4‘ " '14 I‘I.|| "141144,"., 4.. 4' 1"4 ' """' ,44,""""'4" ‘,‘44 4411444" 444 4" '. 444, ' - - . .’. ‘ -M .A _ ~————:..__.,..._ 4 a: '. 4. " 14,4 444,44 .4 4.444. , 4 ,4 4 4 4 441444444 444,1 4,1444% 44 44.4414444444 _ , , 444,4 4 441' 41444' '4'44'.1 "'4 '44III1 1" "4 '1' "' 4444' ""'144.""' I'I44' 44, 4,444,, 4'14 14"" 4,4444 44, 444'444 ,14 44's" 444' 444 """',',""', III IIII '44' 4'4' 4, ,'" ,"441 ,I ,I,I'II """"""'"1'"44'14,"4'.441",1'1""14' '.44' 444' .4) 4 44.14 "'4"'41411", '4 44 4, 4 44,. 441 144' '4'""1 1 ."'" 4 4444‘" '4'" . 444 4'" "'4' 14' 114444444 144444144 4.44. ,"""4"""' .'.1"41"""'."'4'4'4'"" .444 444' "'44. 4 4" ""." .'4"' ""' '7 4"" 4144 ,4 .,"'." 444. IIIII, I 4,", """ "'"' "44"44, "' '4'" "'4 '1,""",""4'4, """ 4 44"'"44 4,14444'1'4""4,, '."" 'III4 "'4'. I4 4', 1444'4444 44,‘ 44,444,” I, '4 "'4"4"1'"""' 4'4. ":'44"' 44', '44" 14'" . . I"4.,,.'I"' ",4 ',,,4 I. 4 ,', / "'44. 4,44" "44444444 I444 1' 44 ' 4.441" 4 4'4 444'" "44." '11 4' 444 44.44"" ' 444 , :.' , , 4 ‘4'"11. 444' 4 I444, III "44"" I,44444 4' '44!" "'.'4.'-‘" "‘""!"""" '-"""4"'.'. " 414'4'"' '4'44""' '.' .'4'4'"'."" ""4'I"'".', ' 444444 4444', . .1" "'." "4" '4""""' ' 4'44'41." .4I 4'44 "'4' ”41'2": ‘, III 44444411, I "."444 " ,44', ,444'444 .44' ""'44 444,4 444 II I .I',II 4""""""'4"4"""""'l" '1""',1""'°'"""'II' I?" I . I4 41"4'4'444 '444' 444" "'.' 1.4" ""' .""' .'.'4'4.' 4'4'44'4 , ""1"‘1'1"'14'"".'4444'44 4444 '4444',,,'4"" " 4,4,'_,"" .44 4'4"'.'";','I;".1a" .4""" """""'.4""4 4|44III4|ILI ""' 4.444444 4441" "'14'"',' 44444'1"4'4' ”“414”,“ """']' "."'" ""'I" 4 44 4' 1"" 4'1 ""71" -, '4', ”"449,“ II,,I-4'-I', ""414 444441,. ,444 444 'I'I 4,, ,4444444 4II'I44 '41" 4,4444" "'1 '4 WW ""4. 4 144/14", ",4 41' 44"'4 '44' "4"" III 4'4'_""'4""""1'4 ' :44 4' ,. ',74'444 4'14'4' 4" 4444444 "1 '44 24444': 44 ,4444' ,444444 1"1L'u'M-‘4'4'4'II """'1' ".'., "" '4 '4' 4:4' ""b .'., I,'4'I. ',4444 1144l1'141'4'41'U' ~" J1". "4441"" 11" "1441 ""“' 4“ ".V'" 4'44“." ." '14'"'1,1"""" 4,4 ""'4"""44'",",",',1' may?”19"""""""'I",',""' c1."14"'-I. ""4114" ’14". 44" "'."""""4 "1" "1,,"4'44' "4'1 ' ' ' "" "4'1"" 4""4' '1 .'4‘ '44-" ' 4'1""""'""",I4141""2"" % 4,411” .'."1'4' 41IJ44'4""_"4'U ' 4144141144 II.111.‘4.‘1'1'J".'L. 44144." lid] '1' 114 1"II '(II444II3 1" 1“"14 "' II'I',U'4"' II'1.'1'I '" I'I"'I1'I"I '4'," 4 1'4 44441 444' ,444 ' ,4" "'44" 44444" 44 4' 44 444,141 4444. 44 44... 444.44 .44" 44 4 4'4'4 444', ' 4 “‘3“: ‘g '444, 4 ,4 ‘_—;_‘_ ———_.___ .I 4," ‘fig 1'44" 444 LI b it 1/ Michigan Stat: University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE ROLE OF HOME ECONOMICS UNIT ADMINISTRATORS WITH EMPHASIS ON ROLE STRAIN AS A FUNCTION OF MEETING ROLE DEMANDS presented by Carolyn H. Ellis Logan has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D . degree in MED] ogy Major professor Date November 6 , 1978 031639 QEERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item E‘ZTUF-‘HEVS «.EL‘HAHY MATERIALS: Frace an boon return to remove Charge from circulation records G) Copyright by Carolyn H. Ellis Logan 1978 A STUDY OF THE ROLE OF HOME ECONOMICS UNIT ADMINISTRATORS WITH EMPHASIS ON ROLE STRAIN AS A FUNCTION OF MEETING ROLE DEMANDS BY Carolyn H. Ellis Logan A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1978 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE ROLE OF HOME ECONOMICS UNIT ADMINISTRATORS WITH EMPHASIS ON ROLE STRAIN AS A FUNCTION OF MEETING ROLE DEMANDS BY Carolyn H. Ellis Logan The underlying motive of this research effort is to further enhance the knowledge base upon which home economics personnel will be encouraged to assume administrative roles for the continual development and progress of the field it- self. This study was conducted in order to ascertain rela- tionships between selected variables and role strain among home economics unit administrators. Role strain, defined as a felt difficulty in fulfilling role obligations, is the primary focus of this study. Emphasis is on role strain of home economics unit administrators as a dependent vari- able of the demOgraphic characteristics of age, sex, and education. Other influences on the prevalence of role strain which were tested include the independent variables of role diversity (the frequency of interaction with role set relation- ships), size of institution and unit, and the extent to which administrators spend time meeting role demands. Carolyn H. Ellis Logan Objectives The objectives of this study were: (1) to identify factors in the professional backgrounds of home economics unit administrators which might predict role strain; (2) to explore conditions and procedures relevant to the appoint- ment, operation, and evaluation components of the position which might correlate with high role strain; (3) to deter- mine the degree of tension produced by certain conditions under which home economics unit administrators work; (4) to determine which role set relationship(s) and cluster of role set relationships demand the least and most amount of time; and, finally (5) to determine the extent to which each role set relationship and cluster of role set relationships con- tribute to role strain. Procedures In order to explore the variables selected, a research instrument consisting of a job related tension index, an in- ventory of role set relationships, and demographic and in- stitutional information was develOped, pretested, and mailed to one hundred and forty home economics unit administrators in all land grant institutions (excluding Michigan State University) within the United States, and United States Territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Ninety-eight (seventy percent) of the mailed instruments were returned and eighty-nine (sixty-four percent) of the instruments were eligible for inclusion in this study. Carolyn H. Ellis Logan Factors which may correlate with role strain of home economics unit administrators were hypothesized to be: (1) sex, (2) age, (3) education, (4) role diversity as the num- ber of different role set relationships maintained, (5) role diversity as the frequency of interaction with role set re- lationships, (6) time commitment to the demands of role set relationships, (7) institution and unit size, and (8) insti- ution and unit size and role diversity (as both the number of role set relationships maintained and the frequency of interaction with role set relationships). Data generated from the instruments were analyzed using Chi Square analysis and Spearman's and Kendall's Correlation Coefficients. Major Findings l. The following is a rank ordering of work related conditions that home economics unit administrators identi- fied as high tension factors: (a) disruption of the pro- duction of scholarly work, (b) extent of the work load, (c) insufficient numbers of support personnel, (d) lack of financial resources, (e) imbalance between administrative and other role demands, and (S) interference with personal and/or family life. 2. High role strain is more prevalent among male home economics unit administrators than among females (twenty- five percent as opposed to eighteen percent). 3. High role strain was least prevalent among the 31- 40 aged group (20.2 percent of the total sample population). Carolyn H. Ellis Logan 4. Of the five clusters of role set relationships utilized, the cluster of "student personnel" shows the sec- ond highest rate of frequency of interaction, but the least positive correlation with high role strain. 5. Individual role sets concerning "prospective stu- dents" and "visitors from other institutions," were the only role sets of a total of forty-six found to correlate posi- tively with high role strain. 6. Out of all the role set relationships, "depart- mental and/or college committees," and "all-university com- mittees," were the only sets that showed a high correlation between frequency of interaction and time commitment. 7. No positive relationships were established between institution and unit size and the extent to which time is spent meeting the demands of role set relationships. This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, NEWMAN AND INEZ HILL for their untiring love, understanding and support. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this phase of my professional devel- opment is representative of the interests and efforts of many people to whom I wish to express my appreciation. My most profound feelings of gratitude are extended to all members of my immediate family, who over the years have assumed more than a reasonable amount of responsibility to facilitate this personal goal achievement. Also, I remain sincerely appreciative of the encourage- ment and assistance provided by the Ellis family during the initial stage of study for this degree. The interest, encouragement, and expertise afforded by the members of my Committee, Dr. Norma Bobbit, my Chair- person, Dr. Margaret Bubolz, Dr. Lawrence Lezotte, and Dr. Beatrice Paolucci is especially acknowledged and appre- ciated. Additional thanks is expressed to Dr. Beatrice Litherland, Dean of Home Economics at the University of Missouri, and Dr. Michael Nicholson of Western Michigan University for their inspiration and advice on the research design. Also, Mr. Ralph Abbott, Evaluation Specialist, Michigan State University, was particularly helpful as an advisor on statistical procedures and analysis of data. iii Finally, words cannot express the deep appreciation I feel for the love, encouragement, patience, and assistance of my husband, George. For all of this, I can only say, "Thank you." iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . 