.1. . 2...! ...tc51.\. . {illltcw 11 .1 \I. nI ‘11.?" v . .. . .. 4‘15. 1. ’1. , , .11-... 1 2. . L ..... .n‘ll. H.333 “Hun... . 1-.“ . (a. . .. .1.:-v.6. .33. . :1... I. III“ , . . ...,. C. \ n33...o¢ol|.r~04§.ioo 6 ‘1‘... 0 tut“. . 'holqia? Q til! . . . L . 1.. . ..... . t... 13.131. .31.. d4. 5:11.! 1.... 1- .l U?!) n-..» x . o .u #05. a.‘ .9. la! fifth... haw q: I V 9 'WIOOINAI . flu... W t . o.... o .1. up. . 96H..<1-.. .VihT-ifl I17.A.QIl. A .. . .. -. . .r... .. .. 3. . .. ..&M..Il!.....h¢..1.Lm.....J 1 Q N . . . .. .1 .. .1. ... an... .. . I ... , V ‘ 0 I u . U l I C . .u . v4 . v; 4 tn.“ #4“ a . . 1 C . -. IN... MN... «031?. 1.1.0.0) 3 . .- :.. ......:umn.w..fi.u&...:rmpbr- .. . .s - out.¥€c¢ m Jun. 0. o 1...." ... I. :11 . _. . .dlmmkmu. . .. um. ....... “.H. ....- . . - .. 2.. t." .. .. 2.“ 2 .c -.I o. . u v u 4%., figruam...1 ...... .. . .. z ,. . .1. . «wagon. u l ‘ ... R»..r..n..m...fi.. . . . v . Ly... . AI - oxr _ I . and. . ‘0 . . . 23.. .. . . an-.. . £41.... . . . l 0 IA \ .0 I t It. Q l I I 0‘ ’IVI I I '0 ' i " A . . p A 'I "I ’3' W 3.11. 11. 1.0. X ‘1', I. . t! ' D. ‘ 11.11 341' In- [11ft] D'J 3. 0 1. 1 1 ' '=‘ ,, mam. ‘ F . No.1 ..‘ It . .l . .5 1.1.2.1.. .5. 1.91 . Yi‘nid . II: 1.0!). 1.103.01’.‘ .. p . I'Pt (£1. Holt}! .Av.‘.. a}..’l..11.l H‘ 1.4"“. .f‘v: anal? flit}... [ll-g 1;.urcnvll.l.'.v&.vc :01“...- x. u .o u .. Q'V‘COJOOL {Lloloffifo '1- I [a 1’ 5.0!. , 31.4 v .n‘ g YIN: .4. 1.11.11. 9:... 0...».5 H101" “RAT. 3.. I . 1 9 l .I.!ct Critll Jo.muv..rm—V!OI.O. “has", n 9 . .o .0 c. I i . I I . t . . . . fi- nl! .1I%.flflrflhhurd. ¢ .1.:"...‘11 4.1-15.6“... 2.. I I'DY' I "lt-’ '1‘, 1’ ~ Mr!!! . . . . v; a ff... .. .. I! H‘ ' .u... ..- .o. .1... . O .. xi’ut’ciol ‘éu' f) .HI 1 gug’n.upl. l. .lvlolo l’i’llthlu'luilul.vl.‘.l'l.‘ ,mUO-it‘lflhgflv. C . v .34 ”.1.:. .0 . ‘1'“! l’ivJA.61hl Li I. . I? III m“.|)s|ull¢tul.! .3911'11 .‘ I - I'll-Lg; 1 019 v 4 u. I v I. l ‘ t A '51,.61 1.1.. . . ”giffllulcflufllf . g1...- .. . 1. . v ... uv‘lfio ~ .40". . I I. [\J .l'..l‘ .I q. 10.; I‘D! . Mu! v9 ’J'II-ll'lt 11.1 a .lbl ‘du‘lllvt‘xflfltl'. LI‘I'OB‘ I’Mkixnpnl ‘1? I'll .. _ . .31 it, 0". I.) gilt“. '1 b7.- .O’ivll o I 9:!110v’\ b u 1 9 .l‘v.’ . . . 1 " . I‘ ,'1,‘o '.,.' . a} ' 1" ,. .. ELI-u v '4 w, , .1. .V ‘r '14.! ‘0‘ ch”... .1, .1 1 It}. :1. 11. .l 1..~«v¢.-. .. -I.’1’ 1.11..-. 2|-.I n.0‘nfl1.’l§ln| 1021.5 1111‘. 1.1.3.11..- ‘ . I]: 0....-. t’f.‘ O1. . 19". '11 I..- -11! .11-. cl.-..1". 12.1.- . . 5111 -hai. 11.-.! 171. l.- ‘ v.1»...1 r . $.11... .flfihb 2.-.- .-.. .2111: it‘ll..- r I 3.! o 3...: «1.3.11.2.91 1 J. - 3.05.3..3 E 1' 1;. Date MI IIGCH GAN STATE I! l ““1le MINIMUM!!!HIIUIHINHI 301572 5611 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled INSTITUTIONAL GOALS IN SAUDI UNIVERSITIES: CURRENT AND PREFERRED STATUS OF GOALS presented by Saad Abdallah Al-Zahrani has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Higher Education Administration Cl gLKw/j ;) f-Tk‘J' «\WQLvfiAgl d Major professor July 10, 1985 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE II RETURN BOX to removothb checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton date duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE usu IeAnAI'flnnltivo Action/Equal OppotanIIyImtIMon ‘ mafia-9.1 INSTITUTIONAL GOALS IN SAUDI UNIVERSITIES: CURRENT AND PREFERRED STATUS OF GOALS By Saad Abdaiiah Ai-Zahrani A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partia1 fuifiilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educationai Administration 1985 Copyright by SAAD ABDALLAH AL-ZAHRANI 1985 --To my Ioved parents. who provided me with my first sense of direction in iife, for their continuous Iove. generosity. and support; --To my great nation for its sponsorship and support of this endeavor; and --To ail those sincere individuais whose prime concern is to bring about a better and promising generation in my country I dedicate this work. ABSTRACT INSTITUTIONAL GOALS IN SAUDI UNIVERSITIES: CURRENT AND PREFERRED STATUS OF GOALS By Saad Abdaiiah Ai-Zahrani The probiem of this study was to identify and compare the present and preferred goais of Saudi universities as perceived by Saudi facu‘Ity members. academic administrators. and university supreme coun- ciiors at three major Saudi universities: King Saud University. King Abduiaziz University. and the University of Petroieum and Minerais. The Institutionai Goai Inventory developed by the Educationai Testing Service (1972) was modified. transiated into Arabic. and administered to 237 facuity members. 156 administrators. and 35 counciiors. Respondents were asked to rate the current importance that 99 goais have or shouId have on their campuses. The ratings ranged from 5 (of extreme importance) to 1 (of no importance). The goai means were caicuiated. converted into goai area means. and rank ordered. Then current and preferred goais. discrepancies between perceived and preferred ratings. and priority of goais were idernflfied for the totai respondents. each university. and each position group. Correi ationai anai yses were performed to determine the extent of agreement on rankings. ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc tests were Saad Abdaiiah AI-Zahrani empioyed to determine whether significant differences existed among and between groups in their ratings of the goai areas. A variety of com- parisons were made between perceived and preferred goais among univer- sities and position groups. The major findings inciuded: 1. Respondents tended to perceive Advanced Training. Tradi- tionai Reiigiousness. Academic Deveiopment. and Meeting Locai Needs as the most emphasized goai areas in Saudi universities. However. a‘li perceived goais were rated as of medium or 10w importance. 2. Respondents preferred Community. InteilectuaI Orientation. Democratic Governance. Advanced Training. and Research to be highiy emphasized on their campuses. The majority of goai areas were pre- ferred to be of high importance. 3. Large discrepancies were found between present and pre- ferred emphasis on goai areas at each university and by each group. 4. Positive correiations were found between groups and between universities in the rank ordering of goai areas according to their perceived and preferred importance. 5. Facuity members tended to differ significantly from administrators and counciiors in their ratings of the majority of perceived goai areas and in the degree of goai area discrepancies. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wouid iike to express my appreciation and thanks to a number of individuais who directiy or indirectiy contributed to this effort. Sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. Eidon Nonnamaker. my committee chairman. for his encouragement since my enro‘l‘lment at Michi- gan State University and for his support and guidance during the course of this endeavor. I am deepiy gratefui to a11 of the other members of my guidance comnnttee for their fruitfui advice and wiiiingness to serve in this capacity. They are Drs. Robert Craig. Christopher Vanderpooi. and Richard Featherstone. My thanks are extended to a11 of those individuais who partici- pated in this study and devoted some of their time to responding to the research questionnaire. My deep appreciation is extended to my father. Abdaiiah; my mother. Sa1ihah; my brothers. Saeed. Ghurmaiiah. A11. Ahmed. Mesfer. Hamed. Mohammed. and Saadi; and to a'l'I of the other members of my famiiy for their support and encouragement throughout the period of my higher education. Finaiiy. with deepest gratitude I express appreciation to my wife. Azzah. and my Ioved chi'ldren. Saeed. Riyadh. Sammerah. Samyah. {Siham. and Reem. for their patience. Tove. and understanding during my doctorai study. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF PROFILES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. 1HE PRWLEM O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction to the Probiem . . Statement of the Probiem . . . . The Study Setting . . . . . . . King Saud University . . . . . King Abduiaziz University . . The University of Petroieum and Min Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Terms and Abbreviations Significance of the Study . . . . . . Organization of the Study . . . . . . e II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goais of Higher Education Institutions R61 ated StUdIGS O O O O O O O O I O 0 Research on Coiiege and University Goais ra oooomooooo Before 1970 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Research on the Institutionai Goais Since 1970 . Theoreticai Framework of the Study . . . . . . . . III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . Popuiation of the Study Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data CoiIection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure for Anaiysis and Treatment of Data . . . Page vii (”\IOU‘IU’UJW—J 10 I7 17 I7 26 26 29 37 44 44 46 53 55 56 Page IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS . . . . . . . 60 Respondents' Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 The Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Current (IS) Goais of Saudi Universities . . . . 61 Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa15 for Saudi Universities . 68 Discrepancies Between the Current (IS) and Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1s . . . . . . . . . . . 74 The Re1ative Importance of Goa1 Perceptions and Goa1 Preferences to Each of Three Major Saudi univer51t1 es 0 I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 79 Perceptions and Preferences of University Supreme Counci1ors Concerning the Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . 98 Perceptions and Preferences of Academic Admin- istrators Concerning the Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . 101 Perceptions and Preferences of the Saudi Facu1ty Members Concerning the Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . . 105 Differences in Perceptions and Preferences Concerning Goa1 Areas Between Respondent Groups . 107 Perceived (IS) and Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Area Priorities in Saudi Universities . . . . . . 128 V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o o o 134 Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Conc1usions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 The Perceived (IS) Goa1s of Saudi Universities . . 138 Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1s of Saudi Universities . 139 Goa1 Discrepancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Re1ative Importance of Perceived (IS) and Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Areas. by University . 141 Perceptions. Preferences. and Significant Differences Among Goa1 Areas. by Professiona1 Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Summary of Goa1 Area Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Imp1ications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 APPENDICES O O O O O O I O O O O I C O O O O C D O O I O O O O O 165 A. BOWEN'S CATALOGUE OF GOALS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION . . . . I66 B. "ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS AND UNIVERSITY GOALS" BY E. GROSS AND P. GRAMBSCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I73 Page C. ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL GOAS INVENTORY O O D O I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I 80 D. CORRESPONDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 BIBLImRAH‘IY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O D O O O O O O 2] 2 vi Tab1e 3.] 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 LIST OF TABLES Tota1 Subjects by Group. Usab1e Responses. and Response Percentage for Each Group . . . . . . . . . . Number of Subjects. Usab1e Responses. and Percentage of Response by University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived (IS) Goa1 Areas of Saudi Universities. Rank Ordered by IS Means (Tota1 Group) . . . . . . . . . . . The Current (IS) Loca1 and Misce11aneous Goa1s of Saudi Universities. Rank Ordered by IS Means (Tota1 Group) . Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Areas for Saudi Universities. Rank Ordered by Means (Tota1 Group) . . . . . . . . . . Loca1 and Misce11aneous Goa1s. Ranked According to Their Importance as Preferred Goa1s for Saudi Universities (Tota1 Group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discrepancies Between Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Area Means and Perceived (IS) Goa1 Area Means (Tota1 Group) 0 I O O O O O O O O I O I I I O O O O O O O O O Discrepancies Between the Means of Preferred (SHOULD BE) and Perceived (IS) Loca1 and Misce11aneous Goa1s (Tot61 Group) 0 I O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Perceptions (IS) and Preferences (SHOULD BE) of King Saud University Respondents Concerning the 20 Goa1 Areas 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O Perceptions (IS) and Preferences (SHOULD BE) of King Abdu1aziz University Respondents Concerning the 20 Goa1 Areas 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O I O O O O O 0 O Perceptions (IS) and Preferences (SHOULD BE) of University of Petro1eum and Minera1s Respondents Concerning the 20 Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 45 46 63 65 69 73 75 77 8O 84 88 4.14 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 Re1ative Importance Given to Perceived (IS) Goa1 Areas. by University Agreement in Ranking of the 20 Perceived (IS) Goa1 Areas Among the Three Universities. According to Pearson Corre1ation Coefficients Re1ative Importance Given to Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Areas by Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreement in Ranking of the 20 Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Areas Among the Three Universities. According to Pearson Corre1ation Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . Perceptions (IS) and Preferences (SHOULD BE) of the University Supreme Counci1ors Concerning the 20 Goa1 Areas Perceptions (IS) and Preferences (SHOULD BE) of Academic Administrators Concerning the 20 Goa1 Areas . Perceptions (IS) and Preferences (SHOULD BE) of Saudi Facu1ty Members Concerning the 20 Goa1 Areas . . . . . One-Way Ana1ysis of Variance for Significant Differences Among Groups (Facu1ty-Administrators-Counci1ors) in Their Ratings of the Perceived (IS) Goa1 Areas . . . . Resu1ts of the Scheffe Test for Significant Differ- ences Among Groups (Facu1ty. Administrators. Counci10rs) in Their Ratings of the Perceived (IS) Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significant Differences Between Facu1ty Members and Academic Administrators in Their Ratings of Perceived (IS) Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significant Differences Between Facu1ty Members and Academic Administrators in Their Ratings of Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Areas Significant Differences Between Facu1ty Members and Academic Administrators in Discrepancies Between Perceived (IS) and Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Area Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 92 94 95 98 99 103 106 109 110 113 115 117 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 Significant Differences Between Facu1ty Members and University Supreme Counci1ors in Their Ratings of Perceived (IS) Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . Significant Differences Between Facu1ty Members and University Supreme Counci1ors in Their Ratings of the Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . . Significant Differences Between Facu1ty Members and University Supreme Counci1ors in Discrepancies Between Perceived (IS) and Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Area Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significant Differences Between Academic Administrators and University Supreme Counci1ors in Their Ratings of Perceived (IS) Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significant Differences Between Academic Administrators and University Supreme Counci1ors in Their Ratings of Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Areas . . . . . . . . . Significant Differences Between Academic Administrators and University Supreme Counci1ors in Discrepancies Between Perceived (IS) and Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Area Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Priority of Perceived (IS) Goa1 Areas for Saudi Universities According to Facu1ty. Academic Administrators. and Supreme Counci1ors . . . . . . . Priority of Preferred (SHOULD BE) Goa1 Areas for Saudi Universities According to Facu1ty. Academic Administrators. and Supreme Counci1ors . . . . . . . The Extent to Which the Three Groups of Respondents (Facu1ty. Administrators. and Counci1ors) Agreed in Their IS Perceptions. SHOULD BE Preferences. and Discrepancies Between IS - SHOULD BE Responses. Derived by Pearson Corre1ation Coefficients . . . . . Page 119 121 123 125 126 127 129 131 133 Profi1e 1. 2. LIST OF PROFILES Profi1e for the Perceived and Preferred Goa1 Areas for Saudi Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . Profi1e for Perceived and Preferred Goa1 Areas for King Saud University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Profi1e for Perceived and Preferred Goa1 Areas for King Abdu1aziz University . . . . . . . . . . . Profi1e for Perceived and Preferred Goa1 Areas for the University of Petro1eum and Minera1s . . . . Page 71 83 86 90 GMWERI THE PROBLEM WWW For a university to remain viab1e. creative. coherent. and effective. it must identify its institutiona1 goa15 to a11 segments of the academic community; As comp1ex organizations. universities were defined by Cohen and March (1974) as organized anarchies that are characterized by i11-defined goa1s. unc1ear techno1ogy. and f1uid participation. According to them. the very comp1exity of universities makes in incumbent on them to seek goa1 c1arification. To define the goa1s of an organization. according to Parsons et a1. (1961). is to c1arify the very nature of its essence. Institu- tiona1 goa1s determine the desired courses of action and dictate the priorities of decision makers. Universities pursue many goa15. and these goa1s can be conceived in an a1most infinite variety of ways. As a resu1t. conf1icts exist within and without campuses over the goa1s these institutions shou1d appropriate1y serve. In this regard. Lee et a1. (1968) pointed out that facu1ty members. administrators. boards of trustees. and other concerned groups give different answers to the questions: Whose goa1s? Which goa1s? and How may they best be achieved? By examining the various answers to these questions. not on1y wi11 we arrive at some understanding of the consonances and dissonances in the academic wor1d. but we may a1so gain some insight into how to reso1ve the differences or. if necessary. to choose among them. A1 though a11 major segments of the academic community are concerned with the goa1s of their own institution. facu1ty. administrators. and boards of trustees. by virtue of their positions. have a specia1 capacity and responsibi1ity for goa1 setting and definition. An essentia1 phase of this function. according to Caffrey (1968). is to c1arify present institutiona1 goais and to distinguish between the rea1 and the supposed. in order to eva1uate goa1s and. equa11y important. continua11y re-eva1uate the goa1s. As needs and contexts change. so may goa1s. The situation in Saudi Arabia with regard to university goa1s is no exception to what has been stated. That is. goa1s are so genera11y stated that they cannot be used to guide the universities' activities. and data concerning the goa1 perceptions and preferences he1d by the academic community at these institutions are not avai1ab1e. The present study was designed to identify the existing as we11 as the preferred goa1s of the academic community in Saudi universities and to compare the views of Saudi facu1ty members. academic administra- tors. and university supreme counciiors with regard to the goa1s of their institutions. .Statement_ci_the_flneblem The prob1em of this study was to identify and compare the pres- ent and preferred goa1s of the Saudi universities as perceived by Saudi facu1ty members.Tacademic administrators.iand university supreme coun— ciiors at major Saudi universities: King Saud University. King Abdu1aziz University. and the University of Petro1eum and Minera1s. Based on the responses of these groups. priorities among goa1s were estab1ished. That is. goa1s given the highest mean scores by each group of respond- ents were considered to be of high priority to the Saudi universities. Wag As previous1y stated. this study was undertaken at King Saud University (KSU). King Abdu1aziz University (KAU). and the University of Petro1eum and Minera1s (UPM) in Saudi Arabia. The fo11owing are short descriptions of each university. WM KSU is 1ocated in the Centra1 Province of Saudi Arabia. In addition to its main campus in the capita1 city of Riyadh. KSU has two other campuses in A1-Oaseem and Abha. KSU was the first university estab1ished in Saudi Arabia. Founded in 1957 with the Coiiege of Arts. it gradua11y added the Co11ege of Science. the Co11ege of Administra- tive Science. the Co11ege of Pharmacy. the Co11eges of Education at Riyadh and Abha. the Co11eges of Agricu1ture at Riyadh and A1-0aseem. the Co11ege of Engineering. the Co11eges of Medicine at Riyadh and Abha. the Co11ege of Economics and Business Administration at A1-Oaseem. the Co11ege of A11ied Medica1 Sciences. the Co11ege of Dentistry. the Center for Fema1e University Education. the Arabic Language Institute. and the graduate schoo1. In the beginning of academic year 1984-85. two new co11eges were added: the Co11ege of Computer Sciences and the Co11ege of P1anning and Architectura1 Studies. These co11eges inc1ude 107 departments (King Saud University. 1984a). .IQiQD1fl9—flfld_idm1fl15ILi11¥£.§1fli£.ifli.filfld§fl1§. The teaching staff at KSU was estimated in 1984 at 2.428 members. Of that number. 823 were Saudi teaching staff members: the rest were either seconded Arab facu1ty members or those teaching in the country by persona1 contract. Secondment means serving outside the mother institution for a period of time not 1onger than four years. after which the seconded facu1ty member must return to his own institution. ‘Teaching staff inc1ude. among those ho1ding facu1ty rank. professors. associate pro- fessors. and assistant professors. In addition there were teaching assistants. demonstrators. and technicians. About 400 Saudis he1d facu1ty rank. In 1984 KSU a1so had 5.830 administrative staff members and 23.373 students (King Saud University. 1984a. p. 24). Like the teach- ing staff. the majority of the administrative staff were non—Saudi. Most of them were from Egypt. Jordan. Syria. and Sudan. Non-Saudi students constituted about 25 percent. KSU awards bache1ors and masters degrees in a1most a11 the fie1ds it offers and doctora1 degrees in Arabic studies. In 1984 fema1e students constituted about 21J5 “*4 percent of the student body. Students enro11ed in humanities and socia1 sciences constituted 59 percent of the tota1 (King Saud Univer- sity. 1984a. p. 52). WW KAU is 1ocated in the Western Province of Saudi Arabia. with its main campus 1ocated in the city of Jeddah. On this campus are 1ocated the Co11ege of Economics and Business Administration. the Co11ege of Arts and Humanities. the Co11ege of Science. the Co11ege of Engineering and App1ied Sciences. the Co11ege of Medicine and Medica1 Science. the Co11ege of Earth Science. the Co11ege of Marine Science. and the Co11ege of Meteoro1ogy. The second campus is 1ocated in Medina and comprises the Co11ege of Education. These co11eges inc1ude about 45 academic departments which award bache1ors degrees. Masters degrees are awarded by most of the coi1eges. and doctora1 degrees are avai1ab1e in Education and Earth Science (Ministry of Higher Education [SJLJ. 1984. pp. 144- 49). KAU had 2.102 teaching staff members as of the academic year 1983-84: 1.077 teaching personne1 he1d facu1ty rank. Saudis constituted about 50 percent of the teaching staff. but on1y 1957 percent of them he1d facu1ty rank (212 Saudis). As at KSU. the majority of teaching staff were seconded or under contract from other Arab countries. 1ike Egypt. Sudan. Jordan. Pa1estine. Syria. and other Mos1em countries. Administrative staff members were estimated at 1.676 in 1983. of whom the majority were non-Saudis. The student body was estimated in the same year to be about 21.000 students. 25 percent of whom were externa1 students. 'Twenty-five percent were non-Saudis and 27 percent were fema1es (Ministry of Higher Education [S.A.J. 1984. pp. 151-61). The non-Saudi students in a11 Saudi universities equa11ed about 25 percent in 1982; about 70 percent of the non-Saudi students were Arabs. main1y from Pa1estine. Jordan. Egypt. and North Yemen. The other 30 percent were from non-Arab countries (Ministry of Higher Education. 1981-82. pp. 30-31). Ihe_uD1xersitx_ei_EetLQleum anLMlnenalsJUEMl UPM is Iocated in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia (the 011 region) and was estab1ished in 1963. Origina11y named the CoI1ege of Petroieum and Minera1s. its name and status were changed from a co11ege to a university in 1975. The goa1 of UPM is to provide the country with advanced training and research in the industria1 fie1d of petro- 1eum and minera1s. Lfifliinc1udes the fo11owing co11eges: the Co11ege of Engineering Science. the Co11ege of App1ied Engineering. the Co11ege of Science. the Co11ege of Industria1 Management. and the CoI1ege of Graduate Studies. UPM awards bache1ors and masters degrees and offers a one-year preparatory program. In 1984. UPM had 701 teaching staff members. about 283 of whom were Saudis. Of that number. on1y 93 individua1s he1d doctora1 degrees. Non-Saudi teaching staff were main1y from the United States. Great Britain. and Western Europe. The administrative staff and workers tota1ed 1.941; on1y 33 percent were Saudis. The other administrative staffinembers were main1y from Pakistan. India. and other Arab countries. The student body was estimated at 3.914 stu- dents. about 25 percent of whom were non-Saudis. The main differences between UPM and the other two universities are that(fl) UPM does not accept fema1e students. (2) the 1anguage of instruction is Eng1ish. and (3) it is a sma11. speciaiized institution (University of Petro1eum and Minera1s. 1983-84L Wu The major purpose of the study was to identify and compare present. as we11 as preferred. institutiona1 goa1s for Saudi universi- ties as perceived by Saudi facu1ty members. academic administrators. and university supreme counci1ors. More specifica11y. the purposes of the study were: 1. to identify the current and preferred goa1s of Saudi universities, 2. to identify the degree of discrepancy between actua1 and preferred goa1s. 3. to identify the re1ative importance of goa1 perceptions and goa1 preferences of each Saudi university inc1uded in the study. A. to identify the goa1 perceptions and goa1 preferences of Saudi facu1ty members..academic administrators.iand university supreme counci1ors and to determine whether significant differences existed between these groups with regard to their goa1 perceptions and preferences. and 5. to identify possib1e goa1 priorities of Saudi universities. Wm: The f011owing terms and abbreviations are defined in the con- text in which they are used in this study. .Gpals: The goais of an institution of higher education are the desired conditions. either to be achieved or maintained. In other words. an institutiona1 goa1 is an idea1 condition the campus can continuous1y seek to maximize or perfect (Peterson & Uh1. 1977. p. 5). .Outggmnggals: The substantive conditions or objectives an institution may seek to achieve or maintain. such as qua1ity of graduating students. research achievement. and pub1ic service programs (IGI. 1972). W: The interna1 campus objectives or conditions-- reflating for the most part to educationa1 processes and campus c1 imate--that may faci1itate achievement of the outcome goa1s (IGI. 1972). .Eengeixed_gga1§: Those goa1s that are identified by iridividua1s or by an institutiona1 constituent group as present1y existing in the institution. The term "perceived goais" is used 1rIterchangeab1y in this study with "present goa1s" or "is goa1s." .Ereigrned_ggals: Idea1 goa1s or goa1 arrangements that InCIividua1s or an institutiona1 constituent group wou1d idea11y prefer. Th€9 term "preferred goa1s" is used interchangeab1y with "shou1d be goa15" in this study. 151: ‘The Institutiona1 Goa1s Inventory that was deve1oped by Peterson and Uh1 under the sponsorship of the Educationa1 Testing Service in 1972. .Ggal_aneas: The 20 areas specified in the Institutiona1 Goa1s Inventory deve1oped by the Educationa1 Testing Service. Each goa1 area inc1udes four goa1 statements. Maig: Saudi unjygcsjtjes: The three 1eading universities in Saudi Arabia. inc1uding King Saud University. King Abdu1aziz Univer- sity. and the University of Petro1eum and Minera1s. W: The 99 goa1 statements on the IGI used in this study. Went: Those goa1 statements that are not inc1uded in the goa1 areas on the IGI (Questions 17. 31. 80. 82. 84-86. and 88-90). Lg;a1_ggal_§tatemen1§: Those goa1 statements that represent specific goa1s for Saudi universities. In the IGI they are Questions 91-99. Saudi faculty members “fl: A11 of the fu11-time Saudi facu1ty members who ho1d ranks of professor. associate professor. and assistant professor at the major Saudi universities. Non-Saudi facu1ty members are exc1uded. Academic_adm131&1natgns_flfl; A11 academic administrators at the 1eve1s of department chairpersons (or their equiva1ent) and above at the major Saudi universities. 10 WW: A11 members who serve on the supreme counci1s of the major Saudi universities. Such counciis are simi1ar to universities! boards of regents or trustees in other countries. W In many deve10ping countries. universities are viewed as the hub on which the progress and surviva1 of the nation pivot (Ashby. 1964). Higher education has become the focus of nationa1 1ife today. ref1ecting the socia1. economic. cu1tura1. and po1itica1 aspirations of its citizens. As for Saudi Arabia. higher education has been seen as the stage of academic specia1ization whose goa1 is to deve1op the ta1ents of competent and gifted students. in order to fu1fi11 the various present and future needs of the society in comp1iance with usefu1 progress which achieves the objectives of the nation and its nob1e goa1s. (Ministry of Education. 1974.:L 21) However. in Saudi Arabia as we11 as in most deve1oping nations. the university has fai1ed to communicate to the society the goa1s. meaning. and va1ue of higher education. Goa1s of Saudi universities have been on1y genera11y stated. A typica1 examp1e of the officia11y stated goa1s of Saudi universities is the fo11owing genera1 goa1 statement of King Saud University: 1. To provide higher 1earning and studies in the arts. sciences and various specia1izations and discip1ines. 2. To give specia1 attention to Is1amic studies and thoughts. 3. To prepare and train teachers. 11 4. To advance know1edge through the encouragement of scientific research. 5. To foster inte11ectua1. physica1. socia1 and scientific activities. (King Saud University. 1978. p. 5) Genera11y speaking. most modern Saudi universities have genera1 goa1 statements simi1ar to this one. The 1imitations of such state- ments are that. in addition to their genera1ity. they are exc1usive of many possib1e a1ternative goa1s and cannot be used to guide a11 the activities of the university. such as p1anning. eva1uation. po1icy making. and decision making. Further. the rea1 goa1s may differ from those stated. This prob1em was recognized in 1974 when a conference was he1d at King Saud University under the tit1e.'qherMission of the University in Saudi Arabia!‘ In his address to the conference. Saudi Arabia's Minister of Higher Education dec1ared. "Our basic aim in this meeting is to investigate. identify. and find out what is the rea1 mission of higher education in Saudi Arabia" {Resalat_fll;lamea. 1974). The recommendations of the participants dea1t with such issues as goa1s. functions. and operations of the university and the re1ationship between the society and the university. These resu1ts of the confer- ence. however. imp1ied an urgent need for a c1ear conception of what goa1s the Saudi university shou1d be seeking to achieve. For the past four years the Saudi press and media have engaged in a 1ive1y debate concerning the p1ight of Saudi academics. On March 18. 1980. King Saud University sponsored a symposium. "The Saudi Professor: His Duties and Rights)‘ In 1982. university presidents in the Gu1f States met at Bahraen at the invitation of the Arab Bureau of 12 Education for the Gu1f States to discuss issues concerning the roie of their universities in socia1 and economic deve1opment in their coun- tries. On these occasions. as we11 as others. the question of what goa1s the Saudi universities shou1d be seeking were raised. either expiicitiy or imp1icit1y. The need for and importance of answering the question of goa1s have been voiced by many theorists and scho1ars in the fie1d of organization and administration. According to Service et a1. (1977). the goa1s of individua1 co11eges and universities have traditiona11y been described in broad. vague. and interna11y inconsistent terms. Institutions shou1d de1ineate goa1s that state c1ear1y (1) what the institution is trying to accomp1ish. (2) whom it is trying to serve. (3) how it intends to accomp1ish its objectives. and (4) the 1eve1 of achievement intended. Service et a1. conc1uded that without answers to these questions an institution cannot specify its purpose and goa1s c1ear1y enough to meet interna1 needs for direction. In his essay on university goa1s. Conrad (1974) noted that goa1s (1) are standards against which to judge success. (2) provide a source of 1egitimacy. (3) define organizationa1 needs and priorities. (4) define production units for "outputs" of the organization. (5) define the organizationls c1iente1e. and (6) define the nature of the re1ationship between the organization and society. He went on to say that if university goa1s are to serve these purposes. they must be identified more precise1y. 13 In a study of higher educationa1 goa1s. Gross and Grambsch (1968) considered not on1y the conception of the institutiona1 goa1s. but a1so what the members of an institution perceive the goa1s ought to be. Sieber and Wi1der (1960) emphasized that co11eges and universities must address themse1ves to a comprehensive reeva1uation of their goa1s and objectives to meet the cha11enge of changed conditions. The need to de1ineate and communicate an organization's goa1s has been addressed by organizationa1 theorists as diverse as March and Simon (1958). Se1znick (1957). Etzioni (1964). and Perrow (1970). Perrow noted that an organization with weak1y he1d goa1s is a poor tooi for accomp1ishing ends. a11owing them to be shaped by opportunistic forces in the environment. We11-defined and strong1y he1d goa1s represent a positive resource for organizations. In addition to i11-defined and too-genera1 goa1s. Saudi universities 1ack information about how their constituents--facu1ty. administrators. university supreme counci1ors. students. and others-- perceive the goa1s of their institutions. their goa1 preferences. and how the views of one subgroup differ from another. Information about the goa1 perceptions he1d by the institu- ‘tkufls constituents can serve a variety of purposes. Peterson (1977) emphasized that institutions aware of serious interna1 conf1icts about campus goa1s wou1d do we11 to move de1iberate1y. rationa11y. and open1y to reso1ve those conf1icts and. in so doing. reach a working consensus about the broad goa1s of the institution and the priority for each one. He added that understanding interna1 conf1icts about institutiona1 14 goais can 1ead to a new sense of interna1 harmony and community. which is critica1 to overa11 institutiona1 effectiveness. When facu1ty and staff are dividing their energies and conuniUnents between inconsistent or diffuse goa1s. nothing gets done as we11 as it might. and students are the chief iosers. The advantage of arriving at a working consensus about goa1s was stressed by Peterson (1973). who stated that agreed-upon institu- tiona1 goa1s provide a credo with which the entire campus community may identify and work to fu1fi11. We11-conceived goa1s can and shou1d serve as a kind of benchmark against which a11 manner of routine deci- sions throughout the institution can be made. Peterson conc1uded: If goa1s are democratica11y conceived and wide1y understood and accepted in the co11ege community. they shou1d serve many groups and units at the institution for achieving decisions. so1ving prob1ems. a11ocating resources and according1y ordering action in certain directions and not in others. . . . Indeed. one cou1d argue that no substantive decision makes sense un1ess it is taken with reference to acknow1edged institutiona1 goa1s. (p. 37) If human beings are to work together effective1y within an organization. each must understand and share a comnunuconcern in achieving the purpose or purposes for which the organization exists. However. as Keeton (1971) observed. the views he1d by the various groups on campus have been found to form comp1ex patterns. They share some concerns. differ on others. and differ substantia11y in the concerns they share from campus to campus. It was his opinion that the task of conceiving and achieving effectiveness on a particu1ar campus requires know1edge of its specific concerns and practices. which wi11 inc1ude its goa1s and objectives. 15 Keeton's idea of estab1ishing an understanding of the percep- tions of goa1s he1d by constituents of an organization has been voiced by other writers on the subject of administration. such as Griffith (1959). Barnard (1948). McGregor (1966). and Simon (1976L Today. universities in Saudi Arabia are under great pressure. The socia1 demands for university education and degrees. the increased number of high schoo1 graduates who seek higher education. and the job market's need for university graduates have forced the universities to respond by enro11ing more students. estab1ishing mu1tip1e campuses. opening more co11eges. and creating new programs. Litt1e attention has been given to eva1uation of existing programs or institutiona1 goa1s in keeping pace with those demands and pressures. Instead. the universi- ties are preoccupied with day-to-day decisions and operations. Thus. it seems that the present status of higher education in Saudi Arabia is characterized by a need for reeva1uation. For Saudi universities to be effective. viab1e. coherent. and creative. they must identify their institutiona1 goa1s to a11 segments of the academic community. This study. then. seems to be supported by such concerns and justified by the priority and importance given to goa1 identification by many theorists and authorities in the fie1d of organization and administration. It is hoped that the study wi11 contribute to goa1 identification and c1arification in Saudi universities. Findings about the goa1 perceptions and preferences of the academic community may assist campus decision makers in arriving at more informed po1icy decisions and guide fundamenta1 and important institutiona1 activities. 