reveals that 25% of the student leaders felt that students should be involved in policy formulation through sharing the responsibility. Student personnel administrators had the lowest percentage of respondents among the non—student groups that felt that students should not normally participate. TABLE 46 Scale: l—PR 2-SR 3-RA 4—WNNP 5—NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 3 3.3 18 20.0 50 55.6 19 21.1 0 0.0 90 100 SL 3 3.1 24 25.0 63 65.6 5 5.2 1 1.0 96 100 FNL 1 1.2 11 13.7 47 58.7 21 26.2 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 2 2.8 45 62.5 25 34.7 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 3 8.6 16 45.7 14 40.0 2 5.7 35 100 SPA 1 2.3 3 6.8 28 63.6 11 25.0 1 2.3 44 100 DP 20 x2 58.699 Significant at .01 level 89 The responses to Item 54, textbook selection, are found in Table 47. The majority Of faculty non—leaders, faculty leaders and academic administrators felt that students should not normally partici- pate in policy formulation related to textbook selection. The majority Of student leaders and student personnel administrators, however, felt that students should participate either through recommending and advis- ing or through sharing the responsibility. Although student non—leaders most frequently (47 .8%) selected response 4 (students would not normally participate), 37.8% selected response 3 (students recommend or advise) and 11 .1% selected response 2 (students share the responsibility). TABLE 47 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 2 2.2 10 11.1 34 37.8 43 47.8 1 1.1 90 100 SL 0 0.0 14 14.6 47 49.0 35 36.5 0 0.0 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 2 2.5 28 35.0 50 62.5 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 29.2 51 70.8 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 2 5.7 8 22.9 25 71.4 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 2 4.5 22 50.0 20 45.4 0 0.0 44 100 DP 20 x2 50.250 Significant at .01 level 90 Item 58 was listed in the questionnaire as academic advising. The responses are listed in Table 48. An inspection Of the table reveals that a majority of the respondents in all the sample groups, with the exception Of the student non—leaders, agree that students should be involved in policy formulation in this area through recommending or advis- ing. A majority of the student non—leaders felt that students should participate either through recommending and advising or through sharing the responsibility for policy formulation as related to academic advising. TABLE 48 Scale: 1 -PR 2 -SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5—NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % AN % SNL 7 7.8 26 29.2 40 44.9 15 16.8 1 1.1 89 100 SL 3 3.1 26 27.1 53 55.2 11 11.4 3 3.1 96 100 FNL 2 2.5 16 20.0 54 67.5 7 8.7 1 1.2 80 100 FL 0 0.0 9 12.5 53 73.6 10 13.9 0 0.0 72 100 AA 1 2.9 10 28.6 22 62.9 2 5.7 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 4 9.1 34 77.3 6 13.6 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 x2 37.703 Significant at .01 level 91 Item 65 in the questionnaire was concerned with student partici- pation in policy formulation as related to the development of new curricula. The responses are summarized in Table 49. A majority of the respondents in all the sample groups agreed that students should partici— pate in policy formulation in this area through recommending or advising. Student non-leaders and student leaders, however, who did not perceive students as participating in policy formulation through recommending or advising most frequently felt that students should share in the responsi- bility for policy formulation. On the other hand, faculty non-leaders, faculty leaders, academic administrators and student personnal adminis- trators who did not perceive students as participating in policy formula- tion through recommending or advising most frequently felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation related to the devel- opment of new curricula. TABLE 49 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3—RA 4—WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Gropps N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 1 1.1 21 23.8 46 52.3 15 17.0 5 5.7 88 100 SL 1 1.0 20 20.8 63 65.6 10 10.4 2 2.1 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 6 7.5 43 53.7 31 38.7 0 0.0 80 100 FL 0 0.0 1 1.4 42 58.3 29 40.2 0 0.0 72 100 AA . 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 57.1 15 42.9 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 5 11.4 29 65.9 10 22.7 0 0.0 44 100 DF 20 X2 69.717 Significant at .01 level 92 Item 67 in the questionnaire was listed as course scheduling. The responses are summarized in Table 50. An inspection Of the table reveals that only in the faculty leader group did the majority of members agree upon a particular response; i.e. , 59.7% Of the faculty leaders felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation related to course scheduling. Respondents in the other sample groups were almost equally divided in their selections between students should recommend and advise or students should not normally participate in policy formulation related to course scheduling. Student leaders and student non—leaders in their selections, however, were more inclined to involve students to a greater degree in policy formulation than the other groups. TABLE 50 Scale: l—PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N 7. N 7. N % N % N 7. N, % SNL 4 4.5 15 16.8 37 41.6 33 37.1 0 0.0 89 100 SL 8 8.3 10 10.4 38 39.6 38 39.6 2 2.1 96 100 FNL 0.0 8.7 34 42. 