8 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 9 Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l7 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Theoretical Definitions . . . . . . . . 18 Operational Definitions . . . . . . . . 18 II REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Theoretical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . 20 Analysis of the Role of the Unit Administrator . . . . . . . . 32 III METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Development of the Instrument . . . . . . . 38 Description of the Sample . . . . . . . . . 42 Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Procedure for the Analysis of Data . . . . . 54 IV ANALYSES OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8O \lO‘U’lnwaH O I O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Chapter Hypothesis 8 . Hypothesis 9 Summary and Discussion . V. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS Implications for Future Research Implications for the Field of Home Economics APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY i4 m C) 'u m c: (3 tn > 'U 0 Z 3 t" N C4 vi 97 106 110 112 113 114 115 117 129 137 138 139 151 154 156 158 160 162 164 165 167 168 Table 10 11 LIST OF TABLES Age Distribution of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . . Marital Status of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . . Number of Children and Average Number of Children by Age Range, as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Rank of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . . Official Titles Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . . Location of Previous Administrative Experience of Home Economics Department/ Unit Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . Type of Previous Administrative Experience of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Range of Years of Previous Experience As An Educational Administrator as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection/Appointment Method Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Range of Years in Present Position as Reported by Home Economics Department/ Unit Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Degree(s) Offered by Home Economics Departments/Units as Reported by Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 44 45 45 46 47 47 47 49 49 51 Table 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Range of Full-Time Equivalent Faculty Responsible to Home Economics Department/ Unit Administrators . . . . . . . . . . Geographical Regions for Population . . Number and Percentage of Responses to Questionnaire, Reported by Region . . . Mean Role Strain Scores for High Tension Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sex Group Identity in Relation to Level of Role Strain Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . Correlation Coefficients of Sex, Age and Levels of Role Strain for Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . Age Group in Relation to Degree of Role Strain as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . Possession of Terminal Degree in Relation to Level of Role Strain as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kendall and Spearman Correlation of Degree Attainment with Role Strain . . . Formal Educational Preparation in Admin- istration as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators . . . . . Congruency of Academic Preparation in Re- lation to Administrative Appointment by Level of Role Strain as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators Role Set Relationships Indicating High Tension: Total Number of Role Sets Showing A Mean Score of 3.00+ for Frequency of Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role Set Relationships with High Frequency of Interaction and Level of Role Strain viii 52 53 54 58 62 63 64 66 67 68 7O 73 75 Table Page 25 Role Set Relationships Which Correlate with High Role Strain . . . . . . . . . . . 77 26 Role Set Relationships Which Correlate with Low Role Strain . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 27 Mean Scores for Frequency of Interaction with Clusters of Role Set Relationships . . 78 28 Chi-Square Values for Each Cluster of Role Set Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . 79 29 Role Set Relationships of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators Indi- cating Mean Scores of 2.00+ for Time Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 30 High Demand Role Set Relationships: Role Sets Indicating a Mean Score of 2.00+ for Time Commitment in Relation to Level of Role Strain . . . . . . . . . . 82 31 Institution Size and Average Number of Majors Enrolled Fall Term, 1977 in Home Economics Departments/Units of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 32 Number of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators in Each Institution Size Category in Relation to Level of Role Strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 33 High Demand Role Set Relationships: Role Sets Indicating A Mean Score of 2.00+ for Time Commitment in Relation to Institution Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 ix Figure LIST OF FIGURES Conceptual Model of the Relationships Hypothesized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution Curve Indicating Demarcation Pionts for Levels of Role Strain Page 16 57 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The tendency to resign from administration to resume teaching and research activities is identified by Lindhal (1973) as a concern vital to the welfare of higher educa- tion. This, plus the reluctance to assume administrative positions, as indicated by the reported shortage of quali- fied personnel interested in home economics administration (Mangel, 1973) is the underlying motive of this research effort. Admittedly, these findings are time-bound and are therefore limited in utility as a reflection of the current trend in personnel for higher education administration. However, the curious absence of sufficient evidence to either support or refute these findings suggests this situ- ation as an avenue worthy of further exploration. Thus, the study herein described examines the role of the home economics unit administrator with emphasis on role strain as a function of meeting role demands. Background Although the specific reasons for the current dearth of higher education administrators are many, conflict and change are most often asserted as the general phenomena to which this plight can be attributed. 1 To understand this relationship, the highly complex institution of higher education must first be viewed as a social system in which specific components work in the ag- gregate for the achievement of organizational goals. It is comprised of sub-organizations and roles which function as independent units, each of which is important to the whole. From this perspective, and as the particular interest of this investigation, the sub—organization of the department unit and the role of the unit administrator comes sharply into focus as vital components of the system of higher edu- cation. Also to be taken into account is the fact that, as a major cultural institution, the university mediates the temperment of society and often functions as the conver- gence point of the major revolutionary forces of our time (Lerner, 1966). Illustrating this we find that diversity and increase in student populations, commitment to the change and expansion of societal conditions, and conse- quences resulting from information and skills afforded by technical and educational advances are but three of a num- ber of factors which have threatened, if not changed the nature of the administrator's role. Other innovations rela- tive to program structure and content, method and form of delivery, expansion of supportive services, along with the issues of accountability, equal rights and organized labor exist as explicit forces that impact organizational and operational effectiveness in higher education. Addressing these conditions and their implications for administrators of higher education, Saville (1971) summarizes: Whether we define it as social change, confron- tation, or revolution, it all centers around the term conflict. It may occur between indi- viduals, small groups internally, systemwide, or be related to some external entity. Regard- less of the source, the administrator must be able to cope with this newly emphasized focus upon his leadership role (p. 55). As professional leaders of the primary vehicle through which university services are delivered, unit administrators are referred to by the more common titles of "head," "chair- person," "director," "program leader," or sometimes "dean" of their units or otherwise labeled academic divisions. Regardless of this array of titles, those carrying them are described by Porter (1961) as sharing duties, functions, powers, and responsibilities which are basically identical and necessary for the attainment of institutional goals. More importantly, the unit administrators' unique positions in the administrative hierarchy and their functions as the single most