16 WWO! Chapter I inc1uded an introduction to and statement of the iprob1em. a description of the study setting. the purpose and importance of the study. and definitions of important terms. Chapter II is a review of re1ated 1iterature concerning organizationa1 and higher edu- cationa1 goa1s. as we11 as writings supporting the theoretica1 frame- work of the study. The research design and methodo1ogy are exp1ained in Chapter III. Inc1uded are a description of the popu1ation and instrumentation. a discussion of data-co11ection and data-ana1ysis procedures. and a statement of the research questions. Chapter IV contains a presentation and ana1ysis of the research findings. A summary of the study. conc1usions. imp1ications. and recommendations are found in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE W This chapter is concerned with precedent-re1ated 1iterature concerning organizationa1 and higher education institution goa1s. More specifica11y. the chapter is divided into three parts. The first part provides genera1 information about the goa1s of higher education institutions. Major re1ated studies or research on the institutiona1 goa1s of higher education are considered in the second part of the chapter. The third part is devoted to a review of the 1iterature supporting the theoretica1 framework of this study. WHEY—W205 The study of organizations has been regarded as possessing an essentia1 unity. as having been dominated since its inception by the conceptua1ization of organizations as goa1-attainment devices (Georgiou. 1973). Rare1y are ana1yses concerned with whether organiza- tions can be said to have goa1s: their existence is an unquestioned and unquestionab1e assumption. The on1y difficu1ty. insofar as any is recognized. 1ies in determining the specific goa1s of a particu1ar organization (Georgiou. 1973L Thus. for the university. for examp1e. to say its goa1s are teaching and research is hard1y enough since this 17 18 1eaves open the centra1 questions: Teaching what? Research on what? To what extent? and For how 1ong? Goa1 identification is centra1 to understanding organizationa1 behavior. Theorists 1ike Etzioni (1964). Perrow (1961). Simon (1976). and Gross and Grambsch (1968) have emphasized that in exp1oring many research questions it may be usefu1 just to ask. "Whose goa1?" In a book titied MW. which was devoted to this subject. Lee et a1. (1968) dec1ared: A1though a11 co11eges and universities share co11ective functions of teaching. research and pub1ic service. each institution may have a distinctive ro1e in the who1e division of 1abor. The common goa1$ of higher education may be a1most infinite. but the 1oca1 means to pursue them are a1ways finite. and the nation may be better served if each institution pursues on1y those goa1s which are suitab1e to its requirements. needs and abi1ities. These questions we seek to answer are thorny and troub1esome. They require a comprehensive reassessment of the mission and aims of co11eges and universities. but they cannot be wished away. They provide the context within which our urgent theme of "Whose Goa1s?" is inevitab1y embedded. (p. 15) In this. the fiftieth year of the American Counci1 on Education. the Annua1 Meeting focused on the theme. "Whose Goa1s for American Higher Education?" Thus. it seems that there has been long-standing concern about goa1 identification and understanding differences and conf1icts over institutiona1 goa1s among the segments of the academic community. A1so. it appears that un1ess goa1s are identified. understood. and appropriate1y dea1t with. the basic function--teaching and 1earning-- cannot be maxima11y performed. Peterson (1977) pointed out that. in varying degrees. many c011eges and universities now find themse1ves interna11y po1arized 19 about their missions. Likewise. 1arge segments of the puinc are sharp1y at odds with what they perceive many co11eges to be doing. He recognized the interna1 and externa1 conf1icts of the campus over goa1s and identified five dimensions of such conf1icts: (1) academic 1earning versus vocationa1 preparation. (2) teaching versus research. (3) persona1 or noncognitive deve1opment. (4) equa1ity versus ega1i- tarianism. and (5) diverse forms of pub1ic service activities. Peterson a1so ca11ed the need of goa1 identification a "state of urgency" which is justified on at 1east four grounds: (1) reaching fisca1 accommodations. (2) achieving interna1 harmony. (3) restoring pub1ic confidence. and (4) the necessity for genera1 consensus on basic goa1s. Studies have shown that most of the serious prob1ems. conf1icting directions. and nonproductive arguments in higher education institutions stem from the fai1ure of the institution to deve1op. communicate. agree on. and use the stated goa1s of the academy in p1anning and a11ocating avai1ab1e resources efficient1y. In co11eges and universities where goa1s are formu1ated. they are ambiguous1y phrased. over1y genera1. and. as a consequence. a11ow for conf1icting interpretations and imp1ementation. rendering them devoid of productive resu1ts (Cohen 8 March. 1974). Thus. educationa1 institutions that have not identified and set forth c1ear and exp1icit goa1s are unab1e to provide the necessary focus and direction needed to achieve their mission. 20 The Carnegie Comnfission on Higher Education (1973) assigned the c1arification of higher education purposes the highest priority. According to the Commission's report. higher education has appeared to be changing some of its purposes. to some degree at 1east. in unwise directions. Academics. as we11 as the pub1ic. have a right--even a duty--to be concerned about changing purposes and the methods to be used in achieving them. The Commission recommended the fo11owing purposes for higher education: 1. 2. Advancing the inte11ectua1 and professiona1 capacity of individua1 students within a constructive campus environment Enhancing human capabiIity in society at 1arge through train- ing. research and services Increasing socia1 justice through greater equa1ity of opportu- nity to obtain an advanced education Advancing 1earning for its own sake through science. scho1ar- ship. and the creative arts. and for the sake of pub1ic inter- est and consumption Eva1uating society. for the benefit of its se1f—renewal. through individua1 scho1arship and persuasion (p. 26) The report went on to conc1ude that higher education needs to c1arify what it thinks it is about and to p1ace this c1arified set of purposes before the nation. It needs to reaffirm its sense of purpose. for its own sake and for the sake of pub1ic understanding and assent. Higher education needs c1earer answers to the question of why? A restoration of a sense of confidence and of c1ear forward motion depends upon the success of such an undertaking. There has been no basic discussion of purposes. engaged in wide1y within higher education. for a century. There shou1d be some new aspirations. some new visions. (p. 26) Thus the Carnegie Commission supported the notions that organizationa1 goa1s in higher education are dynamic and changing. that 21 goa1 rep1acement is an ongoing organizationa1 phenomenon. and that goa1 c1arification is essentia1 for the sake of both the institution and the pubiic. A1though the support of the we11-respected Comnfission for these ideas is unremarkab1e in the 19805. it represents considerab1e change from a few decades ago. when co11eges were de1iberate1y ciinging to o1d traditions and resisting change. as keepers of the status quo--and depositories for the history of the society. As change has come about. universities have increased in cost as they have increased in size and scope. According to Bowen (1980). in 1977 the grand tota1 of costs re1ated to higher education in the United States was about $85 bi11ion. an amount equa1 to 5 percent of the gross nationa1 product or near1y equa1 to annua1 nationa1 defense out1ays. He added that when an industry reaches such financia1 magnitude. many peop1e are bound to ask whether the outcomes are worth the cost; Today. this question is being asked with some insistence. not on1y by the genera1 pub1ic. 1egis— 1ators. donors. and parents. but a1so by students and educators them- se1ves. Those who wish to ho1d co11eges and universities accountab1e demand that the outcomes of higher education be identified. measured in do11ars and then be compared with the costs. Obvious1y they are asking a 1ot. for the outcomes are extraordinari1y hard to iso1ate and measure. Yet. without some reasonab1y re1iab1e methods of defining and assessing outcomes. a11 questions re1ated to the efficiency of higher education. a11 judgments about its progress and a11 efforts toward rationa1 a11ocation of resources to the higher education system become futi1e. (pp. 4-5) 22 Goa1 definition. then. is the first step toward outcome assessment and eva1uation of other aspects of higher education systems. To do this. as Bowen (1980) suggested. a cata1ogue of wide1y accepted goa1s must be compi1ed and used as a check 1ist in the study of actua1 outcomes. At the very 1east. the 1ist wou1d be a starting point in discovering the outcomes. Bowen provided such a cata1ogue through a samp1ing of the extensive 1iterature on goa1s for higher education. The goa1s inc1uded in his 1ist. however. described on1y the fina1 outputs of higher education. not intermediate or supportive goa1s. A1so. they were not specific to any particu1ar institution. The goa1s 1isted were re1ated to the three main functions of higher education--teaching. research. and pub1ic service--and were of two kinds: goa1s for individua1 stu- dents. 1isted under five major areas of responsibi1ity. and goa1s for society. which inc1uded four major areas of responsibi1ity. Because this is the most current. though not the most comprehensive. 1ist. it is of particu1ar interest in the present research and is inc1uded in its entirety in Appendix A. It shou1d be mentioned that each of the goa1s is. to a degree. considered an important responsibi1ity of higher education. But this does not mean that every institution necessari1y must pursue every one of the goa1s or give equa1 emphasis to a11 of them. There is room for variety in goa1s among institutions. The particu1ar va1ue of Bowen's goais cata109ue is that it categorizes the 1atest thinking and concerns in higher education goa1s and that Bowen inc1udes the concept of "avoidance of negative outcomes 23 for society" within the 1ist of possib1e goa1s for higher education. However. if Bowenhs 1ist is to be used for comprehensive identification of institutiona1 goa1s. other supportive goa1s must be added. A1though Gross and Grambsch (1968) are considered to be the first compi1ers of a usefu1 1ist of possib1e goa1s for higher education institutions. their 1ist is more inc1usive than Bowenk» and they have deve1oped an instrument to aid in the process of se1ecting or identifying an institution's specific goa1s. Some of the research reviewed 1ater in this study was derived from or used Gross and Grambsch's Academifldministratccunmjmsjmfieab (1968). A detai1ed description is inc1uded in Appendix B. The most important attempt to c1assify the institutiona1 goa1s of higher education was undertaken by the Educationa1 Testing Service (ETS). Based on the Gross and Grambsch response format. a task group at ETS. chaired by Uh1 and inc1uding Peterson and others. introduced the Institutiona1 Goa1 Inventory (IGI) in 1972. Since then. hundreds of co11eges and universities have used the IGI for such purposes as accreditation. se1f-studies. and 1ong-range p1anning activities. There are three forms of the IGI: 1. The Institutiona1 Goa1 Inventory (IGI). which has been used to study universities' goa1s. The IGI was used in this Study and is described in detai1 in Chapter III. 2. The Community CoIIege Goa15 Inventory (CCGI). The C061 was adapted from the IGI and was deve1oped in cooperation with the American Association of Community and Junior Co11eges to reflect the unique 24 goa1s. concerns. and constituencies of community co11eges. The CCGI consists of a series of 90 statements of possib1e community co11ege goa1s. in which 80 statements are outcome and process goa1 statements. whi1e 10 are optiona1 goais. In this instrument. possib1e community co11ege goa1s are c1assified into the fo11owing goa1 areas (ETS. 1983): 01.1mm: Genera1 Education Inte11ectua1 Orientation Life1ong Learning Cu1tura1/Aesthetic Awareness Personai Deve1opment Human/A1truism Vocationa1 and Technica1 Preparation Deve1opmenta1 and Remedia1 Preparation Community Services Socia1 Criticism Emcessjoals Counse1ing and Advising Student Services Facu1ty and Staff Deve1opment Inte11ectua1 Environment Innovation Co11ege Community Freedom Accessibi1ity Effective Management Accountabi1ity 3. The Sma11 Co11ege Goa1s Inventory (SCGI). The SCGI. an adalDtation of the IGI. addresses the needs of sma11 private. 1ibera1 arts co11eges. The possib1e goa1s of sma11 co11eges are divided into three groups and further into 20 goa1 areas (ETS. 1983): 25 WW: Academic Deve1opment Inte11ectua1 Ski11s Persona1 Deve1opment Ethica1 and Mora1 Deveiopment Cu1tura1 and Aesthetic Awareness Re1igious Orientation Vocationa1 Preparation Preparation for Life1ong Learning Se1f-Understanding Interpersona1 Ski11s Socia1 and Poiitica1 Responsibi1ity W Meeting Loca1 Needs Assistance for Facu1ty and Staff Continuing Education §MRDQLI_Gin§ Democratic Governance and Freedom Campus Community Inte11ectua1 Environment Student Socia1 Environment C00peration with Outside Agencies P1anning Through the use of such inventories. it is possib1e for universities. sma11 co11eges. and community co11eges to identify their goa1s. estab1ish priorities among those goaIS. and give direction to their present and future p1anning. Further. the perceptions of facu1ty. administrators. students. a1umni. trustees. and many other groups may form the first step in studying effectiveness. in p1anning and eva1uation. To identify institutiona1 goa1s. the most common1y accepted method is to compi1e a 1ist of a11 possib1e and acceptab1e goa1s and then to survey and record the views of the constituencies of 26 that institution about the re1ative importance of the possib1e goa1s on the 1ist. In the 1iterature it was found that Gross and Grambsch. in 1968. initiated the first 1ist and instrument for identifying the goa1s of higher education. However. the Institutiona1 Goa1s Inventory deve1oped by ETS. and other inventories adapted from it. have been found to be the most efficient and wide1y used instruments. Ba].at.e_d__$_tud_i_es In this section. re1ated studies are reviewed. Major research on co11ege and university goa1s before 1970 is presented first. Studies on institutiona1 goa1s since 1970 fo11ow. W W The work of Gross and Grambsch (1968) easi1y stands as the most significant ear1y effort to examine the nature and structure of university goa1s. In 1964. they surveyed samp1es of facu1ty and administrators at 68 nondenominationai PhJL-granting universities in the United States. Gross and Grambsch used an inventory consisting of 47 goa1 statements. of which 17 dea1t with output goa1s and the rest with support goa1s. as previous1y described. Based on 51 and 40 percent return rates for facu1ty and administrators. respective1y. the ten top goa1s of American universities. in rank order. were to: 1. protect facu1ty's right to academic freedom 2. increase or maintain the prestige of the university 10. 27 maintain top qua1ity in those programs fe1t to be especia11y important ensure the continued confidence and hence support of those who contribute substantia11y to the finance and other materiai resource needs of the university keep up-to-date and responsive train students in methods of scho1arship. scientific research and creative endeavor carry on pure research maintain top qua1ity in a11 programs ensure favor of va1idating bodies ensure efficient goa1 attainment (p. 28) The ranking of preferred goa1s yie1ded the fo11owing resu1t: 9. 10. that. protect the facu1ty's right to academic freedom train students in methods of scho1arship and scientific research produce a student who has had his inte11ect cu1tivated to the maximum maintain top qua1ity in a11 programs engaged in serve as a center for the dissemination of new ideas keep up-to-date and responsive maintain top qua1ity in those programs fe1t to be especia11y important assist students to deve10p objectivity about thense1ves and their be1iefs ensure efficient goa1 attainment protect students' right of inquiry Comparison of both perceived and preferred goa1s indicates in addition to the consistent concern about the academic freedom 28 of facu1ty. the study resuits indicated that goais re1ating to students were not a high priority in practice a1though the preference was for greater emphasis on student-centered goa1s. This may he1p exp1ain the students' comp1aint during the 19605 that universities gave 1itt1e attention to their interests. The study a1so c1ear1y indicated that administrators and facu1ty members tend to see eye-to-eye to a much greater extent than is common1y supposed. In a second study of a group from the Bureau of App1ied Socia1 Research at Co1umbia University. Nash (1968) sent a form containing 64 goa1 statements to the academic deans at every co11ege in the country. The deans indicated the extent to which their co11eges emphasized each goa1. In genera1. the resuits demonstrated that different goa1s existed for different types of institutions. a1though some goa1 state- ments had universa1 emphasis. Such universa1 goa1s were (1) to improve the qua1ity of instruction. (2) to increase the number of books in the 1ibrary. (3) to provide a basic 1ibera1 education. (4) to induce stu- dents to deve1op a11 of their human potentia1. and (5) to increase resources at the institution. In a study sponsored by the Danforth Foundation in 1969. the Gross and Grambsch Questionnaire was revised for app1ication to private 1ibera1 arts co11eges. The form was administered to the administra- tors. a 20 percent samp1e of facu1ty. and 100 students at 14 1ibera1 arts c011eges. It was found that 1. Great emphasis was p1aced on teaching and student-oriented activities. with 1ittie emphasis on research and research- re1ated activities. 29 2. Significant agreement among administrators. facu1ty. and students existed on most matters re1ating to co11ege goa1s and governance. 3. Marked differences existed in perceived goa1s and preferred goa1s. a1though administrators. facu1ty. and students shared common views on many desired changes. 4. Governance revo1ved around the administrators to a very 1arge extent. The goa1 to "ensure confidence of contributors" was seen as the most important existing goa1 by both facu1ty and students: as a preferred goa1. it was ranked 22 and 36 by facu1ty and students. respective1y. In his questionnaire and interview study of "Institutiona1 Character" in eight co11eges and universities. Martin (1969) found genera11y 1itt1e serious concern about institutiona1 goa1s. a1though there were substantiai differences in this regard between newer and o1der institutions. Seventy-three percent of the facu1ty respondents at the newer co11eges. compared with 6 percent at the o1der institu- tions. reported that institutiona1 objectives were discussed at 1ength when they considered joining the facu1ty. Entering students were found to know 1itt1e about their co11eges' phi1osophy. W W In 1971. Gross and Grambsch (1974) conducted a rep1ication of their 1964 study to determine what changes in goa1 perceptions. organizationa1 structures. and power arrangements had taken p1ace during the seven-year interva1. In genera1. very 1itt1e change in goa1 be1iefs was found in the fo11ow-up study. 30 In spring 1971. Bushne11 (1973) obtained goa1 ratings from 2.500 facu1ty. 10.000 students. and 90 presidents of a nationwide samp1e of 92 puinc and private two-year co11eges. Twenty-six items from the pre1iminary IGI were used. with a s1ight1y modified response format. Bushne11 found that there is a high degree of consensus among community junior co11ege administrators. facu1ty and students on the major goa1s to be served by their co11eges. Differences do occur. however. Presi- dents emphasize responding to community needs; facu1ty p1ace greater stress upon the studentfls persona1 deve10pment: and students press for more ega1itarian goa1s. 1ike the concept of "open door" and extending financia1 aid. (p. 63) Comparing his findings to Gross and Grambsch's. Bushne11 conc1uded that community co11ege presidents give greater weight to student-centered goa15 than do university administrators. Peterson (1973) surveyed 116 co11eges in Ca1ifornia. The study was sponsored by the Ca1ifornia 1egis1ature and carried out in 1972. The IGI was used to survey a samp1e of students. facu1ty members. administrators. trustees. and the genera1 pub1ic. Among other things. the study revea1ed: 1. The students rated career preparation and academic deve1opment as their top goa1 preferences. 2. Facu1ty members gave high ratings to inte11ectua1 and aesthetic environment and 1ower ratings to accountabi1ity and efficiency. 3. Administrators were in agreement with facu1ty in most of the goa1 areas except that they gave student and facu1ty participa- tion in institutiona1 decision-making a 1ower rating. 4. The trustees and other members of the pub1ic preferred voca- tiona1 preparation. individua1 deve1opment. accountabi1ity. and efficiency to be the top goa1s of the institution. This group of respondents a1so gave 1ower ratings to freedom. off-campus 31 poiitics. presentation of unpopu1ar ideas in the c1assroom. and freedom of students and facu1ty members to choose their own 1ife sty1e. The Peterson study showed a higher corre1ation among the private co11ege respondents than among those at state-supported institutions. Peterson contended that reeva1uation of institutiona1 goa1s is a step in the right direction toward better functioning of the academy. He emphasized that when individuaIS participate in formu- 1ating institutiona1 goa1s. they are more committed to supporting and accomp1ishing them. He stated. Off-campus constituencies. individua1s and potentia1 financia1 supporters wi11 be more 1ike1y to accept and support an institution with enthusiasm if they see its goa1s and priorities are suffi- cient1y operationa1. reasonab1y c1ear and verifiab1e. adequate1y meaningfu1 to them. and aiso in substantia1 degree re1evant to them.(p.33) Another study re1ated to goa1s was conducted in winter 1972-73 by Bayer (1973). A 16-part question about institutiona1 goa1s was inc1uded in a comprehensive questionnaire comp1eted by over 42.000 teaching facu1ty at a representative nationa1 samp1e of 301 co11eges and universities. 'The respondents were asked to rate the importance of given goa1s. and the resu1ts were presented separate1y by sex. within types of institutions (two-year c011eges. four-year co11eges. and universities). The goa1 most frequent1y cited as essentia1 or very important in the two senior categories was "to master know1edge in a discip1ine." Among the two-year co11ege facu1ty. 88 percent indicated "to prepare students for emp1oyment after co11ege." and 85 percent cited "to provide the 1oca1 community with ski11ed human resources)‘ "To deve1op the abi1ity to think c1ear1y" ranked second in both senior 32 segments. with 80 and 79 percent. respective1y. University facu1ty. compared with the others. more often rated their institutions 1ower on the various noncognitive goa1s. Women facu1ty. more often than men. gave their institutions high ratings on a11 the goa1s. Sex differences were 1argest for the noncognitive goais. Romney (1978) conducted a study in 1976 that was designed to identify the preferred goa1 areas and measures of progress most genera11y acceptab1e to 45 American co11eges and universities. He questioned 133 trustees. 417 administrators. and 600 facu1ty members. Six types of institutions were represented: 7 pubiic universities granting doctorate degrees. 3 private universities granting doctorate degrees. 9 pub1ic comprehensive co11eges and universities. 12 1ibera1 arts co11eges. and 10 two-year co11eges and institutions. The study used the IGI. The resu1ts of the study showed that: 1. "Academic deve10pment" was the highest preferred goa1 at a11 types of institutions except the two-year co11eges. which rated "vocationa1 preparation" as their number one preferred goa1. 2. "Inte11ectua1 orientation" and "individua1 persona1 deve1op- ment" were ranked second or third at a11 types of institutions. except at the two-year co11eges where they ranked "meeting 1oca1 needs" and "socia1 ega1itarianism" as second and third. respective1y. 3. Pub1ic and private doctorate-granting universities ranked "advanced training and research" higher than other institu- tions. 4. A11 types of institutions ranked freedom. community and innovative c11mate goa1s among the top ten goa1s. The five highest goa1 priorities among the respondent groups were as fo11ows. They are in rank order. 33 llysjees: vocationa1 preparation. comnwnity. individua1 persona1 deveiopment. accountabi1ity. academic deve1opment. Administrators: academic deve1opment. community. inte11ectua1 orientation. individua1 persona1 deve1opment. innovative c1imate. fawn: academic deve1opment. community. inte11ectua1 orientation. freedom. inte11ectua1 aesthetic environment. In ana1yzing the preferences of the respondent groups. the researcher revea1ed that a high degree of congruity existed among them. However. trustees rated students' scho1ar1y work and academic freedom 1ower than did facu1ty and administrators. Administrators rated academic deveiopment. accountabi1ity. and efficiency 1ower than did the facu1ty and trustees. In genera1. the three groups had simi1ar perceptions. In 1976. Kashmeeri (1977) conducted research on co11ege and university goa1$ in Saudi Arabia. The study was designed to determine if significant differences existed among students. facu1ty. and administrators at three Saudi universities concerning their perceptions about the institutions' goa1s. as measured by a modified IGI. A samp1e of 225 students. 157 facu1ty. and 56 administrators was se1ected. The mu1tivariate ana1ysis of variance. the univariate F-test. and the one- way ana1ysis of variance techniques were used in the data ana1ysis. Resu1ts of the study indicated that: 1. The three universities differed significant1y L05 1eve1 of significance) on 17 of the 20 goa1 areas. A1though there are apparent1y significant differences among the three universi- ties. "the fact is that the difference is on the part of the students on1y: facu1ty and administrators do not differ sig- nificant1yJ‘(p.82) 2. Whi1e the resu1ts rejected the nu11 hypothesis. "there is no significant difference in goa1 perceptions among facu1ty. 34 administrators and students)‘ The researcher indicated that."a 1arge degree of agreement" was found between facu1ty and administrators. (p. 82) 3. There were no significant differences in the perceived importance of institutiona1 goa1s between Saudi and non-Saudi facu1ty members in the three institutions. 4. The University of PetroTeum academic community seemed to perceive the fo11owing areas as the most important goa1s of the institution: a. individua1 persona1 deve1opment b. human a1truism c. cu1tura1 and aesthetics d. vocationa1 preparation 6. advanced training f. research 9. meeting 1oca1 needs (pp. 80-81) 5. King Abdu1aziz and King Saud University academic communities seemed to perceive the fo11owing areas as the most important goaTS of those institutions: a. socia1. ega1itarianism b. democratic governance c. inte11ectua1 and aesthetic environment d. innovation e. off-campus 1earning f. accountabi1ity and efficiency (p. 81) The design of this study. the data ana1yses and reporting. and the statistica1 methods used make it impossib1e to know the priorities or re1ative importance attached to specific goa1 areas at each institu- tion or by each respondent group. Iruka (1980) conducted a study about the goa1s of higher educa- tion in Imo-State. Nigeria. in which the IGI was administered to 200 students. 100 facu1ty members. 39 academic administrators. and 36 government educationa1 officia1s. The study was designed. among other aims. to determine the perceptions. preferences. and priorities of these groups concerning the goa1 areas. 35 Genera1 findings of the study indicated that significant differences existed between the groups. 1. Significant differences existed among the groups with respect to their perceptions and preferences. Such differences with regard to perceived responses were found at the .05 and .01 1eve1s among the groups for the goa1 areas of "Individua1 Persona1 Deve10pment" and "Research." Significant differences with respect to preferred responses were found at the .05 and .01 1eve1s among the respondent groups for the goa1 areas of "Academic Deve1opmentfl"$m1tura1 and Aesthetic Awareness." "Traditiona1 Re1igiousness." "Voca- tiona1 Preparation." "Socia1 Ega1itarianism." "Inte11ectua1 and Aesthetic Environment." "Innovative C1imate." and "Advanced Training." Findings of the study showed that more significant differences existed between students and academic administrators than between the other groups. Facu1ty and academic administrators exhibited c1ose agreement with regard to their perceptions and preferences. (pp. 2-3) The study indicated that the major present (perceived) goa1s of higher education in Imo~State (Nigeria) according to their rank order of importance were: a. Academic Deve1opment b. Inte1iectua1 Orientation c. Individua1 Persona1 Deve1opment d. Community e. Vocationa1 Preparation Human and A1truism Pub1ic Service Accountabi1ity and Efficiency Advanced Training Inte11ectua1 and Aesthetic Environment Meeting Loca1 Needs Innovation C1imate Democratic Governance Socia1 Criticism and Activism (p. 62) 4| 0 33 arm-31: O O The study showed that institutions tended to p1ace a high priority on outcome goa1 areas and a 1ow priority on supportive goa1 areas. Aiso. a11 goa1 areas were rated as of "medium" or "10w" importance. 36 5. According to the means of the ratings by the respondents. "Individua1 Persona1 Deve1opment." "Vocationa1 Preparation." and "Comnunflty" were the top-ranked preferences of goa1 areas. (p. 76) In 1981. a project on university goa1s was initiated at the University of A1berta (Konrad. 1983). The study was designed to ascertain the goa1$ of Canadian universities as perceived by presidents and board chairmen. to compare their perceptions of existing and preferred goa1s. and to compare perceptions by respondent position and by region. age. and size of university. The Canadian edition of the IGI was used in the survey. A French version was used for the Francophone institutions in Quebec and New Brunswick. Questionnaires were mai1ed to a11 presidents of pub1ic degree-granting universities in Canada. and usab1e returns were received from 38 presidents and 16 board chairmen. 'The findings of this study indicated that: 1. The traditiona) outcome goa1s of a university were not rated high1y in this study; genera11y process goa1s were perceived more high1y than outcome goa1s on both existing and preferred dimensions. 2. When a11 goa1 areas were combined. the top-ranked goa1 was "Institutiona1 Reputation." fo11owed c1ose1y by "Communityfl' Presidents and board chairmen appeared most concerned with how universities were perceived in society. The high emphasis upon community within the university suggested a strong concern for institutiona1 functioning. 3. When on1y outcome goa1s were considered. the order of emphasis was first upon teaching-re1ated goaIS. then on research. and fina11y upon pub1ic service. 4. Presidents and board chairmen be1ieved that Canadian universi- ties shou1d p1ace greater importance on a11 goa1 areas than at present. 37 5. A great dea1 of consensus among respondents regarding the importance of Canadian university goa1s was found. On1y a few differences in goa1 perceptions among respondents were re1ated to their position. or to the region. age. and size of the university. (p. 14) W In any study. under1ying assumptions exist to form a framework of theory upon which the study re1ies. This particu1ar study was based on the theories of severa1 writers and researchers in the genera1 fie1d of organizationa1 study. such as Ta1cott Parsons. Herbert Simon. and Amitai Etzioni. as we11 as a number of others whose specia1ty is higher education. Attention is given on1y to the segments of those theories that dea1 direct1y with institutiona1 goa1s. Goa1 is a centra1 concept in the study of organizations. Parsons (1960) indicated that an organizationa1 goa1 is the state of affairs that the organization is seeking to rea1ize. Thus. one cannot fu11y understand an organization without a study of its goa1s. He went on to dec1are that goa1 attainment becomes the centra1 focus for the organization and gives direction to organizationa1 activities. A150. he said that some goa1s may be attained and some may not. It f011ows that success or 1ack of success in goa1 attainment becomes one of the major vehic1es for eva1uating an organization. Both Parsons and Etzioni (1961) defined organization as a socia1 unit de1iberate1y constructed and reconstructed to seek specific goa1s. Thus. goais are seen to be the reasons for which the organiza- tion exists. Goa1s. then. are the defining characteristics of an organization which distinguish it from other types of socia1 systems 38 (Parsons. 1956). Simon (1976) a1so indicated that "most organizations are oriented around some goa1 or objective which provides the purpose toward which the organization's decisions and activities are directed" (p. 112x Thus. it seems that there is genera1 agreement among these theorists that an organization has a goa1 or goa1s that it exists to serve and rea1ize. Whi1e there is no consensus about viewing the university as an organization. Gross and Grambsch (1968) emphasized the organizationa1 as opposed to academic aspects of higher education. They pointed out. "Our basic premise is that. contrary to the common beIief that the university has grown haphazard1y. the university is an organization with organizationa1 goa1s. inc1uding the maintenance activities" (p. 4). Thus. they viewed the university as a 1arge. comp1ex organization that has a 1arge number of goa1s. A150. they indicated that the university engages in a great many activities with- out thinking of them as goa1s. In spite of the great amount of theory and research about forma1 organizations. surprising1y 1ittTe attention has been given to defining c1ear1y what is meant by a goa1 in the first p1ace (Simon. 1976). However. Etzioni (1964) defined an organizationa1 goa1 as "a desired state of affairs which the organization attempts to reaiize" (p. 6). but this formu1ation raises the question of whose state of affairs it is that is desired. Theoretica11y. there cou1d be as many desired states for the organization as there are persons in it (Gross & Grambsch. 1968. p. 5% Thompson and McEwan (1958)Tattempted to define goa1s in terms or system 39 1inkages. ‘They saw a goa1 as invo1ving some type of output to a 1arger society. In this sense. organizations are a1ways subsystems. the goa1 of one subsystem being a means or input to another. Such an approach emphasizes the re1ation of organizations to one another and to the surrounding society. However. the main drawbacks to this approach are that (1) it 1imits the freedom of those within the organization in setting its goa1s. (2) such an emphasis tends to underestimate the contribution of rationa1 decision makers in choosing goa1s. and (3) because organizations have a great many outputs. both intended and unintended. it is hard to sing1e out certain kinds of outputs as the goa15 of the organization (Gross & Grambsch. 1968). A11 the concepts discussed so far have touched on the e1ements of a definition of goals. Goals exist in someone's mind. and they invo1ve the re1ationship between an organization and its situation. Simon (1961) emphasized the centra1ity of organizationa1 goa1s to the study of organization. pointing out that "few discussions of organization theory manage to get aiong without introducing some concepts of organizationa1 goa1J' He argued that goa1s are critica1 to any detai1ed study of organizationa1 theory and administrative behav- ior. For Perrow (1961). more studies of organizationa1 goa1s are needed. He emphasized that for a fu11 understanding of organizations and behavior of their personne1. ana1ysis of organizationa1 goa15 seems to be critica1. Etzioni (1964) pointed out that the goa1s of organizations serve many functions: 4O 1. They provide orientation by depicting a future state of affairs which the organization strives to reaIize. Thus. they set down guide1ines for organizationa1 activities. 2. Goa1s constitute a source of 1egitimacy which justifies the activities of an organization and its very existence. 3. Goa1s serve as standards by which organizationa1 success can be assessed. 4. Goa1s a1so serve as measuring rods for the student of organiza- tion who tries to determine how we11 the organization is doing. (p. 5) It seems c1ear that goa1 study is centra1 to understanding many aspects of the university as a comp1ex organization and that. to serve those purposes mentioned above. goa1s must be c1ear1y identified and defined. Simon and March (1958) pointed out that organizationa1 goa1s are characteristica11y dynamic and changing. This view was a1so shared by Thompson and McEwen (1958). who viewed the setting of goa1s. not as a static eTement. but as a necessary and recurring prob1em facing any organization. Thus goa1s are seen as dynamic variabies. They pointed out that: Because the setting of goa15 is essentia11y a prob1em of defining desired re1ationships between an organization and its environment. change in either requires review and perhaps a1teration of goa1s. Even where the most abstract statement of goa1s remains constant. app1ication requires redefinition or interpretation as changes occur in the organization. the environment. or both. (p. 23) According1y. it seems that the university as a socia1 and comp1ex organization. experiencing many changes within its wa115 and operating in an environment of changing demands. must continuous1y reappraise its goa15 if it is to assure the rea1ization of its goa15 41 and the abiTity to contro1 the environmenta1 variab1es that affect them. Corson (1975) said: "University goa1s have never been stabie. they tend to change from time to time fo110wing the inf1uence of outsiders such as a1umni. donors. agricu1tura1 and business interests. government and students" (p. 90). These inf1uences. demands. and changes create the atmosphere that resu1ts in organizations. especia11y in higher education. Iegitimate1y serving mu1tip1e goa1s. often at the same time. Etzioni (1964) be1ieved that within mu1tipurpose organizations such as universities. goa15 can be in conf1ict and create serious organizationa1 prob1ems. He pointed out that the various goa1s otten make incompatib1e demands on the organization. There may be conf1ict over the amount of means. time. and energy to be alIocated to each goa1. Consequent1y. estaDTishing goa1 priorities may he1p re1ieve such conf1ict. In this regard he suggested that "the estab1ishment of a set of priorities. which c1ear1y defines the re1ative importance of the various goa1s. reduces the disruptive consequences of such con- f1icts. though it does not e1iminate the prob1em" (p. 15L This seems to imp1y that estab1ishing goa1 priorities w111 have positive administrative and organizationa1 resu1ts for the university. It a1so imp1ies that such situations ca11 for constant study of organi- zationa1 goa1s with focus on goa1 priorities and on the re1ative impor- tance attached to goa1s by the organization's constituencies. Etzioni (1964) distinguished between stated goa15 and rea1 goa1s. Rea1 goals are 42 those future states toward which a majority of the organization's means and the major organizationa1 commitments of the participants are directed. and which. in cases of conf1ict with goa1s which are ‘sjateg but command few resources. have c1ear priority. (p. 7) He rejected the stated_ggals because they are usua11y meant on1y for pub1ic consumption. It seems c1ear that the stated goa1s of an organi- zation may not represent its actua1 or rea1 goa1s and that studies shou1d be conducted to find out what the rea1 goa1s are. Another c1assification of goals was suggested by Perrow (1961). According to him. the types of goa15 most re1evant to understanding organizationa1 behavior are not the gifjglal_ggals. which are the genera1 purposes of the organization as set forth in the charter. but those that are embedded in major operating poiicies and the dai1y decisions of the personne1 (the operative goa1s). Thus Perrow introduced the operative goa1s as a major variab1e in understanding organizations and at the same time pushed aside the "officia1" goa15 as Etzioni did the "stated" goa1s. Stated different1y. both Etzioni and Perrow emphasized the importance of understanding organizationa1 behavior through its "rea1" or operative goa1s. which are more 1ikely to represent the true situation in the organization. This impiies. however. that studies shou1d be conducted to distinguish between the rea1 (operative) and stated (officia1) goa1s. An important concept in the study of organizationa1 goals is that of output and support goa1s. which were introduced by Gross and Grambsch (1968). They defined output goa1s as those that are mani- fested in a product of some kind. Support goa1s were defined as those that are the ends of persons responsib1e for the maintenance activities 43 (e4}. adaptation. integration. position. tension-management). Another concept of re1evance to the study is "intentions." which Gross and Grambsch defined as what participants see the organization trying to do: what they be1ieve its goa1s to be. what direction they fee1 it is taking as an organization. 