39 48.7 0.0 80 100 FL 0.0 2.8 27 37. 43 59.7 0.0 72 100 AA 2.8 0 0.0 17 48. 17 £48.6 0.0 35 100 SPA 0.0 4.5 20 45. 21 47.7 2.3 44 100 x2 41.484 Significant at .01 level 93 A summarization of the responses tO Item 60, curriculum require- ments, is found in Table 51. A majority of faculty non—leaders, faculty leaders and academic administrators felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation related to curriculum require— ments. The majority Of student leaders, student non-leaders and academic administrators, however, felt that students should participate through recommending and advising or through sharing the responsibility for policy formulation . TABLE 51 Scale: l—PR 2-SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 1 1.1 15 16.7 44 48.9 28 31.1 2 2.2 90 100 SL 0 0.0 11 11.6 44 46.3 40 42.1 0 0.0 95 100 FNL 1 1.2 4 5.0 28 35.0 47 58.7 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 1 1.4 20 27.8 51 70.8 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 40.0 21 60.0 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 2 4.5 21 47.7 21 47.7 0 0.0 44 100 DP 20 x2 50.666 Significant at .01 level 94 Item 63 in the questionnaire was concerned with student partici- pation in policy formulation as related to the scheduling of final exam— inations. An inspection Of Table 52 reveals that a majority of the respondents in all the groups felt that students should either participate through recommending and advising or through sharing the responsibility for policy formulation in this area . Academic administrators in particu— lar (74.3%) felt that students should be involved in policy formulation through recommending or advising. In all sample groups members who did not perceive students as participating in policy formulation through recommending or advising most frequently felt, however, that students should not normally participate. TABLE 52 Scale: l-PR 2-SR 3-RA 4—WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 1 1.1 22 24.7 34 38.2 30 33.7 2 2.2 89 100 SL 2 2.1 19 19.8 42 43.7 32 33.3 1 1.0 96 100 FNL 0 0.0 9 11.2 34 42.5 37 46.2 0 0.0 80 100 PL 0 0.0 1 1.4 41 56.9 30 41.7 0 0.0 72 100 AA 0 0.0 2 5.7 26 74.3 7 20.0 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 6 13.9 18 41.9 18 41.9 1 2.3 43 100 DP 20 x2 43.291 Significant at .01 level 95 A summary of the responses to Item 71 in the questionnaire, course waivers, is found in Table 53. Student leaders and student non- leaders primarily perceive students as participating in policy formula— tion in this area through recommending and advising or through Sharing the responsibility. The majority of faculty non—leaders, faculty leaders and academic administrators felt that students should not normally participate although substantial minorities felt that students should participate through recOmmending or advising. Student personnel adminis- trators were almost evenly divided in their selections between involving students through recommending and advising or not normally involving students. TABLE 53 Scale: l-PR 2—SR 3-RA 4-WNNP 5-NO TOTAL Sample . Groups N % N % N % N % N % N % SNL 1 1.2 21 24.7 35 41.2 25 29.4 3 3.5 85 100 SL 5 5.4 21 22.8 49 53.3 17 18.5 0 0.0 92 100 FNL 0 0.0 4 5.1 31 39.7 42 53.8 1 1.3 78 100 PL 0 0.0 2 2.8 29 40.3 40 55.6 1 1.4 72 100 AA 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 45.7 19 54.3 0 0.0 35 100 SPA 0 0.0 3 7.0 18 41.9 20 46.5 2 4.6 43 100 DP 20 x2 76.976 Significant at .01 level 96 'An analysis Of the data was presented in this Chapter. In discussing the data the items were grouped under three main categories: student personnel administration, general institutional government, and academic administration. Of the 71 items listed on the questionnaire, significant differences among the comparison groups were found in 51 of the items. A discussion Of each significant item was presented. A summary of the findings along with the conclusion and implications for further study are found in the next chapter. Chapter V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUMMARY The Problem The primary purpose Of the study was to compare perceptions of selected students and faculty members at Michigan State University with respect to student involvement in university policy formulation. Six sample groups were identified for the purpose of determining whether there was any relationship between membership in a group and the perception of the extent students should be involved in university policy formulation. The six sample groups were (1) student non—leaders, (2) student leaders, (3) faculty non-leaders, (4) faculty leaders, (5) academic administrators , and (6) student personnel administrators . The study was conducted during the Fall Term of 1966. At that time the instrument which was used to compare perceptions was mailed to the sample population. Responses from the sample groups ranged from 80% to 96%. The Design and Procedure of the Study A 71 item questionnaire based on functionally identified policy 97 98 areas Of the university was designed to Obtain individual perceptions. On each item individuals were asked to indicate the extent tO which they thought students should be involved in university policy