important link among the university administra- tion and the faculty, academic and service programs, and students (Waltzer, 1975) places them at the helm of com- peting and often conflicting forces. The explanation for this occurrence is seen to reside in the dynamics of social organization; in which case the academic unit, like the institution itself, is characterized by growth, change, and the expansion of interrelationships among elements of the system. The results of this predicament are depicted in the many demands attached to the position of unit 04 I” administrator and in the repertoire of skills needed to function proficiently. More significantly, and in accor- dance with Shull (1973), these characteristics influence the administrator's role in that "they tend to generate role stress," an important factor in the formulation of a posture regarding the role position. Review of relevant literature concerning stress as it relates to role structure shows a difference of Opinion regarding its impact. One apparent projection is the ex- perience of role strain. Conceived by Goode (1960) as the felt difficulty in fulfilling multiple role demands, it is seen as a natural outcome of role performance. In his analysis, this prOposition is based upon several ideas, all of which relate to this investigation. To begin, individ- ual competence, value orientation and circumstantial con- ditions are normal constraints for meeting role demands. In many instances role demands must be met within a given time and environmental frame, while the individual can only be in one place at any given time. In addition, individ- uals normally occupy of multitude of simultaneous roles involving different relationships and different demands which, by their nature, often contradict and conflict. Finally, and as the uppermost notion around which this study evolves, individuals occupying a particular occupa- tional role position establish a series of role relation- ships which, again, involve different requirements which sometimes conflict. All of these conditions, either singly or in combination, create the type of inner or psychological discomfort which Goode perceives as role strain. Others like Sieber (1974) are highly critical of Goode's theory of role strain, opposing both its definition and its application. In Sieber's opinion, Goode presents a biased and limited conception of role strain as a negative out- come of meeting role demands. He objects to this theory on the grounds of other empirical findings which advance the role characteristic of "conflicting demands" as a stimulus for role performance. Hence, conflictual situations which accrue to the types of role strain identified by Goode are seen to motivate some role performers to be more creative, resourceful and projective. Given these ends, it is possi- ble that both the conflicting demands of a role and the difficulty experienced in meeting these demands may possibly result in the positive outcome of personal enrichment, satisfaction and growth. Regardless of the position taken, both perspectives suggest a viable approach to role analysis. It seems suf- ficient to say that neither framework should be expected to apply in all cases or in all role situations. In light of this study, however, the prevailing decline of interested personnel to fill the demand for higher education adminis- trators, especially the unit leadership role, and the apathy of those already cast in these positions are factual premises which support Goode's conceptualization of role strain. Advocating Goode's perspective, Snoek (1961) investi- gated role set diversity, the requirement to maintain working relationships with a wide variety of persons, as an important source of role strain. Using a national sample of five hundred and ninety-six wage and salary workers, data on the variable role strain were collected through the Job Related Tension Index which listed fifteen common job related problems. Individual response to a five-point scale indicating the frequency of bother by each job related problem was tallied and the mean frequency score computed to determine individual tension scores. The independent variable and structural property of role set diversity was measured by counting the number of different classes of role senders with whom work relationships were maintained. A five-point scale on which respondents indicated frequency of contact with people classified as their boss, direct or indirect supervisor, co-worker outside the same unit but in the same company, and outsiders associated with the company was used to further assess the variable of role set diversity. Snoek found some support for the hypothesis that role strain will be more common in jobs requiring individuals to maintain a highly diversified set of role relationships; and that role set diversity is more common in large than in small organizations, particularly in those positions that require highly diversified role sender contacts. He concluded that there was an association between high job related tension and frequency of interaction with each class of role senders, but found no single class of contacts to be a more significant producer of tension. The results provided substantial support for a significant relation- ship between high tension and high role set diversity; the maintenance of contacts with many classes of role senders. Most pertinent to the present study of home economics unit administrators is the finding that maintenance of diversified role relationships was observed as more char- acteristic of wage and salary workers in supervisory posi- tions and that supervisory responsibility was a contributor to job related tension. Regarding the variable of company size, the results showed both role set diversification and supervisory responsibility as contributors to high tension in larger organizations. Thus, tentative support was pro- vided for the hypothesized relationship between high role set diversity and higher tension in large rather than in small company organizations. Other findings indicate the trend of higher tension among males than females, among those younger in age than those older, and among those with college educations than those with lower levels of educa- tion. Following Bolman's (1965) direction to incorporate the skills of other professions in the investigation of higher education administration problems, the Snoek study provided the basic design of the present investigation. The focus of attention, however, is substantively different, as re- flected in the following role analysis of home economics unit administrators. Other apparent differences include the operational conceptualization of the variable education, the inclusion of time commitment as a new variable, and modifications relating to the collection and analysis of data. Statement of the Problem Failure to learn more about existing conditions and others conducive to the maintenance and growth of unit administration as an occupational role creates a unique situation of professional jeopardy. For the field of higher education, the lack of effort could eventually mean less than optimum effectiveness due to inadequate knowl- edge, techniques, and competencies; whereas for the prac- titioner within the field, it could involve either an un- necessary waste or an untapped supply of human resources. To preclude this, and as the major consideration of the investigation, the requirement to maintain working re- lationships with a wide variety of persons in complementary roles was explored as a source of role strain. Relation- ships among the demographic characteristics of sex, age, and education of home economics unit administrators, and relationships between the structural-organizational prop- erties of role diversity as both the number of different contacts and the frequency of interaction with role set relationships, and unit and institution size was examined as correlates of role strain among home economics unit administrators. Further inquiry was made to determine the association between frequency of interaction with role set relationships and the extent to which unit adminis- trators spend time meeting the demands of these relation- ships. Importance of the Study The pattern of relationships between persons and their environment as a source of confusion in higher education gives strong argument for Fincher's (1973) contention that: The traditional model of the academic man who meets his administrative responsibilities with broad experience, mature judgment and good grace no longer is regarded as viable for the organizational complexities of the modern uni- versity (p. 499). Accordingly, there is a disinclination to assume adminis- trative positions and an exodus of those so employed. In- sight into the rationale for this posture is provided by Lindhal (1973) in the identification of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual exhaustion from conflict, pres- sure and demands with problems and issues in higher educa- tion as the fundamental reason why top level administrators leave administration. Similarly, Anderson (1968), Dressel, Johnson, and Marcus (1970, Waltzer (1975), and Nicholson (1977) allude to the expansion of administrative tasks and their infringement upon the academic and scholarly pursuits 10 of the incumbent, along with their impeding effect on