'Thus it becomes widely accepted practice for the student of institutiona1 goa1s to identify both types of goa15. Further. most studies that have been conducted on institutiona1 goa1s since 1966 used this concept to identify the perceived and preferred goa15 of the participants. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This research was designed to identify and compare the present and preferred institutiona1 goa1s at Saudi Arabian universities. as viewed by the Saudi facu1ty members. academic administrators. and university supreme counciiors at major Saudi universities. 'This chapter describes the methodo1ogy used in this inquiry. inc1uding the popu1ation. instrumentation. data co11ection. research questions. and data ana1ysis. mm This study was designed to investigate goa1 perceptions and preferences at Saudi universities. Three major universities. out of seven. were se1ected because of geographica1 1ocation (each university is 1ocated in a different region of Saudi Arabia): King Saud Univer- sity (KSU) in the Centra1 Province. King Abdu1aziz University (KAU) in the Western Province. and the University of Petro1eum and Minera1s (UPM) in the Eastern Province. In addition. two of these institutions (KSU and KAU) are characterized by a diversity of fie1d5 of study and degrees and by having more than one campus. whi1e the third (UPM) is an examp1e of a "sma11 and specia1ized scientific-oriented institutionJ' A fina1 consideration was that a11 three universities are adopting the AA 45 Western educationa1 system and represent mode15 that other Saudi universities fo11ow and imitate. The target popu1ation of this study comprised a11 university supreme counci1ors. academic administrators. and Saudi facu1ty members at the three se1ected universities. Since the tota1 target popu1ation was not 1arge. and to avoid possib1e deficiencies that might resu1t from samp1ing. it was decided that the tota1 popu1ation wou1d be the subjects of the study. The popu1ation thus comprised 766 participants. of whom 450 were facu1ty members. 253 were academic administrators. and 63 were university supreme counci1ors. 'Tab1e 3.1 shows the number of subjects in each group. the number of usab1e responses. and the response percentage by group. The distribution of the subjects by university is presented in Tab1e 3.2. Tab1e 3.1.--Tota1 subjects by group. usab1e responses. and response percentage for each group. Subject Group Number of Usab1e Percent of Subjects Responses Response Facu1ty members 450 237 52.7 Academic administrators 253 156 61.7 University supreme counci1ors 63 35 55.6 Tota1 766 428 55.9 46 Tab1e 3.2.-~Number of subjects. usab1e responses. and percentage of response by university. University Number of Usab1e Percent of Subjects Responses Response King Abdu1aziz University 250 141 56.4 King Saud University 430 227 52.9 University of Petro1eum and Minera1s 86 60 69.8 Tota1 766 428 55.9 Instrumentation The review of contemporary 1iterature resu1ted in the identifi- cation of a number of the major goa1s of higher education. It was observed that those major goa1s were inc1uded in the Institutiona1 Goa1 Inventory (IGI) deve1oped by Peterson and Uh1 under the sponsorship of the Educationa1 Testing Service in 1972. 'The theoretica1 framework of the instrument consists of 20 goa1 areas divided into two categories: A. Outcome Goa1 Area5--the co11ective activities of a given institution as it attempts to carry out its various commitments ref1ected in some products. ski11s. and service to comnmnity or society. (Bushne11. 1973. p. 49) 8. Process Goa1 Areas-~a variety of activities designed to he1p the institution function in its environment. whi1e at the same time faci1itating its achievement of the outcome goa1 areas. (Bushne11. 1973. p. 48) The instrument itse1f contains 90 goa1 statements. with four goa1 statements re1ating to each of 20 goa1 areas and ten misce11aneous goa1 statements. In addition. it provides for the option of ten 1oca1 47 goa1 statements. Each goa1 statement has possib1e responses ranging from 5 (of extreme1y high importance) to 1 (of no importance). The respondent is asked to make two judgments for each goa1 statement: 1. How important the goa1 present1y IS in the institution 2. How important the goa1 optima11y SHOULD_BE in the institution (See Appendix C.) The IGI has been used extensive1y on a sca1e 1arge enough and representative enough. in type of institution and constituent groups samp1ed. to yie1d usefu1 comparative data. Since its pubiication in 1972. the IGI has been used in hundreds of co11eges and universities in the United States and e1sewhere. It has been tran51ated into French. Spanish. and even Arabic and Thai. Permission to use the instrument and to make the necessary modifications was sought from and granted by the Educationa1 Testing Service (Appendix 0). When permission was received. it was 1earned that the Arabic trans1ation of the IGI is avai1ab1e through the University of Ok1ahoma. The Arabic version was obtained and used in this study after making some minor modifications (see Appendix C). The fina1 form of the questionnaire used in this study contained 106 questions: 80 questions re1ated to the 20 goa1 areas. with 4 questions re1ating to each goa1 area; 10 misce11aneous questions re1ated to a variety of individua1 goa1s: 9 questions re1ated to 1oca1 goa1s; and 7 questions concerning the background of the respondents (Appendix C). A copy of the proposa1 was sent to the University Committee for Research Invoiving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State University. which reviewed the proposa1 and granted approva1 to conduct the project (Appendix D). 48 The 20 goa1 areas of the IGI. after modification. were as fo11ows: A. Outcome Goa1 Areas 1. .Agademic.Dexelgpment--This goa1 area concerns acquisition of genera1 and specia1ized know1edge. preparation of stu- dents for advanced scho1ar1y study. and maintenance of high inte11ectua1 standards on the campus (Questions 1. 4. 6. and 9). Intellegtugl_911entatign--This goa1 area re1ates to an attitude about 1earning and inte11ectua1 work. It means fami1iarity with research and prob1em-so1ving methods. the abiiity to synthesize know1edge from many sources. the capacity for se1f—directed 1earning. and a commitment to 1ife1ong 1earning (Questions 2. S. 7. and 10). Ifld111dual_EeLsQnal_Deyelmeent--This goa1 area means iden- tification by students of persona1 goa1s. deve1opment of means for achieving them. and enhancement of sense of se1f-worth and 5e1f-confidence (Questions 3. 8. 11. and 13). .flumanismLAltLuism--This goa1 area ref1ects a respect for diverse cu1tures. commitment to working with wor1d peace. consciousness of the important mora1 issues of the time. and concern about the we1fare of man genera11y (Questions 14. 17. 20. and 23). WWW-4M5 goa1 area entai1s a heightened appreciation of a variety of art forms. required 6. 7. 8. 49 study in the humanities or arts. exposure to forms of Arabic art. and encouragement of active student participa- tion in artistic activities (Questions 15. 18. 21. and 24). ‘IIaditlgnal_8eligigusn§ss--This goa1 area is intended to mean a re1igiousness that is orthodox. doctrina1. usua11y sectarian. and often fundamenta1--in short. traditiona1 rather than secu1ar or modern (Questions 16. 19. 22. and 25). ‘Vggatignal_finepanatign--This goa1 area means offering specific occupationa1 curricu1ums (as in accounting or nursing). programs geared to emerging career fie1ds. opportunities for retraining or upgrading ski115. and assistance to students in career p1anning (Questions 26. 30. 36. and 38). .Adyanced_lnainjng—-This goa1 area can be most readi1y understood simp1y as the avai1abi1ity of postgraduate education. It means deve10ping and maintaining a strong and comprehensive graduate schooT. providing programs in the professions. and conducting advanced study in specia1— ized prob1em areas (Questions 27. 31. 32. and 41). .Beseanch--This goa1 area invo1ves doing contract studies for externa1 agencies. conducting basic research in the natura1 and socia1 sciences. and seeking genera11y to extend the frontiers of know1edge through scientific research (Questions 28. 34. 35. and 37). 10. 11. 12. 13. 50 .Meeting_L9gal_Needs--This goa1 area is defined as providing for continuing education for adu1ts. serving as a cu1tura1 center for the comnmnity. providing trained manpower for 1oca1 emp1oyers. and faciTitating student invo1vement in community service activities (Questions 29. 33. 38. and 40). Euplj;_§erylge--This goa1 area means working with governmenta1 agencies in socia1 and environmenta1 poiicy formation. comnfitting institutiona1 resources to the so1u- tion of major socia1 and environmenta1 prob1ems. training peop1e from disadvantaged communities. and genera11y being responsive to regiona1 and nationa1 priorities in p1anning educationa1 programs (Questions 44. 47. 50. and 51L Wmumis goa1 has to do with open admissions and suitab1e education for a11 admitted. providing educationa1 experiences appropriate to women and to those 1iving in remote areas. and offering remedia1 work in basic ski11s (Questions 42. 45. 48. and 52). .Sgclal_CniticismLAgtiyism--This goa1 area means providing criticism of prevai1ing Saudi va1ues. offering ideas for changing socia1 institutions judged to be defective. he1p- ing students 1earn how to bring about change in Saudi society. and being engaged. as an institution. in working for basic changes in Saudi society (Questions 43. 46. 49. and 53). 51 8. Process Goa1 Areas 14. 15. 16. 17. freedom--This goa1 area is defined as protecting the rights of facu1ty to present varied ideas in the c1assroom. not preventing students from hearing diverse points of view. p1acing no restrictions on off-campus activities by facu1ty or students. and ensuring facu1ty and students the freedom to choose their own 1ifesty1es (Questions 54. 57. 60. and 63). .Qemgcnatlc_figyennance--This goa1 area concerns decentra1- ized decision-making arrangements by which students. fac- u1ty. administrators. and governing board members can a11 be significant1y invo1ved in campus governance. opportunity for individua1s to participate in a11 decisions affecting them. and governance that is genuine1y responsive to the concerns of everyone at the institution (Questions 55. 58. 61. and 64). Eammnunity--This goa1 area is defined as maintaining a c1imate in which there is facu1ty commitment to the genera1 we1 fare of the institution. open and candid communication. open and amicab1e airing of differences. and mutua1 trust and respect among students. facu1ty. and academic adminis- trators (Questions 56. 59. 62. and 65). In1e11gctualLAesthet1g_EnyinQnment--This goa1 area refers to a rich program of cu1tura1 events. a campus c1imate that faci1itates student free-time invo1vement in inte11ectua1 18. 19. 20. 52 and cu1tura1 activities. an environment in which students and facu1ty can easi1y interact informa11y. and a reputa- tion as an inte11ectua11y exciting campus (Questions 66. 69. 73. and 76). 'Inngyatlgn--This goa1 area is defined as a CIimate in which continuous innovation is an accepted way of 1ife; it means estab1ished procedures for readi1y initiating curricuiar or instructiona1 innovations; and more specifica11y. it means experimentation with new approaches to individua1ized instruction and to eva1uating and grading student perform- ance (Questions 67. 70. 74. and 77). .QI£:Cammus_LeaLn1ng--Thi5 goa1 area inc1udes time away from the campus in trave1. work study. trips. etc.; study on severa1 campuses during undergraduate programs; awarding degrees for supervised study off campus; and awarding degrees entire1y on the basis of performance on examina- tions (Questions 68. 72. 75. and 78). Asgguntabilityfifijjlglency--This goa1 area is defined to inc1ude the use of cost criteria in deciding among program a1ternative5. concern for program efficiency. accountabi1- ity to funding sources for program effectiveness. and regu- 1ar submission of evidence that an institution is achieving its stated goa1s (Questions 79. 81. 83. and 87). 53 Data_§Qlle£tiQn To ensure the accuracy of data co11ection. the fo110wing procedures were fo11owed: 1. A 1etter was sent by the academic advisor to Umm Al Qura University (the researchewis sponsor) through the Saudi Arabian Educationa1 Mission in the United States. to obtain permission for the researcher to co11ect the data in Saudi Arabia (Appendix D). 2. Upon arriving in Saudi Arabia in Ju1y 1984. the researcher contacted his university sponsors to secure the financia1 resources required for the study and to have 1etters from the president of his university sent to the presidents of the universities se1ected for the study. requesting their assistance in administering the questionnaire in their universities and in gathering the necessary data (Appendix D). 3. The participating universities were visited by the researcher to arrange for distribution of the research instrument and to obtain comp1ete 1ists of the participants. 4. Arabic copies of the questionnaire and a cover 1etter signed by the vice-presidents of each participating university were prepared. 5. On October 14. 1984. research instruments were distributed at King Saud University according to the iist obtained from that institution. Each participant received an enveiope that inc1uded the cover 1etter and a copy of the questionnaire through their departments. Participants were asked to return comp1eted questionnaires to their respective departments within ten days. The university supreme 54 counci1ors who worked outside the university were asked to return their comp1eted questionnaires to the vice-presidentfls office. Fo110wing the same procedure. research instruments were distributed to the University of Petro1eum and Minerais on October 22. 1984. and to King Abdu1aziz University on November 5. 1984. 6. Ten days after the distribution of the research instrument to each university. the researcher visited each university. where he found that the rate of return was about 5 percent. According1y. a fo11ow-up 1etter was sent to each participant since there was no way of knowing who had responded and who had not. A week 1ater the response increased to 10 percent. 7. Because the return rate was so 1ow. the researcher appea1ed to the deans of each c011ege seeking he1p and advice. As a resu1t. some deans sent 1etters to their chairpersons asking them to encourage facu1ty members to return their comp1eted questionnaires. Extra copies of the questionnaires were a1so distributed to each department to be avai1ab1e for those who might have 1ost or misp1aced their copies. As a resu1t of these efforts. the response rate increased to about 25 percent. 8. The office hours. room numbers. and te1ephone numbers of each participant were then obtained. and a persona1 ca11 or visit was made to each participant in a further effort to increase response. The secretaries of each department were a1so directed by their chairpersons to conduct te1ephone fo11ow-ups to encourage facu1ty members to return their comp1eted questionnaires. In the course of the researcherus 55 endeavors to encourage the rate of return. it was found that the persona1 contact was the most beneficia1 way to encourage response. a1though this procedure required considerab1e time and effort. 9. Before 1eaving each university. an address was provided to those who promised to comp1ete the questionnaires 1ater and send them on. 10. By December 10. 1984. the rate of response had risen to 55.9 percent. Since it was conc1uded that it was un1ike1y further efforts wou1d increase this rate. the researcher returned to the United States for data ana1ysis and to comp1ete the research. Wasting The study was intended to answer the fo11owing questions: 1. What are the present goa1s of the major Saudi universities as perceived by their combined supreme counci1ors. academic administra- tors. and Saudi facu1ty members? 2. What are the preferences of the combined university supreme counci1ors. academic administrators. and Saudi facu1ty members concern- ing the goa1s? 3. What discrepancies exist between the present and preferred goa1s? 4. What is the re1ative importance of goa1 perceptions and goa1 preferences of each of the three major Saudi universities? 5. What are the perceptions and preferences of the university supreme counci1ors in the major Saudi universities concerning the goa1 areas? 56 6. What are the perceptions and preferences of the academic administrators in the major Saudi universities concerning the goa1 areas? 7. What are the perceptions and preferences of the Saudi facu1ty members in the major Saudi universities concerning the goa1 areas? 8. Are there significant differences in perceptions and preferences concerning the goa1 areas between pairs of respondent groups? 9. Based on the perceptions and preferences of the above constituents. what are the identified priorities among the institu- tiona1 goa1s in the major Saudi universities? W The intention of this study. genera11y stated. was (1) to determine both the IS and SHOULD BE goa1s of the Saudi universities. (2) to determine the re1ative importance given to both IS and SHOULD BE goa1s at each university inc1uded in the study. (3) to determine the re1ative importance given by each respondent group to IS and SHOULD BE goa15.(4) to determine whether significant differences existed between pairs of groups in their ratings of IS and SHOULD BE goa1s. and (5) to exp1ore the priorities put on goa1s in those major universities. Data needed for answering the research questions were obtained from Saudi facu1ty members. academic administrators.iand university supreme counci10rs using the modified IGI. The questionnaires were 57 coded and key-punched onto machine punch cards. Then the data were ana1yzed using the fo11owing statistica1 methods. 1. Descriptive Statistics a. 'The means and standard deviations of the 99 goa1 statements were ca1cu1ated. b. The 20 goa1 area means and standard deviations were ca1cu- 1ated. A given goa1 area mean was simp1y the average of the means of the four goa1 statements comprising that goa1 area. TA given goa1 area standard deviation was obtained by first ca1cu1ating each individuai's mean response to the four statements comprising that goa1 area and then ca1cu1ating the standard deviation of a11 the individua1 means. c. The 20 goa1 areas and the 19 1oca1 and misce11aneous goa15 were rank ordered according to IS and SHOULD BE means. starting in both cases with the highest mean. (This procedure was used to answer Questions 1 and 2.) d. The discrepancies between IS and SHOULD BE (tota1 group) were determined. The 20 goa1 areas were rank ordered according to the size of discrepancy or gap between the mean SHOULD BE response and the mean IS response based on tota1 group responses. The goa1 area 1eading the 1ist was the one having the 1argest SHOULD BE - IS discrepancy. This procedure was used to answer Question 3. e. The re1ative importance given to the 20 goa1 areas at each university was determined by ranking those areas according to their means. Those means were based on the rating of the 20 goa1 areas by 58 each universitnds respondents. (This procedure was used to answer Question 4.) f. The means and standard deviations for each group of Saudi facu1ty members. academic administrators.iand university supreme coun- ci1ors. re1ative to perceived and preferred goa1s. were ca1cu1ated and. based on those means. goa1 areas were rank ordered for each subgroup. (This procedure was used in answering Questions 5. 6. and 7J g. The rank order obtained in Step f was used to identify the priorities of the institutiona1 goa1s in the major Saudi universities (Question 9). 2. Inferentia1 Statistics a. One-way ana1ysis of variance was conducted to determine if significant differences existed among the groups with respect to their perceptions of how important the goa1 areas are. D. One-way ana1ysis of variance was used to determine if significant differences existed among the groups with respect to how important they be1ieved the goa1 areas shou1d be. c. One-way ana1ysis of variance of the mean discrepancy (between IS and SHOULD BE) for facu1ty. academic administrators. and supreme councii members was ca1cu1ated to determine the significance of differences in the discrepancies among groups. d. A simp1e rank-order corre1ation of the ranking of the 20 goa1 areas by grouped pairs was ca1cu1ated to determine the 1eve1 of agreement or disagreement in the ranking of goa1 areas. 59 e. The Scheffe post hoc test was used to determine among which groups. if any. there were significant differences in the perceptions of goa1s and preferences of goa1s. f. Ana1ysis of variance (ANOVA) was a150 administered to determine any significant differences in goa1 perceptions and prefer- ences between pairs of groups. Statistica1 significance was determined at both the .05 and .01 1eve1s. The standard IGI profi1e charts are used in presenting some of the resu1ts. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS This chapter is devoted to the presentation and ana1ysis of the data gathered in this study. First. the characteristics of the respondents are described. and then the study findings are presented and discussed. The presentation of the findings fo11ows the organized framework provided by the nine research questions. 'That is. starting with Question 1. after the brief section of demographic data. each question is restated and fo11owed by a discussion of the findings. .Beanonflentsl_9hanastenistiss Initia1 demographic information e1icited by the research instrument revea1ed that from a tota1 of 428 respondents. there were 237 facu1ty members. 156 academic administrators. and 35 university supreme counci1ors. Of the tota1 respondents. 20.5 percent majored in bio1ogica1 sciences. 13.6 percent in physica1 sciences. 2.8 percent in mathematics. 1236 percent in socia1 sciences. 11.7 percent in humanities. 0.9 percent in fine and performing arts. 6.8 percent in education. 6.1 percent in business. 19.9 percent in engineering. and 5.1 percent in other majors. C1assification of respondents according to their academic rank showed that 67.8 percent were assistant professors. 18.0 percent were 60 61 associate professors. and 11.7 percent were professors. These indi- vidua1s had a Ph.D. degree or its equiva1ent. The remaining 2.5 per- cent were either university supreme counciTors appointed from outside the universities or 1ecturers ho1ding an academic administration posi- tion and having a B.A. or an M.A. degree. The data revea1ed that:3.0 percent of the respondents were ages 20-29. 61.9 percent were 30-39. 29.9 percent were 40-49. 4.4 percent were 50-59. and on1y 0:7 percent were over 70 years of age. Most respondents had been graduated from universities in other countries; on1y 1.9 percent had graduated from Saudi universities. 7.2 percent from other Arab universities. 61.7 percent from American universities. 28 percent from European universities. and'L2 percent from other universities. In contrast. the distribution of respondents by nation- a1ity indicated that 8457 percent were Saudi citizens and 15.4 percent were non-Saudis. Wm W The first research question was: What are the present goa1s of the major Saudi universities as perceived by their combined supreme counci1ors. academic admin- istrators. and Saudi facu1ty members? To answer this question. the respondents were asked to rate the degree of importance their institutions present1y p1aced on the goa1s in the Institutiona1 Goa1 Inventory (IGI) 1ist. The rating sca1e inc1uded options ranging from "no importance or not app1icab1eb" which was assigned a va1ue of 1. to "extreme1y high importance." which was 62 assigned a va1ue of 5. That is. each goa1 had a mean range from 1 to 5. and its importance was determined according to the f011owing distributions: 1. of no importance or not app1icab1e if it had a mean of 1.5 or 1ess 2. of 1ow importance if it had a mean of 1.51-2.50 3. of medium importance if it had a mean of 2.51-3.5 4. of high importance if it had a mean of 3.51—4.5 5. of extreme1y high importance if it had a mean of 4.51 or above Goa15 were rank ordered according to their means. A goa1 that was at the top of the 1ist was the one that had the highest mean and was considered to have the highest priority or re1ative importance. Data required to answer Research Question 1 were of two categories: (1) perceived (IS) goa1 areas and (2) perceived (IS) 1oca1 and misce11aneous goa1s. 25W. Tab1e 4.1 presents ratings of the current goa1 areas at Saudi universities. ranked by their means. Examination of this tab1e revea1s that the top ten perceived goa1 areas were Advanced Training. which was perceived as goa1 area one. fo11owed by Traditiona1 Re1igiousness. Academic Deve10p- ment. Meeting Loca1 Needs. Research. AccountabiTity and Efficiency. Inte11ectua1 and Aesthetic Environment. Vocationa1 Preparation. Commu- nity. and Freedom. The 1owest rankings were given to Off-Campus Learn- ing. Cu1tura1 and Aesthetic Awareness. Socia1 Criticism and Activism. and Humanism and A1truism. 63 Tab1e 4.1.-—Perceived (IS) goa1 areas of Saudi universities. rank ordered by IS means (tota1 group). Rank Goa1 Areaa N Mean SD 1 Advanced Training (0) 428 3.22 .76 2 Traditiona1 Re1igiousness (O) 428 3.08 .84 3 Academic Deve1opment (O) 427 2.96 .63 4 Meeting Loca1 Needs (0) 428 2.90 .69 5 Research (0) 428 2.88 .76 6 Accountabiiity and Efficiency (P) 428 2.82 .71 7 Inte1Tectua1 and Aesthetic Environment (P) 428 2.82 .79 8 Vocationa1 Preparation (0) 428 2.73 .74 9 Community (P) 428 2.69 .87 10 Freedom (P) 428 2.59 .81 11 Innovation (P) 427 2.52 .73 12 Pub1ic Service (0) 427 2.50 .77 13 Socia1 Ega1itarianism (O) 427 2.49 .71 14 Democratic Governance (P) 427 2.48 .84 15 Inte11ectua1 Orientation (O) 426 2.48 .73 16 Individua1 Persona1 Deve1opment (O) 427 2.48 .80 17 Humanism and A1truism (0) 428 2.39 .83 18 Socia1 Criticism and Activism (0) 428 2.37 .81 19 Cu1tura1 and Aesthetic Awareness (0) 428 2.24 .69 20 Off-Campus Learning (P) 427 1.89 .62 ’W— 3In this and succeeding tab1es. O = outcome goa1 process goa1 areas. areas and P = 64 Examination of Tab1e 4.1 indicates that the respondents perceived that their institutions present1y p1aced medium importance on the top 11 goa1 areas and 10w importance on the other nine goa1 areas. Further. the Saudi universities tended to emphasize outcome goa1 areas more than process goa1 areas. in that the top five goa1 areas were outcome goa1s. among which two goa1s--Academic Deve1opment and Traditiona1 Reiigiousness--were student-oriented goa15. Socia11y oriented goa1s were perceived to be of 1ow priority to Saudi universities. Tab1e 4.1 shows the standard deviations of goa1 area means. The re1ative1y high variations in ratings suggest that the respondents varied in their ratings of the importance present1y p1aced on goa1 areas. Further. the re1ative1y 1ow importance p1aced on current goa1 areas was consistent with the findings of other studies. inc1uding those of Iruka (1980) and Peterson (1972). W. In addition to the 20 goa1 areas. the research instrument inc1uded 19 individua1 goa1s. among them nine goa15 conceived as 1oca1 goa1s for Saudi universities and the other ten goa1s c1assified as misce11aneous goa1s. The ratings for those goa1s are provided in Tab1e 4.2. Examination of this tab1e revea1s that the top ten perceived goa1s were "to compTete a comprehensive infrastructure inc1uding 1abs and libraries." which was rated as the highest perceived goa1. fo11owed by "institutiona1 reputation and standingfl'"deve1opment of student 1oya1ty and patriotisnn" "rep1acement of non-Saudi facu1ty and other 65 mm. mm._ aw: >u_cseeou .muo_ ecu uoouum ._.3 umsu mEmcmoLa owe—.00 mc_ccm_a c_ mco~_u_u .moo_ ova—uc_ oh m. mm. ::.~ mm: co_uuscumc_ uo oamsmcm_ ozu m. ;m__ocm econ: mu_o_» cm co_uuscum:_ on“ o~mnmc< o» @— wm. cm.~ aw: ommsacm_ u_nmc< ecu ouc_ mace can muu:o_0m mum—mcmcu eh 5. oo._ mm.~ mm: msaEmu-tuo mco~_u_u ou co_u:u_umc_ ecu to see: new omoocsa .ocsumc ecu unaccouc_ >__ou_umEoum>m or o. oo._ mm.~ aw: ou_. mo >m3 .mco_u:umumc_ . no mo vouauuum m. mamcmoca ecu—.0u uo :o_um:_m>u u_umsoum>m ;u_c3 cm oumED_u o uumocu oh m. mo._ mm.~ aw: :o_u:u_umc_ may to m_mom ogu usoam msosmo ecu co o_nooa macaw msmcomcou o>omcum 0h :— mo._ w~.~ m~: mu_ucoom .mco_umusou Lucuo Lo .mucuacco>om ou co_um_oc c_ uucupconunc. Lo >50cousm .mco_usu_umc_ to cosmos omen. m u>o_:om by Joe; Lo c_muc_me o» m. No._ .m.~ KN: >ocouoaeou mu_uoe -uzume one mc_u_L3 .a:_vmoc ho _o>u_ ween vo>o_;uo o>mg oumaumcm 0:3 mucoesum umcu ocsmco OF N. oo._ om.~ aw: acoan_o>ou human ucm >u_sumw ommcsouco or _. oo._ Rm.~ aw: co_u:u_umc_ .muou on“ Lot oc_::m_a owcmcumco_ ncm E:_voe .ucosm macscuucoO to» uo~_cmoco on o» 0. mm. Km.~ um: co_uuscumc_ uo >u__m:o ecu o>oLnE_ o» m oo._ co.m mm: :o_u_uoo50u u_uu_cum oum_mo._oucouc_ c. .ouxo oh m mm. m_.m mw: acm>o_oc ocoe u_ oxme new Es_:u_ccsu >u_mco>_c: ecu .>_m:o:c_ucou .ao_u>ou or N .m. o_.m w~4 mucovsum so» mucu>o new mu_u_>_uum um.:o_ccsumcuxo to EmLmoLn msocom_> vcm omega o co >Lumo oh 0 :m. -.m was mv_o_u .mco.mmowoca ocm o_u_uco_om c_ acme—.0Lco acousum ommucu:_ o» m ~_._ :N.m m~c mco~_u_u .bsmm ;u_3 mumum coguo tcm >u_suwu .vsmmIEOE mum—Que o» a N... :~.m wN: >LucsoU L_u;u vcmzou Em_uo_cuma ucm >u.m>o_ .mucuvsum oo.o>uu oh m No._ m:.m aw: Amman—.06 Lm__E_m ou co_am_oc c. Loy u_coz u_Eocmum usu :_:u_3 :o_usu_umc_ use Lou mc_ucmum o_nmusaoc m o>omzum ou goo: Lo c_ou:_ms o» N mo._ mm.m RN: mo_cmcn__ new mom. a:_u=.uc~ ocsuuscummcuc_ o>.mco;oLaEOU m mum—aeou o» _ om com: 2 acoEuumum .moo xcmz .Ansocm .mucgv memos m. >0 vocouco xcmc .momu_mcu>_:: _t:mm to m_mom msoocm..uum_e ucm .muO. Am.v “coccsu mchnn.~.: o_nmh 66 staff with Saudi citizensfl'"increasing enro11ment in scientific and professiona1 fie1dsfl'"a broad and vigorous program of extracurricu1ar activities." "deve1oping re1evant curricu1um." "exce11ing in interco1- 1egiate ath1etic competition." "Unproving the quaIity of instructionfl' and "continuous p1anning activities for the institutionsfl Goa1s given the 1east priority were "invo1ving 1oca1 citizens in p1anning co11ege programs that wii1 affect the 1oca1 community." "the Arabization of instruction in fie1ds where Eng1ish is the 1anguage of instruction." "trans1ation." "interpretation of the institution to citizens off- campus." and "conducting systematic eva1uationJ' Examination of Tab1e 4.2 indicates that on1y one goa1. "comp1e- tion of the infrastructure." was rated of high importance; respondents rated a11 other goa1s of medium or 10w importance. Further. the means of the 19 1oca1 and misce11aneous goa1s had standard deviations that ranged from 0.92 to 1.15. which suggests that respondents disagreed wide1y about the reTative importance of each goa1. When a11 goa1s were combined--goa1 areas and 10ca1 and misce1- 1aneous goa1s--the top-ranked current goa15 for Saudi universities. according to their rank order. were: 1. To comp1ete a comprehensive infrastructure inc1uding 1abs and 1ibraries (mean = 3.53). 2. To achieve a reputab1e standing for the institution within the academic wor1d (mean = 3.45). 3. To deve1op students' 10ya1ty and patriotism (mean = 3.28). 67 4. To rep1ace non-Saudi facu1ty and other staff with Saudi citizens (mean = 3.24). 5. To increase student enr011ment in scientific and profes- siona1 fie1ds (mean = 3.22). 6. Advanced Training (mean = 3.22). 7. A broad and vigorous program of extracurricu1ar activities (mean = 3.16). 8. To deve1op the university curricu1um and make it more re1evant (mean = 3.13). 9. Traditiona1 Re1igiousness (mean = 3.08). 10. Interc011egiate ath1etic competition (mean = 3.00). In conc1usion. the data suggested that goa1s that are present1y being emphasized most by Saudi universities are those reTated to estab1ishing university infrastructure inc1uding bui1ding new campuses with modern faci1ities. 1abs. and 1ibraries. to meet the increased enro11ment and socia1 demand for higher education and to provide the country with the ski11ed manpower it needs. Saudi universities are a1so emphasizing reIigious goa1s. in comp1iance with the country's status as an Is1amic nation. Since the Saudi universities are facing a severe shortage in nationa1 facu1ty and administrative staff members. they are emphasizing advanced training by extending their graduate programs to overcome facu1ty and administrative shortages. Occupied with these particu1ar prob1ems. Saudi university personne1 p1aced on1y moderate or 1itt1e importance on other crucia1 goa1 areas. especia11y those required to maintain exce11ence in the 68 system and estab1ish a good work c1imate. The 1ack of emphasis given process goa1 areas such as Community. Freedom. Democratic Governance. and Innovation suggests there was 1itt1e concern for institutiona1 functioning. Further. Pub1ic Service. which is considered to be a basic function of a university. and Student Learning-re1ated goa1s were among those considered to be of 1itt1e importance to Saudi university personne1 surveyed in this research. W W112: The second research question was: What are the preferences of the combined university supreme counci1ors. academic administrators. and Saudi facu1ty members concerning the goa1s of Saudi universities? As with the perceived goa15. data required to answer this question were organized into two categories: preferred goa1 areas and preferred 1oca1 and misce11aneous goa1s. W. Tab1e 4.3 presents goa1 area preferences. ranked according to their means. It was understood that the higher the mean given to a preferred (SHOULD BE) goa1 area. the greater the importance that shou1d be assigned to that goa1 in the eyes of the respondents. Examination of Tab1e 4.3 revea1s that 18 out of the 20 goa1 areas were high1y preferred by the respondents as goa1 areas for Saudi universities. The top ten preferred goa1 areas. ranked according to their SHOULD BE importance. were: Community. Inte11ectua1 Orientation. Democratic Governance. Advanced Training. Research. Individua1 Persona1 Tab1e 4.3.--Preferred (SHOULD BE) goa1 areas for Saudi universities. 69 rank ordered by means (tota1 group). Rank Goa1 Area N Mean SD 1 Community (P) 428 4.49 .45 2 Inte11ectua1 Orientation (O) 427 4.44 .42 3 Democratic Governance (P) 426 4.34 .58 4 Advanced Training (0) 428 4.30 .49 5 Research (0) 428 4.27 .57 6 Individua1 Persona1 Deve1opment (O) 427 4.23 .58 7 Inte11ectua1 and Aesthetic Environment (P) 428 4.19 .52 8 Meeting Loca1 Needs (0) 428 4.14 .49 9 Academic Deve1opment (O) 428 4.11 .48 10 Vocationa1 Preparation (0) 428 4.10 .53 11 Pub1ic Service (0) 428 4.06 .66 12 Traditiona1 Re1igiousness (O) 428 4.04 .78 13 Socia1 Criticism and Activism (0) 428 4.03 .71 14 Innovation (P) 428 4.01 .59 15 Accountabi1ity and Efficiency (P) 428 3.96 .57 16 Freedom (P) 427 3.89 .75 17 Humanism and A1truism (O) 428 3.74 .78 18 Socia1 Ega1itarianism (0) 428 3.66 .72 19 Cu1tura1 and Aesthetic Awareness (0) 428 3.12 .78 20 Off-Campus Learning (P) 427 2.84 .76 7O Deve1opment. Inte11ectua1 and Aesthetic Environment. Meeting Loca1 Needs. Academic Deve1opment. and Vocationa1 Preparation. Tab1e 453 indicates that respondents be1ieved that a11 goa1 areas shou1d be of high importance to their institutions except Off-Campus Learning and Cu1tura1 and Aesthetic Awareness. which were considered to be of medium importance (see Profi1e 1). Ana1ysis of the rank order of the preferred goa1 areas indicates that high priority was given to Community as goa1 area number one and to Democratic Governance as goa1 area number three. which suggests a strong concern for institutiona1 functioning. Further. respondents be1ieved that research and advanced training goa1s shou1d be among those given the highest priority by their institutions. Student-re1ated goa1s and socia11y oriented goa1s. in genera1. were not given high priority. except for Inte11ectua1 Orientation. which ranked as the second priority. Fina11y. Freedom. which is thought to be of great interest to the academic community. was ranked sixteenth out of twenty. This finding is inconsistent with Romney (1978). who found Freedom to be the highest ranked goa1 in American universities. Genera11y speaking. respondents gave higher ratings to a11 the preferred goa1 areas than they did the perceived (IS) goa1 areas. This imp1ies that they beIieved that their institutions were not giving these various goa1 areas the 1eve1 of importance or emphasis they shou1d have. Examination of the standard deviations of both IS and SHOULD BE responses suggests that respondents. in genera1. tended to agree more in their ratings of preferred goa1 areas than perceived goa1 OUTCOME GOALS PROCESS GOALS Profile I: 71 of no of importance] of of of extremely not _ low medium ’ hi applicable importance importance importance importance 1 1.5 2 2 5 3 3.5 4 4 S S r TI I I I I Tl I I I I I I I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I I I Academic Development T'— ‘J’. /'— T" a . 4i— Intellectual __ __ __ I ' . Orientation ’- 0 Hr- 0 Individual Personal ..._ __ 4. t1. . _.— Development L ' O Humanism/Altruism —— -o- -11-- . a . a» q.- 0 O Cultural/Aesthetic J__ __ 0 ° ‘_ _ Awareness TH ' o , I '- O Tummmn _ _ ~‘T“~= '° L Religiousneu 1 d 7 -a T 0 Vocational .T T. __ __. T Preparation . g a I Advanced Training -+— —I.— d> _._ . T ’ I Rerh —-4p— —1— —I— —i.— . —;— . . I M§eung Local __ d__ _+_ __ . T 0 Public Service —0— -1. .._ :1. T 0 Social ' Egalitanan‘ ism ‘- -i~ -r ‘ . . -_ “f- oxmcmmmm/ ' ‘ k I r Frecdom —41— -—i1— > —-I— .. .—-U— —ir— 0 Democratic . ' _ Governance '- TI— TF- TP .. 4 Community ->— -41- ‘1- -L ‘0‘ ~- 0 O Intellectual/Aesthetic L _ d_ .0 Environment A ‘i” h . N— lnnovation «p J- . . .-Ii- -il- , . . O . I OII'Campus _‘__ o I: ° _ i Learning . r. o , o T T O Accountability) __ N, .4. . . ' 0a.». J.— T Efficiency ; 1111 1111111I11111T11111t‘ Perceived (IS) goals .. .. .. .. . Preferred (SHOULD BE) goals Profile for the perceived and preferred goal areas for Saudi Universities. 72 areas. This result. however. was inconsistent with Peterson (l977). who expected smaller standard deviations for IS ratings than for SHOULD BE ratings since the former are perceptions of present reality while the latter are personal opinions about the way things ought to be. This may suggest that a disparate understanding and confusion exists on the campus about what the present goals are. WW. Table 4.4 presents preferred local and miscellaneous goals ranked by their means and shows that respondents considered five preferred goals to be of extremely high importance. These included: "Completing a comprehen- sive infrastructure." "reputation of the institution." "curriculum development and relevancy." "faculty and staff development." and "improvement of the quality of instruction)’ The lowest ratings were given to "including local citizens in planning college programs" and "excellence in intercollegiate athletic competition)‘ Generally speaking. the respondents believed that 17 out of the 19 local and miscellaneous goals should be goals for their institutions and considered preferred goals to be extremely or highly important. Further. all the preferred goals were rated higher in the responses than the perceived. or IS. goals. This implies that Saudi universities are not giving those goals the degree of importance and emphasis that they should be given. according to these university personnel. In conclusion. data gathered to identify the preferred (SHOULD BE) goals of Saudi universities indicated that 18 of 20 goal areas. excepting Off-Campus Learning and Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. and 73 .mu: u 2 cm o>mz mcosuo ._m new: u 2% o... wm.