formulation. Responses were indicated on a five point scale. The statistic chi square was used in analyzing the data and the .05 level Of confidence was used to determine statistical significance. In all instances, however, where significant differences in perception among the comparison groups were found, use Of the chi square statistic resulted in the .01 level of confi- dence being Obtained . Findings and Conclusions Findings of the study will be reported in the following way: First those functionally identified areas where there was agreement among students and faculty will be discussed. Secondly, those functionally identified areas in which there was disagreement among students and faculty will be discussed under the three headings: student personnel administration, general institutional government, and academic administration. Areas of Agreement Based on the responses to the items listed in Table 2, it may be concluded that only in certain functionally identified areas was there agreement among students and faculty at Michigan State University with respect to the extent students should be involved in university policy formulation. Generally, the areas of agreement represented the 99 traditionally accepted role of students in university policy formulation. For example, students were perceived as (1) being primarily responsible for policy formulation related to Student government structure or for membership in fraternities and sororities; (2) sharing the responsibility for policy formulation relating to the supervision of social events; and (3) not normally participating in policy formulation relating to the pro- motion Of faculty. It should also be noted that there were more func— tionally identified areas that students and faculty agreed upOn relating to student personnel administration than to either general institutional government or academic administration. Areas Of Disagreement Student Personnel Administration Student leaders and student non—leaders, with few exceptions , felt that students should be more involved in university policy formu- lation than did faculty leaders, faculty non-leaders, academic admin- istrators and student personnel administrators. Students, for example, tended to view their participation in university policy formulation more in terms of shared responsibility with faculty and administration. Faculty and administrators, however, were more inclined to perceive students as participating in university policy formulation through recom- mending Or advising. Academic administrators and student personnel administrators more often agreed with student leaders and student non-leaders concerning 100 the extent that students should participate in university policy formula— tion than did faculty leaders and faculty non-leaders . Academic adminis- trators and student personnel administrators, being more familiar with the problems relating to policy formulation. in the area Of student personnel administration, were more receptive towards student participation . In only one instance (Item 68, promotion Of dean Of students staff) did a majority of the respondents from any of the sample groups feel that students should not normally participate. In considering those items dealing with general institutional government, however, there were ten instances where a majority of the respondents from a given sample group felt that students should not normally participate. In the area of academic administration there were eight instances where a majority of the respondents from a given sample group felt that students should not normally participate. It is clearly evident that student par- ticipation in university policy formulation in the area of student person- nel administration. is perceived as desirable by students and faculty alike. In the areas Of general institutional government and academic administration, however, there was Considerable reluctance to involve students in policy formulation. Perhaps some of the reluctance to involve students in policy formulation stems from a tradition of non-' participation in certain areas. More importantly, however, university faculties and administrators may not have carefully enough (1) identified areas where students may meaningfully participate and contribute in 101 policy formulation or (2) developed procedures for participation that result in a learning experience not only for the student but for the faculty member and administrator. Faculty non-leaders, as compared with the other sample groups, more frequently felt that students Should not normally participate in university policy formulation. Perhaps this attitude on the part Of faculty non—leaders stems from insufficient information about problem ' areas or a lack of experience in utilizing student ideas and concerns with respect to policy formulation. Student non-leaders as compared with student leaders more fre- quently felt that students should be primarily responsible for university policy formulation in a given area . Most student leaders after becoming involved in some area Of policy formulation became less strident in their demands for primary responsibility. Largely this is a result Of gaining greater insight into the complexities Of policy formulation and a greater understanding Of the problems involved. Most respondents tended to view student participation in policy formulation related to the student personnel administration area as either a shared responsibility with faculty and administrators or one in which students recommended or advised. In the student personnel area it would appear that the question is not whether students should be involved in policy formulation but rather should students be involved as equals or as advisors. 