pro- gram and professional development, as reasons which dis- courage new entrants. In view of these findings, two considerations emerge to give impetus to this study. Initially, most of the problems and issues facing administrators in higher educa- tion today are not the exclusive experience of any one administrative position, therefore, they affect other administrators and faculty at various levels. This con- clusion is supported to Baldridge's (1971) publication, Power and Conflict in the University. He observed in a discussion of administrators that in dilemma situations the dean is most often considered the "man in the middle," when, in fact, there are other administrators who also share this unique position. For a more recent testimony of this principle, we are referred by Gmelch (1977) to the November 15, 1978, issue of Business Week which reports that for the executive, challenge often serves as a stimu- lus rather than a stressor, whereas for the administrator caught between several levels of management, it is more likely to be a stressor. Caught among university adminis- tration, faculty, and student personnel, the unit adminis- trator is considered by Carroll (1974) to be a man in the middle and is the subject upon which this investigation is based. The aversion to becoming involved in administration and the renunciation of administrative positions appear to 11 be related to certain factors of role structure. This idea is based upon the incessant request for greater in— sight into the enigma of the administrator's role. Demon- strating this, Lindhal (1973) affirms the need for further study to learn more about the problems, frustrations and concerns of administrators, while Litherland (1975) sug- gests the assessment of impediments to administrator effectiveness as a vital means to the end of preparing administrators and structuring administrative positions. Outlining the set of conditions upon which his most compre- hensive analysis of the job of academic unit chairperson was based, Walter (1975) advises that: The job of academic department chairman must not be underestimated by the university administra- tion, the faculty members, or those who hold or seek the job (p. 5). To elaborate, he also directs attention to the definitions and structure of the role position and its relationship to the attraction of qualified personnel and the provision of personal and professional satisfaction. His characteriza- tion of the job of unit chairperson as ambiguous, turbulent and tension creating warrants special consideration and speaks to the urgency of the issue at hand. At this point it seems important to emphasize that the research needs aforementioned are not a recent innovation in higher education. Earlier discussions of the same were prefaced by Bolman (1965) in the specification of roles and power structures as areas of conflict, which in his 12 opinion, "deserve further inquiry for the improvement of higher education." His primary concern for the specific issues of the function of unit Chairpersons, the spiraling effect of deteriorating administrative relationships, con- flict in college administrative relationships, and the preparation of administrators impart additional substance to this study. Most of the areas addressed by Bolman have been the focus of considerable investigation, while others remain underexplored. Subsequently, more recent reports (Dressel, Johnson, and Marcus,1970; Carroll, 1974; and Nicholson, 1977) indicate that the amount of empirical research on the unit chairperson is still deficient and, for the most part, are void of the kind of information needed to under- stand the full dimension, limit and affect of the position that would enable aspiring and practicing administrators to function effectively and with relative ease. Unfortunately, the indifferent treatment afforded the role of unit administrator has reduced it to a state of implicitness. However, the recognition of harmful side effects as a possible consequence for certain organiza- tional members, and the association of organizational structure as a potential source of job tension dictates the need for a more thorough examination into the work conditions and problems of this administrative position. Carroll (1974) attests to this as he explains: 13 Individuals in professional organizations who are caught in the middle between conflicting expectations have been shown to frequently ex- perience stress (p. 54). He further concluded a significant correlation between role conflict of unit Chairpersons and job satisfaction as measured by the chairperson's need deficiency. This rela- tionship is reinforced by the work of Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) who found role conflict to be associated with decreased job satisfaction, and experiences of stress and anxiety. From this evolves the question of what specific factors in the structure of the administrator's role create stress. Also implied is the need to delineate and treat individually particular aspects of the adminis- trative role as opposed to the comprehensive approach usually taken. The search for a means by which this question can be resolved leads to Shull's (1973) discus- sion of the academic organization in which he expounds: As an organization grows, there is an in- crease in the number of functional points of contact for each incumbent - an elaboration of social interactions for a11,.whether these contacts be with external publics, special- ized task forces or administrative units. New facets of contact emerge, wherein more and different social transactions occur, re- sulting in increased bargaining and negotia- tion and thus stress (p. 55). Normally, organizational growth is followed by the estab- lishment of some type of hierarchical system. As Gmelch (1977) puts it: 14 This is especially true in professional organizations such as hospitals, universities, and public schools and, in fact, the number of hierarchical levels positively correlates with job tension and conflict (p. 31). Theoretically the scope of the interaction described aligns conceptually with the terms "role sender“ and "role set" as coined by Rommetveit (1954) and Merton (1957) re- spectively. Their use of these terms in reference to any and all who are legitimately connected with a role in- cumbent sets the course for this investigation of role diversity, a factor of role structure, and its relation- ship to role strain. The legitimacy of role diversity as a factor of ad— ministrative role structure is substantiated by the amount of rhetoric devoted to the increasing complex of role relationships with which administrators must contend. In the opinion of most, this is considered a source of job tension and an impairment to more effective performance. Justification for the study of role diversity as it re- lates to role strain is provided by Parsons (1951) who suggests that incumbent stress must be dealt with if a system is to remain functional. Likewise, Carroll's (1974) suggestive conception of role theory as an approach for the analysis of administrative positions are characterized in the following passage: In efforts to learn more about injurious char- acteristics, structural elements, or practices within formal organizations, it is advocated that role concepts and analysis be employed (p. 62). 15 In congruence with this advice, this study of the role strain of home economics unit administrators is pursued. Research Hypotheses The research hypotheses this study purports to measure are: 1. Male home economics unit administrators will ex- perience a higher degree of role strain than fe- male incumbents in this role position. 2. Younger home economics unit administrators will ex- perience a higher degree of role strain than older incumbents in this role position. 3. Home economics unit administrators who have at- tained terminal degrees, who have had formal edu- cations for administration, and who have congruency between content area of degree specialization and content area of administrative appointment will experience lower role strain than those without these attributes. 4. The more role set relationships maintained by home economics administrators, the higher the role strain of these role incumbents. 5. The higher the frequency of interaction with role set relationships, the higher the role strain among home economics unit administrators. 6. The more time spent meeting the demands of role set relationships, the higher the degree of role strain among home economics unit administrators. 7. Home economics unit administrators of larger units and in larger institutions will experience a higher degree of role strain than those in smaller ones. 8. Home economics unit administrators of larger units and in larger institutions maintain more role set relationships than those in smaller ones. 9. Home economics unit administrators of larger units and in larger institutions will interact more frequently with role set relationships than those in small ones. The conceptual model of these hypothesized relationships is illustrated in Figure 1. p 16 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT VARIABLE INDEPENDENT TIME SPENT ‘I L AGE ROLE ROLE DIVERSITY " STRAIN f sex IZE OF S EDUCATION ”81'. I UNIT INDEPENDENT VARIABLES INDEPENDENT VARIABLES SIZE or INSTITUTION AGES or: UNIT ADMINISTRATOR'S SIZE or UNIT SEXES OF ADMINISTRATORS EDUCATIDNS OF ADMINIS- DEPENDENT VARIABLE TRATOFIS TIME SPENT MEETING “OI-E ”VERS'" ROLE DEMANDS ROLE DIVERSITY SIZE OF INSTITUTION SIZE OF UNIT DEPENDENT VARIABLE ROLE STRAIN Figure 1. Conceptual Model of the Relationships Hypothesized 17 Objectives In view of the need for more descriptive information about the personal and professional circumstances of home economics unit administrators, the following objectives were a priority in this study: 1. To identify factors in the professional backgrounds of home economics unit administrators which may predict role strain. 