~ momuo_;um 0am_mo__oocouc_ c_ _ouxo 0h m— -._ o~.m memcmoLa moo—.00 m:_ccm_a cm mco~_u_u _muo. ova—uc_ 0h w. :~._ um.m cowuoacumc_ o~_nmc< OF N— om. om.m muco>o vcm mo_u_>_uum Lm_:o_cuaomcuxo mo Emcmoca maocomm> ucm coccn < @— mm. 00.: co_u:umumc_ ecu mo m_m0m ozu u30nm mamcomcou u>omcum oh m— Nw. mo.: mEmLmoLa omo__ou wo co_um:_m>o u_umEoum>m no» oumE__u m oumocu 0h :— mn. wo.: mconu_o cu co_u:u_umc_ one mo xcoz new omoacaa .oczum: ecu gouacouc_ oh m— om. m. . a «553.58 33323:. new we: :3 $5.59. o>o2om moumaumcm umzu 9.35 o... N— mm. o~.: mu_o_w .mco_mmow0ca ucm u_wmuco_um c_ mucus—.0Lco ommocu:_ oh .— mm. m~.: mco~_u_o _n:mm ;u_3 mmmum cocuo ocm >u_:umw _v:mmicoc mom—eon oh 0— un. m~.: mc_ccm_a omcmeimco_ new E:_ooE .uuozm mao:c_ucoo LOT no~_cmmco on Oh m om. ~m.: emmamcm_ o_amc< ecu op:_ mucm new moucowum mum—mcmuu oh m mm. m:.: oocovcoaooc_ no >50couam .mcomu:u_umc_ mo mocmou omen. m o>o_:om OF N mu. m:.: Em_uo_uuma vcm >u_m>o_ .mucovaum ao_o>oo m mm. ~m.: co_uo:eumc_ mo >u__m:o ecu u>0cas_ m mm. mm.: ucoeao_e>ou memum new >u_:omm ummcaoucu : mm. :m.: acm>o_ou egos u_ ome vcm E:_:o_cuao >u_mco>wc: eo_o>oo OF M mm. mm.: comuaumum:_ ecu LOm mcmvcmum o_nmu:aoc m o>omcum OF N .m. nm.: ouauoacummumc_ o>_mcozocaeou m mum—aeou oh _ am :3: aceeoumum .mou xcmm .AaaoLm .mHOuv mo_u_mco>_:: _n:mm LOm m_mom noncowoca mm oocmucoae_ L_o:u cu mc_ncooum noxcmc .m_mom maoocm__oom_e tam .muodii.:.q 0.3m» 74 17 of l9 local and miscellaneous goals. excepting "involving local citizens in planning college programs" and "excelling in intercolle- giate athletics." were considered by the respondents to be of high or extremely high importance. These areas were seen as highly preferred institutional goals for Saudi universities. Combining the preferred goal areas and local and miscellaneous goals. the top ten preferred (SHOULD BE) goals of Saudi universities were: l. a comprehensive infrastructure 2. a reputable standing for the institution 3. to develop the university curriculum and make it more relevant 4. to encourage faculty and staff development 5. to improve the quality of instruction 6. community 7. to develop students' loyalty and patriotism 8. a large degree of institutional autonomy or independence 9. intellectual orientation l0. democratic governance WW WW1: Research Question 3 was: What discrepancies exist between the present and preferred goals? Table 4.5 provides a ranking of the 20 goal areas according to the size of the discrepancy or gap between the mean SHOULD BE response 75 .cmoE m. i come we oaaozm mo u_:moc esp m_ >ocmaouom_om mm. + :~.N N_.m mu: mmococmz< u_uozumo< ocm .mL:u_:u om mm. + mw._ :w.~ RN: Aav mc_ctmms magEmu-auo m. mm. + mo.m ao.: m~: on mmucmso_m__u¢ .mco_u_em.» m. mo._+ -.m om.: mNJ on mc_c_mah emucm>e< a. :_._+ ~m.~ om.m mN: Aav >uco_u_eem new >u___nma==ouu< m. m_._+ om.~ __.: RN: on acoeao_u>uo u_euemu< m. N_._+ ms.~ we.m RN: on Em_cm_tmu__mmm _m_uom s. :~._+ om.~ a..: was on muuuz .muon mc_auez m. Om._+ mm.~ :w.m RN: Aav eonaozn N. mm._+ mm.N sa.m mN: on sm_=Lu_< new Em_cm23= __ hm._+ m~.~ o_.s m~e on cowumcmamaa .mco_umuo> o. ~m..+ ~m.~ m_.: mNs Aav acmECoL_>cm u_uu;amo< new .msaum__uuc_ m mm._+ mw.~ N~.s wN: on cuammmox m ms._+ ~m.~ .o.: RN: Aav co_am>occ. N om._+ om.~ mo.s RN: on uu_>Lom u__n=a m em._+ “m.~ mo.: mN: on sm_>_uu< new sm_u_a_uu .mmuom m mn._+ w:.~ m~.s oNJ on nausea—o>uo .mcomtua _m=e_>mec_ s 8. _+ $.N m: m: E 3:258 m om._+ w:.~ :m.: mm: Adv oucmcco>oo umumguoeoo N om._+ ms.~ :s.: ow: on co_amuco_ao .msuuu._uuc_ _ i no + com: com: um m>ucmauuum_o m. asaozm z moa< .mou Jana .AaaoLm .mHOuv memos mono .mom Am_v nu>mmouoa new mcmoe mono .mom Amm ogaozmv nuuuumuca ceozuun mu_ocmaocom_oii.m.a u_amk 76 and the mean IS response. The goal area leading the list is the one having the largest SHOULD BE - IS discrepancy; the one at the bottom has the smallest discrepancy. Generally speaking. this listing sug- gests possible priorities for institutional change: the goals at the top of the list are ones the respondents believed should receive the greatest emphasis. Examination of Table 4.5 reveals that respondents believed that all goal areas should receive greater emphasis than they are presently receiving. The ten goal areas that had the largest discrepancies and therefore should have greater emphasis are: Intel- lectual Orientation. Democratic Governance. Community. Individual Per- sonal Development. Social Criticism and Activism. Public Service. Innovation. Research. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. and Voca- tional Preparation. Thus. Saudi universities should pay greater atten- tion to those particular areas. Goal areas in which there were the smallest discrepancies were Off-Campus Learning and Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. Since these areas also received the lowest ratings in both IS and SHOULD BE responses. this may imply that they are of little interest to Saudi universities. Table 4.6 presents local and miscellaneous mean goal discrepancies and reveals that the respondents believed that their institutions were placing less emphasis on local and miscellaneous goals than they should. More specifically. although the respondents perceived that their institutions were placing medium or lower importance on the l9 local and miscellaneous goals. they believed that 77 mm: u 2 cm o>mz muosuo __< RN: u 20 mm: H zn mm: n zm oo.o oo.m oo.m mu_uo_;um oum_mo._oocouc_ c. .ooxo 0h m— Nm. + m. .m mmé 333:3 3.37.3835 mo Emnmouq msocom; can. 365 < @— mm. + NN.m o~.: mad—o: .mcowmmumoa ucm 3:232... E acuEZoccu 0.30.55 ob. D _o._+ :N.m m~.: mco~_u_u _c:mm ;u_3 mmmum Lozuo ucm >u_:umm _u:mmic0c mum—eon 0h @— :_._+ mm.m 50.: uocauuacummew:_ u>wmcuguLQEoU m mum—aEOU or m— _~._+ wN.m m:.: Em_uo_cuma ocm >u_m>o_ .mucoozum ao_o>uv Oh :— -._+ m:.m nm.: comu:u_umc_ ogu Lo» m:_ncmum o_nmu:eoc m :_muc_me op m— m~._+ ::.~ mo.m co_uu:cumcm o~_nmc< 0h N. _m._+ mm._ o~.m memumoLa omo__oo mc_ccm_a c_ mco~_u_o .muO. ova—uc_ ow .— Nm._+ nm.u m~.: co_u:u_umc_ .mHOu ecu LOm mc_ccm_a omcmcimco_ new E:_voE .ucOLm o— wm._+ .m.~ m_.: noucouooeou mu_umeocume ucm mc_u_cz .mc_omoc oo>o_;om o>ms muumacmcm umcu unamco 0h m _:._+ om.~ oo.: co_u:u_umc_ ecu mo m_mom ecu uaonm mamcumcoo u>u_;um ch m m:._+ mm.~ mo.: mEmLmOLa emu—.0u mo co_um:_m>o o_umeoum>m n m:._+ mm.~ mo.: mcu~_u_u Ou co_u:u_umc_ on» mo xcoz new .omoacaa .ocaumc ecu uucacuuc_ 0h w .m._+ m_.m :m.: mucm>o_uc ecos u_ ome ucm E:_:o_LL:u >u_mco>_c: on» ao_o>oo m mm._+ um.~ ~m.: comuuauumc_ mo >u__m:o use u>oLoE_ : mw._+ mn.~ m:.: mucoucoaooc_ Lo >5020u3m .wco_u:u_umc_ m mm._+ om.~ mo.: acoan_o>ou mmmum vcm >u_:umu N Nw._+ om.~ Nm.: u_nmu< ouc_ mean can moucu_um mum—mange _ 1 Lo + com: com: um >ucmamL9m_a m. ossozm acoeuumam .moo xcmm .AnzoLm .mHOHV m_m0m maoocm__o0m_s vcm .moO. Am_v to>_00coa ocm Amm oaaozmv condemned To memos ecu cooZuun mumucmaoLUm_oii.m.: o_nmh 78 S of those goals should be of extreme importance. l2 goals should be of high importance. and 2 goals of medium importance. The ten local and miscellaneous goals that had the largest discrepancies and therefore should receive greater emphasis by Saudi universities are: "transla- tion of sciences and arts into Arabic." "to encourage faculty and staff development." "to maintain institutional autonomy." "to improve the quality of instruction." "to develop the university curriculum and make it more relevant." "to interpret the nature. purpose. and work of the institution to citizens." "systematic eval uation." "to achieve consen- sus about the goals of the institution." "to ensure graduates have achieved reading. writing and mathematics competency." and "conti nuous short. medium. and long-range planning for the total institution." Goals that had the smallest discrepancies were "a broad program of extracurricular activities." "to increase enrollment in scientific and professional fields." and "to excel in intercollegiate athletics." which was the only goal to achieve a zero discrepancy score. In short. areas that respondents believed should receive greater emphasis than they are presently receiving were all the goal areas and all the local and miscellaneous goals except the individual goal of "excelling in intercollegiate athletic competition." Combining the rankings in Tables 4.5 and 4.6. the ten goals that had the highest discrepancies and therefore should be of greatest concern to Saudi universities are: Intellectual Orientation. Democratic Governance. Translation into Arabic. Community. Individual Personal Development. 79 Faculty and Staff Development. Institutional Autonomy. Social Criticism and Activism. Quality of Instruction. and Public Service. W W W The fourth research question was: What is the relative importance of goal perceptions and goal preferences of each of the three maJor Saudi universities? To answer this question. the perceptions and preferences of each individual university were rank ordered according to the relative importance given to each goal area. Then. the rankings of the goal areas by universities were combined to provide an overall view of the goal's importance. WWW WW2, Table 4.7 presents the relative importance given to the current. as well as the preferred. goal areas at King Saud University. Examination of Table 457 reveals that the respondents at KSU perceived that their university was presently placing medium or lower importance on all goal areas. However. they believed that their university should place greater importance on all goal areas than at present. The ranking of the current goal areas according to the relative importance placed on them at KSU (Table 4.7) indicated that Advanced Training was perceived to be the highest rated goal area. followed by Traditional Religiousness. Academic Development. Research. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. Meeting Local Needs. Accountability. 80 :m. + 0N mm.. ON Nm.N . .a. ac.camo. msaemu-..o mm. + m. mN.~ m. m_.m on mmococm3< u_uo;umo< ucm .musu_:u m...+ .. Nm.N m. MN.M .o. am.ca.Lma..mmu .m.uom mm..+ N. o:.N N. mN.m .o. sm.:Lu.< ucm s..:~e=: .m..+ o. mm.N m. mm.m .a. zone... mo..+ N mm.N m. :m.m .a. >ucm.u..em new >a...g~uc=ouu< om..+ m. Nm.N :. No.: .a. :2.265: .o..+ N mo.m m. :o.: .o. mmucmso.m..mx .mco...emth mm..+ m. mm.N N. :o.: .0. e..>.uu< new sm.u...Lu .m.uom om..+ N. mm.N .. ...: .o. mu.>me u..s=a sN..+ a mm.N o. N..: .o. memmz .muo. mc.uuoz NM..+ m mN.N m N..: .o. co.umamamta .mco..muo> N...+ m mm.N m N..: .o. unusao.u>uo u.eoemu< om._+ m mm.~ m w_.: Adv ucchoL_>cm uwuosumo< new .mauuo__ouc_ wN..+ m. 3:.N e NN.s .o. acoeao..>uo .mcomaua .mse.>.nc. so..+ . MN.M m NN.: .o. mc.c.mep emucm>u< mm._+ : Nm.N : w~.: on zucmomom :m._+ :_ .m.~ m mm.: Adv oucmcuo>0w o_umLooeoo oo.N+ m. s:.N N s:.: .o. co..muco.uo .msauo..uac. mu..+ m om.N _ w:.: .a. >H.c=ssou .. LO + xcmm cmmz xcmm emu: >8383:. m. mm a.=o=m moL< .mou .ANNN n zv mmoum .mom ow ecu m:.cuoucou mucoucoomoc >u_mco>_:: vamm mcmx mo Amm canozmv moocouomoca ocm Am_v mco_uaouLeaiu.m.: o_amh 81 Vocational Preparation. Community. and Freedom. The lowest ratings were given to Off-Campus Learning. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. Social Criticism and Activism. and Humanism and Altruism. These findings were inconsistent with Kashmeerilfl977). who found that Social Egalitarianism. Democratic Governance. Innovation. and Off-Campus Learning were perceived to be the most important goals of KSU. That is. examination of the findings of the present study indicated that none of the goal areas cited by Kashmeeri was among the top ten goal areas at KSU. This inconsistency between these two findings may be explained by the passage of time and the perception that university goals have never been stable; they tend to change from time to time following the influence of outsiders such as government and student interests (Corson. l975). For the preferred goal areas at KSU. Table 4.7 reveals that respondents believed the greatest importance should be placed on Commu- nity followed. in order. by Intellectual Orientation. Democratic Gov- ernance. Research. Advanced Training. Individual Personal Development. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. Academic Development. Voca- tional Preparation. and Meeting Local Needs. Examination of Table 4.7 also reveals that respondents wanted their university to change the relative importance or priority given to goal areas. That is. they believed that Community. which was perceived to rank ninth. should be given first priority: that Intellectual Orientation. which was perceived to rank sixteenth. should become a second-order priority: that Democratic Governance. which was perceived 82 to rank fourteenth. should be moved to third priority; that Advanced Training. which was perceived to be in the first position. should be moved to fifth; that Individual Personal Development. which was perceived to rank fifteenth. should be moved to become a sixth-order priority; that Traditional Religiousness. which was perceived to rank second. should be shifted downward to thirteenth; and that Accounta- bility and Efficiency. which was perceived to rank seventh. should be shifted downward to fifteenth. Table 4.7 shows the discrepancy between the mean SHOULD BE responses and the mean IS responses. Examination of this table reveals that in all goal areas there was a considerable gap between what IS and what SHOULD BE (see Profile 2). Goal areas that had the highest dis- crepancy scores were those which respondents believed should receive the highest priority. They include (in rank order): Intellectual Orientation Democratic Governance Individual Personal Development Community Social Criticism and Activism Public Service Innovation WW9 WM Table 4.8 presents the perceived and preferred goal areas at KAU. rank ordered according to their means. Examination of the table shows that the respondents at KAU perceived OUTCOME GOALS PROCESS GOALS 83 Awareness 0 1 Traditional fl_ __ ° ' «1-.. 1 Religiousness e 1 Vocational 1 J- .0. -3. Preparation F , Advanced Training -— d 1 Rerh —0— J— -— —li— O —L— ‘ a Meeting Local ' L Needs or ‘ ~- ~—- . -5- e ' I Public SCMCC —0—- ‘1 —0— 1;— . , . I SOC!!! _ . o . _‘ Egalitarianism 7” -‘ '- . T" a .. L. ; Social Criticism/ q_ _+ Activism of no of importance] Of of of extremely not . low medium high high applicable importance importance importance importance ‘ l l.$ 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 S r ~ TIIIITnITTIIIITI TII TlllllllIlTT‘, Academic Development '7— 7 L- 7” . . Intellectual __ __ _. -- ' . Orientation . Development ‘ i . 0 i HumaniSN/Altrunm -_ -+- f— l . o 0 ~—- I O i Cultural/Aesthetic __ __ __‘ . ‘ _i— i _- -T- _. T \V l l \f— Freedom —— —1 Democratic Governance Comm unity -i~ -‘ Intellectual /Ae5thetic - Environment Q j. a! Learning )— lnnovation "" “7 Off-Campus é- Accountability/ __ l- Eificiency .. Perceived (IS) goal areas . . . . . . . . . Preferred (SHOULD BE) goal areas Profile 2: Profile for perceived and preferred goal areas for King Saud University. 84 mo..+ ON Nm.. ON .o.m .a. ne.e.ww. wseewn-..o Na. + m. m..N m. o..m .o. mmwewewze u..weeww< new .weee.eu :m..+ N. me.N m. NN.m .o. e..ew..wa..wmu .w.oom .e..+ N. mm.N N. mN.m .ov sm.:Lu.< new sm.ewEs= .m..+ m N¢.N o. mm.m An. sonnet. NM..+ n sN.N m. no.: .a. suew.u...m new >n...wweesouu< mm..+ o. om.N :. mo.: .0. eo.nwewewea .weo.uwuo> mn..+ .. nsN. m. ...e .a. eo.nw>oee_ NN..+ e. .e.N N. e..: .o. wu.>ewm u..ena mN..+ s NN.N .. N..: .o. “enseo.w>we u.ewnwu< .N..+ m. mm.N o. s..e .o. e..>.eu< new e..u.n_en .w.uom mm..+ m Nm.N m oN.e .o. .nwwz .wuo. ne.nwwz so..+ . .N.m m mN.s An. mwwemeo.n..wm .weo.n.nwee :w..+ m. .:.N N mN.: .o. denseo.w>wo .weowewa .wen.>.ne_ N0. _+ N :0.N 0 0N.: An: ucchOL_>cm umuusum0< vcm pmau00:0uc_ .m._+ m. _:.N m um.: Amy oucmceo>0o u_umcuoeuo nm..+ N mm.N : mm.: .o. ne.e.weh nwuew>n< mm..+ m nN.N m mm.e .o. enewwmwe no.N+ n. oe.N N ne.s .o. eo..wnew.eo .weeuw..wne. Nm..+ m on.N . Nm.e .a. >c.5558 i no + xcmm coo: xcmm cmoz moL< .mou >ueweweuw.o m. we e.nozm .A_:_ n 2v modem .mom cm 0:» mcmceoocou mucoocoamoc >u_mcu>_:: ~_Nm_:vo< mc_x mo Amm omaozmv moucocomoca ucm Am_v m:o_ua00comii.m.: o_nmh 85 that the current top ten goal areas in their university are. according to their importance: Traditional Religiousness. Advanced Training. Meeting Local Needs. Academic Development. Research. Accountability. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. Freedom. Community. and Vocational Preparation. Respondents indicated that their institution placed medium or lower ratings on all 20 perceived goal areas; however. they preferred the majority of the goal areas to receive high impor- tance (see Profile 3). The respondents at KAU preferred Community. Intellectual Orien- tation. Research. Advanced Training. Democratic Governance. Intellec- tual and Aesthetic Environment. Individual Personal Development. Traditional Religiousness. Meeting Local Needs. and Social Criticism and Activism to be the goals given priority by the institution. They gave lower ratings to Off-Campus Learning. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. Social Egalitarianism. and Humanism and Altruism. Respond- ents believed that only 1 goal should be extremely important. 17 goal areas should be highly important. and 2 should be of medium importance. Respondents at KAU believed that their institution should change its goal priorities. That is. Community. which is presently ranked at the ninth level. should be ranked first. and Intellectual Orientation. which is presently ranked sixteenth. should be ranked second. Research. which is presently ranked fifth. should be ranked third; Advanced Training. which is presently ranked second. should be ranked fourth; Democratic Governance. presently ranked fifteenth. should be ranked fifth; Individual Personal development. presently OUTCOME GOALS PROCESS GOALS \F— I 86 of no of importance] of of of extremely not low . medium high high applicable importance importance importance importance 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 S T j T T T T T l T l T T T l T T T T T l T l l T l T T Academic __ __ __‘__ __, «L DCVC'Ome‘l“ / o . Intellectual __ __ _. -- ° . .L Orientation . l individual Personal fl- _,_ ._ _.__ . . T Development . ' - O Humanism/Altruism ——- -Ir— ——- . o ' -- +7 O O . O Cultural/Aesthetic -T— __ ~10 e ' __ _.__ Awareness ' a , ' . 3 e I Traditional _‘__ ‘_ \> ' I__o_ e , __:,_ Religiousness 0 i O ' I Preparation I 0 0 I . . , . Advanced Training .. -—.- >- --11- o 4— . l . I Meeting Local _. —I— .° —1— Necds . _ ' ' e l 3 Public Semce ~-— —— -I.— :-—e I 4.- . ' I ‘ 0 Socuil __ #_ . __ + Egalitarianism '- . . SocialCriticistn/ __ _P __ °__. L Acuvism . T 0 1 Freedom —- :_ > -—- 9—7 —:— O I O 1 Democratic __ __ __ .. ' e T Governance 9 P Community -‘- 4»- -‘I- -v- . ° -I- I O . Intellectual/Aesthetic __ __ __ -- .' _i_ Environment ' I ' 1 innovation -v- -‘- . . F“ 5- D . I O , Off-Campus 0 ' ° 1 _ —i-— 4}— —— Learning ' ° 0 . T ' e . { Accountability! __ ._.._ . ' 9.... I .i. Efficiency 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perceived (IS) goal areas Preferred (SHOULD BE) goal areas Profile 3: Profile for perceived and preferred goal areas for King Abdu1aziz University. 87 ranked thirteenth. should be ranked seventh; Traditional Religiousness. which is presently ranked first. should be ranked eighth; Meeting Local Needs. which is presently ranked third. should be ranked ninth; Social Criticism and Activism. presently ranked eighteenth. should be ranked tenth; and Accountability and Freedom. which are presently ranked sixth and eighth. respectively. should be ranked fifteenth and sixteenth. Goal areas that had the largest discrepancies and need greater emphasis by the institution are: Intellectual Orientation. Community. Democratic Governance. Individual Personal Development. Social Criti- cism and Activism. Public Service. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environ— ment. Research. and Vocational Preparation. W W- Table 4-9 Presents the rank order of perceived and preferred goal areas at UPM. according to the size of their means. Examination of the table reveals that respondents at UPM perceived that their institution was placing the greatest emphasis on Advanced Training. followed. in order. by Academic Development. Vocational Preparation. Intellectual and Aesthetic Envi- ronment. Meeting Local Needs. Research. Traditional Religiousness. Accountability and Efficiency. Community. and Intellectual Orientation. Comparing these findings with the Kashmeeri (l977) study. it was apparent that UPM has changed its goal priorities over time. That is. while Kashmeeri found Individual Personal Development.lhnnanism and Altruism. and Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness to be among the most important goals of UPM in l977. the present study found that these 88 OO. + ON OO.. ON OO.N .a. Oe.e.ww. OOOewO .OO ON. + O. ON.N O. NO.m .O. .mwewewze u..we.mw< new .wLO..OO NO. + O. ON.N O. m..m .O. e..ew.ew...wOO .w.uoO OO..+ N. OO.N N. OO.m .O. e..s.e.< new e..eweOO OO. + N OO.N O. OO.N .O. mmwemeo.O..wO .weo.O.nwe» O...+ O. OO.N O. ON.O .O. mu.>enm u..nea OO..+ N. OO.N O. ON.O Na. eo..w>oee. ON..+ m. OO.N m. ON.m .a. genome. NO..+ O. .O.N N. ON.O .O. e..>.nu< new am_u...eO .w.uoO OO. + O OO.N .. .O.m .OO Noew.u.OOO new N....Ow.eOoOue Om. + O NO.O O. OO.: .O. enewnwwe mm. + m w_.m m _o.: Nov comumemeoea .mco_umuo> NO. + N ON.m O NO.O .O. neweOo.w>wO u.ewnnu< OO..+ O O0.0 N OO.: .O. mnwnz .wuo. Oe.Oowz :o._+ : wc.m m o_.: NOV acoEco._>cm u_uozumo< new .mauoo__ouc_ Om..+ .. .O.N m ON.: .O. neweOo.n>wO .weOOLwa .wen.>_ne_ Om. + . ON.O O ON.O .O. Oe.e.weN nwuew>n< mN..+ :_ mm.~ m :m.: NOV oucmcco>oo u_umcuoeoo OO..+ O. OO.N N Om.: .O. eo..w.ew..O .wsnun..wee. OO..+ O OO.N . NO.: .OO >teseeoO i .o + xcmm coo: xcmx coo: moc< .mOu NuewOw.um.O O. OO OOOOOO .Aom u zv mmocm .mom ON ogu mcmccoocoo mucoucoamo. m.mcoc_z new Ego—ocuom mo >u_m.o>_c: mo Ame oasozmv moococomoco cam Am_v mcomuoouLumii.m.: u_amh 89 goals are no longer emphasized. Indeed. they were ranked ll. 17. and l9 out of 20 (Table 4.9). As for the degree of importance attached to the 20 perceived goal areas. it was found that only Advanced Training was rated of high importance; other goals were considered to be of medium importance or lower. The lowest rated goal areas were Off-Campus Learning. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. Social Egalitarianism. and Humanism and Altruism. Table 4.9 also shows that the most highly rated preferred goal areas. by rank order. were: Community. Intellectual Orientation. Democratic Governance. Advanced Training. Individual Personal Development. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. Meeting Local Needs. Academic Development. Vocational Preparation. and Research. The least preferred goal areas were: Off-Campus Learning. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. and Social Egalitarianism. Respondents' preferences showed they would prefer that the majority of goal areas receive greater emphasis than they do now (see Profile 4). A comparison of SHOULD BE rankings with IS rankings indicated that respondents at UPM believed that their institution should change its goal area priorities. That is. Community. which is presently perceived ninth in order. should be preferred first; Intellectual Orientation. which is presently ranked tenth in order. should be ranked second; Democratic Governance. which is presently ranked fourteenth. should be ranked third; Advanced Training. presently ranked first. should be ranked fourth; Individual Personal Development. presently OUTCOME GOALS PROCESS GOALS \I Academic Development intellectual Orientation individual Personal __ Development Humanism/Altruism n— C ultural / Aesthetic Awareness Traditional Religiousness Vocational Preparation Advanced Training ~— Research Meeting Local Needs Public Service Social Egalitarianism Social Criticism/ Activism Freedom Democratic Governance Community intellectual/Aesthetic Environment Innovation Off -Campus Learning Accountability] Efficiency Profile A: of no importance] not applicable 90 of of of low medium ' importance importance importance 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 of extremely importance ‘— ‘— “p— ‘— —— — llll l T o l T T T I-I~—+-I--I-e—I--I—-I 1—- 1~— +--~—1 --1-+—+—-I-—-4—+n - .Perceived (IS) goal areas Preferred (SHOULD BE) goal areas Profile for perceived and preferred goal areas for the University of Petroleum and Minerals. 91 ranked eleventh. should be ranked fifth; Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. which is presently ranked fourth. should be ranked sixth; Meeting Local Needs. which is presently ranked fifth. should be ranked seventh; Academic Development. presently ranked second. should be ranked eighth; Vocational Preparation. which is presently ranked third. should be ranked ninth; Research. presently ranked sixth. should be ranked tenth; and Traditional Religiousness. presently ranked seventh. should be ranked sixteenth. The goal areas that had the largest SHOULD BE - IS mean discrepancies and that need greater emphasis by UPM include: Democratic Governance. Community. Intellectual Orientation. Individual Personal Development. Social Criticism and Activism. Freedom. Public Service. Innovation. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. and Meeting Local Needs. Wu WW. 1. Current goal areas. Table 4.lO presents the rank order of the 20 perceived goal areas by university. Rank order one was given to the goal area that was calculated to have the highest IS mean and therefore was perceived to be the most important goal at the institu- tion at the present time. Rank order 20 was given to the goal area that had the lowest IS mean and was therefore perceived to be of the least importance to the institution. 92 Table 4.lO.--Relative importance given to perceived (IS) goal areas. by university. KSU KAU UPM Goal Area Rank Rank Rank Advanced Training (0) 1 2 Traditional Religiousness (O) 2 l Academic Development (0) 3 4 Research 4 5 Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment (P) 5 7 Meeting Local Needs (0) 6 3 Accountability and Efficiency (P) 7 6 Vocational Preparation (0) 8 10 Community (P) 9 9 Freedom (P) 10 8 c-J—‘dd-J-‘d—J-I-l iodiqoaibNmmwiowmmbOiNu—i Social Egalitarianism (O) 11 12 Public Service (0) 12 14 Innovation (P) 13 11 Democratic Governance (P) 14 15 Individual Personal Development (0) 15 13 Intellectual Orientation (O) 16 16 Humanism and Altruism (O) 17 17 Social Criticism and Activism (O) 18 18 Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness (0) 19 19 Off-Campus Learning (P) 20 20 20 Examination of Table 4.10 reveals that KSU and UPM presently place the greatest emphasis on Advanced Training. ranking it the number one goal area. However. KAU ranked this goal as second in importance and ranked Traditiona1 Religiousness as number one. This goal was ranked number two by KSU and number seven by UPM. Academic Development was goal number two at UPM. but numbers three and four. respectively. at KSU and KAU. Research was ranked as the fourth. fifth. and sixth goal. by KSU. KAU. and UPM. respectively. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment was ranked fourth by UPM. fifth by KSU. and seventh by KAU. 93 Meeting Local Needs was ranked third by KAU. fifth by UPM. and sixth by KSU. Accountability and Efficiency was ranked sixth. seventh. and eighth by KAU. KSU. and UPM. respectively. Vocationa1 Preparation. ranked third by UPM. was ranked eighth by KSU and tenth by KAU. Community was ranked ninth by all three universities. Thus. all three universities perceived the top nine goal areas to be: Advanced Training. Traditiona1 Religiousness. Academic Develop- ment. Research. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. Meeting Loca1 Needs. Accountability and Efficiency. Vocationa1 Preparation. and Community. It should be noted that the three universities placed more importance on outcome goals than on process goals and that Public Service. as a basic function of a university. was not given priority among the Saudi universities. Generally. Off-Campus Learning. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. Social Criticism and Activism. and Humanism and A1truism were perceived to be the lowest ranked goal areas. To determine the extent of agreement or disagreement among universities regarding the relative importance of present goa1 areas. further analysis was conducted to determine whether significant correlations existed among the universities' rankings of current goal areas. The higher the value of correlation (or the closer it is to 1.0). the greater the agreement. To determine the extent of agreement on ranking. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between the rankings for pairs of universities. Examination of Table 4.11 reveals that there was high positive correlation between KSU and KAU. KSU and UPM. and KAU and UPM in their 94 rankings of the current goal areas. The KSU ranking correlated with the KAU ranking at r =.96. which was statistically significant at the .001 level. The KSU ranking correlated with the UPM ranking at r==.92. which was statistically significant at the .001 level. The KAU ranking correlated with the UPM ranking at r =.85. which was statistically significant at the .001 level. Table 4.11 indicates that although there was generally high agreement among the universities. the greatest absolute agreement was found between KSU and KAU. Tab1e 4.11.--Agreement in ranking of the 20 perceived (IS) goal areas among the three universities. according to Pearson cor- relation coefficients. Number Value of Pearson Significance Universities of Goa1 Correlation Level Compared Areas Coefficients (r) (p) KSU vs. KAU 20 .96 .001 KSU vs. UPM 20 .92 .001 KAU vs. UPM 20 .85 .001 Returning to the original research question under investiga- tion. it was found through statistical analysis of the data that goal areas that were perceived to be relatively important to one of the Saudi universities studied were perceived to be relatively important to the other two universities. as well. 2. Preferred goa1 areas. Table 4.12 shows the relative importance placed on preferred (SHOULD BE) goa1 areas by universities. 95 Table 4.12.--Relative importance given to preferred (SHOULD BE) goal areas by universities. KSU KAU UPM Goal Area Rank Rank Rank Community (P) 1 l 1 Intellectual Orientation (O) 2 2 2 Democratic Governance (P) 3 5 3 Research (0) 4 3 10 Advanced Training (0) S 4 4 Individual Personal Development (0) 6 7 5 Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment (P) 7 6 6 Academic Development (0) 8 11 8 Vocational Preparation (0) 9 14 9 Meeting Local Needs (0) 10 9 7 Public Service (0) 11 12 5 Social Criticism and Activism (O) 12 10 12 Traditional Re1igiousness (O) 13 8 16 Innovation (P) 14 13 14 Accountability and Efficiency (P) 15 15 11 Freedom (P) 16 16 13 Humanism and A1truism (0) 17 17 17 Social Egalitarianism (0) 18 18 18 Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness (0) 19 19 19 Off-Campus Learning (P) 20 20 20 Analysis of these data indicated that all three universities preferred Community to be goal area number one and Intellectual Orientation to be goal area number twcx Democratic Governance was preferred as goa1 number three by KSU and UPM. but as number five by KAU. Research was preferred as goa1 number three by KAU. number four by KSU. but number ten by UPM. Advanced Training was preferred as goa1 number four by both KAU and UPM and number five by KSU. Individua1 Personal Development was preferred as goa1 number five. six. and seven by UPM. KSU. and KAU. respective1y. Inte11ectua1 and Aesthetic environment was 96 preferred as goa1 number six by both KAU and UPM but number seven by KSU. Academic Development was preferred as goal number eight by both KSU and UPM but number 11 by KAU. Vocationa1 Preparation was preferred as goa1 number nine by both KSU and UPM. but was ranked number 14 by KAU. Meeting Local Needs was preferred as number seven by UPM. number nine by KAU. and number ten by KSU. A11 universities agreed in their rankings of the last four goal areas. That is. they ranked Humanism and Altruism as goa1 number 17. Social Egalitarianism as goa1 number 18. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness as goa1 number 19. and Off-Campus Learning as goa1 number 20. Comparison of Tables 4.10 and 4.11 reveals that Saudi universities are calling for radical changes in their current goal priorities. For example. Community. which was present1y ranked as goa1 number nine by all universities. was preferred as goa1 number one by all universities. Inte11ectua1 Orientation. present1y ranked tenth or lower. was ranked second in preference by all universities. Democratic Governance. presently ranked fourteenth or lower by the universities. was preferred as third and fifth in order. Individua1 Persona1 Devel- opment. which was present1y ranked eleventh or lower. was given pref- erence rankings of fifth. sixth. and seventh. 0n the other hand. Advanced Training. which was present1y ranked first or second by the universities. was given a preferred ranking of fourth or fifth. Tradi- tiona1 Religiousness. which was presently a highly ranked goa1 (first. second. seventh). ranked only eighth or lower as a preferred goal. This suggests that university personnel felt these two goa1 areas are 97 given sufficient or more than sufficient emphasis and. in combination with other rankings. implies they would like to see less emphasis on these and more emphasis on others. The extent of agreement of disagreement among universities with regard to their rankings of preferred goal areas was determined by using Pearson correlation coefficients. The Pearson coefficients were calculated to determine whether significant agreement existed among the Saudi universities in their preferred goa1 rankings. Table 4.13 shows that there was a positive correlation among the rankings of the three universities' preferred goals. This indicates that personnel at Saudi universities generally agreed as to the relative importance that should be placed on the various goa1 areas. That is. preferred goal areas considered to be highly important at one university tended to be considered highly important at the other two universities. as well. The greatest agreement was found between KSU and KAU. with r==.99 and p = .001. The next highest agreement was between KSU and UPM with r = .95 and p = .001. The agreement between KAU and UPM was r = .92 and p = .001. Comparison of Tables 4.11 and 4.13 indicated that there was greater agreement among the universities in their rankings of preferred goa1 areas than in their rankings of perceived (current) goal areas. 98 Table 4.13.--Agreement in ranking of the 20 preferred (SHOULD BE) goal areas among the three universities. according to Pearson correlation coefficients. Number Value of Pearson Significance Universities of Goal Corre1ation Level Compared Areas Coefficients (r) (p) KSU vs. KAU 20 .99 .001 KSU vs. UPM 20 .95 .001 KAU vs. UPM 20 .92 .001 We WW Wrens The fifth research question was: What are the perceptions and preferences of the university supreme councilors in the major Saudi universities concerning the goal areas? Table 4.14 presents the perceptions and preferences of the universities' supreme councilors with the 20 goal areas rank ordered according to their means. It was apparent that the councilors found all of the goal areas to be presently of medium importance or lower. except for Advanced Training. which was perceived to be of high importance at the Saudi universities. The second through fifth most important goals were perceived to be Academic Development. Traditional Religiousness. Meeting Loca1 Needs. and Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. ‘The councilors perceived Off-Campus Learning. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. Socia1 Egalitarianism. and Social Criticism and Activism to be the least important goal areas at their 99 NO. + OO. OO.. ON .O. OO.N ON .O. Oe.e.wo. OOOewO-..O OO..+ OO. .N.N O. OO. ON.O O. .O. Omnewewze u..nenmo< new .weOO.OO O...+ ON. OO.N O. ON. OO.O O. .O. e..ew..w...wOO .w.uoO O...+ OO. OO.N O. ON. ON.O N. NOV eO.OLO.< nem sm.eweO: OO. + OO. OO.N O. OO. OO.O O. .O. ennwnen OO..+ ON. OO.N N. NO. OO.O O. .OO e..>..u< new sm.u....O .w.uoO OO. + NN. .O.N O OO. O0.0 O. .O. Nuew.u...O new >O...Ow.e=ouu< NO..+ NN. OO.N O NO. O0.0 O. .OO eo.Ow.wOwea .weo.Owuo> OO..+ NN. OO.N O. OO. OO.O N. .O. wu.>ewO u..e=a OO. + OO. N..O O OO. NO.O .. .O. mnonz .wuoO Oe.nwwz OO. + OO. .N.O O ON. NO.O O. .OO .mwemeo.O..wO .weo.n.nw.» OO..+ OO. ON.N O. OO. O..O O .OO eo..w>0ee_ .O. + OO. ON.O N OO. N..O O .OO neweOo.w>OO U.ewnwue O...+ ON. O0.0 N OO. ON.O N .O. euewoOwO o:._+ om. mw.~ __ :m. m~.: m Adv oocmc.o>ow u_umc005oo OO..+ NO. OO.N O. ON. ON.O O .OO neweOo.w>oO .weOOLwe .wOn.>.ne_ _~._+ ww. wo.m m m:. m~.: : any ucoEcoLN>cm u_uocumo< vcm .mauoo__ouc_ OO. + OO. NO.O . OO. OO.O O .O. Oe.e.wee nwuew>n< .O..+ ON. .O.N N. OO. OO.O N .O. eo.Ow.ew..O .wsanw..wne_ OO..+ NO. NO.O O .O. OO.O . .O. N..OeeeoO OO ewwz OewO OO ewwz OewO i .o + moc< .moo >ucmaocom_o m_ we oanzm .Amm u 2V mmocm .mom 0N ecu mc_ccoocou Oco__oc:oo oEocaam >u.mco>.:: one mo Amm omaozmv moucocomoca can Am_v mco_uaoocomii.:_.: o_noh 100 institutions. .Although the four highest ranked goals were outcome goa1 areas. the councilors rated four out of the seven process goa1 areas among the top ten. Socia11y oriented goa1 areas. in general. were ranked among the least important goals. Concerning the preferences of the university supreme councilors. analysis of the data in Table 4.L4 showed that. except for Off-Campus Learning and Cu1tura1/Aesthetic Awareness. councilors preferred that all goa1 areas be given high importance. They preferred Community as the most important goal area. or highest priority. followed. in order. by Intellectual Orientation. Advanced Training. Inte11ectua1 and Aesthetic Environment. and Individual Personal Development. Goa1 areas ranked lowest in terms of importance were: Freedom. Humanism and A1truism. Social Egalitarianism. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. and Off-Campus Learning. Analysis of the rankings of preferred goal areas indicated that councilors put more emphasis on process goal areas. plus advanced training and research-re1ated areas. than they did on socia11y oriented goa1 areas. Overall comparison of perceived and preferred goa1 area scores revealed that perceived goa1 areas were rated lower than preferred goal areas. That is. the councilors perceived that the goal areas were given less emphasis than they felt they should have. Ratings of high importance given to 18 preferred goal areas implied that those goals were accepted as institutional goals for Saudi universities by the councilors. The "perceived" rankings given to the goal areas were not 101 similar to the "preferred" rankings. indicating that councilors believed that their institutions should reorder their goal priorities. Table 4.14 also presents discrepancies between IS and SHOULD BE mean scores. Goal areas that had the largest discrepancies and. there- fore. should receive the greatest institutional emphasis were: Indi- vidual Personal Development. Inte11ectua1 Orientation. Community. Public Service. Democratic Governance. and Innovation. Examination of the standard deviations for both IS and SHOULD BE means indicated that. generally. the IS goa1 areas had larger standard deviations than the SHOULD BE goa1 areas. This suggests that there was greater agreement among councilors about their ratings of "preferred" goa1 areas than their ratings of "perceived" goa1 areas. This result was inconsistent with Peterson%;(l977) expectation of smaller standard deviations for IS ratings than for SHOULD BE ratings. since the former are perceptions of present reality while the latter are personal opinions about the way things ought to be. The results here may imply that there is confusion and uncertainty on Saudi campuses about what the real goals of the university are and the relative importance present1y placed on each goal area. WW AcademjstministLam MW Research Question 6 was: What are the perceptions and preferences of the academic administrators in the major Saudi universities concerning the goal areas? 