102 General Institutional Government In ten of the fourteen items in this area indicating disagreement among students and faculty concerning the extent of student participation in university policy formulation, a majority Of the respondents from one or more of the sample groups felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation. In only four instances out of the ten, however, did a majority Of the student leaders or student non-leaders . feel that students should not normally participate. Students, tradition- ally, at most colleges and universities have not been actively involved in policy formulation concerning tuition, the design and construction Of new buildings and budget appropriations. When students have been involved in a recommending or advising role, however, significant contributions have been made. The question seems to be one Of how best to involve students in gaining their ideas and insights and at the same time recognizing their limitations. In no instances did the majority of respondents from any Of the sample groupings feel that students should be primarily responsible for policy formulation in a given area . Student personnel administrators more Often agreed with student leaders and student non-leaders concerning the extent that students should participate in institutional policy formulation than did faculty leaders, faculty non-leaders, and academic administrators. This was particularly true in those areas concerning faculty and administrators when there were specific student regulations; i.e. , driving and parking, 103 solicitation Of funds, use of university mail system. Faculty leaders, as compared with other sample groups, more frequently felt that students Should not normally participate inuniversity policy formulation related to general institutional government. Such a perception could well be the result Of faculty leaders feeling that students do not have available either the information or the knowledge necessary to make meaningful contributions towards policy formulation in this area. In addition many faculty leaders may feel that students have no business concerning themselves with areas of policy formulation affecting only faculty. Student leaders and student non-leaders most Often felt that students should participate in policy formulation in this area through recommending and advising. The non—student sample groups, as reported previously, most Often felt that students should not normally participate. Students in general seem to recognize their limitations in participating in policy formulatIon in this area. At the same time, however, they want to be consulted with or at least communicated with concerning policy formulation in the area of general institutional government . Academic Administration There were 19 items listed in the questionnaire related to policy formulation in the area Of academic administration. Responses to 17 items indicated disagreement among students and faculty with respect to the extent students should participate in policy formulation. 104 In eight instances a majority of the respondents from one or more sample groups felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation. This finding compares with one instance in the area Of student personnel administration and ten instances in the area Of general institutional government where a majority of the respondents from one or more sample groups felt that students should not normally participate . Faculty leaders and faculty non—leaders more Often felt that students should not normally participate in policy formulation'than student personnel administrators and academic administrators. There were no instances concerning items in this area that a majority of student personnel administrators felt that students should not normally participate. There were four instances in which a majority Of the academic administrators felt that students should not normally partici- pate. Students in most American colleges and universities have not participated in the formulation Of policy in the academic areas to the extent they have in the student personnel area . Recently, however, many students in universities across the country have asked for greater participation in academic policy formulation. Much Of their concern seems to stem from an honest desire to improve the educational experience. A comment from one of the faculty leaders in responding to the questionnaire expresses perhaps the feeling of many faculty "I believe it is the responsibility Of the administration and faculty to operate the university in general. In some instances student thinking should be taken into account but in general (105 ° they are not capable or mature enough to participate in most of the policy formulation. The university was established by the tax payers Of the state and the students should spend their time in Obtaining the education available to them. There are aequate means Of handling protests or abuses in the present administration and faculty procedures when a Student feels