2. To explore conditions and procedures relevant to the appointment, operation and evaluation compon- ents of the position of home economics unit ad- ministrators which may influence role strain. 3. To determine the degree of tension produced by certain conditions under which home economics unit administrators work. 4. To determine which role set relationship(s) and cluster of role set relationships demand the least and most amounts of time. 5. To determine the extent to which each role set relationship and custer of role set relationships contribute to role strain. Assumptions Several basic assumptions underlie this investigation. The first is that stress and tension are elements of all social systems, and that role strain is a natural outcome of these factors. Thus, work situations involving higher than average levels of stress or tension are assumed to re- sult in high role strain. Secondly, it is assumed that role strain, as a construct, can be explored through analysis of role structure using situation conditions which implicate phychological responses counter to satisfaction. In con- sideration of this and the use of the Job Related Tension 18 Index as a devide for measuring role strain, the as- sumption is made that all home economics unit administrators can relate to the conditions included in the respective portion of the research instrument, and that they will be familiar with the inventory of role set relationships used. Definition of Terms For purposes of clarification it is necessary to make known the way in which particular terms and phrases are used in this study. The following definitions represent those deemed pertinent. Theoretical Definitions Role strain - the felt difficulty in fulfilling role obligations. Role set - the total complement of role relationships W . . in which a person becomes involved by Virtue of occupying a particular social position. Role sender(s) - all persons who complement a given person's role and who designate their functions of communicating and enforcing relevant role expectations. Role set diversity - the number of different role senders with whom relationships must be maintained. Operational Definitions Role strain - varying degrees of difficulty experi- enced as the result of meeting role demands; job related tension. Degree of role strain - the extent to which unit ad- ministrators are bothered by certain conditions re- lated to their work. Role set - the total number of role relationships with which unit administrators are involved as the result of the role position occupied. 19 Role sender(s) - any and all persons actively and legitimately concerned with the unit administrator's performance and who hold expectations for that role position. Role demands - legitimate expectations and obligations associated with the position of unit administrator. Role diversity - the number of different role set re- latianhips maintained by unit administrators; the frequency of interaction with role set relationships maintained as the result of occupying the position of unit administrator. Unit administrator - official acting or appointed leader of the home economics academic unit or of a department or otherwise labeled component of that academic unit. Education - the attainment of the terminal degree, formal education in any area of educational or other type administration as a major field and specializa- tion or minor; content area of specialization for the terminal degree. Terminal degree - attainment of either the Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree. Content area of degree specialization - major or minor field of concentrated study and specialization for the terminal degree. Time commitment - the extent to which the unit adminis- trator spends time meeting the demands of role set re- lationships. Size of unit - total number of departmental majors en- rolled Fall term, 1977. Size of institution - total student enrollment of an institution for Fall term, 1977. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This study entertains the review of two kinds of lit- erature. Initially, role strain is explored with respect to its development as a contextual variable of role theory and as a distinct theory of sociology. In the part that follows, the role of the unit administrator, the focal object of this investigation, is surveyed and analyzed to identify inherent factors which tend to create strain. Theoretical Perspective With the primary objective of explaining people as social beings, social science has produced a variety of approaches applicable to almost any aspect of life as it is manifested through relationships with others. Each ap- proach is important because it is formulated by a termino- logical system of concepts by which distinctions relative to the nature, character, and function of a social group can be explored. In this study, the situational approach provides meaningful exemplification as it encompasses the term "role," a categorical concept germane to the phenome- non of human behavior. Conceived by Linton (1936) as "the sum total of the culture patterns associated with a 20 21 particular status," the term has fallen heir to a number of diverse definitions and interpretations (Neiman and Hughes, 1951; Gross, Mason, and McEachern, 1958; Biddle and Thomas, 1966). Based upon this definition, Newcombe (1951) associated the term with that of position and pronounced them as in- seperable concepts. By his interpretation, role is the whole set of behaviors which are characteristic of all who occupy a certain position within a cultural setting. Ad- dressing the definitional problems of role, Gross, Mason, and McEachern (1958) formulated a taxonomy by which existing definitions could be categorized. According to their scheme, Linton and Newcombe's treatment of role fall into what they label as the "normative culture pattern" category. Other definitions explaining role as an individual's conception of his function in reference to what he expects of himself and of what is expected of him by others are separately categorized in what the writer summarizes as "the personal-situational pattern" category. For examples appropriate to this domain we are referred by GroSs and his colleagues to the following explanations: A person's role is a pattern or type of social behavior which seems situationally appropriate to him in terms of the demands and expectations of those in his group (Sargent, 1951, p. 30). A role is a sector of the total orientation system of an individual actor which is organized about expectations in relation to a particular inter- action context, that is integrated with a par- ticular set of value-standards which govern inter— action with one or more alters in the comple- mentary roles (Parsons, 1942, p. 359). 22 Another school of thought establishes a third defi- nitional category relating role to "the behavior of actors occupying social positions" (Gross, Mason, and McEachern, p. 14). In contrast to the preceeding categories which emphasize what an individual should normally do and his perception of what is to be done, this category is distin- guished by emphasis on what an individual does factually in the position he occupies. For the purpose of convenience, the writer assigns the categorical title of "incumbent be- havioral pattern." Citing various authors, Gross, Mason, and McEachern identify two additional kinds of emphases found in this category. They include the functional impli- cations of behaviors which relate to the attainment of group ends, and the operational implications of behaviors which relate to the way group members interact and evaluate each other. Given these criteria, this research may be considered as an example of this conception of role. On the other hand, Parson's (1951) and Goode's (1960) view of role as what an individual does or is expected to do in his relations with others by virtue of the position held and how such actions influence and affect the social system are more illustrative of the category which the writer refers to as the incumbent behavioral pattern. Role is again associated with behavior in the last group of definitions, titled "the interacticnal pattern" category. Using Sabrin (1954) and Cottrell (1942) as ref- erents, Gross and associates identify the "self-other" 23 approach as the point of emphasis in which case attention is focused on the reciprocal nature of behavior. In the opinion of these analysts, "these definitions of role refer to patterns of acts rather than individual acts" with no regard for what is considered normal for the position occu- pant. For documentation of this treatment they quote Sabrin (1954) who defines role as: ...a patterned sequence of learned actions or deeds performed by a person in an interaction situation (Gross, Mason, and McEachern, p. 15). As a matter of significance, it is pointed out that in each definitional case the important factors of position and behavior are inherent. In addition, each conceptualiza- tion is formulated in reference to the purviews of task and identity within a given social organizational frame. In view of the social-psychological relevance of these factors, studies of role have resulted in the development of a dis- tinct body of knowledge known as "role theory." As an established field of study, role theory is characterized by an inordinate number of contextual variables, many of which are thought to be the genesis of terminological and con- ceptual confusion (Biddle and Thomas, 1966). An exemplar of such is that of "role strain," the thesis of this study. Ini"A Theory of Role Strain," William Goode (1960) defines the concept as the felt difficulty in fulfilling role obligations. By this explanation, individuals experi- ence such strains as the result of facing too many different types of role demands and conflicts. Influenced by this 24 definition, Snoek (1966) investigated role strain in di- versified role sets. Examining role strain in the sense of felt difficulty in job performance, he used job related tension as an indicator of role strain. His findings pro- vided some support for a significant relationship between role strain and interaction with diversified role set. In addition, high role set diversification was shown to be re- lated to higher levels of tension in large than in small sized companies, and role strain was shown to be more com- mon among younger workers than older ones and among groups with higher educations than those with less. Research by Paloli (1967) on organization types and role strain involves the use of role strain as interference with, or disruption to adequate role performance as a mem- ber of a given organization. Role uncertainty, role dis- parity, and role incompatibility as types of role strain were the operational modes used to test the hypothesis that certain role strains will predominate within the contrasting types of regulated and natural organizations. Expounding the disquietude of American education, Rietman (1971) describes role strain as an "organizing con- cept," useful in trenching the many problems of institu- tional education. He defines it as the varying degrees of difficulty that persons experience in carrying out their occupational and other social roles. A review of literature on role strain supports Biddle and Thomas' (1966) evaluation of the concept as ambiguous 25 with the tendency to be used synonymously with other terms as conflict, stress and pressure. The reason for such obs- curity is thought, by some, to be the theory itself. Ex- pressing this opinion, (Sieber (1974) states: ...it should be noted that the notion of role strain comprises two overlapping problems. These are role overload and role conflict (p. 567). This connotes the emphasis Goode places on multiple role occupancy and his dependence of role conflict as a con- ceptual element in his theoretical formulation. This ap- proach to theory development has important implications for this study, especially the way role conflict is utilized. More specifically, analysis of Goode's theory projects a type of conceptual interrelatedness in which role conflict emerges as an integral factor of role strain. Support for this conjecture can be found through a comparative analysis of Goode's theoretical framework with literature on role conflict. His identification of the types and sources of role strain are apparent in the state- ment: All individuals take part in many different role relationships, for each of which there will be some different obligations. Among these, there may be either contradictory performances re- quired or conflicts of time, place or resource (p. 485). , It seems significant that in earlier studies on role con- flict, both Stouffer (1949) and Sabrin (1954) viewed role conflict as originating in what is termed "simultaneous roles in two or more groups" (Gross, Mason, and Mceacher, 26 1958, p. 246). The concurrence of their perspective with Goode's idea of an individual's involvement in many different role relationships suggests more than coincidence. Simi- larly, in a discussion of role conflict and deviant be- havior, Parsons (1954) explained role conflict as the exposure of the actor to conflicting sets of legitimate role expectancies such that complete fulfillment of both is relatively impossible. His view of role plurality tends to document the type of role strain that Goode attributes to multiple role occupancy and to conflicting demands for the same role. By the same token Goode's belief that each role relationship demands a variety of actions and responses which may be incongruent, appears as a predicate of Seeman's (1953) definition of role conflict as the ...exposure of the individual in a given posi- tion to incompatible vehavioral expectations held by a criterion group for the behavior of the incumbent of a single position (p. 373). Contemplation of these points leads to the perception of role conflict, a concept with its own body of literature, as an endemic component of role strain. Aldous (1968), in a presentation of strategies for developing family theory, provides some insight into the justification for this perspective in the identification of "borrowed theory." Based on her description of borrowing concepts from other areas within and outside the discipline, role strain, as a theoretical concept, may be regarded as an explicate of role conflict, the concept from which it is assumed to have been borrowed. 27 Other research efforts useful in supporting this con- tention include those of Woode and LaPorte (1970) who, in an examination of how specific activities of profes- sionals contribute to the solution of functional problems and affect organizational relations, found that in role strain the emphasis was interpersonal role conflict, in which the same individual faced contradictory obligatiOns from his differing roles. More recently, and as a matter of extreme pertinence to this study, Carroll (1974) examined the role conflict of university department Chairpersons. Citing previous research findings, he lists stress, anxiety, and job related tension (each of which is shown to bear some relation to role strain) as motives for his effort. On another occasion, awareness of conflicts and stresses was used by Van Meter (1976) to measure the existence of role strain among married college women. To Biddle and Thomas (1966), the metaphores pressure and strain are two important dimensions of role theory. From their viewpoint, pressure pertains to all factors relating to roles which alone or in combination create the possibility of difficulty for the individual. Their per— ception of pressure as a source of strain is reflected in the comment: The pressure may derive from conflicts of de- mands and norms, from opposing evaluations of the actor by others, from differences between the actor's conceptions of himself and the statements about him by others, from inter- dependencies excessive in hindrances or cost, from a discontinuous transition between posi- tions...and many others (p. 62). 28 Hall and Lawler (1972) discuss some theoretical as- sumptions about job pressures in the report of their research on job characteristics and pressures. Defined as a "subjectively experienced internal or external force which motivates one to behave in a particular way on the job," job pressure is described as either positive or nega- tive in affect. Unlike Biddle and Thomas (1966) and Kahn (1964) they do not consider conflict to be a natural out- come of pressure. In their distinction of pressure from other concepts with which it is commonly used, they explain pressure as the experience of a particular force whereas strain, conflict, and stress represent the opposition of two or more pressures. Although stress is usually included in most discussions on role strain, Biddle and Thomas (1966) differentiate the term of the basis of relatedness to role phonomena. From their vantage point, stress is not generated by role phe- nomena as indicated in the observation: ...role strain differs from threat, anxiety, and stress in general by nature of its being gener- ated by role phenomena (p. 62). Bertrand (1963) takes exception to this perSpective in the statement: Patterns of conflict, deviation, nonconformity, etc., in social systems are manifestations of stresses which are inherent in the structure of the system and of strains which are behavioral manifestations of these stresses (p. 3). 29 He further suggests that even though the two concepts are always linked in real life situations, they can be distin- guished conceptually by viewing strain as a process, and stress as an element of the structure. For this reason, he recommends using the terms in combination (stress—strain). This, in his opinion, permits the portrayal of the effects of given pressures on given actors. Variations of approach to this study of stress is evi- dent in the works of Shull (1973) and Miles (1976). In the investigation of "Professional Stress as a Variable in Studying Faculty Role," Shull identifies constrain, ambi- guity, overload, and conflict as four different kinds of stress. In the same sense, Miles relied on various types of role conflict and ambiguity to measure role stress in the examination of role requirements as a source of organi- zational stress. It is concluded that while both studies tend to emulate the approach whereby stress is regarded as a role phenomena, closer observation implies the possibility of conceptual misue of the term when viewed in the context of prior distinctions. The synonymical system employed with these terms impetuates the search for a means by which they are legiti- mately related or clustered. Buck (1967) provides a dimen- sion of consistency of delineating the characteristics held common by these terms. They include: 1. Conflicting or incompatible demands. 