102 Table 4.15 presents the academic administrators' perceptions and preferences concerning the 20 goal areas. rank ordered by their means. It shows that the academic administrators perceived the top goa1 area in their institutions to be Advanced Training. which was perceived to be goa1 area number one. followed by Traditiona1 Reli- giousness. Academic Development. Meeting Local Needs. Accountability and Efficiency. and Research. in that order. Goa1 areas that adminis- trators perceived to be of low priority to Saudi universities included Off-Campus Learning. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. Humanism and Altruism. and Social Criticism and Activisnn A11 perceived goa1 areas were considered to be of medium or lower importance. Table 4.15 also indicates that the administrators perceived that their institutions present1y tended to place greater priority on outcome goals than on process goals. Academic Development and Traditional Religiousness. as student-oriented goals. ranked among the highest perceived goals. but the other five student learning goals were not as highly ranked. Except for one. the socially oriented goals were not perceived to be among the highly ranked goa1 areas. Among goa1 area preferences of the academic administrators. Community was found to be the most highly ranked. Community was followed by Inte11ectua1 Orientation. Advanced Training. Democratic Governance. Research. Individual Personal Development. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. Meeting Local Needs. Vocational Preparation. and Academic Development. in that order. Goa1 areas least preferred by academic administrators or considered to be of the lowest priority l03 OO. + OO. NO.. ON ON. OO.N ON .av Oe.eeww. .OOEwO-..O OO. + ON. NN.N O. ON. N..O O. .OO .mwenewze u..weemw< new .weeO.OO ON..+ OO. NO.N O. ON. ON.O O. .O. e..een.< new e..eweO= O...+ ON. OO.N O. ON. ON.O N. .OO eO.ew.ewO..wOO .w.uoO NN..+ OO. OO.N O. NN. OO.O O. .O. ennwoen OO. + NN. NO.N O OO. O0.0 O. .O. >822.: new NO...OwOeeouu< NN. + OO. ON.O N NO. OO.O O. .O. mmwemso.O..OO .weo...nwee OO... ON. OO.N O. NO. OO.O O. .OO eo..w>0ee. OO..+ OO. OO.N O. NO. OO.O N. .OO wu.>.nO O..OOO OO..+ NO. OO.N N. NN. NO.O .. .O. e..>..u< new e..u...eO .w.uoO OO..+ OO. O0.0 O OO. NO.O O. .OO neweeo.w>nO u.ennwu< OO..+ OO. .O.N O OO. O..O O .OO eo.nwewewee .weo..wuo> O...+ ON. O0.0 O OO. O..O O .O. .nowz .wuo. Oe.Owwz .O..+ .O. OO.N N .O. .N.O N .O. new2e0e.>eO u..we.mwe new .w:.uw..w.e. OO..+ NO. OO.N N. NO. ON.O O .O. Oew2eo.w>wO .weo..we .wen.>.ne. NO..+ .O. OO.N O OO. NN.: O NOV euLOwOwO .m._+ mm. oo.~ __ co. .m.: : Amy oucmcco>ou o_uocooeoo OO..+ NO. NN.O . OO. OO.O O .O. Oe.e.w.» nwuew>n< OO..+ ON. NO.N O. .O. OO.O N .O. eo..wnew..O .nenuw..wne_ NO..+ NO. OO.N O NO. OO.O . .O. >£5558 - .o + OO ewwz OewO OO ewwz Oewe wwee .woO Nuewemeum.O O. OO OOOOOO .Amm_ n 2v mmocm .mom ow ecu mc_ccoocoo mcoumcum_c_5om o_Eoumom mo “mm ogaozmv moucocowoca new Am.v mco_uaoocomii.m_.: o_nmh 104 included Off—Campus Learning. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. and Humanism and A1truism. In rating the 20 goal areas according to the degree of impor- tance they should have on campus. academic administrators indicated that they felt 18 out of the 20 should be of high importance. This suggests that they accepted these 18 goals as institutional goals for their universities. Comparison of the administrators' rankings of perceived and preferred goa1 areas indicated that some goa1 areas present1y perceived to rank high were ranked low as preferences. For example. Traditiona1 Religiousness and Accountability and Efficiency were perceived as goals two and five. respectively. but only ranked as numbers 14 and 15 among goa1 preferences. In contrast. Inte11ectua1 Orientation. Democratic Governance. and Individual Personal Development were ranked as per- ceived goals in sixteenth. eleventh. and twelfth order. but ranked as preferences in second. fourth. and sixth place. respective1y. Advanced Training and Research were both perceived and preferred as highly important goals. Goa1 areas that showed the highest mean discrepancies and therefore should receive the greatest attention and emphasis inc1uded Inte11ectua1 Orientation. Democratic Governance. Community. Individua1 Personal Development. Social Criticism and Activism. and Public Service. 105 W W115 WW Research Question 7 was: What are the perceptions and preferences of the Saudi faculty members in the major Saudi universities concerning the goal areas? Table 4.16 presents the goal area perceptions and preferences of Saudi faculty members. rank ordered according to their means. Thus. Saudi faculty members perceived the currently most emphasized goa1 areas in their institutions to be Advanced Training. which was ranked as goa1 number one. then Traditional Religiousness. Academic Development. Research. Meeting Loca1 Needs. Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment. Accountability and Efficiency. Vocationa1 Preparation. Community. and Freedom. in that orden. The least important goal areas were perceived to be Off-Campus Learning. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. Social Criticism and Activisnn Humanism and Altruism. and Democratic Governance. Facu1ty perceived all goal areas to be of medium or low importance and indicated that their institutions were presently placing the highest priority on outcome goals. Democratic Governance and Freedom. which are thought to be of great concern to faculty members. were perceived to be only sixteenth and tenth in importance. respec- tively. Only one socia11y oriented goa1. Meeting Loca1 Needs. was ranked among the highest goa1 priorities. Facu1ty preferences among the various goal areas were shown to be Community. which ranked as the highest preferred goal. followed by 106 OO. + .O. OO.. ON NN. OO.N ON .O. Oe.eeww. .OOst-..O NO. + NO. ON.N O. OO. OO.O O. .OO mmoewewze O..OOOOwe .w.OO.OO O...+ ON. OO.N N. ON. O0.0 O. .O. sm.ew.ewa..wOO .w.uoO OO..+ ON. NO.N N. ON. ON.O N. NOV EO.OLO.< new Em.eweO: OO..+ ON. OO.N O. ON. O0.0 O. NOV sanwme. ON..+ OO. .N.N N OO. N0.0 O. .O. Ouew_u.c.m new >O...Oweesouue OO..+ .N. OO.N .. .O. OO.O O. .O. eo.Ow>oee_ ON..+ OO. ON.N O. OO. OO.O O. .OO Em.>..u< new e..u.n.eO .w.uoO OO..+ ON. OO.N O. OO. NO.O N. .O..wu.>ewO u.33. O...+ OO. OO.N N ON. OO.O .. .O. mmnemeo.O..wO .weo.O.nwee ::._+ Om. mO.~ m :m. mo.: 0. New co_um.moo.¢ .mco_umoo> ON..+ NO. NO.N O NO. N..O O .O. neweeo.w>wO u.ewnwu< NO..+ OO. OO.N O OO. N..O O NOV Onwwz .wuo. Oe..wwz OO..+ ON. ON.N O OO. N..O N Nev OewEeOL.>eO n..we.mw< new .w:.uw..w.e_ OO..+ NO. OO.N O. OO. .N.O O .OO neweOo.w>wO .weOOLOO .wen.>.ne. O...+ NN. O..O . OO. NN.O O .O. Oe.e.wee nwuew>n< ::._+ NN. :w.~ : :m. m~.: : Nov Locmomom .O.N+ OO. OO.N O. NO. O0.0 O .O. wueweew>oO u..w.uoewO NO.N+ NO. .O.N O. NO. OO.O N .OO eo.Ow.ew..O .wenuw..w.e_ OO..+ NO. OO.N O OO. OO.O . Na. On.eeesoO - .o + OO ewnz OewO OO ewwz OewO >ocmeocom_o w. mm omaozm mmoc< .moO .Nwa u 2V mmocm .mom om osu mcmccoocoo meanoE >u_:omm .oamm No Amm odzozmv moucoLomoca cam Am_v mco_uaouLoaii.O_.: o_nmh 107 Intellectual Orientation. Democratic Governance. Research. and Advanced Training. in that order. Freedom. which was expected to be highly preferred by faculty members. was not. Rather. it ranked with Humanism and A1truism. Socia1 Egalitarianism. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. and Off-Campus Learning among the five least preferred goal areas. Faculty members preferred that the highest priority be given to Community. Intellectual Orientation. and Democratic Governance. which were not perceived to be among the present priorities of their institutions. Concerning the relative importance that the 20 goal areas should be given. faculty members felt that 18 of the 20 goal areas should be highly important (Table 4.16). It should be noted that these were the same goals that academic administrators and university supreme councilors fe1t should be highly important. In other words. all three groups accepted those goal areas as institutional goals for their universities. Goa1 areas that showed the largest discrepancy in faculty ratings that should be of greatest concern to the institutions were Intellectual Orientation. Democratic Governance. Community. Individual Personal Development. Social Criticism and Activism. Public Service. and Innovation. WM W W The eighth research question asked: Are there significant differences in perceptions and preferences concerning the goal areas between pairs of respondent groups? 108 The determination of differences between groups involved one- way analysis of variance with Scheffe post hoc tests. First. a one-way analysis of variance was performed to determine whether significant differences existed among the three groups of respondents--faculty. administrators. and councilors--in their ratings of perceived and preferred goal areas. The objective of this test was to determine on which. if any. goal areas all the groups agreed or disagreed. The Scheffe test was then employed to determine the source of disagreement. that is. to identify which group(s) accounted for inconsistencies in the perceived and preferred goal area ratings. Analysis of variance was also administered to determine any significant differences in goal perceptions and preferences between pairs of groups: (1) faculty- administrators. (2) faculty-supreme councilors. and (3) administrators- supreme councilors. WWW. Results of the statistical analysis presented in Table 4.17 show that significant differences were found among groups in their ratings of 13 goal areas. Differences in nine of these goal areas were significant at the .01 level and in four other goal areas at the .05 level. Of these 13 goal areas. seven were outcome goals and six were process goals. That is. respondents differed significantly in their ratings of six out of seven process goals identified by the IGI. which shows that disagreement was greater in the ratings of process goa1 areas than outcome goal areas or in areas involving the functioning or internal climate of the Saudi campuses. 109 Table 4.17.--One-way analysis of variance for significant differences among groups (faculty-administrators-councilors) in their ratings of the perceived (IS) goal areas. Goal Areas With Significant Differences F p Academic Development (0) 7.46 .01 Intellectual Orientation (O) 5.35 .01 Individual Personal Development (0) 4.70 .01 Traditional Religiousness (O) 5.85 .01 Vocational Preparation (0) 4.82 .05 Advanced Training (0) 4.82 .01 Meeting the Local Needs (0) 7.20 .01 Freedom (P) 4.50 .05 Democratic Governance (P) 8.40 .01 Community (P) 8.90 .01 Intellectual and Aesthetic Environment (0) 4.03 .05 Innovation (P) 4.15 .05 Accountability and Efficiency 6.70 .01 Goal areas on which all groups agreed in their rankings were Humanism and A1truism. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. Research. Public Service. Socia1 Egalitarianism. Social Criticism and Activism. and Off-Campus Learning. These goa1 areas. with the exception of Off- Campus Learning. were all outcome goals. Having identified disagreement. or differences in the ratings of 13 IS goal areas. the Scheffe tests were then computed to determine where significant differences existed between the three groups in their ratings of the perceived (IS) goa1 areas. Results of these tests. presented in Table 4.18. showed no significant differences between academic administrators and university supreme councilors. but facu1ty llO .mco__oc:oo u .mLOOmcum.c.Eom u < .>u_:omO u no ..w>w. OO. we. Ow newu.c.eO.O. <-. .O.N NO.N .N.N Ouew.u...O new >O...Ow.eeouue O-. .<-. N0.0 OO.N OO.N NO.eOeeoO gnu .ou o_umLUOEoo O-. OO.N OO.N OO.N ennnwe. O-. .O-. N..O OO.O OO.N mnwwz .wuo. Oe..wwz O-. O0.0 NN.O O..O Oe.e.w.e nwuew>n< <-. .N.O ON.O OO.N mm2.8.3.... .weo...nw.e O-. .O-. OO.N OO.N NO.N neweeo.w>wO .weOOLwe .wOn.>.ne. O-. .O.N NO.N OO.N eo.Ow.ew.eO .weaun..w.e_ O-. .O-. ON.O NO.O NO.N neweeo.w>OO U.ewnwu... NOOuz. NOO.qu NNOan. necowwmo Ono—.0:30u mLoncu >u_:omm ecum_xm «moococoOO_o m masoco im.c_Eo< ucmu_m_cm_m econ: mmoc< .OOO coo: anoLu .mmocm .mOm Am.v uo>_oocoo one No mmcmumc L_o;u c. Am.o__uc:ou .OLOOmcum_c_Evm .>u_:umwv meaocm chEo muucocoww_v acmo_m_cm_m no; umou owmocom use mo OO.:momii.m_.: o_nmh 111 members differed significantly from administrators in seven goa1 areas and from councilors in eight goa1 areas. Areas in which faculty and academic administrators differed at the .05 level were Academic Development. Advanced Training. Meeting Local Needs. Democratic Governance. Comnunflty. Individual Personal Development. Traditiona1 Religiousness. and Accountability and Efficiency. Administrators gave these areas higher ratings than did faculty members. Areas in which faculty ratings differed from those of councilors. with the councilors giving higher ratings. were Academic Development. Individual Personal Development. Advanced Training. Meeting Loca1 Needs. Democratic Governance. Comnuuflty. Intellectual Orientation. and Freedom. Goal areas where facu1ty significant1y differed from both administrators and councilors were Academic Development. Individua1 Personal Development. Meeting Loca1 Needs. Democratic Governance. and Community. WW areas. The results of the statistical analysis employed to determine significant differences in the ratings. by all groups. of preferred goal areas indicated no statistically significant differences existed. That is. the groups of subjects were all in substantial agreement on the degree of importance that the 20 goal areas should be given in 'their institutions. Except for Off-Campus Learning and Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. on which only medium importance was placed. the 112 goal areas were rated by all groups to be highly important as preferred goals for their institutions. To examine these differences in more detail. ANOVA was employed to compare pairs of groups. Thus. the following is a presentation of the comparisons between groups based on ANOVA results. Waters. 1. Significant differences between faculty members and academic administrators in their ratings of perceived (IS) goa1 areas. An analysis of variance of the faculty members' perceived (IS) responses compared with the perceived (IS) responses of the academic administrators showed significant differences in 14 goal areas. Six of these goa1 areas produced F-scores high enough to be significant at the .01 level. The other eight goal areas produced F-scores significant at the .05 level (Table 4.19). In only six goal areas. then. were faculty and administrators substantially in agreement (9.9.. no significant differences). In all the identified areas of significant differences. administrators rated the specific goals higher than facu1ty. although both groups believed those goals to be presently of medium or low importance of their institutions. Examination of Table 4.19 reveals that 8 of the 14 identified goals were outcomelgoals and 6 were process goals. This means faculty and administrators differed significantly in their ratings of 61J5 percent of the 13 outcome goals and 85.7 percent of the 7 process goals identified in the IGI. The significantly lower ratings given by faculty in the process goal areas may imply a lack of faculty ll3 ._0>m— mo. mLu um acmumwmcmmmnn ._o>o_ mo. ecu um acmu_m_cm_me .OOOOO. OO.N. NO.N .N.N Nuew.u...u new >3.33589. w_:. OO. Nm._ Ow._ mcmccm04 OOOEmuimmO ammo. Nm.: OO.N m:.N co_um>0cc_ «m:O. mO.m om.N :N.N newsco._>cm o_uo;umo< Ocm .mauoo__ouc_ O..OO. OO.O. OO.N OO.N >teeeeoO «emOO. N0.0 OO.N mm.N oocmcco>oO u_umcooeoO «:OO. :m.: OO.N OO.N Eocoocu m_moO mmoUOLO «ONO. mm.: m:.N mN.N EO.>_uu< new EO_u.u.cO _m_oom OOOO. OO.O OO.N OO.N e..ew.ew...wOO .w.uoO «NmO. OO.: OO.N m:.N oo.>.om u..n:a .OOOO. O..O OO.O OO.N .nwwz .wuo. Oe..wwz .O:. :m. Om.N :O.N gunmemem .NO. NN.O NN.O O..O Oe.e.wee nwuew>n< «mNO. Nm.: NO.N mO.N co_umcmaocm .mco_umuo> OO.OO. OO.O. ON.O OO.N .maemso.O..ne .weo...nwee m:O. .N. NN.N ON.N mmococmz< u_uocumo< new .mcau_au ONO. mN.m N:.N NO.N EO.:LO_< Ocm Em_cmE:: «moo. OO.N OO.N NO.N acoeao_o>oO .chmcom .m:v.>.ec. _._. mm.N .O.N o:.N co_umuco.co .mauuo__oOc_ OO.O. NO.O NO.O NO.N Oeano.w>wO u.ewnwu< m_moO oeoouao NOO.uzO ANONuzO mcoumcu >u_:omu ..O O O -O.e.En< wnee .noO cmoz .mmocm .mom NO.O Oo>moULoa mo mmc_umc c.05u c. OLONOLOO.O.EOO u.eoumom Ocm mconeoe >u_:omN coozuon moococomm_c acmomw_cm.mii.m_.: o_nmh 114 satisfaction with the internal climate or functioning of their institutions. ‘This would include such areas as academic freedom. decentralized decision making. involvement of faculty in academic governance. the presence of an authority structure that is genuinely responsive to the concerns of everyone at the institution. a sense of community. an intellectual and productive environment. administrative efficiency. and a climate for innovation. 2. Significant differences between faculty members and aca- demic administrators in their ratings of preferred (SHOULD BE) goal areas. Results of the statistical analysis administered to determine significant differences between faculty and administrators in their ratings of the preferred goal areas indicated that there were no significant differences between the two groups. That is. as shown in Table 4.20. both groups believed that their institutions should give high importance to 18 of the 20 goal areas and medium importance to the remaining two goal areas. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness and Off- Campus Learning. In general. these results imply substantial agreement between faculty members and academic administrators concerning their preferences of the goal areas on which their institutions should place most importance. 3. Significant differences between faculty and academic administrators in goal area discrepancies. A goal area discrepancy is the difference between the mean of the IS rating and the mean of the SHOULD BE rating that goal receives. It represents the degree of gap or difference between what IS and what SHOULD BE or between what is 115 NON. NO. mm.m N0.0 Nueo_u_wmm new >u.__nwue:ouu< OOO. OO. OO.N OO.N Oe.e.ww. meeewO-.OO NNO. OO. OO.: O0.0 eo_uw>oee_ ONO. _:. .N.: N_.: neoEeo._>eu o.uoeumo< new .wauoo__oue_ N.O. .O. OO.O OO.O N..eeeeoO :Om. m:. .O.: OO.: woeweco>oO o_uweuoEwO mam. NO. om.m mw.m eonowem m_woO mmoooce NNN. N_. NO.: OO.: Em_>_uo< new Em_o.u.eu .w.oom OO.. OO.N ON.O OO.O e..ew..wn..wOO .w.uoO mom. .O. OO.: NO.: wu.>.wm u..n:e O.N. OO.. O..O N..O .nwwz .wuo. Oe..wwz me. NO. NN.: ON.: geewwmox ONN. NN.. OO.O NN.O Oe.e.wee nwuew>n< w.:. OO. m_.: OO.: eo_uwcwaoee .weo_uwuo> O... NO.N OO.O OO.O .mwemeo.O..wO .weo...nwee mwN. O... N_.m mo.m mmoeoew3< o.uweumo< new .wL:u_:O ONO. mO. ON.O ON.O Em_:.u_< new Em.ewE:: N.O. ON. :N.: .N.: OewEOo_w>wO .weomeoe .w:n.>_ne. mmm. mN. m:.: m:.: eomuwueo_eo .wzuoo__oue_ OON. OO.. NO.O N..O neweeo.w>wO U.ewnwwe m_woO oeoouao NOm.nzv NNmanV any a m iMMMHHMW >u_:uwu wee< _woO ewoz .mwwew .wOO Amm OOOOImV noncomoea mo mmemuw. e_oeu e. meOuwcum_e_Enw u_Eonwow new mcoeeoe >u_:owm ewozuon mooeweowwmn uewu_m_em_mii.ON.: o_nwh 116 perceived and what is preferred. Goa1 area discrepancies in ratings by faculty and academic administrators were tested to determine if significant differences existed between the two groups. Examination of the results showed that faculty and administrators differed signifi- cantly at the .01 level in five goal areas and at the .05 level in two goa1 areas. In these seven identified goal areas (see Table 4.21). faculty members believed that there were larger gaps or discrepancies between what IS and what SHOULD BE than administrators. ‘This implies that faculty members. more than the academic administrators. believed their institutions should give greater emphasis to these particular goa1 areas. It does not mean. however. that other goal areas with large discrepancies between perceived and preferred ratings should not be emphasized. Indeed. examination of Table 4.21 indicates that all 20 goal areas had discrepancies that ranged from .82 to .94 for faculty and administrators (Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness) to 2.03 and 1.93 for faculty and administrators (Intellectual Orientation). In conclusion. both faculty and academic administrators perceived all goa1 areas to be presently of medium or lower importance but preferred almost all goal areas to be of high importance. Therefore. large discrepancies were found between what is and what should be. Further. the ANOVA showed significant differences between faculty and administrator ratings of 14 perceived (IS) goal areas and discrepancies in seven goal areas. There were. however. no significant differences between faculty and administrator ratings of the preferred (SHOULD BE) goa1 areas. These findings genera11y imply that there was ll7 ._o>o_ .O. weu Ow uewu_w_em_mee ..w>w. OO. we. Ow new....eO.O. «.NOO. O0.0. OO. ON.. Nuew.u...m new N....ewnesouu< .OO. O.. OO. OO. Oe.e.ww. .OOEwO-.OO NON. NO.. OO.. OO.. eo.Ow>Oee. 0N7 mm. —m.— :J.— ucmEcOL _>cm UT~OLumO< tam —m:uUO— —Ouc_ «.NOO. NO.N NO.. OO.. NO.OOEEoO «.OOO. OO.N .N.. OO.N wneweew>oO u.OweuoewO N... OO.N NN.. OO.. eonwwee m_woO mmeOLO O... .O.N OO.. ON.. em.>..w< new e..w...eO .w.uoO OOO. O.. O... ON.. e..ew..wn..wOO .w.uoO «NOO. N0.0 NO.. OO.. wu.>ewO O..OOO ONO. O.. O... OO.. mnwwz .wuoO Oe..wwz OOO. OO. NO.. OO.. euewwmwe NOO. NO.. OO.. O... Oe_e.wee nwwew>n< mm_. NN.N Nm._ ::._ eo_uwewa0cm _weo.uwoo> OO.OOO. OO O. ON. O... mm2.8.3.3. .weo.O.nwLe OO.. MN._ :m. NO. mmoeoew3< o_uweumo< new .we:u_:O OOO. O0.0 ON.. OO.. e..=e..< new e..ewe=z «.OO. ON.: :O._ :m._ uewan_w>oO .weomeoe .w:n.>.ne_ OON. ON.. OO.. OO.N eo.OwOew.eO .wenuw..wne_ .eNOO. ON.N OO.. ON.. neweOo.w>wO u.ewnwue m_wou weoouao .OO.uzO .NONuzO MLOumLu Auv O u im.e_En< >u_=owm woe< .woO >oeweoeom_o .mme.uwe weew _wom Amm OOOOIOV nocechea new NO.O no>_wu.oa eowzuwn mo_uewaoeum_n e. OLOOwLNm_e_Enw o_eonwow new meweeoe >u_:oww eoozuwn mooeoewmm_n uewu_m_em.mii._N.: o_ewh 118 disagreement between faculty and administrators concerning the present emphasis placed on the various goal areas in their institutions. but that members of these groups substantially agreed about the importance that should be placed on each goal area on their campuses. Comparing the findings of this study for faculty and academic administrators with findings for these groups in other studies. it was found that in studies such as those of Romney (1976). and Iruka (1980) faculty members' and academic administrators' perceptions and prefer- ences among the goal areas were essentially the same. while this study found considerab1e disagreement between the two groups with respect to perceived goals. but agreement on preferred goa1 areas. WW. 1. Significant differences between faculty members and univer- sity supreme councilors concerning their rating of the perceived (IS) goa1 areas. An analysis of the faculty members' perceived (IS) responses compared with those of the councilors brought to light significant differences. at the .01 or .05 levels. in 11 goal areas. Table 4.22 presents the results of the ANOVA employed to determine these differences in perceived goals between the two groups. Examination of this table reveals that the 11 goal areas that received significantly different ratings by faculty and councilors included seven in which differences were significant at the .01 level and another four in which differences were significant at the .05 level. .All 11 goal areas in which significant differences existed were 119 ._o>o_ .O. oeu uw uewo_O_em.mue ..w>w. OO. we. Ow .ewu...eO.O. O... OO. .O.N .N.N Nuew.w...w new >O...Ow.esoww< NOO. ON. OO.. OO.. Oe.eewwO .OOewO-..O OO.O. NO.O ON.N OO.N eo..w>0ee_ OO.O. ...O OO.O ON.N OewEe0e.>eO u..we..w< new .wenuw..w.e_ ..OOOO. OO.N. N0.0 OO.N >:eeeeoO «OOOOO. mo.N_ OO.N mm.N oueweeo>oo u_uweuoeoo «no—O. ON.O OO.N Om.N eonooem m_woO OOOUOLO OO.. OO.. OO.N ON.N e..>.Ou< new e..u...eO .w.uoO NOO. NOO. OO.N OO.N e..ew..w...wOO .w.uoO OON. OO.. OO.N OO.N ww.>ewO U.33.. ...OO. OO.O. N..O OO.N .nwwz .wuo. Oe..wwz OO.. NO.N O0.0 OO.N euewwmwe ..OOO. N..O N0.0 O..O Oe.e.wee nwuew>n< :mO. :N.m mw.N mO.N eomuwcwaocm .weo_uwuo> OO.. .N.N .N.O OO.N .Owemso.O..wO .weo...nwe» ONN. O.. .N.N ON.N .Owewewze u..weemw< new .w.OO.OO .OOO. NO.O. OO.N NO.N e..een.< new e..eweOO «OOO. NO.O OO.N NO.N neweOo.w>wO .weOOew. .wen.>.ne_ ...OO. O.... .O.N OO.N eo..w.ew..O .weeuw..w.e_ eeOOOO. ON.N. ON.O NO.N neweOo.w>wO u.ewnwu< m_woO oEOUOOO NOOuzO NNONuzO NOV a u meo__ue:oO >u_:owu wee< .woO ewe: .Owwcw .wom NO.O nw>.oocwe Oo Ome.uwe ..weu e. Oco_.uesoo neweezm >O.O.o>.e: new newnewe >u_:uwm eoozuwn mouewewON_n uewo_w_em_mii.NN.: w_ewh 120 rated more highly by councilors than faculty members. This means that councilors believed their institutions were p1acing greater emphasis on these goal areas than was perceived by faculty. Faculty members differed from councilors on 6 of the 13 outcome goal areas and on 5 out of the 7 process goals specified in the IGI. This result implies that greater disagreement existed between faculty and councilors on the process goals. which concern the internal climate or functioning of the university and are of great interest to the faculty members. In other words. the lower ratings given to the pro- cess goals by faculty may imply a lack of satisfaction with the empha- sis given by their institutions to academic freedom and democratic governance. including decentralized decision making and substantial facu1ty involvement. a sense of community. and an innovative and intel- lectual environment. In conclusion. although there were significant differences between faculty and councilors on 11 goal areas that were rated higher by the councilors. all 20 goals were ranked medium or lower in importance except Advanced Training. which was perceived by councilors to be highly important. More disagreement was found for the process goals than for the outcome goals. 2. Significant differences between faculty members and univer- sity supreme councilors in their ratings of preferred (SHOULD BE) goal areas. Table 4.23 presents the results of statistical analysis of the differences in preference ratings between the two groups. Examination of this table reveals that no significant differences were found between faculty and councilors in their ratings of the preferred goa1 121 OOO. OO. O0.0 N0.0 Nueo.u.OOO new NO...OwOeOouu< OO.. OO.N OO.N OO.N Oe.eeww. .OOewO-..O ON.. OO.. O..O O0.0 eo..w>Oee. OON. .O. mN.: N_.: ueOEe0e_>em o_uo:umo< new .wauuo__oue_ .NO. .O. OO.O OO.O >teeeeoO m:m. mm. ON.: mm.: oueweco>oo 0.0weoosoo OOO. OO. O0.0 O0.0 eonwwe. m_woO mmouoee NNO. O..O O0.0 OO.: Em.>.uu< new Em.o_u.cu .w.u0m OOO. ON. O0.0 OO.O e..ew.ew...wOO .w.uoO NOm. mm. OO.: NO.: ou.>eom O..O:e NON. NO.. NO.O N..O mnwwz .wno. Oe.Owwz OOO. OO. ON.O ON.O eucwoOwO O.O. NO. OO.O NN.O Oe.e.weN nwuew>n< OON. mO. O0.0 mO.: eo_uw.weoea .weo_uwuo> OOO. NO. NO.O OO.O ..wemeo.O..wO .weo.e.nwee mON. NN.. :N.m O0.0 mmweocw3< o_uoeumo< new .wL:u_:O :mm. .O. :N.m ON.O Em.:cu_< new Em.ewE:: Nm:. .O. mN.: .N.: ueoeao_o>wO .weOOLom .w:n_>_ne_ .OO. .O. NO.O OO.O eo.Ow.ew..O .wenuw..wee_ OOO. OO. N..O N..O neweOo.w>wO u.ewnwu< m_woO oEOUOOO NOOuzO NNONuzO NOV a u m.o__ue:oO >u_:uwm wwe< _woo ewe: .mwOLw .wom Amm OOOOImV noncommea on» O0 mmemuw. e_oeu e. meo__oe:oo oeoeaam >ummeo>mea new meonEos >u_:owm eoozuon moueoe0wm_n uewu_$_em.mii.MN.: O.Owh 122 areas. This implies that the two groups agreed that. except for Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness and Off-Campus Learning. which were rated of medium importance. all goal areas should have high importance on their campuses. 3. Significant differences between faculty and university supreme councilors in goal area discrepancies. Table 4.24 shows the differences in the 20 goal area discrepancies. Faculty and councilors were significantly different in ten goa1 areas. six of them outcome goals and four process goal areas. The differences were statistically significant at the .01 level in six areas and at the .05 level in the other four areas. Furthermore. not only in these ten identified goal areas (see Table 4.24) but in all 20 goal areas. faculty. when compared with councilors. showed greater discrepancies between the emphasis that the goal areas presently received and what they should receive in their institutions. The largest goal discrepancies. with respect to faculty. were found in those areas that should be of great interest to them in their professional lives. such as Democratic Governance. Community. and Intellectual Orientation. Finally. it should be pointed out that the lower ratings of the perceived goal areas and higher ratings given to goal area preferences by both groups implied that both groups believed their institutions should put greater emphasis on those goals than they presently do. Priority should be given to those goa1 areas with larger inean discrepancies and to those where significant differences were found in order to bridge the gaps and limit the differences. 123 ._o>o_ .O. ecu uw uewo_u_em_mee ..w>w. OO. we. Ow Oeww...eO.O. .OO. NO.O OO. ON.. Nuew.u...m new O....OwOeOOOOO «OOO. OO.O NO. OO. Oe.e.wwO .OOewO-O.O .ON. N... OO.. OO.. eo..w>Oee_ OO.. OO.N .N.. OO.. .ewEeo..>eO O.Oweemwe new .wOOuw..w.e_ ..OOO. OO.O OO.. OO.. >c.5528 -..OO. ON O. OO.. OO.N wueweew>oO O.OweuoewO O.O.O. ON.O OO. OO.. sanwwen m_woO mmoo0ee ON.O. ON.O OO.. ON.. e..>..u< new e..u...eO .w.woO OOO. O.. O... ON.. e..ew.ew...wOO .w.uoO ON.. OO.N OO.. OO.. wu.>ewO O..Oee ..OOOO. O0.0. OO. OO.. .nwwz .wuo. Oe..wwz OOO. ON.O O... OO.. eewwmwe «NNO. ON.O NO. O... Oe.e.wee nwuew>n< O..O. ON.O wO._ ::._ eo_uwewewee .weomuwuo> OO.. OO.N OO. O... ..weOOO.O..wO .weo.n.nw.e OON. .O.. NO.. NO. mmonLw3< o.uoeumo< new .we:u_au OOO. ON.O O... OO.. e..O...< new e..ewe=O Om_. ON.. :O._ :w._ Newsao_o>oo _we0meom _w:n_>_ne_ ..OOO. OO.O .O.. OO.N eo.Ow.ew..O .wenuw..w.e. O.OOO. O..N .O. ON.. neweOo.w>wO u.ewnwu< m—woO oEOUOOO NOOnzO NNONuzv Nev a u m.o__ue:oO >u_:uwu wwe< .woO >uewOoLom_O C. .mme_uwe wwew _wom Amm Odzozmv nwecomoee new N0.0 no>_oo.oa eooZuon mwmuewaoeom_n mco__ue:ou wewceam >u_m.w>.e: new mchEwE >u_:oww ewwzuon moueweommmn uewuwm_em.mii.:N.: w_ewh 124 W W. The statistical analysis employed to determine any significant differences between academic administrators and the university supreme councilors. in their ratings of the perceived (IS) goal areas. the preferred (SHOULD BE) goa1 areas. and the goal area discrepancies indicated that the two groups were significantly different at the .05 level on their ratings of the perceived goal area. Intellectual Orientation. in which councilors perceived higher importance than administrators. No significant differences were found between the two groups on the other 19 goal areas. Further. except for Advanced Training. which was perceived to be of high importance by councilors. all other goal areas were perceived by both groups as of medium or lower importance (Table 4.25). No significant differences were found between the two groups in their ratings of the preferred 20 goal areas. That is. they agreed that. except for Off-Campus Learning and Cultural and Aesthetic Aware- ness. which should be of medium importance. all goal areas should be highly important to their institutions (Table 4.26). There were only two goal area discrepancies where the two groups significantly differed. They were Intellectual Orientation and Meeting Local Needs. In both areas. administrators had greater discrepancies. Table 4.27 shows there was high agreement between the academic administrators and the university supreme councilors concerning their perceptions. preferences. and the gaps between what is and what should be. except for one perceived goa1 area and two goal 125 ..w>w. OO. .O. Ow .eww...eO.O. OOO. O.. .O.N NO.N Nuew.u.O.O new OO...OwOeOouu< ONN. O.. OO.. NO.. Oe.eeww. .OOEwO-..O OON. OO.. ON.N OO.N eo.uw>0ee_ :mN. m:._ wo.m om.N ueoEe0e_>em u.uoeumo< new .wauuo__oue_ OO.. OO.. N0.0 OO.N N..eseeoO ___. Om.N OO.N OO.N woeweeo>oo o.uweu02wo NNN. OO.. OO.N OO.N eonwwen m_woO mmoUOLO ..O. .O. OO.N OO.N e..>..u< new e..w...eO .w.woO OON. ON.. OO.N OO.N e..ew.ew...wOO .w.uoO NOO. NOO. OO.N OO.N wu.>ewO U..O.... OON. NO.. N..O OO.O wnwwz .wuo. Oe..wwx .OO. NO.. O0.0 OO.N euewwmwe NOO. ON. N0.0 NN.O Oe.e.weN nwuew>n< OOO. .N. OO.N NO.N . eo..wewewea .weo..wuo> NOO. OO. .N.O ON.O w9.5.8.3.... .weo.O.nwee .OO. OOO. .N.N NN.N .mwewewze O.Oweemwe new .w.e..:O NNO. .O. OO.N NO.N e..sen.< new e..eweO= OON. NOO. mO.N OO.N Neoeeo_o>oO .weomewe .w:n_>_ne_ «OOO. OO.O .O.N NO.N eo.OwOew.eO .wseuw..wOe_ OOO. ON.O ON.O NO.O .eweeo.w>wO w_ewnwu< m_woo osoouao .OOuz. .OO.nz. meOumeu ..O O . ..O..ueeoO -O.e_En< ww.e .woO .mwoew .wom Am.v no>.ouLoa mo mme.uwe ._oeu e. meo__ue:ou oEoLeam >ummeo>meo new O.OuweummeOEnw o_Eonwow eoozuwn m0O:Oe0mw.n uewu.m_em_mii.mN.: O.Owh l26 OOO. NN. OO.O O0.0 Ouew.u...w new >O...Oweesouu< .OO. OO.N OO.N OO.N Oe.eeww. OOOEwO-..O ONO. OON. O.. OO.O eo.Ow>Oee_ :Om. MO. ON.: —N.: uewEe0e_>em omuoeumo< new _w:uoo—_oue_ NOO. NOO. O0.0 O0.0 On.eseeoO OOO. ON. ON.: _m.: woeweeo>oo u_uweuoeoa :N:. .m. OO.m om.m sonooeu m_woO mmoo0ee OOO. NO.O OO.O NO.O e..>..u< new e..u.n..O .w.uoO NO.. .N.. O0.0 ON.O e..ew.ew...wOO .w.woO OOO. NN. OO.O OO.O ww.>ewO O..OOO ONO. ON.O N0.0 O..O mnwwz .wuoO Oe.Owwz NOO. OO. ON.O NN.O euewwmwe .OO. OO. OO.O OO.O Oe.e.wep nwuew>n< ONO. :_. Om.m O..: eo_uweweoee .weo_uwoo> NOO. OO. N0.0 O0.0 ..wemso.O..wO .weo.O.nwep 0.0. ON. :N.m N_.m mmoeoew3< 0.0ozumo< new .we:u_:O OOO. .OOO. ON.O ON.O e..se..< new e..eweO: ::O. _N. ON.: :N.: ueoeao_o>oO .we0meoe .w:n_>_ne_ O.N. O.. N0.0 O0.0 eo..wOew.LO .weeuw..w.e. NON. N... N..O NO.O neweeo.w>wO u.ewnwu< m_woO oEOuHOO .OOuzv .OO.uzO mLOumLu Ono—.OeaoO NOV e m im_e_En< wwe< .woO .mwoew .wom NOO OOOOOOV noeeoOOLQ mo mme_uwe c.0eu e. meo__oe:oo oeoeeam >u_meo>.e: new meouweum_e.Enw o_Eonwow eo03uon moueoeewu_n uewu_w_em_mii.ON.: o_nwh 127 ..w>w. OO. we. Ow .eww...eO.O. :Nm. .OO. mm. Om. >oeo_o.mmw new >u__.ewueaouu< mmO. NN.m NO. mm. me_eewo4 meaEwuiOOO OOO. O.. Om._ ::._ eo_uw>oee_ Omm. Om. .N.. .m.. ue05e0cm>em u_uweumw< new _w:uuo__oue_ .ON. :O._ m:._ NO._ >u_e:EEoO mmO. .O.N O:. .N.. woeweeo>ow o_quOOEoO ON.. mm.N :m. NN.. Eonwoeu m_woO mmwuoLe m:_. O..N :m._ OO._ Em_>muu< new Em_u_umeu _w_00m .NO. mo. :_._ O_._ Em_ew..wu_.wmw _w_o0m NOO. O.. OO.. NO.. wu.>.wO 0..O.... «.NO. O0.0 OO. O... Onwwz .wuoO Oe.Owwz mm_. .N.. :_._ Nm._ euwamwm :m_. ON.N NO. mO._ me_e_w.h nouew>n< m:_. :_.N OO.. NO.. eo_uw.weoee .weomuwuo> ON:. mO. OO. NN. mmoem:o_m._om .weo_u_nweh OOO. ON. NO.. :m. mmoeoew3< u_uoeumo< new .we:u_:u MO:. m:. :_._ ON.. Em.:eu.< new EmmewEOO Nmm. _000. :O.— :o.— uemEOo_o>oo —we0memm _w:n_>_ne_ «omo. mm. _O._ mm._ eomuwueo_eo .wzuu0__mue. mmm. mO. .m. mO._ ueoEeo_w>oO u_Ewnwo< m_woo eeouuzo Ammnzv NOm_uzv meouweu Ono—.oeaou NOV e N im_e_En< woe< .woO >oeweoLuO_O .mme_uwe wwcw _wom AOO Odzoxmv noneoOOLO new N0.0 no>_ooeoa eooZOOO mo_oewOoLum_n e. meo__ue:ou newcesm >u_meo>_e: new meOuweum_emEnw omeonwow ewozuoe moueo.o*m_n uewu_w_em_mii.NN.: O.Owh 128 area discrepancies where significant differences were found at the.OS level. WW W125 JnJaLLQLUaneLsnies The ninth research question asked: Based on the perceptions and preferences of the different groups. what are the identified priorities among institutional goal areas in the major Saudi universities? WWW. Table 4.28 presents the perceived goa1 areas in order of their importance accord- ing to the means of their ratings by the three groups. Based on the perceptions of faculty. academic administrators. and university supreme councilors. Advanced Training was shown to be the highest current goal area priority in Saudi universities. followed by Traditional Religious- ness and Academic Development. which were seen as second or third. Meeting Local Needs. which was the fourth goal area in importance. was rated fourth by administrators and councilors and fifth by faculty. The fifth goa1 area was Research. which was ranked fourth. sixth. and seventh by faculty. administrators. and councilors. respectively. These findings were consistent with the rank ordering of perceived (IS) goa1 areas by the total population (see Table 4.1L. In other words. these five goal areas were ranked by the total population and by the respondents in their professional groups as the highest perceived goal area priorities in Saudi universities. Examination of these five goals revealed that they were all outcomelgoals; none of the process goals was among those areas perceived to be of high priority in 129 me_eeww4 maaewuimmo memeewod maeEwOimOO me_eewoO maeswuimwo ON mmoewewza .we:u_:u mmoewew3< .wcau_:u mmoeoew3< .we:u_:O m— Em_ew_ewu__wmm _w_u0m Em.:eu_<\Em_ewE:: Em.>.uo<\sm_u_u_eu .wmu0m O— Em_>_uo<\Em_u_u_eO _w_o0m Em_>_uo<\Em_o_u_LO .w.oom Em.:cu_<\5m_ewE:z N— Em.:eu_<\8m_ewE:: eomuwueo.eo .wauoo__oue_ oueweeo>ou u_uweuoeoO O. wo_>ewm O..O:e Em.ew.ewu__wmm _w_u0m ._w>wO _we0meoe _w3n_>.ne_ m. ._o>oO .weomeoe _w:n_>_ne_ eo.uw>0ee_ eo_uwueo.LO .wauuw__wue_ :— eo_uw>0ee_ wo_>.om O..O:e oum>cwm u__n:e m. eo_uwueo_eo .wsuow__oue_ ._w>wO .weoOeoe .w:n_>_ne_ Em_ew_ewu__wmm _w_00m N. woewecw>ow o.uweooeoc eueweeo>oO O.NweuoEwO eo_uw>oee. .— Eonowee Eonooeu EOnwoeu O. eo_uwcweoee .weo_uwuo> eo.uw.wewee .weo_uwuo> >u_e:EEOO m >oew_u_umm O >u___ewue30uo< >umeaeeoO eo_uwcweoee .weo_uwoo> O coewwmom NewEe0c_>eO _w:uow_.oNe. >oew.u_wmm O >u___nwue:oou< N >u_eaeeou coewoOom HeOEeoewomw .wsuow__oue_ O ueoEeo._>eO .wauoo__oue_ >ueo.u.OOO O >u.__nwue:oou< mnooz .wuoO me.uowz m Onwwz .wooO me_uwwz mnwoz _wooO memuwoz eocwomwm : mmwemno.m._wm .weo_u_nweh Neoemo_o>oo u_Eonwo< aeoamo_o>oo u_Ewnwo< m NewEOo_w>oO o.Eonmw« Omoemao_m__wm .weo.u_nw.h mmoem:o_m__wm _weo_u_nwch N me_e_web nouew>n< me_e_weh nooew>nm mO_e_weh nooewzmm _ Ono—mueaoO O.OOwLum_e_En< NO.:uwe xewm .meo__ue:oo oeoeaam new .meouweum_e_Enw o.Ewnwow .>O_:uww ou me.n.ooow Oo_u_mew>_ea .nawm no» mwoew .wom NO.O no>_ooeoa Oo >u..o_eaiu.ON.: w.nw» 130 Saudi universities. That is. goals related to institutional functioning and internal climate. such as a sense of community. democratic govern- ance. and intellectual and academic freedom. were not perceived to be among the five most important concerns of the current practice in Saudi universities. WW. Table 4.29 presents the rank order of the goal areas according to the preference priorities of the three respondent groups. Community was preferred by all three groups as their highest goal priority. followed by Intellectual Orientation. Advanced Training was preferred by administrators and councilors as the third most important goal and by faculty as the fifth most important. Democratic Governance was preferred by faculty members as the third most important goal. by administrators as the fourth most important. but by university supreme councilors as sixth in importance. Research was given fourth. fifth. and seventh preference by faculty. administrators. and councilors. respective1y. Two of these five goals were process goals. and the other three were outcome goals. Comparing the five perceived goal priorities with the five preferred goal priorities showed that respondents believed that. unlike the current practice. their institutions should place their highest priority on Community. followed by Intellectual Orientation and Democratic Governance. The emphasis on Community and Democratic Governance implies that respondents believed that the functioning or internal environment of their institutions should be given the highest priority on their campuses. .Advanced Training and Research were both l3) me_eeww4 OsaEwOiOmo me_eewwO maaewuimmo memeewoq mnaewuiuwo ON mmoewew3< .weau_:O mmoewcw3< _w.:u_:O mmoeoew3< .w.:u_au m— Em_ew_ewu__wmu _w_uom Em.:eu.