he has not been treated fairly. " Student personnel administrators more Often agree with student leaders and student non-leaders concerning the extent Of student par- ticipation in university policy formulation than do faculty leaders, faculty non—leaders and academic administrators. Perhaps this percep— tion on the part of the student personnel administrator emphasizes again his experience in working with students in the formulation Of policy in the student personnel area. The student personnel administrator appears to be the middleman between the student and faculty with reSpect to student involvement in academic policy formulation. His training and experience lead him to believe that much can be gained by having student participation. Interpreting the concerns Of students, however, to faculty and suggesting just how students might become involved. in policy formulation is no easy task. In only three instances did a majority of the student leaders or the student non—leaders feel that students should not normally participate in policy formulation. These three areas were: faculty selection, faculty teaching loads and selection Of graduate assistants. Student leaders and student non—leaders most Often felt that students should participate in policy formulation in this area through recommending or advising. . Hopefully, as one student leader wrote, "I mean advise with the 106 guarantee that student recommendations would be seriously invited and considered . " In general it may be concluded that there was greater agreement amOng students and faculty concerning the extent to which students should participate in university policy formulation in the areas Of student personnel administration than in the areas of general institut— ional government and academic administration. In addition the majority of students and faculty felt that university policy formulation in most areas was not the sole prerogative of one group to the exclusion of others. In general there is agreement that in certain areas university policy formulation should be the primary responsibility of either the faculty, the administration or the student body. For the most part, however, policy areas have not been identified and defined in this way. Nor have those policy areas in which it would seem desirable for student, faculty and administrator alike to partici— pate jointly been identified. The problem appears to be one Of structure and communication. Unfortunately in many schools procedures have not been developed to allow for even a discussion between faculty, student and administrator about controversial policies. Frequently faculty or administrators are reluctant to involve students in policy ' formulation for fear Of losing control. Consequently when students do become involved, it is frequently a result of a student rights movement and not a result Of a desire to involve students for educational and developmental reasons . Considerable more effort must be expended 107 in developing those procedures that will be most productive in providing an Opportunity for all segments of the university to participate effec— tively in policy formulation. Not only have universities failed in developing appropriate procedures with respect to university policy formulation but there has also been a failure in communicating the intent Of a policy once it has been developed. With the constant turnover in the student population, communication concerning university policy should not be left to chance. Additional ways should be explored in communicating with students. It is no longer possible at most schools to depend upon the traditional methods Of communication for accurate interpretation of university policy. Structure and effective communication are really inseparable. One depends upon the other. In this respect Henderson's concept of university governance through an organizational structure with overlapping circles and the representation of various groups through a system Of interlinking pins has much to offer.68 Such a structure promotes greater interaction between groups and consequently greater opportunity for consensus . Implications For Further Study This study concerned itself only with students and faculty at Michigan State University. Perceptions of students and faculty with respect to student participation in university policy formulation at other 68 Henderson, op. cit. 108 universities would! be helpful. Differences based on the educational philosophy of the school, the composition of the student body of the size of the school might become very apparent. With the contuined rapid expansion Of community junior colleges throughout the country, a comparison between junior colleges and four-year institutions might also be revealing with respect to student participation in university policy formulation. A study utilizing in-depth interviews with selected students and faculty tO gain further insight into the causes for differences in percep- tions would be helpful in further understanding the complexities Of university policy formulation. An historical study tracing the development of student partici- pation in university policy formulation at selected universities would be helpful in identifying those factors that have been the most influen- tial in determining the extent of student participation. Certainly further research concerning possible models for ' involving students and faculty in university policy formulation would be helpful. Although there is much agreement about the desirability of involving students in various areas of university policy formulation, there is considerable confusion and disagreement on how to best accomplish it. BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyris , Chris . Organization and Innovation. Dorsey Press, 1965 , Homewood, Illinois . Bloland, Paul A. "A New Concept in Student Government," ' [ournal of Higher Education. Volume 32, February 1961 , pp. 94-97. Edwards, R. H., Artman, J. M. and Fisher, Galen M. Undergraduates: A Studygof Morale in Twenty-three American Collegs and Universities . New York: Doubleday Doran Company, 1928 . Falvey, Frances E. Student Participation in College Administration. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1952 . Findlay, F. J. "Student Government: Medieval, Colonial, and Modern Style,‘I School Activities. (April 1940), p. 316. Friedson, Eliot. Student Government, Student Leaders and the American College. (Philadelphia: U.S. National Student Association, 1955) . . Gardner, John W. "Agenda for the Colleges and Universities, " Journal of Higher Education. Volume 36, NO. 7, (October, 1956). Gildersleeve, Virginia C. "The Abuse of Democracy, " The Saturday Review. Volume 39, November 24, 1956, pp. 15-16. Golden, Patricia M. and Rosen, Ned A. "Student Attitudes Toward Participation in University Administration: An Empirical Study Related to Managerial Prerogatives , " Journal of Coll—ege Student Personnel. November, 1966, pp. 323-330. Henderson, Algo D. "Effective Models of University Governance," Paper presented to Group 34 at the 22nd National Conference on Higher Education, sponsored by the Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March 7, 1967. 109 110 Horner, James T. and Rosemary L. "Student Involvement in Governance and Administration of Higher Education, " The Journal of the Association Of Deans and Administrators of Student Affairs. Volume 4, NO. 2, (October, 1966) p. 60. Hynes, Dorothy. "A Study Of the Range Of Student Government Function at Seventy Co—educational Colleges and Universities, " (Masters thesis, Cornell University), p. 46. Jacob, Philip E. ChanmgValues in Collgge. New Haven, Connecticut: The Edward W. Hazen Foundation, 1959. " Student Leadership, " Education for Social ReSponsibility. Washington, D.C. , The American Red Cross, May 1961, p. 19. Kerins, Frances J. "Student Autonomy and Administration Control: The Fallacy of Absolute Cooperation Between Student and Administra— tors, " Journal Of Higher Education. Volume 30, February, 1959, pp. 61-66. Klopf, Gordon. College Student Government. Harper and Brothers, ' New York, 1960. Lunn, Harry H. The Student's Role in College Policy-Making. American Council on Education, Washington, D.C. , 1957 . McGuire, Edward C . "The Role of the Student in College Policy Making, " Personnel and Guidance Journal. Volume 38, January, 1960, pp. 378-384. MCKown, Harry C. The Student Council. MCGraw Hill, New York, 1944. Martin, Warren B. " Student Participation in Academic Government, " Paper presented to Group 5 on " Student Participation in Govern- ance of the Institution" at the 22nd National Conference of Higher Education, Chicago, March 6, 1967. Mueller, Kate H. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Houghton Miflin Company, Boston, 1960. Mulford, Charles L. "Self Actualization in a Small College Environment, " Journal of College Student Personnel. Volume 8, NO. 2, March, 1 967 . Schodde, Stephen C . "The NSA and Student Government, " lournal of Deans Of Students and Student Personnel Administrators . October 1964, p. 15. 111 SchOen, Walter Thomas. "Clarification and Delineation of Areas of Student and Faculty ReSponsibility, " The Journal Of College Student Personnel. (June, 1965) p.245. Sheldon, Henry D. Student Life and Customs. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1901 . I Strang, Ruth. Group Activities in College and Secondary School. 'New York: Harper and Brothers, 1941 . Wert, Robert J. "Our Restless," Think. November-December, 1965, p. 26. Williamson, E. G. "Training Student Leaders, " Paper Presented to Group 15 on "Finding and Developing Student Leaders" at the 22nd National Conference on Higher Education sponsored by the Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March 6, 1967 . Williamson, E. G. and Cowan, John L. "Students and Academic Freedom," A Rgport of Commission VIII, National Association Of Student Personnel Administrators. Washington, D.C. , 1965 . APPENDICES 112 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 113 114 QUESTIONNAIRE ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN UNIVERSITY POLICY FORMULATION The purpose Of this questionnaire is to gain your opinion with respect to student involvement in university policy formulation. For purposes Of this questionnaire university policy formulation is defined as a step in the decision-making process. This step is designed to develop a consensus of thought concerning a function or area of the university resulting in a course Of action or a set Of procedures to be adopted. Policy areas related to particular functions of the university have been selected and are listed as numbered statements 1 through 71 . In answering the questionnaire you should determine the extent to which you think students should be involved in university policy formulation. In answering the questionnaire one response should be selected for each numbered function from the following scale: 1 . Students are primarily responsible for policy formulation without faculty or administrative participation. 