3O 2. At least one force or demand generated by someone or something external to the individual - induced force. 3. Both own and induced forces are recurrent or stable over time. As a binding ingredient for the synonymical terms of role strain, conflicting or incompatible demands are also the subject of disparate treatment and interpretation. Con- fusion concerning this role phenomenon stems from the fact that while it is generally agreed that role demands will at times conflict and, under certain circumstances be incom- patible, such conflict and incompatibility may not neces- sarily result in adverse conditions. In light of this, the variables of role diversity, role demands, and role require- ments surface as objects of philosophical contention in terms of their impact as structural features of an organi- zation on those who occupy role positions within the sys- tem. Gross, Mason, and McEachern (1958); Goode (1960); Snoek (1966); House and Rizzo (1972); and Miles (1976) all seem to associate the notion of incompatibility or conflict with these variables and their capacity to create the consequences of personal or occupational dissatisfaction. Reflecting this, Miles' treatment of "boundary-spanning activities" (activities which involve the maintenance of communication linkages across and between systems) and "boundary relevance" (the frequency of contact with persons external to the organization) as particular conditions of role requirements, and as predictors of stress is useful in 31 validating the framework of this research on role strain as a function of role diversity. At the other extreme, there are those (Bertrand, 1963; Sabrin and Allen, 1968; Cummings and E1 Sami, 1970; and Sieber, 1974) who regard the conflictual and incompatible character of these variables as positive attributes impor- tant to the improvement and maintenance of systems and their components. Taking this into account, this research venture provides additional opportunity to measure the reliability of role strain as a function (positive or nega- tive) of role occupancy. What is more, special considera- tion is given to the finding that role diversity fosters variety and challenge and is more related to managerial satisfaction than to company or sub-unit size because of its relevance to the fashion, purpose, and significance of the pertinent research. In sum, this discussion asserts that roles, as a func- tion of social organization, are operationalized by demands and requirements which vary in nature, in complexity, and in accord depending on the organization, its ecological climate and the role position in focus. As a consequence of this interactional system, stresses and strains develOp which must be managed to the extent that the system re- mains functional for the achievement of set goals. Research supports the proposition of a relationship between what is required or demanded of role incumbents and what they ex- perience personally as a result of occupying one or more 32 roles. As a contextual variable of role theory, role strain is used as an approach to the examination of role structure and incumbent response to those tasks by which focal posi- tions are defined. Tasks which involve the maintenance of a diverse set of relationships within, between, and across systems and subsystems exist as potential sources of role strain. Analysis of the Role of the Unit Administrator The predominant view of the unit administrator seems to be that of a "jack of all trades." As a general rule, successful incumbents of this position must be well versed in the structure and organization of the institution and possess a host of other competencies too enormous to men- tion. This entails thorough familiarization with important issues and forces of influences, policies and procedures in effect, and techniques and skills of operation. As the chief administrator of the most decision influencing organi- zational unit on campus (Ryan, 1974), unit administrators occupy the median position in which they are accountable to both superordinate and subordinate colleagues. Confirming this quandry, Waltzer (1975) found that when asked if they felt "uncomfortably in the middle" between these factions, eighty-three percent of Chairpersons surveyed not only answered, "Yes," but perceived this as a natural part of the job. He concluded that while this may be the case, 33 recognition, understanding, and clarification of this role position is a paramount and imminent need. In addition to the consequence of hierarchical posi- tion, Kreyche (1972) and Feltner and Godspell (1971) identi- fy the attachment of increasing responsibilities as another contributor to the anamalous character of the chairperson's job. Supporting this disposition, Glueck and Thorp (1974) report the various roles of resource person, coordinator, manager, technical (professional) consultant, and trouble- shooter as the most perceived and desired characteristics of department administrators. In a study of role perceptions of unit Chairpersons in thirteen land grant colleges, Siever, Loomis, and Nerdt (1972) attempted to determine specific characteristics of effectiveness in relation to professional, administrative and personal areas of function. They found that in the area of professional activities the effective chairperson is expected to develop outstanding students, be a reputable scholar in the field, and be a planner and achiever of pro- gram goals. Under administrative responsibilities, effec- tive Chairpersons were perceived as skillful organizers of faculty matters, recruiters of promising faculty, and developers of good teaching. The ability to think decisively and to take action and the ability to consider unit needs in the broader context of the total university were reported as the most important personal characteristics of effective Chairpersons. 34 These views of unit administrators are not unusual but rather coincide with the traditional literary image of planner, organizer, procuror, implementor, enforcer, nego- tiator, and arbitrator. Additional insight into the multi- dimensional aspect of educational administration is ac- corded by March (1974) who explained educational administra- tion as involving the political, technical, social, economic, and international worlds as constituents of consequence for the administrator. Using role analysis, each dimension, responsibility, and expectation outlined here is representative of and operationalized by a relationship or set of relationships. The significance of this phenomena becomes obvious when viewed in light of the fact that administrator effective- ness depends largely upon the degree to which a workable pattern of operation is established with and between each entity. Equally important to the characteristic of adminis- trator effectiveness is the ability to perform required tasks, which in turn requires "omni-competence." Stressing this, Mann (1975) cites the following criteria by which good educational administrators can be determined. By his standards, good administrators are: Those who are adept at critical analysis, learning psychology, community politics, labor negotia- tions, financial management, philosophy, plan- ning, classroom management and... (p. 140). 35 Speaking also to the issue of competence, March (1974) identifies the following critical analysis skills as appro- priate to academia and important to the problems facing administrators: 1. 2. 4. The analysis of Expertise. The management of Knowledge. The analysis of Coalitions. The management of Conflict. The analysis of Ambiguity. The management of Goals. The analysis of Time. The management of attention. The analysis of Information. The management of Influence. With similar objectives (Katz (1974) in the Harvard Business Review Classic on Administrator Effectiveness, suggests the demonstration of human, conceptual, and techni- cal skill as indicators of successful administrators. The definitions that follow are those which he developed from his original commentary on the subject, and from his retrospective commentary review. Human Skill - the ability to work effectively as a group member, and to build c00perative ef- forts within the team he leads and with other team with which he works. Conceptual Skill - the ability to see the insti- tution as a whole, recognize how the various functions of the organization depend on one another and how changes in any one part affect the others as they affect and are affected by other systems. Technical Skill - the ability to understand and perform proficiently specific activities in- volving methods, processes, procedures, and techniques. Included is knowing the right questions to ask and how to evaluate the answers. 