<\&m_ewE:: Em_ew_ewu__wmm _w_60m O— Em_:eu_<\5m_ewE:: Em_ew_cwu__wmm .w.uom Em.:eu.<\Em_ewE:: N— EOnwweu EOnooem EOnwoem O— e..>.nw....OwOeOouue Onew.u...ONNO...Owneeouwe O. >oew_o_OOO\>u_..Owueaouo< mmwem:o_m__wm .weo.u_nweh eo_uw>oee. :— eo_uwewewce .weo_uwuo> eo_uw>0ee_ Em.>.uo<\Em.o_u_eO _w_uom m— oo_>eom o..a:e mo_>eom O..O:e oo_>ewm u__n:e N. mnowz .woog memuooz Em_ew_cwu__wmm _w_o0m mmoem:o_m__om .weo_u.nweh .— mmwem:o_m__w¢ .weo.u.nw.h ueOan_o>wO u_ewnwo< eo.uweweo.¢ .weo_uwoo> O. eo_uw>0ee_ eomuwewewee .weo.uwuo> ueosao_o>wo o_eonwo< m Newsao_o>wo o.Eonwu< mnwwz .wooO me_uww2 mnowz _wooO me_uooz O eoewwmwm uewEe0e_>ew .wzuoo__oue. uewEeOLO>em _w:uuo__wue_ N oueweeo>oO u_uweuoewO ._o>wO _we0m.oe .w:n_>_ne_ ._o>oO _we0mcwe _w:n.>_ne. O ._w>wO .weOOLwe .w:n_>.ne_ eoewomwm .me.e_weh nooew>n< m neoEeoe.>eO .wsuow__oue_ woeweew>oo O.OwcooEwO goewwmox : mO.e_wch nouew>n< me_e_weh nooew>n< wueweeo>oO o_uweooeoO m eo_uwueo_eo .wmuow__wue_ eo_uwueo_co .wauoo__wue_ eo_uwueo_eo .wsuoo__oue_ N NO.::EEOO .Nwwmmaamm NO.::EEoO . Ono—.OesoO meouweum_e_5n< >u_:owu xewm .meo__oe:oo neweeam new .Ocouweum_e_5nw o_Eonwow .NO.:owO op me_neouow mo.u_mcw>_e: .nawm no» mwoew _w0m NOO OOOOIOV noeeoOwee mo >u_.o_eeui.mN.: o_ewh 132 perceived and preferred to be among the five highest goa1 priorities. but the results of the preference rankings. in which Advanced Training ranked no higher than third and as low as fifth. appear to suggest that within those five top priorities Advanced Training should not be the highest goal. as is the case in current practice. Having identified the perceived and preferred goal area priorities according to rankings by the three groups. further analysis was undertaken to determine the extent of congruence between the three groups in their rankings of the 20 goal areas. Table 4030 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients (r) derived for the three groups. which show a positive correlation among them in their rankings of the 20 goal areas according to their relative perceived and preferred importance and mean discrepancies. There was substantial agreement among the three groups in their goal area priorities. Goal areas that were perceived or preferred as highly ranked by any one group were perceived or preferred to be highly ranked by the other two groups. Examination of Table 4.30 also indicates that there was greater agreement between the three groups in SHOULD BE rankings than in IS rankings and that there was greater agreement between administrators and councilors than between faculty and either of the other two groups. In short. statistical analysis found a significant correlation. at the .001 level. between the three groups' perceptions and preferences in raking the 20 goal areas according to their priority and in the goal area discrepancies. I33 .mwOLw .wom ON n z "ouoz .OO. :m. .OO. mm. .OO. Nm. >u_:oww .m> Occuweum_e.5n< .OO. OO. .OO. NO. .OO. OO. NO.Ouw. .m> m3.6.38 .OO. mO. .OO. Nm. .OO. mm. O.OOweum_e_Enw .m> meo__oe:oO a e a L a e OQOOLO mo m._we me_xewx >oewOoLommo me_xewm mO OOOozm me_xewm m. .mueo_o_OOwoo eo_uw_oceoo eOOLwee >e no>_eon .momeoemwe OO OOOOIO i m. ewwzuoe Oo_oeweweum_n new .mwonLomoee OO oaaoxm .meo_uewo.oe m. ..OON e. nomemw Ameo__ue:oo new .meouweum.e_Enw .>u_:owwv mueoneOOOOL mo Ouncem weeeu oeu no.5: On ueouxo vehii.om.: o_ewh CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS W Quantitatively speaking. the Saudi university system has achieved rapid growth and expansion over a relatively short period of time. despite many challenges. This growth and expansion. however. were not achieved without sacrifices. That is. as a result of an open admissions policy and efforts to make higher education available to everyone. universities have tended to lose control of their direction and have had little time to evaluate their performance. establish a sound academic policy and tradition. or even to maintain some desirable qualities. Although the Saudi universities have had to deal with the problems introduced by this expansion and growth. such as shortages of qualified human resources and physical apparatus required to maintain the system. they also face other concerns that require considerable attention and effort. Among such problems are limitations on autonomy and participation in campus governance. a campus climate that does not encourage innovation and intellectual freedom. irrelevant curriculum and instructional methods. inadequate research and publication. an inability to cope successfully with the changing conditions and 13h 135 requirements of the rapidly developing nation. and a serious absence of scientific and systematic planning and evaluation. One centra1 reason for the prevalence and persistence of such problems is the absence of identified. clear. and explicit institu- tional goals that provide necessary direction and guidance or can be used as standards against which to measure the success of the univer- sity in achieving its mission. That is. the goals of Saudi universi- ties are so genera11y stated that they cannot be used to guide university operations and day-to-day decisions. Further. their goals have neither been evaluated nor revised to accommodate the changing environment. requirements and conditions of the institution. the society or both. Goa1 priorities have not been established and announced to institutional constituents so that all parties of the institutions know what is of greater and lesser importance in making institutional decisions. Thus. it is apparent that if Saudi universi- ties are to be able to cope with the problems identified and to func- tion as effective. viable. coherent. and creative institutions. they must identify their institutional goals. establish priorities among these goals. and use them effectively to guide university operations. The present study was justified in light of the identified need for goal clarification and identification and the importance placed on that goal identification by theorists and scholars in the fields of organization and administration. That is. the intent of this study was to identify and compare the perceived (IS) and the preferred (SHOULD BE) goals of the Saudi universities as seen by Saudi faculty members. 136 academic administrators. and university supreme councilors at major Saudi universities: King Saud University. King Abdu1aziz University. and the University of Petroleum and Minerals. More specifically. it was intended to address nine research questions: 1. What are the present goals of the major Saudi universities as perceived by their combined supreme councilors. academic administra- tors. and Saudi faculty members? 2. What are the preferences of the combined university supreme councilors. academic administrators. and Saudi faculty members concern- ing the goals of Saudi universities? 3. What discrepancies exist between the present and preferred goals? 4. What is the relative importance of goal area perceptions and goal area preferences to each of the three major Saudi universi- ties? 5. What are the perceptions and preferences of the university supreme councilors in the major Saudi universities concerning the goal areas? 6. What are the perceptions and preferences of the academic administrators in the major Saudi universities concerning the goal areas? 7. What are the perceptions and preferences of the Saudi faculty members in the major Saudi universities concerning the goal areas? 137 8. Are there significant differences in perceptions and preferences concerning the goal areas between the respondent groups? 9. Based on the perceptions and preferences of the three groups. what are the identified priorities among the institutional goals in the major Saudi universities? Subjects for the study were 428 university personnel representing 55.9 percent of the total population. A modified Arabic version of the Institutional Goal Inventory administered to these subjects asked them to respond to various goal statements. indicating their perceptions of how important each goal IS presently at their institutions and their preferences as to how important each goal SHOULD BE at the institutions. Response options for each goal statement ranged from "of extremely high importance."1which was assigned a value of 5. to "of no importance or inapplicable." which was assigned a value of 1. Means. standard deviations. and rank order distributions were computed for all respondents. for each professional group. and for respondents by university. based on their perceptions and preferences in goal areas. One-way analysis of variance and Scheffe post hoc tests were employed to compare respondent groups and to determine if signifi- cant differences existed between them with respect to their ratings of the emphasis the goal areas then received and ideally should receive at their institutions. Pearson correlation coefficients were derived to determine the extent of agreement or disagreement between the groups in their rankings of IS and SHOULD BE goa1 areas. The results of the data 138 analysis were presented in tabular format. and detailed study findings derived from the analysis were discussed. mansions WW5 We: Based on all responses. the 20 goal areas were currently perceived to be in the medium or low scales of importance at Saudi universities. The five goal areas that could be of highest priority were Advanced Training. Traditional Religiousness. Academic Develop- ment. Meeting Loca1 Needs. and Research. Only the local goal of com- pleting a "comprehensive infrastructure" was perceived to be of high importance to Saudi universities. Other local and miscellaneous goals were perceived as having medium or lower importance. Thus the findings indicated that Saudi universities were concentrating their resources and effort on developing comprehensive graduate programs. educating their students in Islamic thought and heritage. developing their abili- ties to understand and defend Islamic positions. developing students academically. training manpower to meet the country's needs. conducting research in a variety of fields. and completing a comprehensive infra- structure. Goals seen to be of low importance to Saudi universities included Public Service. Socia1 Egalitarianism. Democratic Governance. Intellectual Orientation. Individual Personal Development. Humanism and Altruism. Social Criticism. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. and Off- Campus Learning. particularly the last three goa1 areas. Analysis indicated that Saudi universities were putting more emphasis on outcome 139 goals than process goals. That is. little attention was given to the institutional functioning and internal climate that facilitate achieve- ment of the outcome goals and provide the atmosphere necessary for productivity and satisfaction within the academic community. Finally. student-oriented and socially oriented goal areas were found to be of generally low importance to Saudi universities. WW5 We: Based on total responses. it was found that the Saudi academic commundty preferred to have their institutions give highest priority to Community. Intellectual Orientation. Democratic Governance. Advanced Training. and Research. in that order. The other goal preferences were also found to be of high importance. except for Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness and Off-Campus Learning. which were assigned medium impor- tance. The findings of the study indicated that the Saudi academic community accepted 18 of the 20 goal areas as future goals for their institutions and felt their institutions should emphasize process goa1 areas such as Community and Democratic Governance. This indicated the academic personnel strongly preferred favorable emphasis be given to the internal climate and functioning of their institutions. Local and miscellaneous goals were also strongly preferred by the respondents. Goals such as Completing a Comprehensive Infrastructure. Institutiona1 Reputation. Curriculum Development and Relevancy. and Encouraging Faculty and Staff Development were considered of extremely high importance. Institutional Autonomy was rated as highly important. 140 We: Analyses of all responses concerning differences between what 13 and what SHOULD BE indicated 1arge discrepancies between perceptions of and preferences for the goals. This finding indicated that respond- ents be1ieved their institutions should place greater importance and emphasis on all goals than those goals were then receiving. Goals that respondents be1ieved their institutions to be the furthest from achiev- ing and which therefore may require the most significant policy changes and should be of the greatest concern to Saudi universities inc1uded: Intellectual Orientation. Democratic Governance. Community. and Indi- vidua1 Personal Development. Those identified areas of concern relate to: (1) attitudes about learning and intellectual work. such as stu- dents' familiarity with research and problem-solving methods. ability to synthesize knowledge from many sources. capacity for self-directed learning. and commitment to lifelong learning; (2) decentralized deci- sion making by which students. faculty. administrators. and university councilors can be significantly involved in decisions affecting them and campus governance which is genuinely responsive to the concerns of all people at the institution; C3)inaintaining a climate in which there is faculty commitment to the general welfare of the institution. open and candid communication including open and amicable airing of differ- ences. and mutual trust and respect among students. faculty. and admin- istrators; (4) identification by students of personal goals and devel- opment of means for achieving them. as well as enhancement of a sense of self-worth and self-confidence. 141 Goals such as Translation. Faculty and Staff Development. and Institutional Autonomy may also be considered to be of highest concern to the Saudi academic comnunnty since these had the largest IS - SHOULD BE discrepancies among all local goals. Goal areas whose discrepancies were large but were considered of moderate priority inc1uded Social Criticism and Activism. Public Service. Research. and Intellectual Environment. .Relat1xe_ImaQLiance_9I_Eence1xed_II§1 mm W The findings of the study indicated that personnel of each of the three Saudi universities under study (KSU. KAU. and UPM) perceived the 20 goal areas to be of medium or lower importance. An exception was Advanced Training. which was perceived at UPM to be of high importance. KSU gave highest priority to Advanced Training. followed directly by Traditional Religiousness. Academic Development. Research. and Intellectual Environment. At KAU. Traditional Religiousness. fol- lowed by Advanced Training. Meeting Local Needs. Academic Development. and Research were perceived to be of highest priority. After Advanced Training. Academic Development. Vocational Preparation. Intellectual Environment. and Meeting Local Needs were perceived to be of greatest concern at UPM. All three institutions thus perceived Advanced Train- ing and Academic Development to be among their highest priorities. and all perceived Off-Campus Learning. Cultural Awareness. Social Criticism 142 and Activism. and Humanism and A1truism to be of lowest priority. The emphasis other goal areas received differed from one university to another. with the exception of some goa1 areas on which KSU and KAU personnel agreed. At all three universities. highest priority was given to outcome goals. Failure to emphasize any of the process goals indicated a lack of concern about the internal climate of the institu- tions. The findings indicated that personnel at all three universities expressed preferences for having the 20 goal areas considered of high importance. excepting Off-Campus Learning and Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. which were rated as less than medium importance. and Humanism and A1truism and Social Criticism. which were of medium importance at UPM. Few differences were found in goal area priorities; all three institutions had Community and Intellectual Orientation as their first two priorities. with Democratic Governance and Advanced Training also ranked in the top five. Generally speaking. there was agreement between the institutions' personnel in their rankings of preferred goals and the importance the process goa1 areas should have on their campuses. W51 WWW Wimp Analysis of the response data by professional group (faculty. academic administrators. and university councilors) provided the following findings. 143 For the perceived (IS) goa1 areas. it was found that: l. The three groups perceived the 20 goal areas to be of only medium or low importance at their institutions. 2. Significant differences at the .01 or .05 level of signifi- cance were found in the three groups! ratings of 17 out of 20 perceived goa1 areas. The three goal areas on which they agreed were Research. Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. and Off-Campus Learning. 3. Faculty members and academic administrators differed at the .01 CH‘.05 level of significance in their ratings of 14 of 20 perceived goa1 areas. The six areas on which they were substantially agreed (no significant differences) were Advanced Training. Research. Intellectual Orientation. Individual Personal Development. Cultural/Aesthetic Aware— ness. and Off-Campus Learning. In all 14 areas of significant differ- ences. administrators tended to give the goals higher ratings than faculty members did. 4. Significant differences were also found between faculty and councilors in their ratings of 11 of 20 perceived goa1 areas. In all the areas councilors tended to assign the goals higher ratings than did faculty members. 5. Faculty members' tendency to differ with both administra- tors and councilors in rating process goals indicated existing conflict over the current functioning and climate of the institutions. 6. .Academic administrators and university councilors tended to be in agreement in their perceptions of all goal areas except for Intellectual Orientation. on which a significant difference was found. 144 For the preferred (SHOULD BE) goa1 areas. it was found that: 1. No significant differences were found between the three groups in their ratings of the importance the 20 goal areas should have or the priority they should have in the future of Saudi universities. Agreement between the groups was found to be even greater in the rank- ings of preferred goa1 areas than in perceived goal areas. and between administrators and councilors than between faculty and either of the other two groups. We The following is a summary of the importance each goal area was perceived to have or should have on Saudi campuses according to the three groups. .Adyanced_lna1n1ng. This goal involves efforts toward developing and maintaining a strong and comprehensive graduate school. providing programs in the professions. and conducting advanced study in specialized problem areas. This outcome goa1 area was perceived by faculty and administrators to be of medium importance and by councilors to be of high importance on Saudi campuses. .A significant difference was found between faculty responses and the higher ratings of the councilors. but overall this goal was perceived by the three groups as the goal most emphasized in Saudi universities. .All three groups also preferred this goal area to be highly important. and it was among the highest ranked preferred goals. 145 lIadjjignal_fleligigusnes§. This outcome goa1 area involves educating students in their Islamic heritage. development of students' ability to understand and defend the Islamic position. development of a dedication to serving God in everyday life. and helping students to become aware of the potentialities of a full-time religious vocation. This goal area was also perceived by all groups to be among the highest priorities on their campuses and was rated of medium importance with significant differences between faculty and administrators as the latter group rated it higher than the former. “This goal area was preferred by all groups to be of high importance but not one of the highest priorities to their institutions. ‘Agadem1c_fleyelgpnmuu; An outcome goal area that has to do with acquisition of general and specialized knowledge. Academic Development involves preparation of students for advanced scholarly study and maintenance of high intellectual standards on campus. 'This goal area was perceived by the three groups to be one ofinedium emphasis but was seen to be among the highest goal priorities in Saudi universities. Significant differences were found between facu1ty perceptions and those of both administrators and councilors. who gave it higher ratings. This goal area was preferred by all groups as one of high importance to Saudi universities. but it was not among the highest goa1 priorities. .Meetlng_Logal_Needs. This is an outcome goa1 area that was defined as providing for continuing education for adults. serving as a cultural center for the community. providing trained manpower for 146 private and governmental sectors. and facilitating student involvement in community service activities. It was perceived to be among the highest goal priorities in Saudi universities but was currently receiv- ing only medium emphasis according to the three groups. Faculty mem- bers differed significantly from both administrators and councilors by giving lower ratings in this goal area. In indicating their prefer- ences. the groups considered this goal of higher importance to their campuses. but it was not among the highest preferred goa1 priorities. .Beseanch. Research is an outcome goal that involves doing contract studies for external agencies. conducting basic research in the natural and social sciences. and seeking generally to extend the frontiers of knowledge through scientific inquiry. It was perceived to be of medium importance to Saudi universities by all three groups and was currently receiving less emphasis than the previous goal areas. However. the three groups indicated they would prefer to have their institutions place high importance on research and that it was a fairly high priority in their estimation. This was one of the goals on which the three groups agreed in both their perceived and preferred ratings. .Agcgun1ab111:y_and_£jjjglency. This is one of the process goal areas and is defined to include use of cost criteria in deciding among program alternatives. concern for program efficiency. accountability to funding sources for program effectiveness. and regular submission of evidence that the institution is achieving its stated goals. This goal was perceived by all groups as of medium importance to their institu- tions. with significant differences between faculty and administrators 147 where administrators' ratings were higher than faculty members'. It was preferred by all groups at a level of high importance but was considered to be of low priority to their institutions. Wm. This is a process goa1 area that entails a rich program of cultural events. a campus climate that facilitates students! free-time involvement in intellectual and cultural activities. an environment in which students and faculty can easily interact informa11y. and a reputation as an intellectually exciting campus. This goal area was perceived by all groups to be of medium importance in their institutions. with significant differences between faculty and the other two groups. as faculty believed their institutions were then putting less emphasis on this goal area. It was. however. preferred by all groups as a goal area of future high importance on their campuses. .Mgcatignal_finepanatign. ‘This represents an outcome goal area that involves offering specific occupationa1 curricula (as in account- ing or nursing). Vocational preparation includes programs geared to emerging career fie1ds. opportunities for retraining or upgrading skills. and assistance to students in career planning. This goal area was perceived by the three groups as one of medium importance in their institutions. Significant difference existed between faculty and administrators. with administrators rating this goal higher than faculty members. In expressing their preferences. all three groups believed this goal should be of high importance to their institutions. 148 mm. Community is a process goal area briefly defined as maintaining a climate in which there is faculty commitment to the general welfare of the institution. free and candid communication. open and amicable airing of differences. and mutual trust and respect among students. faculty. and administrators. This goal area was perceived by the three groups as presently of medium importance to Saudi universi- ties. with significant differences between faculty and the other two groups based on faculty members' lower ratings. All three groups. however. believed this goal should be of high importance and was of the highest priority on their campuses. That is. it was rated as the number one preferred goa1 area by the three groups and was identified among those goal areas that should be given highest and earliest con- sideration in institutional policy change. since the institutions have the furthest to go to achieve it. Ereedgm. Freedom is a process goal area defined as protecting the right of faculty to present divergent ideas in the classroom. not preventing students from hearing diverse points of view. placing no restrictions on off-campus activities by faculty or students. and ensuring faculty and students the freedom to choose their own lifestyles. In this goal area. significant differences were found between faculty members and the other two groups. That is. while faculty believed their institutions were then p1acing inadequate emphasis on this goal. academic administrators and councilors believed that the institutions were giving it medium importance. All three groups agreed that this goal area should be of high importance to their 149 institutions but preferred that it be given low priority relative to other goal areas. Innnyatinn. As a process goal area. innovation is defined as a climate in which continuous innovation is an accepted way of life. It involves established procedures for readily initiating curricular or instructional innovation and. more specifically. refers to experimenta- tion with new approaches to individualized instruction and to evaluat- ing and grading student performance. Among the perceptions of this goal area. it was found that significant differences existed between faculty and the other two groups. That is. while faculty believed their institutions were then placing low importance on this goal. administrators and councilors believed it to be of medium importance. It was preferred by all groups as a goal of high importance but one of low priority to their institutions. W. Public service is an outcome goal area that entails working with governmental agencies in social and environmental policy formation. comnfitijng institutional resources to the solution of major social and environmental problems. training people from disadvan- taged communities. and generally being responsive to regional and national priorities in planning educational programs. The study find- ings indicated that significant differences existed in perceptions of this goal area between faculty and administrators. Administrators gave it a medium rating. whi1e faculty gave it a low rating. However. no significant differences were found between faculty and councilors. The three groups agreed that this goal area should be of high importance to 150 their institutions. although it was not found to be preferred as a high priority. ,Snglal_EgallInnjnn1§nn This is an outcome goa1 area having to do with open admissions and suitable education for all persons admitted. providing educational experiences relevant to the evolving interests of women and those who live in remote areas. and offering remedial work in basic skills. This goal area was perceived by faculty to be of low importance. but by administrators and councilors to be of medium importance in Saudi universities. thus creating significant differences between faculty and the others. The three groups' perceptions were in agreement that this goal area should be of high importance. but they considered it a very low priority on their campuses. W. This process goa1 area means decentralized decision making; arrangements by which students. faculty. administrators. and governing board members can all be significantly involved in campus governance; opportunity for individuals to participate in all decisions affecting them; and governance that is genuinely responsive to the concerns of everyone at the institution. Facu1ty believed that their institutions placed little importance on such a goal area. but administrators and councilors believed that it was given medium importance. .Significant differences were found between faculty and each of the other two groups. This goal area was also seen by faculty to be among those having 1east priority for Saudi universities. but by administrators and councilors as a moderate 151 priority. All three groups believed Democratic Governance should be highly important to Saudi universities. Faculty members and academic administrators gave this goal area the highest priority. but university supreme councilors tended to prefer that it not be emphasized that much. This goal area was also among those goals with the greatest IS - SHOULD BE discrepancies. indicating the Saudi universities have further to go to achieve this goal than others and that it should be an issue given serious consideration for institutional policy change. W. This is an outcome goa1 area that relates to attitudes about learning and intellectual work. It means familiarity with research and problem-solving methods. the ability to synthesize knowledge from many sources. the capacity for self-directed learning. and a commitment to lifelong learning. This goal area was perceived to be of low importance by faculty members and of medium importance by both administrators and councilors. Significant differences were found between faculty and councilors and between faculty and administrators. in that administrators and councilors tended to assign higher ratings to this goal area. The groups agreed that the goal area should be of high importance and rated it the second highest goal priority for their institutions. Indeed. it was ranked as the highest goal area discrepancy. suggesting that considerable effort will be required if this goal is to be achieved. W This is an outcome goal area that means identification by students of personal goals and the development of means for achieving them. as well as enhancement of a 152 sense of self-worth and self-confidence. Faculty perceived this area as one of low importance; academic administrators and councilors indicated it was being given medium importance in current practice at Saudi universities. Significant differences were found between faculty and councilor ratings. as councilors rated this goal area higher than did faculty members. It was preferred by all three groups as a concern of high importance to their campuses and given higher rank than was perceived for it in the previous ranking. .flnmnnjfinLJuuLJfljmyjnnn These combine in an outcome goal area that reflects a respect for diverse cultures. commitment to working for world peace. consciousness of the important moral issues of the time. and concern about the welfare of man generally. All three groups perceived that this goal area was then of low importance of their institution. although significant difference was found between faculty and the other two groups; the faculty rated it lower than administra- tors or councilors. Further. this goal area was perceived to be one receiving the least emphasis and of little interest to Saudi universi- ties. The three groups agreed. however. that this goal area should be of high importance on their campuses but also ranked it among the four lowest goa1 priorities. Wain. As an outcome goal area. this means providing criticism of prevailing Saudi values. offering ideas for changing social institutions judged to be defective. helping students learn how to bring about needed change in Saudi society. and being engaged as an institution in working toward fundamental changes in 153 Saudi society. All groups perceived this to be an area of low importance to Saudi universities. with a significant difference between faculty's and academic administrators' responses; the latter tended to rate this goal higher. As for preferences concerning the rating of this goal area. the three groups agreed that this goal should be of high importance to their institutions but that it should be of only moderate to low priority. SmlIunal_and_Ansthn11;_Anannness. This outcome goal area entails heightened appreciation of a variety of art forms. required study in the humanities or arts. exposure to forms of Arab art. and encouragement of active student participation in artistic activities. This goal area was perceived by all groups to be of low importance in the practices of Saudi universities and was one of the two lowest goal priorities. The three groups. however. believed it should be of medium importance and of very low priority in their institutions. .QII:Camnn§_Lnann1ng. This designates an outcome goal area that includes time spent away from the campus in travel. work study. field trips. and so on; study on several campuses during undergraduate programs; awarding degrees for supervised study off the campus; and awarding degrees entirely on the basis of performance on an examina- tion. This goal area was perceived by the three groups as having the least importance of those on their campuses. It was also ranked by the three groups as the least preferred goal area. considered a matter of medium importance to Saudi universities. 154 In conclusion. all three groups of respondents be1ieved their institutions should consider of greater importance. and place more emphasis on. all the goal areas than they are presently doing. Addi- tionally. the research results strongly suggested that the present goal priorities on Saudi campuses are ineffective as guidelines for university operation and should be changed to provide more emphasis on the institutional climate. its scholarly orientation. and student- oriented goals. That is. Community. Intellectual Orientation. Demo- cratic Governance. Advanced Training. and Research were the goal areas that the Saudi academic personnel participating in this study believed should become high priorities for Saudi universities. lmpJJeathns The following is a summary of the implications of the findings of this study. 1. The study revealed that. except for the local goal. "to complete a comprehensive infrastructure." all goals were perceived by the respondents to be of medium or low importance in their institu- tions. None of the goals was considered to be of no importance or inapplicable. but none was perceived to be of high importance or extremely high importance. either. This finding strongly suggests that Saudi university personnel are not clear on what their institutions' ultimate goals are. much less the priorities among goals or the cri- teria for determining their relevance. To a considerable extent. confusion. disagreement. and uncertainty about the relative importance given to each goal by their institutions characterized the subjects' 155 perceptions according to the large standard deviations of their responses. 2. Respondents rated the majority of the SHOULD BE goal areas as highly important. Their tendency to cluster all goa1 areas at one level of importance may be seen to reflect the failure of'the respond- ents to establish future goal priorities. since numerous goals cannot all be emphasized on the same level at one time. That is. serious goal identification and clarification must have clear and articulated pri- orities based on realistic considerations of social priorities. inter— nal environment. and conditions of the institution. 3. Large discrepancies or gaps between the emphasis respond- ents felt specific goal areas were receiving and what they felt they should be receiving resulted from the respondents' tendency to assign high ratings to the SHOULD BE goals and poor ratings to the IS goals. This implies a degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo at the Saudi universities and that personnel recognize the universities are not affording the goal areas the importance or emphasis that they deserve. In planning efforts to bridge such gaps. the greatest priority should be given to those goa1 areas having. simultaneously. the largest discrepancies and the highest SHOULD BE ratings. These include: Community. Democratic Governance. Intellectual Orientation. and Individual Personal Development. The classification of those four goal areas as process or student-oriented goals implies that Saudi universities have the furthest to go to achieve goals concerned with their internal climate and student learning. 156 4. Based on the respondents' perceptions and preferences of the 20 goal areas. it was possible to establish and compare the goal priorities for both dimensions. Considering the lack of agreement between perceived and preferred goals. it was apparent that the respondents would prefer their institutions to have a set of goal priorities that differs substantially from what they perceived to be the existing goals. This finding implies that the existing goal priorities of Saudi universities may have been imposed by forces from outside. rather than being generated internally from the academic community; Although the goal priorities they perceived diverged from those they preferred. a high level of agreement among the academic community regarding preferred goal priorities suggests that if they were given responsibility for establishing future goal priorities for their institutions. no major conflict or dissension would impede that process. 5. The findings of the study confirmed that Saudi universities are putting high priority on extending their graduate programs. a goal that has not been without controversy because some members of the academic community believe Saudi universities lack the requirements. experience. and qualifications to undertake such programs at the present time. This study found that respondents tended not to put great priority on these programs. a clear implication that university personnel are having some doubts about the success of rapid expansion of graduate programs in Saudi universities. 157 6. ‘The low ratings obtained for Off-Campus Learning and Cultural and Aesthetic Awareness. from both perceived and preferred responses. indicated the academic comnnnflty had little interest in these goa1 areas. The implication for low rating given to Off-Campus Learning reflects the rejection by the academic comnuufity of the prac- tice of awarding degrees based entirely on examination results and/or supervised study off campus. That is. they feel on—campus class attendance and coursework should be a requirement for degree comple- tion. This suggests that Saudi academic personnel are not in favor of the external student system that has been adopted by some Saudi univer- sities to serve students in remote areas and employed persons who cannot come to campus. The poor ratings given to Cultural/Aesthetic Awareness suggest that the retention of traditionally negative attitudes toward music and the arts has some impact on higher education. 7. The findings indicated that planning and evaluation were considered of medium importance to Saudi universities. 'The implication here is that. while the Saudi campuses are getting larger and more complex. budgets are decreasing and universities may never again enjoy the availability of money that they did before an oil glut cut Saudi production and profits. For those institutions to make wise decisions and to maintain their effectiveness and efficiency. they must adopt programs of scientific and systematic planning and evaluation. 