2 . Students share responsibility with faculty and/or administrators through serving on joint committees. 3. Students have opportunity to advise or recommend to faculty and/or administrators with respect to the policy involved. 4. Students would not normally participate . 5 . No Opinion gr; comments. (You do not choose to select any of the previous responses or you have comments that would better express your opinion.) Comments should be written on the reverse side of the answer sheet and numbered appropriately. In addition comments can be used tO qualify responses 1 through 4. SCALE: 115 QUESTIONNAIRE Students: (1) Primarily responsible (2) Share responsibility (3) Recommend or advise (4) Would not normally participate - (5) NO Opinion 9_r comments Policy Formulation Related To: 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Admission of new students Selection Of administrative officers (i.e. , president, vice- president, provost, deans Of colleges) Tuition charges and fees Residence hall room and board rates Design and construction Of new buildings Intercollegiate athletics Intramural athletics Promotion of administrative officers (i.e. , president, vice- president, provost, deans of colleges) Student publications Cultural programs (Lecture—Concert Series) Budget appropriations tO colleges and departments within the university Use of student records Student driving and parking regulations Faculty driving and parking regulations. Solicitation of funds by faculty 1 Student radio stations Off-campu 5 speakers 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. _35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 116 Campus police services Alumni programs Solicitation Of funds by students Use of university mail distribution system Degree requirements Cheating in the Classroom Instructor evaluation Faculty selection Selling or advertising of activities, good, or services by faculty Course content Class attendance Military training (ROTC program) Policies relative to faculty conduct Faculty salaries Women's closing hours Student organizations financial accounts Student government structure and function Faculty sabbaticals Use of student union facilities Methods Of instruction Chartering or registration of student organizations Selling or advertising of activities, goods, or services by students Supervision of social events Health Center services 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 117 Faculty teaching loads Placement Center services Scholarship and financial aids assistance Grading practices Off—campus housing services Residence hall housing services Selection Of graduate assistants Married housing services Student employment services Class size Counseling Center services Student health and accident insurance Textbook selections Registration and enrollment procedures Student orientation program Student sponsored conferences Academic advising Evaluation Of students (residence assistants' evaluations, letters of recommendations) Curriculum requirements Library resources and procedures Eligibility for membership in fraternities and sororities Scheduling of final examinations Functions of religious advisors Development Of new curricula 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 118 Selection of dean of students staff Course scheduling Promotion of dean of students staff Policies relative to student conduct Faculty promotion Course waivers APPENDIX B INITIAL LETTER AND FOLLOW-UP LETTER 119 120 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing 48823 Office of the Dean Of Students Dear I would appreciate it if you would take the time to complete the enclosed. questionnaire concerning student participation in university policy formulation. Most individuals have found that it takes only 15 to 20 minutes of their time. It is neither necessary nor desirable for you to complete the heading on the answer sheet. Please read the cover sheet before completing the questionnaire. If, for some reason, you cannot complete the questionnaire, please return it along with any comments in the enclosed envelope. A copy of the tabulated findings will be available upon your request. I would appreciate your returning the questionnaire at your earliest convenience . Sincerely , Louis F. Hekhuis Director _ Student Activities Division LFH: plc Enclosures 121 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing 48823 Office of the Dean of Students Dear Earlier this term a questionnaire concerning student participation in university policy formulation was mailed to you. If, for some reason, you did not receive the questionnaire or have misplaced it, I would appreciate your completing the enclosed questionnaire and returning it to my Office at your earliest convenience. If you have already completed the questionnaire and returned it, please disregard this letter. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely , Louis F. Hekhuis Director Student Activities Division LFH : plc Enclosures HICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 11111111") ”Ill”lllllllllllllllWIN WWW 31293006949022