8. The significant differences that were found between faculty and academic administrators and between faculty and university supreme 158 councilors in some perceived goa1 areas have some implications if future congruence is to be achieved. That is. conflict within the academic community will have negative results for the institutions. When faculty and other administrative groups are divided in their energies. commitments. and direction. nothing gets done as well as it might. To achieve internal harmony and community and for overall institutional effectiveness. Saudi universities must commit themselves to resolve. or at least to limit. serious disagreement over goals. ‘To do so. they must start with improvement in two particular goal areas: Community and Democratic Governance. Recommendations Assessment of perceived and preferred goals of Saudi universi- ties. as seen by their supreme councilors. academic administrators. and faculty. has generated some results that may be useful in future plan- ning. For the improvement of Saudi universities. the following recom- mendations and suggestions should be considered. 1. Saudi universities should continuously define their institutional goals. establish priorities among them. and communicate these goals throughout the academic community. as well as wider society. All campus constituent groups should be involved in this process. 2. The goals identified and data created in the process should be used as a basis for planning. evaluation. and the decision-making process. 159 3. Saudi universities should conduct periodic self-studies to determine their points of strength and weakness and to ensure that they are keeping pace with the needs. requirements. and changing conditions of their society. 4. Establishment of an accrediting agency for higher education is recommended. 5. A national comnflssion on Saudi higher education should be established to examine and make recommendations regarding the vital issues and problems facing institutions of higher education in the country. 6. Ways and means should be developed to bring the perceived goa1 emphases at Saudi universities more in line with goal emphases desired by study participants. 7. Goal areas in which the largest goa1 perception/preference discrepancies occurred should be considered for policy change. 8. The lack of congruence on goals found between faculty and academic administrators and between faculty and university supreme councilors should be further examined and optimal resolution obtained to create and maintain a climate of harmony on campuses. 9. In seeking efficient and effective institutional govern- ance. the following recommendations should be seriously considered: a. A system of governance that is genuinely responsive to the concerns of all elements in the university community should be created. 160 b. To stimulate and retain the continuing loyalty and enthusiasm of every individual in the institution. an arrangement by which faculty and students will be significantly involved in campus governance should be established. c. Decision making should be decentralized to the greatest extent possible. d. All individuals in the institution should be assured of participation or representation in decisions that affect them. 9. Saudi universities should be granted a charter and the institutional autonomy required for self-direction that will allow them to develop and implement an independent educationa1 philosophy and tradition. 10. To achieve an effective management system in Saudi univer— sities. it is recommended that: a. A clear and concise set of policies. rules. and administrative procedures governing the overall institution should be established. b. A communication system that can disseminate policies. procedures. and related matters of great interest to administra- tors. faculty members. and students should be established. c. Job descriptions for every administrative position should be written and employed in the evaluation of administrative performance. it A system of more effective and efficient decision making should be established. 161 (a Current trends in management science and the technology and tools offered by such science should be used where appropriate. f. An extensive and effective training program for administrative personnel should be undertaken; an administrative program for college and university administration should be established. 9. Because the well-being of university functions depends on its ability to facilitate planning. to foresee events. to use current knowledge and methods to solve problems. and to control and accommodate forces within and without its boundaries. an effective system of scientific planning needs to be determined. h. Establishment of a system of evaluation. by which the university can assess its academic programs. administrative and support services. personnel and faculty members' performance. and resource and policy concerns is essential. 11. A campus climate that facilitates commitment to the welfare of the institution. open and candid communication. open and amicable airing of differences. and mutual trust and respect among all institution members should be created. 12. A climate in which continuous innovation is an accepted way of life should be encouraged. 13. The overseas scholarship program intended to overcome the shortage of Saudi faculty members should be reinforced-~expanded to educate more students and enhanced by improved selection. The present domestic graduate programs in Saudi universities should not be 162 perceived as an alternative to the overseas program. Saudi universi- ties are not yet ready to offer qualified graduate programs strong enough to train their own faculty members. 14. A faculty-development program should be established and facilitated by all means. 15. Faculty members should be encouraged to establish their own senate and to form associations in their areas of interest or within and between discip1ines. 16. Faculty rights. responsibilities. and areas of authority should be determined and officially endorsed. l7. Concerning student development. it is recommended that: a. Student knowledge and attitudes about learning and intellectual work should be emphasized. That is. students should become familiar with research and problem-solving methods. be able to synthesize knowledge from many resources. and become capable of self-directed learning and committed to lifelong learning. b. Students should be helped to develop a sense of self- worth. self-confidence. self-understanding. and a capacity to have an effect on events. c. A clear and well-defined philosophy of student-affairs services and programs should be developed. 18. An admissions policy should be established that emphasizes quality; directs more students to applied science and professional 163 fields. which are a high priority in meeting the country's developmen- tal needs; provides more places for female students; and takes into account students' abilities and interests. 19. ‘The external student system adopted by some Saudi universi- ties seems to contribute to the prevailing phenomenon of diploma dis- ease and degreeism. It tends to increase the number of graduates in areas of low priority to the job market and thus contributes to unem- ployment in those areas. Accordingly. the need for this program should be reconsidered. with the focus on termination. 20. Instructional methods and curriculum that encourage original thought. intellectual discourse. creativity. and critical ability should be emphasized. A policy and plan for continuous review and development of curriculum should be adopted. 21. A clear strategy for translation. publication. and research should be initiated. Research priority should be placed on applied research and on those problems hindering the development of the nation. 22. A system of academic advisement that can contribute signifi- cantly to students' learning. experience. and development should be established. 23. University libraries should be provided with facilities. resources. materials. and a climate that encourages students to spend more time in them and use them to enrich their experience and reinforce habits of reading and inquiry. 24. Saudi university programs housed in inappropriate or tempo- rary buildings that were required to cope with their rapid expansion 164 will suffer from many problems in coming years. It is recommended that the universities using such facilities increase their efforts to com- plete construction of their planned new campuses. APPENDICES 165 APPENDIX A BOWEN'S CATALOGUE OF GOALS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 166 I67 BOWEN'S CATALOGUE OF GOALS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION I. Goals for Individual Students Cognitive Learning 1. 1enbal_5ijJ§. Ability to comprehend through reading and listening. Ability to speak and write c1ear1y. correctly. and gracefully. Effectiveness in the organization and presentation of ideas in writing and in discussion. Possibly some acquaint- ance with a second language. .Qunntitatjxn_§kills. Ability to understand elementary concepts of mathematics and to handle simp1e understanding of the rudiments of accounting and the uses of computers. W93. Acquaintance with the cultural heritage of the West and someIknowledge of other traditions. Awareness of the contemporary world of philosophy. natural science. art. literature. social change. and social issues. Command of vocabulary. facts. and principles in one or more selected fields of knowledge. W. Ability and disposition to think logically on the basis of useful assumptions. Capacity to see facts and events objectively--distinguishing the normative. ideological. and emotive from the positive and factual. Disposition to weigh 168 evidence. evaluate facts and ideas critically. and to think independently. Ability to analyze and synthesize. 5. Wm. Freedom of the mind. Openness to new ideas. Willingness to question orthodoxy. Inte11ectua1 curi- osity. Ability to deal with complexity and ambiguity. Appre- ciation of intellectual and cultural diversity. Historical perspective and cosmopolitan outlook. Understanding of the limitations of knowledge and thought. 6. .Eetnetie_§en§1n1111y. Knowledge of. interest in. and responsiveness to literature. the fine arts and natural beauty. 7. .anntixennse. Imagination and originality in formulating new hypotheses and ideas and in producing new works of art. 8. In:ellegtual_1ntngnity. Understanding of the idea of "truth" and of its contingent nature. Disposition to seek and speak the truth. Conscientiousness of inquiry and accuracy in reporting results. 9. .Wlsnnm. Balanced perspective. judgment. and prudence. 10. LifeJnnanannjng. Love of learning. Sustained intellectual interests. Learning how to love. B. Emotional and Moral Development 1. Wm. Knowledge of one's own talents. interests. values. aspirations. and weaknesses. Discovery of unique personal identity. 2. WM. Progress toward the ability to "understand and confront with integrity the nature of the human 6. 169 condition." Sensitivity to deeper feelings and emotions com- bined with emotional stability. Ability to express emotions constructively. Appropriate self-assertiveness. sense of secu- rity. self-confidence. self-reliance. decisiveness. spontane- ity. Acceptance of self and others. .fluman_nndenstand1ng. Humane outlook. Capacity for empathy. thoughtfulness. compassion. respect. tolerance. and cooperation toward others. including persons of different backgrounds. Democratic and nonauthoritarian disposition. Skill in communi- cation with others. MeJneuangnaJe. A valid and internalized but not dogmatic set of values and moral principles. Moral sensitivity and courage. Sense of social consciousness and social responsi- bility. .Bellgigu§_1ntenest. Serious and thoughtful exploration of purpose. value and meaning. WNW. Practical Competence 10 Waist. Virtually all of the goals included under cognitive learning and emotional and moral development apply to practical affairs. In addition. the following traits. which are more specifically related to achievement in practical affairs. may be mentioned: a. WW1. Motivation toward accomplishment. Initiative. energy. drive. persistence. self-discipline. 2. I70 b. Entnne_nn1entat19n. Ability to plan ahead and to be prudent in risk-taking. A realistic outlook toward the future. c. .Annntnblllty. Tolerance of new ideas or practices. Willingness to accept change. Versatility and resourceful- ness in coping with problems and crises. Capacity to learn from experience. Willingness to negotiate. compromise. and keep options open. d. .Leannnenjn. Capacity to win the confidence of others. willingness to assume responsibility. organizationa1 abil- ity. decisiveness. disposition to take counsel. W. Understanding of and commitment to democracy. Knowledge of governmental institutions and procedures. Aware- ness of major social issues. Ability to evaluate propaganda and political argumentation. Disposition and ability to par- ticipate actively in civic. political. economic. professional. educational. and other voluntary organizations. Orientation toward international understanding and world community. Abil- ity to deal with bureaucracies. Disposition toward law observ- ance. WM. Knowledge and skills needed for first job and for growth in productivity through experience and on-the— job training. Adaptability and mobility. Sound career decisions. Capacity to bring humanistic values to the work- place and to derive meaning from work. Win. Persona1 qualities making for stable families. Knowledge and skill relating to child development. .Cnnsumen_eii1n1enny. Sound choice of values relating to style of life. Skill in stretching consumer dollars. Ability to l7l cope with taxes. credit. insurance. investments. legal issues. and so on. Ability to recognize deceptive sales practices and to withstand high-pressure sales tactics. Enn111u1_1eisnne. Wisdom in allocation of time among work. leisure. and other pursuits. Development of tastes and skills in literature. the arts. nature. sports. hobbies. and community participation. Lifelong education. formal and informal. as a productive use of leisure. Resourcefulness in overcoming bore- dom. finding renewal. and discovering satisfying and rewarding uses of leisure time. .flealth. Understanding of the basic principles for cultivating physical and mental health. Knowledge of how and when to use the professional health care system. Direct Satisfactions and Enjoyments from College Education During the college years In later life Avoidance of Negative Outcomes for Individual Students 0. l. 2. E. (Note: II. Goals for Society These goals may be achieved through education. through research and related activities. or through public services.) A. Advancement of Knowledge 1. 2. Preservation and dissemination of the cultural heritage. Discovery and dissemination of new knowledge and advancement of philosophical and religious thought. literature. and the fine I72 arts-~a11 regarded as valuable in their own right without reference to ulterior ends. Direct satisfactions and enjoyments received by the population from living in a world of advancing knowledge. technology. ideas and arts. Discovery and Encouragement of Talent Advancement of Social Welfare Economic efficiency and growth. Enhancement of national prestige and power. Progress toward the identification and solution of social problems. "Improvement" in the motives. values. aspirations. attitudes. and behavior of members of the general population. Over long periods of time. exerting a significant and favorable influence on the course of history as reflected in the evolu- tion of the basic culture and of the fundamental social insti- tutions. Progress in human equality. freedom. justice. secu- rity. order. religion. health and so on. Avoidance of Negative Outcomes for Society APPENDIX B HACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS AND UNIVERSITY GOALSH BY E. GROSS AND P. GRAMBSCH I73 I74 WWI: By E. Gross and P. Grambsch Wale has been used widely since its first publication in 1968. Adaptations of this questionnaire have been used to study denominational colleges. colleges dominated by blacks. small liberal arts colleges. community colleges. and particular schools within universities. The survey instrument consisted of forty-seven goal statements with each statement followed by 119 Likert-type scales. Each scale had five response options from high to low priority. and a sixth response option for "don't know" answers. Respondents are being asked to rank each goal statement on the "first" or "Is" scale as they nengnixe that goal to be prioritized on their campus at the time of their response to the questionnaire. The respondents are also being asked to rank each goal statement on the engnnn or "Should Be" scale for a response to that same goal statement as they prefer that goal to be prioritized on their particular campus. Space is also provided for respondents to add goal statements of their own wording relevant to their respective institution. These forty-seven goa1 statements are classified into Quinnt_fina15 and was. 175 .annnt_fign1§: Output goals have been defined as those goals of the university which. immediately or in the future. are reflected in somelproduct. service. skill. or orientation which will affect (and is intended to affect) society. The output goals are further categorized into four subgroups. a. Djnnn:_§nn11nn_fign1§: Direct service goals are output goals which affect groups and individuals external to higher educational institutions' faculty. administration. and full-time students. They include: 1. Special training to adults through extension. corres- pondence courses. or special short-term courses. 2. Assistance. not involving instruction. but service to the public through extension programs. advice. or pro- vision of facilities and non-academic services. 3. The provision of cultural leadership for the community. 4. Service as a center for the dissemination of new ideas that will change the society. 5. Service as a center for the preservation of cultural heritage. .annangn_finnls: Research goals involve the production of new knowledge or the solution of problems through: 1. Pure research. 2. Applied research.. .Student_£xpnnseixe_figals: Student expressive goals involve the attempt to change the student's identity or character in some fundamental way such as: 1. Through maximum cultivation of intellect. 2. Through emphasis on a well-rounded student. I76 3. By emphasis on the great ideas of the great minds of history. 4. By emphasizing the development of students' objectivity about themselves and their beliefs. 5. By emphasizing development of the inner character of students. d. .S1unnn1_1n§tnnmnntnl_finn1§: Student instrumental goals are those which equip students to do something for the society or to operate in a specific way in that society such as the following: 1. Preparation for useful careers. 2. Preparation for a high status in life and a position of leadership in society. 3. Specific preparation for scholarship. scientific research. or creative endeavor. 4. Preparation of a good consumer. 5. Preparation of a good and responsible citizen. Sunnnnt_Gna1§. Support goals are those organizational goals which reflect the need of the university as an organization to come to terms with the environment in which it is located. to attract students and staff. to secure needed resources. and to validate the activities of the university with those persons or agencies in a position to affect them. a. .Annntn119n_finn15: Adaptation goals are support goals which relate to the need for an organization to come to terms with the environment in which it is located. They include: 1. I77 Insuring the confidence of those--other than students or consumers of direct service--who support the institution financially. Insuring the continued favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of the programs we offer. Responsiveness to every high school graduate who meets the basic legal requirements for admission. Responsiveness only to students of high potential in terms of the specific strengths and emphases of the institution. Orientation to the special needs and problems of the immediate geographic region. Cost cutting and organizational efficiency. Retention of staff in the face of inducements from other institutions. .Mnnngnmnn1_finn1§: Management goals involve decisions on the need to handle conflict. and the establishment of priorities as to which output goals should be given maximum attention. These goals include: 1. Aligning salaries and other conditions of employment to reflect the contribution that the person involved is making to his own profession or discipline. Involving faculty in the government of the university or college. Involving students in the government of the university or college. Running the institution as democratically as feasible. Keeping intra-institutional harmony intact. Aligning salaries and other conditions of employment to reflect the contribution that the person involved is making to the institution. 178 7. Emphasis of undergraduate over graduate instruction. or emphasis of terminal over transfer curriculum for public community colleges. 8. Encouraging students to go on into graduate work. or. in the case of public community colleges. on to four- year degree programs. 9. Selecting administrative staff on the basis of ability to attain goals effectively. lO. Allowing the will of the faculty to prevail on all important issues. W15: Motivation goals are those support goals which involve the satisfaction and loyalty of individuals within an organization toward that organization. 'They include: 1. Protection of academic freedom. 2. Flexible opportunities for faculty to pursue their careers in a manner satisfactory to them by their own criteria. 3. Broad extracurricular activities for students. 4. Protection of the students' right of inquiry into any area of interest. 5. Protection of student rights to advocate direct action. or to mobilize efforts to achieve socio—political goals. 6. Develop faculty loyalty to the institution. rather than to their own jobs or professional careers. 7. Develop institutional pride in faculty and students. .EQSlIlQfl_GQ§L5: Position goals involve the status of the institution relative to similar institutions. Included are the: 179 Maintenance of top quality in all current programs. Maintenance of top quality in key programs. while keep- ing other current programs at acceptable standards. Maintaining a balanced level of quality across all current programs. Keeping up-to-date and responsive. Increasing institutiona1 prestige. or if prestige is already high. maintaining it. Preserving the character of the institution. APPENDIX C ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL GOALS INVENTORY I80 l8l INSTITUTIONAL GOALS INVENTORY (Form 1) To the respondent: During the past decade a number of educational. .social. and economic circumstances have made it necessary for colleges and universities to reach clear. and often now. understandings about their goals. Now, wide- spread financial and enrollment concerns make it imperative for institu- tions to specify the objectives to which limited resources may be directed. The Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI) was developed as a tool to help college and university communities delineate goals and establish priorities among them. The Inventory does not tell institutions what to do in order to reach the goals. Instead. it provides a means by which many individuals and constituent groups can contribute their thinking about desired institu- tional goals. Summaries of the results of this thinking then provide a basis for reasoned deliberations toward final definition of institutional goals. The Inventory was designed to address possible goals of all types of higher education institutions. Most of the goal statements in the Inventory refer to what may be thought of as “outcome" goals—substantive objec- tives institutions may seek to achieve (e.g.. qualities of graduating stu- dents. research emphases. kinds at public service). Statements toward the end of the instrument relate to "process" goals-goals having to do with campus climate and the educational process. The IGI is intended to be completely confidential. Results will be sum- marized only for groups—faculty. students. administrators. boards. and so forth. In no instance will responses of individuals be reported. The Inven- tory should ordinarily not take longer than 45 minutes to complete. NAME OF INSTITUTION ________-___ _ _ _ _, __ _ ,____-m _ a- 182 D399 “”0 DIRECTIONS First - How important is the goal at this institution at the present time? The Inventory consists at 99 statements of possible institutional goals. Using the answer key shown in examples below. you are asked to respond to each statement in Then - In your judgment. how impomnt two dinerent ways: should the goal be at this institution? 0, O o g ’6 $1 36 ’4 6 ° EXAMPLES ,0, oi o,‘ ,5 a, , 1 —— I a I ¢ '3 a ‘53» ’5. it. ”a 0.. a, s, s , ‘5. .. s e 9 1‘0 e e ‘3 A. to require a common core of learning n CD CD GD (23 - ex iences for all students... p“ should be a CD - a: c: In this example. the respondent believes the goal “to require a common core of learning experiamas for all students" is presently of extremely high importance, but thinks that it should be of medium importance. is Q: - m :2 GD 8. to give alumni a largr and more direct role in the work of the institution... should be a CD CD - GD In this example, the respondent sees the goal "to give alumni a larger and more direct role in the work of the institution" as presently being of low importance. but thinks that it should be of him importance. - Unless you have been given other instruCtions. consider the institution a_s a whole in making your judgments. In giving maid be responses. do not be restrained by your beliefs about whether the goal. real istically, can ever be attained on the campus Please try to respond to every goal statement in the Inventory. by blackening one oval after is and one oval after should be. Use any soft lead pencil. Do 3325 use colored pencils or a pen-ink. ball point. or felt tip. - Mark each answer so that it completely fills (blackensl the intended oval. Please do not make checks IV I or X's. Copyright 0 1972 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. mndmmum~ae~arm manna-mountain”...- manuals-mate's..." Mumnmmumm “have ~10 l83 page three \ Please respond to these goal statements by blackening one oval after is and one ”'9' M 92- 0’ ‘+ o, ‘e 3 o 3‘, ‘5. ’4’ ‘4 3’ Q! ’q 3 <5, 3%,, 00,, $0 $0 \9\ ...O 9" ’e 1; o l. to help students acquire depth of knowledge in at is CD CD CD CED GD least one academic discipline... should be a CD CD GD GD 2. to teach students methods of scholarly inquiry, is CD C12) C13 a CD scientific research. and/or problem definition and solution... should be CD CD c: G3 a 3. to help students identify their own personal goals is a CD G3 G3 a and develop means of achieving them... should be CD CD CD a CD 4. to ensure that students acquire a basic knowledge in is G: CD m G: CD the humanities. social sciences. and natural sciences... should be a CD CD a CD 5. to increase the desire and ability of students to is CD CD CD :3 CD undertake self-directed learning... should be a CD CD GD CD 6. to prepare students for advanced academic work.e.g.. is CD CD CD a CD at a four-year college or gaduate or professional school... should be CD a CD a CD 7. to develop students' ability to synthesize knowledge is CD CD CD CD CD from a variety of sources... should be C CD CD GD GD 8. to help students develop a sense of self-worth, is a: CD CD CD CD self-confidence. and a capacity to have an impact on events... should be cc CD CD CD CD 9. to hold students througiout the institution to high is a CD CD 5: a standards of intellectual performance... should be CD CD CED G CE) 10. to instill in students a life-long commitment to is a: CD CD a a learning... should be a CD CD CD CD I I. to help students achieve deeper levels of is CD CD CD CD CD self-understanding... should be CD CD CD CD CD 12. to ensure that students who waduata have achieved some IS a CD CD CD CD level of reading. writing. and mathematics competency... should be a C12) CD a C33 13. to help students be open. honest. and trusting in is CD CD CD (:3 GD their relationships with Others... ‘ shOuld be C CD CD CD @ 181i page four Please respond to these goal statements o, by blackening one Oval after 2 and One q}: 9°. ’1 after snail/d be. r ’6 s5 .5 r3 — " a}. s, s,’ a, . a ’0 we to. in. ‘o. 14. to encourage students to become conscious of the is CD CD GD 9 GD 5 important moral issues of our time... I should be a CE) 03 a CD . is. to increase students‘ sensitivity to and is CD CD CD a: c: I appreciation of various forms of art and artistic expression... should be CD @ Q2) GD E) g i 16. to educate students in the Islamic heritage... IS C) CD CD GD CE) should be D CD CD CD CD 17. to help students understand and respect people from is C) CD CE) :3 GD diverse backgrounds and Cultures... . should be a CD CD E CED ' , l 18. to require students to complete some course “ a CD CD CD CD 3 work in the humanities or arts... ' . shOuld be a C2) C13 C23 C33 . 19. to help students become aware of the potentialities Is a CD CD a: ‘ CD I of a full-time religious vocation... ' ' shOuId be D (:3 a: a I CD 3 go i . i ' 20. to encourage students to become committed to working IS CD CD CD a l a for world peace... I I should be CD CD CD CD . CD ‘ . i 21. to encourage students to express themselves artistically, e.g.. '3 CD CD CD CD I CD 5 in music. painting, film-making... . should be a CD CD Q: I CD i 22. to develop smdents' ability to understand and defend I‘ CD CD a CD CD l the Islamic position... : should be CD CD a a CD 23. to encourage students to make concern about the welfare I‘ CD CD CD GD CD I of all mankind a central part of their lives... l ' should be a CD G3 G3 GD 5 24. to acquaint students with tonne oi artistic or literary IS CD CD CD <3 a 1 expression in other nations... . should be :3 CD CD CD CD 25. to help students develop a dedication to servmg God in 3 C3 CD CD a CD f everyday life... should be CD CD CD a G3 i 26. to provide opponunities for students to prepare IS a C13 C13 CD a . tor specilic occupational careers. e.g.. accounting, 1 engineering. nursing. 5"°U'd be a CD CD CE) l :3 . 185 page five F ., l "4 °' “it I Please respond to Mesa goal statements 0 0, o, 3.0 0,, 4.1 ‘ by blackening one oval after i_s and one 1,0 ’0’ 6.; ’63 ’g a, after should be. ’ ‘5 ’s 's ’s 's " " ’ ,q’s, °s. ‘3. ‘30. °q. 9 i- I f I ."e ‘i. ”e ”a. 'i. 27. to develop what would generally be regarded as a strong is a CD CID GD CD and comprehensive waduate school... should be a CD CD a C13 28. to perform contract research for government. business. is G: a CD a G3 or industry... I should be a a C13 GD CD I l 29. to provide opportunities for continuing education for is a G3 G3 CD CD 3 adults in the local area. e.g.. on a part-time basis... ; siiouid be a CD CD CD a 3 30. to develop educational programs geared to new and is a CD CD GD GD i emerging career fields... I should be a C1: CE) :3 GD l I 31 to prepare students in one or more of the traditional is CD CD CD E) CD 1 professions. e.g., law, medicine. architecture... . should be CD CE) a CD r l 32. to offer graduate programs in such "newer" professions is CD CD CD CD CD I as engineering, education. and social work... ' should be CD m CD G CD ' 33. to serve as a cultural center in the community is a CD CD a CD I served by the campus... I shOuld be a CD CD CD CD I 34. to conduct basic research in the natural sciences... is a: CD CD :2) c: I should be a CD CD CD CD 35. to conduct basic research in the social sciences... is a CD CD a: CD I I should be a CD CD c) a [Li I 36. to provide retraining opportunities for individuals is a CD CD a G3 . whose iob skills have become out of date... I shOuld be CD a: CD a: CD L I 37. to contribute. througi research. to the general is a CD CD a CD ' advancement of knowledge... i should be CD CD CD CD a: I 38. to assist students in deciding upon a vocational is CD CD (:3 GD CD 3 career... I shOuld be C CD CD GD CD i I 39 to provide skilled manpower for local~araa business. is <2) CD CD a cs: 5 industry, and government.. . Should be C) c2 CD CD CD l86 pm Six Please respond to these goal statements by blackening one oval after is and one after would 5. O \‘ C . .90 .o°" o’ ‘3" ‘9\ .i-"°° s, ., 40. to facilitate involvement of students in neid'iborhood is a CD G3 G3 CD and community-service activities... shOuId be CID CD , CD CD CD 41. to conduct advanced study in specialized problem areas. " C53 CD CD a: CD e.g.. throudi research institutes. centers. or graduate programs... should be :3 CD CD CD a 42. to provide educational experiences relevant to the I‘ C) CD CD CD CD evolving interests of women in Saudi Arabia . stipuld be CD CD CD a a . i 43. to provide critical evaluation of prevailing practices and is a CD m CID CD I values in Saudi society... should be a CD CID a CD 44. to help people from disadvantaged communities acquire I’ CD CD G3 G3 CID knowledge and skills they can use in improving conditions in their own cMmunities... 9‘0"” I” C: ' CD CD a CD I 45. to move to or maintain a policy of essentially open 5‘ :3 CD ~ C13 53 CD admissions. and then to develop meaningful educational experiences for all who are admitted... 9‘0““: be CD CD CD a GD ‘ 46. to serve as a source of ideas and recommendations for 5‘ 9 CD m a G: I changing social institutions judged to be unjust or i otherwise defective... ShOUId b0 CD CD CD a CD I 47. to work with governmental agencies in desig-iing new is (:3 a: CD a Q: social and environmental programs... should be a CD CD CD CD 48. to offer developmental or remedial programs in basic is a CD a: a CD skills (reading, writing, mathematics)... should be CD CD CD ' a CD I 49. to help students learn how to bring about change in a; a CD CD a CD Saudi society... should be a CD CD GD C13 50. to focus resources of the institution on the solution is CD CD a: a: CD of major spelal and environmental problems... 1 should be C CD CD CD CD 51. to be responsive to regional and national priorities '5 a CD CD a C32) when considering new educational programs for the institution... shoold be a CD CD CC) CD 52. To open educational programs to those students who '5 C:— CD CD (:3 CD live in remote areas and seek equal opportunity... I I should be .3 ‘ (:3 GD Q m l y...— L- 187 989! ”V!“ o, .‘s i o, 0% i Plea respond to viese goal statements o, c, 3,, 0, 7. by blackening one oval after 2 and one 1,0 ’0’ 6% ’6.3 42., ’3, after shoald be. r '5 a, 'g ’3 '3 - g’ffia". 00"» $7 $7 a; 9 '4“. ‘7' ‘i“. Q’s ‘3; ”’0. 53. to be engaged. as an institution. in working for basic is a CD CD 3 Q3 changes in Saudi society... should be (:3 CD CD CD CD 54. to ensure that students are not prevented from hearing is a CI) CID GD CID speakers presenting controversial points of view... should be CD CD G3 CD CD 55. to create a system of campus governance that is is CD CD CD a G: genuinely responsive to the concerns of all people at the institution... should be a CD CD CD C13 1 i 56 to maintain a climate in whid'i faculty commitment to the is CD CD CD a CI) ' goals and well~being of the institution is a strong as commitment to professional careers... should be a CD CD CD CD 57. to ensure the freedom of students and faculty to choose is CD CD CD a CD their own life styles (living arrangements. personal appearance. etc)... should be a CD (33 CD CD 58. to develop arrangements by which students. faculty, is :3 CD CD a CD administrators. and trustees can be simificantly . involved in campus governance... should be (3 CD a a CD I i 59. to maintain a climate in which communication througlout is a CD CD CD CD the organizational structure is open and candid... should be a (3:) CD a CD 60. to place no rutrictions on off-campus is a CD CD (:2 C3 activities by faculty or students... should be CD CD CD ED CD 61. to decentralize decision melting on the campus to is CD CD CD CD CD the weetest extent possible... should be CD CD CD a) CD 62. to maintain a campus climate in which differences of is CD CD CD G3 G2) opinion can be aired openly and amicably... should be CD CD CD a CD l 63. toprotecttherightoffacultymemberstopreeentand is a CD a CD CD ' discuss dlflerent ideas and views in the classroom... 5 should be CD CD CD E CD 5 64. to assure individuals the oppormnitv to participate or is a CD CD CD Q: i be represented in making any decision that affect them... should be a CD CD CD CD 65. to maintain a climate of mutual trust and respect among .5 C3 C2) CD CD :13 students, faculty, and administrators... : should be C CD Q3 (3:) J c: . 188 page rial“ 0’ .‘s o, g‘ Please respond to these goal statements a, o, "b o, ‘_ by blackening one Oval after L‘. and one 1,0 ’0“ 3,, ’3, ’13 after shoald be. ’ ‘5 '1; ‘3 ’ a, — %/i’ 0°; $0 % % 1~ '9 r 1,, ’ r $6 0. a; o. 0e “e 66. to create a campus climate in which students spend much is CD CD CD a CD of their free time in intellectual and cultural activities... should be CD CD CD a CD 67. to build a climate on the campus in which continuous is a G3 CD a G3 educational innovation is accepted as an institutional way of life... shOuld be a CD CD ED CD to encomage students to spend time away from the . . . is 68' campus gaining academic credit for such activmes as CD CD CD a CD ' k-stud t ams. ' ‘ 'f" “32“" mm“ "‘ "'°' " ° °°' should be c3 CD c1: CD CD 69. to create a climate in which students and faculty may is CD CD G3 G3 CD ; easily come together for informal discussion of ideas : and mutual interests... should be G3 G3 CD CD CD i l l 70. to experiment with different methods of evaluating and a; a CD Q: a: CD | grading student performance... i should be C CD CD E GD 71. to maintain or work to achieve a large degree of 5, C3 CD CD CD CD } institutional autonomy or independence in relation } to governmental or other educational agencies... ghoum be CD a: :3 ' CD ' 1 l 72. to participate in a network of colleges throug'i which is a C23 (3 (3 ' CD 3 students. according to plan, may study on several ; campuses during their undergraduate years... should be c3 a: a c - 73. to sponsor each year a rich prog'am of cultural events-- .3 CD CD a; E) CD ; leCtures. concerts. art exhibits. and the like... i should be CD C13 CD CD a g 74. to experiment with new approaches to individualized jg CD CD CD CD CID I instruction such as tutorials. flexible scheduling, and I students planning their own programs... should be CD CD a: a CD i i l - 1 75. to award the bachelor s and/or associate dewee for a CD CD G3 CD CD I supervised study done away from the campus. e.g.. ! . . . ‘— in extension or tutoria centers. by correspondence. should be a a CD CD CD . or through field work... : 76. to create an institution known widely as an is :3 CD CD a: CD L intelleCtually excmng and stimulating place... i I should be C CD CD G CD 0 77. to create procedures by which curricular or is CD a: CD (3 c: i instructional innovations may be readily initiated... ' should be m CD CD GD CD l 78. to award the bachelor's and/or associate degree to some 1 is a a CD CD CD individuals solely on the basis of their performmce on ! an acceptable examination (with no collegecsupervised ‘ Shauld be a m C: I D (:7. Q . study. on- or offcatnpus. necessarvl.. L I89 1 page nine ' or .‘e l o, ‘3. I Please respond to these goal statements 0, o, 3'6 0’s 1 I by blacr ening one Oval after is and one 93° oo, ’2, '63 is, 13, 1 after should 1e. ’. 3 " ’3 ’3 ’3 /%". 3th- %. 09-, a is to ’3‘ ’r 9) s ‘s 9 . ”s s ii. i :I 79 to apply cost criteria in deciding among alternative is CD GD CD a CD 1' academic and non-academic prorams... 1 should be a CD C13 (3 CD ' 80. to maintain or work to achieve a reputable standing is CD CE) CD CD CD 1 for the institution within the academic world (or in i relation to similar conceal... should be :3 c2: CD CD CD 81. to regularly provide evidence that the institution is is a CD C13 C33 CD actually achieving its stated goals... should be :2 CD a CD CD 82. to carry on a broad and vigorous progam of is a CD CD a: C33 extracurricular activities and events for students... ' would be CD a: CD CD a: 83. to be concerned about the efficiency with which college 5, CD a) CD a CD operations are conducted... should be C2) C13 CD a CD 84 to be organized for continuous short-, medium, and is a: CD CD GD GD long-range planning for the total institution... should be c a G3 a CD 85 to include local citizens in planning college programs is a CD Q3 a CD that will affect the local community... should be a C22) C23 CD CD 86. to excel in intercollegiate athletic competition... is CD CD CD a a: should be CD CD CD CD CD 87. to be accountable to funding sources for the ,3 a CD CD E E3 effectiveness of college programs... should be CD CD CD CD CD 88. to create a climate in which systematic evaluation of is 0:) CD (33 G a college programs is accepted as an institutional way 1 of life... should be :3 CD CD a CD L f 89. to systematically interpret the nature. purpose. and is a CD CD E) Q: wOrk of the institution to citizens off the campus... should be :3 CD CD GD CD 'r 90 to achieve consensus among peeple on the campus about 5 a C13 CD a) C13 the goals of the institution... ; should be CD CD CD <2: CD I90 page ten l ., l '+ 5 °' 4‘1 . Please respond to these goal statements 0 a, o, 1) °e4 1" 3 by blackening one Oval alter If and one ' o 9°,” 64., 21 2is it, - fter sho Id be. ’ ’ ‘5 ’3 ’3 £ ‘ u - aifh“ an ‘3 $7 09' g ”I. ‘ a. q“. $0. 9’0. l i 91. To replace non-Saudl faculty and other staff with is CD CD CD CD (:3 i Saudi citizens. i ' should be CD CD CD CD CD i 92. To increase student's enrollment in scientific and is a CC) CID a CD ‘ professional fields... should be a CD C12) CD CD ‘ 93. To translate sciences and am into the Arabic is CD CD CD CD CD language... should be CD CD CD CD CD r 94. To Atabanize the mm in fields where English is C23 m (D CID CD ' i is the language of insbuction... ' should be CD CD CD a CD 9 95. To improve the quality of instruction... is a: CD CD a c: l ' stipuld be a CD a: . C) . c: i l [ 96. To complete a comprehensive infrastructure is a a: a: a CD 3 3 including labs and libraries. | i should be :2) CD C]: 3 CD I I (r 97. To develop student’s loyalty and patriotism toward is a CD Q3 a c: l 9 their country... ‘ : shOuld be C CD CD GD CD ; i 98. Toencouragefacultyandstaffdevelopment... is (:3 a: CD a CD 3 I l ! should be a: CD CD a CD ! l 99. To develop. continuously. the university curriculum 5 a CD CD a CD 7 and make it more relevant. . should be CD CD CD E) CD l9] 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. page eleven Please mark one answer for each of the inlormation questions below that aooly to yOu. Mark the 99: that best describes your role. GD Faculty member CZ) Administrator m A member at the University Supnunerunal Merl: one field at teaching and/or research interest Biological sciences Physical sciences Mathematics Social sciences Humanities Fine arts. performing arts Edmafion Business Engineering Other 8888888888 Indicate academic rank. instructor Assistant professor Associate professor Professor Other 88888 Indicate age at last birthday. Under20 20t029 30t039 ‘0t049 50to§9 60mm 888888 ThenameothnumwenMy CID langSuxflUnw. GD King Abdualaziz Univ. CD Univ. ol Petroleum and Minerals 105. 106. Place of graduation. Saudi university Arab university American university European university Other marvelo— Nationality. 1 Saudi 2 Non-Saudi I92 ID wqfifii‘oWi :4.) . Pf)“ 3:" a" 9- ),ll ywlfl in” 015,!) new at); 33.315 (Ml 3.!be b,” ulfifaib JJJUI Jo ..uaellr U3» Q’s QWUJ J,” cut? 0‘ all...” at,“ J» ...-.... a...» qual C‘” u ......‘l, anal 34.3 full aw 1,5,... 4 male J. ...-1 Jll comm, ’0' Mb UU-l Hal-MY tal; Ha J‘ L'Jiw'u- J”), Lia’s J red“ 9,11..le yearn“ beb Cabral} «94' ctr-1‘ J! Jr's“: 4“" 2‘4‘ 04 ill—‘5 ova—i Jen-av E...“ w» on,“ can ..w new “r;- .---s ale-J w» l. .2 .r» aw a: ..JLgJI u. 4 arm, ant, 3,5» ,3; gnu-ill up op lie ”all ”:1”; ,3... 2.4.41 wt JJLe'JI 4.3!, #4sz wbyl, Juan 2... .Leel Jig gum gl Lg, ..i. a»; J. column 3,», Fat... Jul 4...; Jle 4 gel ,3: 3.41.111, 2,;sz «Ni-d: ”mum“, J1 qui all-l you: ‘ill 3,43% abfil’ce J54 ch31, .531 ace—til Li. P......: J, LL} .4...» L.. Codi, how cow-s, guru ...—s gt, gnu-i at...) Ului a; JSJ U3.» HI, C5,.“ Jla‘ll J5 L..:.J LLJ ......z 6,. .u .353“ l... gl 3st,. uml L4 J. ..le 4 is»... JJi Judi ,5... gl L5 t“); Jl my... J. Juli J... Jul PL..." 9” w '4' “r cu“ 1' Ole-cl vie-b H43! Ala-415 lei-3‘ ,il wUr‘ c-lI? («s-L» vhf) gull J31, FL. Jgelsl the sus; Ju. anal 3,1...» J...— 3.3: not... bur-1,! .‘cil ...L,l..ll aw)...“ .LJ‘J?‘ )t LJI‘JI rug“ 4" 4539‘s.)”,aglaugufihauceylmyPsolglaLrflasyalgwlwagJ 31);}?ny £1le Jul 31 3L)?L. u. .Jl._.f_.‘.ll~j.'.i.~l 84:5 (Jig-)5 1.13 .Jeiell ¢.~.,ll Lia J); QJB QVJJGJJchlJeAL'q éfiléqrailelSJJo J4; our; Jig-if Um! the... gig-...? Us 19,5 ,5 at”, 3...: ca...“ Ll. .51»? J. J4, Haul. Jul. ,l... L4 aural J‘J-bsiei’u éfifltvkd}thrJyJJ‘JL3-L—?l‘JAUJ’S’wiAL—éfi: H3! fleJlJJ 1.5.5! ....J'Leol $5.ij 9:3: J u}... JJJI Agog-,- LEI, . .mJil Jo ole?!) gig—fill an}; .l.i_.:.. Jail be: «m A». I92 ID EQQUIPJJEL/J 9A.} - #2" 3‘1" 3" r- 1;)“ JJLU‘ f 4w “15.-u 43‘ 3"» 15.-1‘ (51—3! ODYU 3.0.,” elk—H, JJ’B“ J" ML U3» .4} UWUJ )fi ‘cuu Jo wLJ‘ 3')“ J35- ...-933.; 3.11.3:- QUA‘ c)” u w.) UUA' $4.3... (1.5.11 UL“ Lrfi—fi J ISL-AP J5 ...; 4J1 ~3L‘J?‘J ,J 314.11, aw w»? t‘" ... JI Ln.» .1...” Lu. J wan ...1..11J. J.;.,a.11 .1011, .31.,311 er)“ LSi-l‘J J1 J30": 4”" 2L“ Jr". “~14 431:4 u... ...-11 w». w.“ a.“ .441 p.241 a». . ink" w» L. .2 .1 Mi :1: .JLa-M Li» .1 39-4—1: 5,-2.3 3:5 J)“; 4'449' U» 015 ‘43 4:341 pit-3" (‘N w W' file-1' ‘W‘: 0:535'9‘ shrub?) J-u-fl" 33.-1' “4|“ 25 44R: 0‘ U.) .1. .... J. 3191.91 35,... "L... .3131 ...: Ju J 3.1.1... 291.111, 2.95m PrL1,... ”Lu-.1, J1 Jyfl 3.41.: L.»L:£ ,1 3...?! abfidlg JS. «1..., 4.1 oL_._:..\11 1.. ...... .5,» LU ...Lush Luck“) inJ ...thz, 95)..” w UL.- JUN .3L...;,1 in»! 0;: JS! L...» JaJt, Cf“ .Jla‘ll LS L.:..1 LLJ .....s .5.» .5 ...-3111.1. .1 LL, MAJ b1 9‘ {.N.-.311 J Lnaq... 4“ ..iIJaVI FL" 0' LS V! ,1 by... J; J)..." J... JUL.“ 1'4“". 9% JOEL-'30,} a}; 9”. uh» PM) gab” gan—“S w leLL1c.1-.(....L~ nab-f) 4.49.1, r-L‘ Jgam CL. .141}. 2.in 3.1..11J.._. _,1.;: a... in»! ,1 C”- ..L1.11 91.5.11 $919.11 JJ 2...)ng Pug 45.! JawqffigmuJopagmI..J..$.utoL.§1.s,a1.~mmeLrJ é)!rfib£|ubfi'JJlaL-)YLUD QL—I—Y‘Jdn—olywrfirf‘fl ‘anMLa-JH» _.o.& ..u EQVJJoqulfhrJfléfaifi LS—J‘JJJQL‘fiJLJfiLJL‘v-L n1L....1L....‘J1 Lu .4»). J'h' uk»; Jan—3 uh.“ ‘JA JUN J; A, "hub- .51.». 5A.. lab ..JU-m‘ «11...,ué,.zc.;s:.s,c.14;.,u ....j11‘..z3.;J,.<.,L.;1m.J,s.:.ur.L-;LLJ,.. .91)...“ ...J'Laq JLLYJL. {1}», JJ 3,... 4.11 .S,L.;_-,.u:1, . .iLL-‘Jl J. 8.L»\.11,¢L.;.‘.J15.IJ5J .1... Jam i;.:, 411.42., I93 JLé-Y‘398 J5 “>5 44-45 v ‘ ‘ 4 - est" ya" y .—.-w ' --.:~->;»_ I» 6 y .»3 ......- .' .JMIJI ch," J chub J .9.» J54- ihgll 92% 3.»): J: u - \l'at .04.» .54 '43:“; ,4 ,i gum J. _,-,' _,-.'i 925" an: ,n u- - is: ._ . \y g 5» v/ .4 .3 'j‘ .z '3‘ a" ‘4? ‘4‘: C) a :3 (:3 - ab“ :0" .MJK‘ J 3...,” «up, all,» aft-Se 47.5-14.1 ... CD CD - C) a .55: at ,4 L. a...» a): J... J 497514.;S33QIV‘343JQbQQll#J~‘dh¢L¥-‘Jlu~.,,.lm".;‘}.Jl\#_pr\~"J (Ill C;3 C22) C23 1!. .MJ‘ ~’,I V , . .. .. , gt...» ... isb)‘: «no-l 4,9,.» - 34?- QW _-_‘e-7~: - a CD C) c: - C) ‘33.! ‘3: J J ww ”a: ,5 ,6 w J», m ~25“ ,-» a». 5,». 41: ...“, w fie: ‘1 am an si- ege-h .5): 413-“ w y a»? .3 .J‘S gum,“ J JJli—‘l ...O-iv”- ‘Jv 3..” Jab-l Jag J; J .\ . Lib-3b , » u 4- > ‘I o ." J}: at -.-‘. b a» .52“) y')‘ can a 6w: J‘}-— J51 4:4»: iv: - V .Ub- “LSJtflLVEJSJW Jam, “ELL“ 'Li-laJadg-‘Jl .5,“ 41,—; 32.?! IS 56 5.3-: .1" am Ltd“ J c?!» 15 Arabic translation of the Institutional Goals Inventory, copyright l98h by Educational Testing Service; English version cOpyright 1972 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission. 3"“ ‘.E- 0: ...: ...-...; .I'J‘J lad ...“ v)‘ ...-M o- J)‘: MA .44» ’18..) J‘)‘ UJ’ -..O . a v ~ 1 .— .‘.*'.J' :9“ 44“: J: ,4»: u mm J an», LL93", 4,45 9|;in J5 ,Jw 3.4,, - .'u )8” U -‘4 ~ C3 C23 <3 a CD prl;_uiJfii,ub‘~g.—;S;J5 wz‘iad - l c: CI) 63 CD 3.52 J ~,-.é b 9W :3 G: C) :3 Q 3')“ 3,3: 4,3, ".3.“ u,” 44“” xi 3;. ,wu 4,.- - 2 C3 CI) (2) a) C) 4,2, g! ,4 u ‘3’.” “5"." ° W D a C) a CD If") C')" “.3in J’Ul g, gun dual 444’- J.‘ ....IUL" Sari-o - 3 c: G: a a a .55., at ,4 L- ““""" " c: E) G E) C) ‘ J‘U‘ Cir“ 991.4,?! .3 guy. J)“ Jun JL-rSl J; 451-.“ - 4 :3 CD a a a) a; at ,4 l- " we“? ”W." CD (3 G E 3')" ton .le ,4...J'_'"l, P“ 'l J; 4,5, gags g) at!) - 5 c: <3 :3 a CD 9;, at ,4 L. C) a <3 G C) wLJ‘ to" J‘ d:— M» J; ”'9 45,5: 3., 5,333 ,Jw» m»; - a . l ' ', . . Q c: a c) C) 4.6. at s-é L. “'3' ““4““ fl “”9“” "’“‘ - l l c: c: (:3 CD CD 4) :0“ ,c. :- 3,» .443. 45.: y 4% 4M5 *=-' - 7 :3 c2 c3 :3 a 9;: at ,4 L. “W" G C) c) E) a .r‘)‘ r)“ ...:u 4 at, gram (...-9 up; ;_....; J; ,JLl-El 3.4;; - 8 a CD E) C) a 59": gl ,4: b Abba-V" ,1 .1512“ J5 “)3: CD CD (I) C) C) 3')“ c')” ,‘r' L“; JP“ .23"! “5| 9g: J5 J taut“ 91:11 - 9 c3 c: a (3 c3 ab“ ca)“ .gwl J94; J Ski-I 5.x.- J..:_l.l ”Jail. 9513‘ f} .. lll CD a a a CD a}, J ,4 u D c: (:3 a CD w," :4,» . .614! ”ill gay}..- y' J...»- J‘ QW' Bail—a - ll <3 CI) C) a C) .45., J ,4 L. Q :3 D ED <3 Q’Ma'h 3)" haflléhfifll _-',.°";._'.3.~olu'-l 3")“: 313,44; - l: c: (:3 (3 C) Q a}, a? ,4 L. ”9""? “5”". CD :3 c: c: C) 35" 34.-3' 1.: CD CD (:3 c3 c3 .‘w J.\ 4w SH 5] 5h 195 if x ' v? ‘3- ‘ 77/ VI ....) '3 .u-‘g .5; «Huh;- 4'4)‘; .4: J5 ....» 4.x.» _.' «'1‘» .4; J 5" ~3‘1 j; $.31 .‘i—é awra- 1);..."4J‘ :03}. ...-"I“ CD ’3; C) Q .J'z" :9" 1,442 qwfis 9,4114 ...L j,"- 3 ....;'.'..'~ ...... " - N D Q (3 (3 CD 45.. J ,4 L- ‘ (:9 (:3 CD CD Q 3"“ w‘y" » .44“:le “A“ ,-,.o..4'1:.s2.fi43,,.3&5‘ grab-’9 - 15 C) :3 <3 CD CD 45., a? ,4 L. CD :3 (:3 a CD ..M," a," ‘ Jot—Ni .Mfil J ,3w 4...... - lb CD 6 CD CD CD 4:, a! ,4 L- c: a Q E) (:3 x‘)‘ to“ "as. 41...; Jul .545. ..a J; ,4,» a»... - 17 c: C) C) G C) a}: J s-é L- .434: ”:4- CD CD (3 <3 Jam .4,“ ‘ gm, (#4)“ gym J 3*,“ J“... ,3... ,JLBI ~31 - lb :3 :3 <3 :3 CD J». 47 we L- ' ‘f‘ , .. m . . . . . - . n C) a C: G C: J‘ 1"" 3,54." «54,; It"; 9&3 9"“ J5 ,4...“ 345,... - W :3 C) Q r: c: 4.; s? ,5. 'a "a”. .P" rm ,3 :3 CD ..qu 9y" .4145! 95L." )3" J Judi. #5:)" J; ....TLAJ' sat-...: - 2“ c:- c: L“ CZ) c3 .- ..J ,4 L- C: CD C CD C) N)! :4! Jré‘: ...,u an; 4 ...a. 3.43 J; ,3.» :4...“ - :1 c: a CD C, a 4,5, cl ,4 ‘u """ "' “h" (:3 C) C CD CD 45" 3:51 ,4 5““! an)” an, .4 y ,_w 43.4 a_..: - :2 C c: c3 c3 c: 4.5, J ,4 .. . 4 . l . D :3 C) CD CD 3'.“ 39' 9, ‘2'» 4459.43: a»... 4.3)): qu~ ...... - :3 c: (:3 CD a .45., .2? .4. u "1" A ’ In" J. l ’ -' "9 ' ' ‘ C: G: C: G a u’.'4 :‘a ‘rdi a; #35": ‘9‘)" «W‘ 4‘," J‘ gull i»: _ _..l c: C) (3 (2) CD 4.3;. J ,4, t- "’3'” <3 :3 C‘ G C ‘-‘"' :0 an,» .9 ...».J 342,9 .m w .9 gm" J6 ,4,- 9»: - 25 C) E ED (3 -.S. J ,4 u 'y”: t”? C) :3 D .N." 3:“ ggl‘. 9.425 334‘ ...... ...Jt'ul sus} _.o} ‘9'; - 2h ..‘SJQu J . . “...-5’0 _‘l 0"“: 4' (19 7H 71 m» \l 0’) . 1 1.. ~l ' In '70 SH »" 03’ Hugo—L J‘M; In) adv ...? W. '5 J"! Q." J, u ...». .> ‘5‘; 4M,“ UJ‘ ...;4 ‘ r ' ~ ‘ ‘— <3 C3 :3 CD CD 4")" to” 4 _ . 4 _ ,_ £95,415 3:5.“ '4- J'C—a J5 gau‘ (a... J—u- :N.: 4.5. - -- CD CD G 0 4,52 J as L- C: CD a a C) 3"!“ 1")" “‘5'! Qw§b ‘JI’JJI .... *3. ...]... w ...)... .54; - 23 1.44., CD CD :3 C) 4;, J .4 1., CD CD CD G CED 3M)! Co“ '5 +‘fi 0.9 3;:5‘ .3; _-‘ ,5». v”, 3:; - 39 . .4ng ,? J44 '54.? '4; C: Q C) G G 4;, J .43 L. ~ - .- . Q (:3 C) G (:3 -,.I I g '| ‘ - [J b ’ 324' “=6“ 9:5,“ 933'» .3 3+1». 1:32;; :42), “~13! - 3“ (:3 c: (D (I) .55., J 44. b C a D G G 5")" car“ QW‘ '4‘ v.4 :15; J: 4"} J v”; v-I‘v” J'JE - 3] c: c: a CD $.51 J a—é u (:3 a CD CD CD .3") 09' 33.-'5‘: 94315 2145.: J4; 4' '.___'...3t 9;»; 2.x: ”.4; _ 3: Q (:3 C) CD a 4,5, w .4 ... Q :3 a (:3 :3 4w ... ' . . .. )J .9 ”i: 5.3..“ ...:al‘ 344$- 4L2: $4.11}, in») :43: - 3‘ (D CD CD CD .55, J .4 b C) CD CD CD C) 3"," a)“ 9);?” “a 4315 '-.-..'-H 995‘ J g”; L” ,9; , 34 . --‘—'L.:‘-15;;i-.-": Q :3 C) C) CD 43,5.- .n .4 u C C) C) CD ”'4'“ w)“ .‘-H J);y;fl5 wa‘ VA.” J 9...: Jay... ply-.13 .. 35 . . .145»,- 6w)": (:3 CD a a c: 45.. J 4* L- ~ :3 D G G 4"?“ “9‘ J an M- (......i JJ‘ :93: .3); any 3:" .43: - 3h ,' '5‘; «50 3.0. ha“ C3 :3 C) G C) 4,.Sgai..4u *~ «..° - c :3 .2 CD CD 3')“ 3y” , , ‘ . . , .- .35....” plan.“ (a “H ‘2! $9,...” .» .4- Jb-fl - .‘-’ a .D c: c3 a: 3,2 J .4 'w .. .... CD :3 CD .N.-1‘ ...), _ .. ;- \—' y .J‘l‘ M." gig—SL9 'JL!’1J“uU"3L-‘:IJ‘ ...—1".“ 345...; - .‘h (:3 C C3 C3 6 4:8 J ...é L. C C‘ C CD CD JV" Q-‘r‘ “figmgc 914.399.4159’551 .uw‘ 4,; - 3° 34%! 44.4: 5,231 ,- :D :D C CD CD afi. w .4: .. - ' 197 -‘1‘ 2‘ J, '3. ; ' \/ '1 .9? ...»: .5; ‘54"; JJI‘a' a...) ...!“ v) 9.)»..— u . ' J -\ . 4- , . . ' Il—s j; J 01 5.; J’s-g J' ..b ... .24» f» 3,! ..MJJ‘ 3:“ --.-".4 I c: C) a) CD A," ,M . ,. _ , .. ‘ “ca-5'1; nui-QQM a» 039‘ ‘3‘“ J 4“ ‘1").1; 8%.: - 4“ Q CD c3 CD CD .33., ..u' .4 1.. km: A . I ' 'I ' - . ‘ - CD c: on CD a x) :94 A, y . . ., up. J; 4 wt, aw». A; _ 4. t . ! ' L :3 CD <3 :3 .2; gr .4 L, 'W' “‘“M 6‘" " ”‘4‘ ”L“! 4"." - HI ' . , . . . C3 C: G G CD 3” 3")“ abw)‘; 99,33 «:1- «gyj cal—s: gun. ...».2; - 42 1- b 4‘ ' CD CD CD a CD cia. at ...e L. “"""' ‘w ““5"" -,.|,‘1 ' 'I , ‘ - A = ' C: E) C: CD Q - . C4! :0” Q ;£L_J‘ ”Sub Out“; .5“ ~13“ .934. - 43 . '| CD a G G C) .53., J ...g L. '93:“- . 1 - u G <3 (:3 <3 (:3 31,. 3,3: 4).“ #141 y ...}, “.3 5,4! 4 '9‘}. a,“ _ 44 C) c2) (:3 CD CD 3,8 5.4;, 1*“ ~55“ 43-‘4' M“ J” “M: .N.“ .. . . . . . . . . C) C) c: a a - , 3, Me}: «A.» ”A. )9 39. c” M, P. My , 4} c: :3 C) a a a; J ,4 ~.. "‘9'“ a"? "9'“ w." .n . .. w . . ' . . , .' ' ' - ‘ . . ,1 - .. v . u Q a CD CD CD 495v. ;? ...:- L. -J**‘ :' «’9' _...~_ x 9"“ J" 90)‘ «~9- | 'l . .. . . , . . . - C CD 9 G :3 "f :"f' Qua» as, heat.) 9,5.» gun: aL—ju' .3.» - 4. Q :3 a CD a) 4,; J ,4 u . """ ‘W "’“‘"" . 3M ! '.I , . ,. . . , . ‘ a c3 :3 c: C) A 3, g»: 4 ...». g» 4... 9,, ”.1 a": .14.; - 48 c: (:3 :3 C) a) 4,5. 4: ...fi 1.. 999,-“.- ;«54‘.- “.343 '~.---"" .N.” ‘J' . _ , , . . . c3 :3 a :3 a - . 3. J 9*). Q. _..‘. awg; #ygw. a,“ _ 49 Q C) G <2 G 4;, g? ,4 L. wru' :-'. ' C CD c: G CD .-*'.-' :4.“ “st-...; .‘p 1993 J; Quad; 9.2;. gm ,5...» ,5,- - W C) c: a a CD -‘ ».: ....- =.. “"9 9;" 9“” ‘ | ‘ D :3 C) a C) J‘. 3) ‘13; 3.1, ’23: ...; 9.35". w‘_ 'l ngioS‘J L~_ ' 3" - 5| 1 1‘ ¥ G '4 - I c: c: a :3 (:3 .33 -u .4 ;. w“ 4 “"“’ A I.J ' VJ‘ - ' -» v I - - ‘ ‘ " Q a D G G v a :J, ‘3‘. “kg; .J’J i»: J: ‘4’? ‘1)?4; 33" Ca: _ >- D S c: E; c: -.g .5 - ‘92-“ fi 95‘ 3"“ 4 -~“' 3h 3‘) 4“ 4| 48 49 50 56 57 58 ()II 198 ...»‘3 J. 49...; gnu"; :4) J; ....S ...»... - ...}‘v J‘u-é 44.-u )3 c’ a fi‘J‘ U.“ .44 . . 4.- 4 \. a . (:3 CD CD a C) a"? 3"!" 4 lefiél.) 1,)“. I”; «...... 9:”; @é; :23 _..‘ _ 53 . I' . ' I' ' -,~ -, .‘ (:3 C (3 C) C 4,8 J .4. L- 99»- :"“" 4 '3‘“ 13"“ "*- ' I I ‘ I . .. - ... ,. I , .. . . C C C C C .42-1 :4 g... 4 “9.1. ,4. ”,4, J a.“ (“I _.__, , ,4 . I C C C C C .35., a? .4 L. "’"‘“' I 'I A C C C C C .95., gr .4, a. "4“” ‘ 43"” ' ‘9‘” M" ”...-- c: C CD Q E 3',“ :3)“ has 41...: l... ...,qu .4 ,nf-Jg 9 3,5 '4... 4ng - 5b V . ' I Lha I ".36 ' a Q C) Q (:3 a Q": J ~.-‘ I4 .911 H” yv 96', VI». ' I I . . , . , . C: Q C) C) C: ...r‘)’ w,“ 3195*.) éJ‘3y‘J 'ngI 4"”: 5.313.“ ‘1‘, J; _ 57 ‘ bl ‘ ‘ . I ‘ - C C C C C .35., g? ,4 I, ~4--' gel-1'.- .r—«l. I.- ,5—' ,3 In"? 1 'I ‘ w . . . - Q C: C) G C) .-‘ 'J 1"" _..,,.I:JI 4... ...», 4w UMI 35);.» J5; .4. aofi: - ra‘ C C C C C sf! J .4 -.. ...»: ""5 -’ ””7” C CD :3 CD {4M} 35‘ :3 (why-3' “517;, .920)“ Juyt 9 3.51 -9 “a. - 59 . , I ~L“. : -. . I ' . ' C) CD CD ( I ) 4.x JI y—é L, _,—I: 03.4.: wu- aubv I ' l I ' , u C C C C C .56., a? ,4 L. 4”“ Q C C C C .N.-3‘ 3'4" . . . _;.S:»_,45I 514455412 34:13.}; '44.: - M CD CD a CD 9,54 J 54 ‘u 1 ' I I , _ . . . . C C CD C ,4 r‘ :4“ 4,1. ...-u ,4: 4.4,, u,» 4.; 3.... :9 _-.4 - “3 C C C C C 2,6. g? .4 L. ~32 ”I.“ D G C G (:3 ...",JI 3}” QH’: a“ Q“, n; ...:J‘L-JI he, I“: Jib J“ - h_\ "'I 351-5 's g .,.'I .’ "'. " I C CD CD G CD 3,3: 3‘ ué V "w ‘3 ' "93' "- C :3 C C C) .N." 3:5 J,“ 1.1,}: ,: ;s,.~.._..u avg: «.45 3.4. .34; ..., - M . 7.: ’ 3;: -" .w'v "‘2 C C C C -,.;.,.n.4'.. '-‘~""”~~" “"J”'““' C: :3 C CC) C 4“!" 3"". “.443,- VM‘ ..‘z-e Jam! .59->15 UL” ”:4 4‘... we: - hf ’ . 49“ I. ~“" .' :1 C C CD C .4, -‘ .4. - "’°‘y‘ ' " .4 67 68 N) 7“ 78 79 RI) I99 3 g ‘ "3 93' A,“ QJ" ‘5." J‘Jd‘ 1‘ In) 9‘ ...) {...-s».- f‘ A 4; J r v: J’s' Jig-éum’) 91:;JI’JI “:1" -..)“ ,2 } '~" “4 ,1 ~ I C C C C G .-".-' :‘r' 4:... 45.4., 45,? ..45 gm ,5»; ,5.» tone: - M C C C C C .55., J ,4, ;. "““ ‘5'“: ‘5’“ z I ‘ I c l C C C (3 JA' :4)” VP); ,- . 4,91 ”gum .3 3,5. 4...» :L... 34,-: - 67 Q C?) C3 CD a 4,1: _‘;I __‘_ L, -W'~’,-' 3....» “2.45 Q a I‘I' «‘I ,, q... ' I ..' . 7' .- C C C - .J :45 C), 4.951 ....4,II,...,_\IIJ, “A?“ 5,..-» C C C C C 43$. 43 ..e L- "5“““ ““55 ‘5 555‘ -’ 95“: .5": “5*“ . I ‘ a C C C C 4'4‘ 3:" ,5. 4,, u». ....-.” 43w 5.»: 44., :u. 5»- - 09 5 ”I - - I "I .'* C: Q a CD . . .I .4 L. 05:4 ebb—A?!) 3&3 t—N—I r‘ C C) C: CD a JOLJI :4}: J 95““; £423, yw‘ “’7 m3 4 é)‘, 3“ ~51.“- - 70 C C C C C 4;, g? ,4. ,, 4;;ny C) C) D (D C) ...“le 3". W I HI} and gm)” Jig-Staffiq )5? a; - “I C C C C .55., J .4 ,, 55"“ ‘5‘)“ 3‘5““ 4 “ «‘5‘ ‘5’“‘5 C C C C C ,4,» ,4. .45.. Lad-3 ,.__U .525“ 9,5,3. 444' _,. -,,__,.-. _ 73 , . ‘— ' 5 " C) a C3 E a 3": JI % L. .4»be .‘Jl; 4 3,0,5.“ AIrI Jay D C C: B CD J'x‘ 1")“ 9»: 91:55.11) gurup J" .5!” 4L3; 3;}, £45; - 73 . -.-‘ 5 ' -_._'.. G a D C) C) Q’Q gI __‘_ L. Me‘— ‘5‘) “ed-I dJW‘: 9, C CD C G C 3'9‘ :4)“ $.93. rug“, ...." - 'I 2,». fwd 3,4 ...”4' - 74 . . .- - - - 5 ' . rt I" 'I c; C C C C .55., J.4 L- '5’5‘ 5‘5”" “'fibf’é‘s’“3‘5 C CD a a CD ..II‘JI to}! JI‘;'YI 514 3.4, J, Lg»; ,3 _,.‘.U,:L$.II 3.3.; :4 - 75 C C C C :58 J .4 5. ‘5‘“‘ ‘5")5‘“ " “55‘5“ ~“5‘ M“ :5“ ‘55“ CD CD a CD 4")“ 3)“ w Ii“ 65,», QM 0.3.3.5 3.....30 inn-59‘ vb» - “(I .‘ “I ' '33“. W.” 'I C C C C C 455.344,. ”5 "'5' C C C CD .-"-" 3y" J;'.$;,>'L5;);L_LI ...... 9.24:.I’41jygdguwi - 75! . . ......uJI ' Li! C C C C C .-,.$._ .u .4; ., ~~ J?! 3‘ C C C C and :4" a... gang»; 4.». ..-: J; my .... 1w .4 - 7:4 . , 4 - 'I ~ I o a 4" 5 b C Q CD CD CD .If—IJJ grab L438 J‘ J}: 200 5 #‘ .3 I“, #3 OJ; *5'0—5- J'J‘J la) .2“ ...-P 9);...- ’5 Al 5; J j; 31 j; “a“! 43‘ v-é 5‘ 5* .5’ c" 3“!“ 3"“ 3'9 .5 , , I I . . :3 C CD CD G :“r' :fr' 2“)“ Jr.» 35'“; ,3. 5.9-)" ...; 3,"; u...‘ ’5 i ,3... 5,4; - 7‘9 . Tu“ 4 '335‘ C C C C C .552...» “”5"" I . I v C CD G G C) .."2’ 3:” J 3‘“). 54¢, as. 3......5 3);, ,5: J. 5‘“, J...» - w . 3.335535 5 :3- C C C C C ,5: .4 .4 L.- “ ” C CD CD a G J") 3;” 395,“? 3...! J; 3...; ...,‘u .3 J; 3.... 3,3...) 84’...“ - M - ALB Baud CD CD C) B CD 4,8 4." ..é 3. C C C C 39' :0” 4w, {,0} 5,54, 3.,- 3...... a”; 3.1,. ...-..- - :42 CD CD (:3 C) G 4,8 m .54 L. C CD CD B CD .‘.-".—“ Hy . . . ‘ inn-I3.“- 945 I5 J Jul.“ 33".5.’ JIQI nun)" 0“; - 33 D C) Q G CD 45$, .5" .4: '.. C C C C C .55? :‘r‘ 9‘; ..., _,,._,: J. -,____. ,5“, 3.... .,..- .... - M . .. I 3.5-’4‘ 3&9: 34.—.9: C C C C C 4.4. u .4. .. CC C C C C .5524 ...;- ' .5; -.. 3...», ...u: ....i g 3.»; 5;». at; - as C 4“ J . ‘- ,. . u.- v. - , a .| _ ._ '3 CD CD CD (2) 3,8 -' ...e '3. 4““ 3“" C) Q Q a (:3 J‘UJ' 3:51 .‘JLLL—I‘ a.“ 4 ~5st éwé. :I H.951: J“ 3,6.” .. 50 . 39451:" D C) CD G C) 45$: 4' --é 9 C CD CD G G 45"5" :4 ...? y 3....»I 44.59 ...: 3.11% was)" 3.43: .=.. - 87 v ‘ ‘ g ‘ ' CD CD a CD 6 45$: ..w ...é L. I .N.." I 5 ‘ .. . . . .- - a a a C) v 4 :4.“ “his 1.)“, 5'9 3"?“ "t‘gw ”“55“ 9;‘& :y—Ay - 33 C C C C C 3.52 w ~.—-é t- “’"’ " C C C G (I) JD“ :0" ;,_..,.u ....» 3.). ,3... 3.,.'.. 3...» ......i 3,4,: - 89 ' Q}! 9;."- Q a a a 4,8 4' ...-é a \— CD C) G G CD .5“-’ U: . . . . . .. _ - .: . V-UUIrI UIJJI -y war-I “‘53 J! :1»: .F“. - 00 :3 C) C: G C) 455.: -' ...} .. C C3 CD a G 3"“ 3"" .m'flt: gin-2" 3'... 33...»? .. Jud» .525)?! 3.3 - 9| ”Ape—II L: "._,_‘- CD E Q ~52 ~ ~—é « ' 3‘) 41! 4| 43 44 46 47 «IS 49 201 1“ .1 \34 NI. _'~‘ \ ““1; A?) .34- .Qs—n.’ J «A: 8“ 96 ...> ...-M n. 4"- JI ...-I:- u .sAa ‘.> ‘5’“: _J"J' 3}“ “-..-u . I 1 .‘afiglqu .3343!) 3,...» sum-:1 ,5 43,31: 3,...” a.» 53,, - 93 JMJJI g’ll y 3,.ij EAL“ 31gb?) DWI it): - 93 05$, 3' ,4 L. 459' c5» J»: a» w r.»- 4' w: w 5. w w 4,»: - 94 . .iza-b‘fi NIL. '21" 452, J .4 L. ' ‘ 35“)“ co" . . . , . 59““ 3» ..v-u-d‘ d} A": 4.3-4 - 95 45:, J .4 L- x'fi‘ :0“ .54.. .955.) 3...»: ,5 3,.»9‘ 9.53.3. Jug»; - 96 giggfgu , u: ' J.) 3,3. Jggfiéb ....)Unfi _..,L a, a...» J JEN, .54.." ~_,... 3...; - 97 ”If“ 3’“ JfiJIgéL- .ngvbyb J-uaL‘JI 3:,- sLfiEI bus 5’53 Inga-L7 - 98 a") ca)” Qfinfig—éb ”I,“ C‘)" ofia'gu U,M’II 3}}! JfiJICu JI‘AI r,“ J5$JI,.‘_L. , I - I . ,C 4“: J‘s-£9 d UUUUUUUUUBUUUDUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUBBBUBBUBUBBBB8800888808 080008BBBUBUBUUUUUUEUUBIUU 88888888888888888888888888 DUBGBGUBGUBBBUUB0008008808 . | '1 V ”v 3’. v J‘Ogg J; .4 'u 202 UL‘J‘ am." y‘ w J“ his Lia-l, Lb-‘v n4! . '_..4 -: - “‘3 "...JL» ...,o. .2 -- .5 la: 9'..." ..a- J; .. - 1m) J-Q —~~*"..~=‘- “-"x-GD 3:6 ...-:3 V‘-‘“ *‘G wool Jb‘i‘ ...u» €3.45- <9! —' :4 -1‘ ~' -CD =« - =- .» -c3 '-‘ : 43.. -CD 5.] J...’ 545‘. .35.." :5 J4 ‘..L -101 4)."; a“! -G My? w! . ‘(," " ‘ 3.93.4! ...-(>1 5.»: -C) Sox'uA-j‘ .wé-s 9'»: -CD 59* 9..» a.» .5»: -® 325:3" 9W9 .54"! - G (w... _.a 2"” 5,43 - CD a ‘1; t. i. 4 U .51.; J; 515’. I}; APPENDIX D CORRESPONDENCE 203 20h MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLFGE OI EDUCATION EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN . «324 I054 DtPAHTMENT 0f ADMIMSTRATION AND CURRICULUM L'RlCKbON HALL June 14, 1984 Educational Testing Service Princeton, New Jersey 08541 Dear Sirs: This is to request permission for Mr. Saad Al-Zahrani to use the Institu- tiona1 Goal Inventory which was developed by Richard E. Peterson and Norman Uh1. Mr. Al-Zahrani is one of my doctora1 candidates and his dissertation proposal concerning the identification of perceptions and preferences for uni- versity goals in Saudi Arabia has been approved. Faculty, academic administra- tors and the university supreme councils in three major Saudi universities will be surveyed. Use of the IGI in Saudi Arabia requires minor modifications and translation into Arabic. Items to be modified are attached to this request. In short, and for purposes of clarity: User: Mr. Saad Al-Zahrani Item: Institutional Coal Inventory Use: Doctoral dissertation research Place: Saudi Arabia Subject: Institutional goals in Saudi Universities. Current and preferred status of goals. No. of copies to be produced: 1000 to 1500 Mr. Al-Zahrani is scheduled to leave for Saudi Arabia on July 10, 1984, about a month from now. I would appreciate it very much if you would reSpond to his request as soon as possible. He may be addressed at: Mr. Saad Al-Zahrani 2415 E. Jolly Road, Apartment 4 Lansing, MI 48910 Sincerely yours; 624v {/memwm/x / Eldon R. Nonnamaker Professor ERNzlf Attachments “SU in an N/Imunvr At hon/Equal Opponent“, Immuno- 205 I l EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE I COO-O27 'OOOO C45.i-55“.‘CTE§TS'-C FEDERAL EXPRESS i) l E PRINCETON.NJ.08541 (ua‘ July 6, 1984 Mr. Saad Al-Zahrani 2415 E. Jolly Road, Apartment 4 Lansing, MI 48910 Dear Mr. Al-Zahrani: This letter serves to grant you permission to use the Arabic translation of the Institutional Goals Inventory in your dissertation. This permission is royalty-free and limited to use within the scope of your dissertation research. I believe Professor Nonnamaker has informed you that the Arabic translation is available through the University of Oklahoma. We require that each reproduced copy bear the following notice: Arabic translation of the Institutional Goals Inventory, copyright cil984 by Educational Testing Service, English version © 1972 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission. We also require that any report of the research indicate the source of the instrument and that it was used with the permission of ETS. This permission also covers inclusion of a cOpy of the adapted instrument in the dissertation, and reproduction by University Hicrofilms. If these arrangements are satisfactory, please sign both copies of this letter, and return one capy to me for our records. Sincerely, ALA, C. ldex—4 (In. Helen C. Ueidenmiller Rights & Permissions HCW:kc Administrator cc: Professor Eldon R. Nonnamaker u!’ Miss Beck ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: Saad Al-Zahrani 206 June 14, 1984 Dr. Henry Bredek, Chairman, UCRIHS Office of the V. P. for Research 238 Administration Building, MSU East Lansing, MI 48824-1034 Dear Dr. Bredek, I am a graduate student at MSU in the Department of Educational Administration and plan to conduct my Ph.D. dissertation research in the area of institutional goals in Saudi Arabian Universities. I am submitting a copy of my approved preposal to you for review. Exemption is claimed as types 1 and 3 research project. I will very much appreciate a prompt reply to my request. Sincerely, Saad A. Al-Zahrani 2415-4 East Jolly Road Lansing, MI 48910 Ph. 887-0965 or 882-8246 207 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COMMIT lEE ON RESEARCH INVOI VING EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 08824 HUMAN SUBJECTS (l (‘RIHSI 238 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Islam-2m. July 16, I98‘I Hr. Saad A. Al-Zahrani ZAIS'A East Jolly Road Lansing, Michigan h89l0 Dear Mr. Al-Zahrani: Subject: Proposal Entitled, "Institutional Goals in Saudi Universities: Current and Preferred Status of Goals” I am pleased to advise that I concur with your evaluation that this project is exempt from full UCRIHS review, and approval is herewith granted for conduct of the project. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to July l6, l985. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, . " (.. enry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Nonnamaker MSU a a! Affirmative Adm/Equal Oppornnuly lulu-lion 208 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 488244034 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND CURRICULUM ERICKSON HALL June 14, 1984 Saudi Arabian Educational Mission 2415 West Loop South Houston, Texas 77027 Dear Sir: I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Saad A. Al-Zahrani, who is at present a graduate student working on his Ph.D. in the Department of Educational Adminis- tration under my direction. Mr. Al-Zahrani has proposed a study of the institutional goals in Saudi Arabian universities. His proposal was approved by his advisory committee on June 12, 1984. He plans to return to Saudi Arabia to do his research during the fall quarter of the 1984-85 academic year, which means that he will leave here around the beginning of August and return about the end of November 1984. These plans meet with my approval. I would appreciate it if you would write to Umm Al-Qura University in order to obtain permission for Mr. Al-Zahrani to leave for Saudi Arabia to collect his research data and secure support for his study in certain areas, such as trans- portation and access to information and materials. Your prompt attention to this matter will be sincerely appreciated. If any further information is needed, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, ///’ / / $24.1- .Vmww Eldon Nonnamaker Department of Educational Administration ENzlf MSU is an Al/imam-c Action/Equal Opportunity Inuit-non 209 Letter from Umm Al—Qura University to the President at KSU, KAU and UPA. Dear President, Mr. Saad Al-Zahrani is one of our graduate students studying at Michigan State University in the United States. He is doing research for his doctoral dissertation in the goals of Saudi universities. His study concerns the per- ceptions and preferences of Saudi faculty members, academic administrators and the university Supreme Council with regard to the goals of their universities. The results of this study should prove most helpful to our universities, especially in policy decisions and the overall effectiveness of our uni- versities. Your university was selected as one of several univer- sities to participate in this study. Therefore I am re— questing your agreement and assistance to administer the questionnaire in your university. Mr. Al-Zahrani needs your assistance in having access to certain information and in assigning a coordinator from your staff to help him in the collection of data. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, The President of Umm Al-Qura University 210 Dear: -University Supreme Council Member ~Academic Administrator -Faculty Member Mr. Saad Al-Zahrani is one of our graduate students studying in the United States. He is doing research for his doctoral dissertation in the goals of Saudi universities. The attached questionnaire is designed to identify your per- ceptions and preferences of the goals of your university. The results from this study should be helpful to us, es- pecially in making sound policy decisions and working towards the effectiveness of our system of higher education. Your cooperation and your opinions are essential in the success of this study. The anonymity of your response is guaranteed. I realize the many demands on your time and I am sure that Mr. Al-Zahrani will greatly appreciate your cooperation in this study. I believe this study will be of real value to our Saudi universities in their long-range studies and planning. Sincerely, President 2H 09 W’s-H WJJI 0.1.“ ran-f,’ : JéLLJI QLI «J.» dJ-E 3+.» tie-s u—H J-H-v a... an 93-" oLv-A-Y' H» g... Pa.” mm" o- n.” hJamaal .... ,2.“ _,i 3.,JL..JI a...“ as). w L_,._..... r-‘v- QaJI 9!...le ......J Ulaai 0,5; oi ,J...-...JI “JP—15.x ‘9‘)" J...J a... ..in so... q: ..wa gLr-ré-YI Hug...» .ergxii'oLuLng ,5.“ O.., oL-aLsJI 3JIJI 9?" 9.5 ESJIJEIJ q—ggJI—S’I £9)ij 5‘13”" tibL—IILAJ-DI r551) ..O.-Lb) LflL-IMJMI Iéquc'J}. 3...?) “you “La...” u__Ji AJJUIJ 5.5...." 0L...“ M sz'Jl JJI ,IAJ OI J__._J L..$ .erJi Mic-1' iJla‘li JI LJSJI JI ...—LII ...-vs. 95>th C...» V, WI 0‘ Cat's-g 93"" 3““ : QJLaJI 3L“). ,JJI OH...“ 3.2.4.: 4.2.5, t).- 3—__._'.L.‘.JI 3).-5‘...“ Q’ 3LL:A.” WEI) OWI 3")3 — ‘ oLpLgiI q: '44."th OLfip—u' VI .'L.'..L'...I (Us... LL‘...YI JS ”.1.: LL39“ — T WWI LIJL»); ‘00 f3) .JI_',..JI wda‘JI OI L... — r L__..JI.II Just... 0.445..“ WJLJI as... 'La'ul just...” ,JJ ,IAJ ..IaJIJ WJLSI 0.1).: L“... 'Laiui ’1.le uLLJJIJ .1...- :»I, LL,» Jug.“ 'L___'._,.Jl 41..me LL)... grit.) £5.25; .13.: ,4)! . pus .OL...,.:..YI Ilia 1.2.4:. 9‘ n.1,... §3JI 9.3).”) ....ovJI—ra.‘ "L; IM‘, BIBLIOGRAPHY 212 BIBLIOGRAPHY Al—Abdul Kader. Ali. "A Survey of the Contribution of Higher Educa- tion to the Development of Human Resources in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Kansas. 1978. Ashby. Eric. African Maintains: and Eastern 1mm. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1964. Barnard. Chester. .Qnganization and Management. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1948. Bayer. A. ,Isashlng Eacultx.in.Acadsme,1212:1213. Washington. D.C.: American Council on Education. l973. Bowen. Howard. lnxestment in Learning. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers. 1980. Bushnell. D. .O.:ganizingictfihanga: Nexflciafliiesiorfinmmuniix .Cglleges. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1973. Caffrey. John. "Preface" to Edward Gross and Paul V. Grambsch. 110.119.125.11! Goals and Academic Bower. Washington. D.C.: American Council on Education. 1968. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. .ELlQLiIlfiS.IQ£.A§I19fl1 mlflmufithsfiamsgisfimisflmmflighetfidm. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1973. Cohen. M.. and March. J. .Leadsnshjp and Ambiguity. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1974. Conrad. C. "University Goals: An Operative Approach." Journal of 111911.91 m 45 (October 1974): SOS-l6. Corson. J. Ihefioxemancenfmjsgasandiinimsjijes. New York: McGraw-Hill. l975. Danforth Foundation. "A Report: College Goals and Governance." .Danfonth News and Notes (St. Louis. Mo.). November 1969. 2l3 214 Dressel. Paul. "Evaluation of the Environment. The Process and the Results of Higher Education." In Handbook of Cells 9 and 11mm Winn. Edited by Knowles and Asa. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1970. Educational Testing Service. .CemmUfl1I¥.QQllege.GQal§.lflxenIQLY (Information Sheet). 1983. ________. .5ma11.9glle e Goals lnxentgry (Information Sheet). 1983. Etzioni. A. ASecJelamcalBeadetenCanerrgangaLiene. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 1961. ________. .Mcdenn Organizations. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice- Georgia. Petro. "The Goal Paradigm and Notes Towards a Counter Para- digm" Adminietratue Science .Quacteclx 18 (September 1973)- Griffiths. Daniel. .Admlnistnatixe.lhegny. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts. 1959. Gross. E. . and Grambsch. P. Unixensiix .Gcals and Academic Benet. Washington. D.C.: American Council on Education. 1968. _____.. Chancelnflnixecsiixflcganizatienlfifiiflfill. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1974. Iruka. A. "Student. Faculty. Academic Administrators. and Government Educational Official Perceptions of and Preferences for the Goals of Higher Education in Imo-State. Nigeria." Ph.D. dissertation. North Texas State University. 1980. Kashmeeri. M. "A Study of College and University Goals in Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Oklahoma. 1977. Keaton. Morris. .fihaned Authority on Campus. Washington. D.C.: American Council on Education. 1971. King Saud University (S.A.). .By:Laws 91 King Sand Unixensity. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia. 1978. ___.. Ihe Unixecsjix Beteeen Yesterday and May. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia. 1984a. Konrad. Abram. "Goals in Canadian Universities." Paper presented at the 1983 Conference of the American Educational Research Asso- ciation. Montreal. Canada. 1983. 215 Lee. C. et a1. Ehcsefioaleiorimericanfligbetfducationl Washington. D. 0.: American Council on Education. 1968. McGregor. Douglas. ,Leadershjp_and.MQt11at19n. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press. 1966. March. J.. and Simon. H. .Qrganizatig_. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1958. Martin. W. Contormitxifiandardsandfihangeeinflignerfducation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1969. Ministry of Education (S-AJ. Educational Eolicx in the Saudi Arabian fifingdgm. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia. 1974. Ministry of Higher Education (S.A.). .Statistics.gf.fligher.Educatign in .the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Issue 5. 1981-82. _. higher Education in the Kingdom .of Saudi Arabia. Periodical Report. 1983. _. higher Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia- Periodical Report. 1984. Nash. P. IbefioaloffligherfiducatiombnfimpiricalAssessment. New York: Columbia University. Bureau of Applied Social Research. 1968. Parsons. T. Structure and Erocess in Modern Societies. Glencoe. Ill.: The Free Press. 1960. . "Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations." .Administratixe Science Quarterly. no. 1 (1956): 63-85 0 ________. et a1. Ihegry of Society. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Inc.. 1961. Perrow. Charles. "The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organizations." .American.§gciolog1ca1.Bexieu 26 (December 1961): 854-57. ...—... Organizational Analxsiaa A Sociological lieu. Belmont. Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.. 1970. Peterson. Richard. Ihe Crisis of Bernese: Definition and Use of Institutional Goals. Washington. D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. 1970. _. GoalsiorCaJiforniafligherEducation. Berkeley. Calif.: Educational Testing Service. 1973. 216 _ .andUh1.N. formulatingCoJJegeandUnuersitxfioalsaA .Guifieiorflsingthelfil. Princeton. N.J.: ETS.1977. Basalat.Al:lameaa. No. 2. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: King Saud Univer- SItYs November 17’ 1974. Romney. Leonard. Measures of Institutional .Goal Achiexement. Boulder. 001.: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. 1978. Selznick. P. Leadership in Administration; A .tation. Evanston. 111.: Row. Peterson and Co.. 1957. Service at al. (eds.). "Quantitative Approaches to Higher Education Management. " ERICLHignet Education Research Retort. No. 4. Washington. D.C.: The American Association for Higher Education. 1977. Sieber. Sam. and Wilder. David. Ihe.§chool.in.the.§ocietx. New York: The Free Press. 1960. Simon. Herbert. .Admlnistnatixe.Behaxigr. New York: The Free Press. 1976. ________, "Organizational Goals." In Sociological Reader on Complex .Qrganizations. Edited by A. Etzioni. New York: Holt. Rinehart. and Winston. Inc.. 1961. . and March. J. .Qrganizatign. New York: The Free Press. 1958. Thompson. J.. and McEwen. W. "Organizational Goals and Environment." American Sociological Renew 23 (February 1958). University of Petroleum and Minerals. .Annual Report. 1283:85. Dhahran. Saudi Arabia. 1984. Walton. J. Administration and EoJcheiialsing .in Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 1968. Willsey. A. "Output as a Segment of Organizational Goals." In Insti- tutional Research on Academic Outcomes. Edited by Cameron Fincher. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Forum on Institutional Research. sponsored by the Association for Institutional Research. 1968. 217 Al-Hammar. Abdulmaliek. "Labor and the Requirements of Development in the Gulf States." Working paper presented at the first meeting of the Presidents of the Arab Gulf Universities. Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States. Bahreen. January 4-7. 1982. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: 1983. Al-Jallal. A. "Education and Development in the Oil Exporting Arabian Peninsula States." Unpublished study. 1985. Aflzxamamah (Saudi Arabian weekly magazine). 20 February 1985. . 3 March 1985. Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States. Proceedings of the first meeting of the Presidents of Arab Gulf Universities. Bahreen. January 4-7. 1982. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: 1983a. ______. BidhtsandnuttesoiiaouitxflenbersinArabfithitates .Unixersities. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: 1983b. _. flighetEduoationandSotentitioBesearobinArabfiuJi States. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: 1984. Faheem. M. "Higher Education and Nation Building: A Case Study of King Abdu1aziz University." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois. 1982. Kaleel. Najeeh. "Coordinating Scientific Research Among Arab Gulf States." Working paper presented at the first meeting of the Presidents of the Arab Gulf Universities. Bahreen. January 4-7. 1982. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: 1983. Kashmeeri. Mohamed. "Universities and Their Role in Public Service." InsxmdosidmonfioordinatinofiduoationaIServisesiniaudi .Anabla. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: Institute of Public Adminis- tration. 1985. King Saud University (S.A.). "A Report of the Appointed Committee Concerning the Orientation of Saudi Higher Education in the Five- Year Plan (BS-90)." Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: 1984b. Massialas. B.. and Jarrar. S. .Edncatign in the Arab World. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1983. 218 National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. .A Handbook .for Institutional Aoademio and Erooram Banners. Boulder. CO: NCHEM. 1978. Nyrop. R. et al. .Area Handbook for Saudi Arabia. 3rd ed. Washington. D.C.: Foreign Area Studies. May 1976. 0thman. Osamah. lbe 9.1.1 Bureauoraox and the hindranoe of Dexelooment. Kuwait: The National Council for Culture. Art and Literature. 1982. Subbiah. N.. and Al-Shiek. S. Erobiems of Unirersitx leztbooks in Ibe.fln11§£§11135.9I.Ih§.A£db.Guli.§tates. Study sponsored by ABEGS. Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: ABEGS. 1983. Tanner. C.. and Williams. E. .Edugatlonal Elanning and Deoision flaking. Lexington. KY: Heath and Co.. 1981. Zahlan. A. .SoienseandtheSoientiflofloJisxintheArahWorld. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1980. "1111111111111111'111111