36 In the same article, and as an item of extreme im- portance, Katz explains that the value of the skills listed as generic to educational administration are useful only when variance in appointed position, institutional size and organization, possession and accessibility to resources, and cultural setting of the institution are taken into account. To this point, the focus of this analysis has been the responsibilities and competencies of the unit administrator. However, analysis of the administrator's role with respect to perceived influence is also an important consideration. Hill and French (1967) demonstrate the value of this ap- proach in their study of "Perceptions of the Power of De- partment Chairmen by Professors." They found that the greater the professor's satisfaction, the lower the output of research, and the greater the perceived productivity of teaching goals. Greater support for these findings is obvious in Glueck and Thorp's (1974) investigation of the influence of forty-six unit Chairpersons and six research center directors and two hundred and fifty-two research professors. They concluded that the behavior of the ad- ministrators influenced the satisfaction of the professors and also contributed to their productivity. As a final note, we are reminded that efforts to meet the diverse requirements of the position of unit adminis- trator are subject to such constraints as the incumbent's perception of the role what is expected by significant 37 others, and the possession of and accessibility to human and environmental resources; all of which can have a pro- found effect on role performance. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The discussion that follows outlines the research design and hypotheses, the selection and description of respondents, the development of the instrument, and the col- lection of and the procedure for the analysis of data. Research Design In this correlational study consideration is given to role strain of home economics unit administrators as a de- pendent variable related to the demographic characteristics of age, sex, and education. Other influences on the preva- lence of role strain to be tested include the independent variables of role diversity (the frequency of interaction with role set relationships), size of institution and unit, and the extent to which administrators spend time meeting role demands. As a second consideration, role diversity is explored as a dependent variable of institution and depart- ment size. See Figure 1 (page 16) for the conceptual model of the relationships among the above listed variables. Development of the Instrument Several operational phases preceeded the development of a final research instrument. Leading to the creation 38 39 of an instrument proposal, phase one involved the following three steps. First, an instrument for measuring role strain, the dependent variable of this investigation, had to be located. A review of relevant literature resulted in the identification of the Job Related Tension Index (JRTI), a Likert-type scale, "designed to measure a variety of difficulties in job performance, close to the conceptual meaning of role strain" (Snoek, 1966). For the present study, several items of this instrument were modified by rewording, restating, or rearranging while several new items were added to make it more appropriate to the study being undertaken. In addition, and in keeping with the re- commendation of the research guidance committee, the JRTI was extended to include several open ended questions which, at the time, seemed important for a balance of physchologi- cal tone and for the free expression and input of respondents. As a second step, a section was developed to ascertain the demographic character of home economics unit administra- tors and to obtain information on the structural features of the organizations. Characteristics and features of par- ticular relevance to this investigation, as indicated in the hypotheses, included sex, age, and education of home economics unit administrators and the size of the institu- tion and the unit. The last step of phase one involved constructing a comprehensive list of role sets with whom home economics unit administrators are assumed to maintain a working 4O relationship. As the most logical source of information, literature embracing the role analysis of higher education administration was examined. Studies by Litherland (1975) and Nicholson (1977), along with the input of randomly selected department Chairpersons from other academic areas at Michigan State University were extremely helpful in the construction of a role set interaction inventory, listing a total of forty-six role sets. At the conclusion of this step, a complete proposal of the research instrument was drafted, typed, and duplicated for review and evaluation. Phase two of the developmental process began with the selection of a jury of experts to critique and evaluate the proposed instrument for content and construct validity. The decision to use this method was based on Englehart's (1972) suggestion that: The first draft of a questionnaire should be submitted to competent persons for criticism and be given a preliminary trial by persons typical of the proposed mailing list. It was decided, for various reasons, that unit admin- istrators within the researcher's own college be excluded from the study sample and be reserved as prospective jury members. As professionals in higher education with experi- ence in home economics unit administration, their opinions were considered credible and reliable references to the fit and effect of the device. An evaluation form was deve10ped to aid the profes- sional assessment of the preliminary draft, and jury 41 members were encouraged to make any comments they deemed necessary concerning the instrument. It was reported by Snoek (1966) that earlier studies had shown that items on the Job Related Tension Index intercorrelate significantly with each other and were effective as a measure of dis- satisfaction close to the conceptual meaning of role strain. On the basis of these findings, and the fact that subsequent analysis of evaluation by the expert panel was consistent with these findings, the instrument was concluded to have content and construct validity and reliability. Next a packet (Appendices C, D, and E) containing a letter soliciting the assistance of the professional ex- pert, a statement explaining the purpose of the anticipated research, a draft of a cover letter to prospective respon- dents, a complete copy of the instrument proposal, and an evaluation form was submitted to each of the four practicing unit administrators in the College of Human Ecology, Michi- gan State University, two other faculty members (both of whom formerly served in this same capacity), and the Assis- tant Dean of the College of Human Ecology. As an added measure for the assurance of a quality instrument, a packet was also submitted to a consultant in the Office of Research Consultation, an ancillary service of the university at which this research was conducted. It should be noted that no instance occurred in which validity or reliability was either implied or mentioned as a concern. 42 Five of the six experienced administrators served as jury members by returning their evaluations within the designated time frame. Their critiques, along with those of the research consultant, were then examined and summar- ized as may be found in Appendix F. Following an analysis of the evaluations, the third and final phase of instrument development ensued involving revising the instrument to reflect the suggestions and con- cerns of the evaluators, restructuring and adding to the graphic format, and proceeding with the clerical and technical operations for the final production of a data collection tool. Description of the Sample Sixty-seven (excluding Michigan State University) land grant institutions (Anderson, 1976), including those in the American territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands were contacted. Of those, fifty-four responded, submitting a total of one hundred and forty prospective participants. It is noted that, with the exception of two institutions, all responded in reference to the title of "department chairperson" while the remaining two indicated the use of the alternative titles of "head of department" and "person in charge" as correct titles for those who would qualify for participation. However, this categoriza- tion of titles changed somewhat when individual administra- tors were asked to list their official titles on the mailed instruments. 43 Mailed questionnaires were sent to each member of the initial sample identified through a preliminary survey. A total of ninety-eight (70%) questionnaires were returned. Of those, nine were ineligible for use, thus constituting a research sample of eighty-nine (64%) home economics unit administrators, including fifty-nine females (68%) and twenty-eight males (32%). (See Appendices A and B for ad- ditional information on sample selection.) As can be seen in Table l, the greatest percentage of respondents (41.6%) falls into the 51-60 aged group. Those remaining were distributed as follows: twenty-six (29.2%) in the 41-50 aged group, eighteen (20.2%) in the 31—40 aged group, and two (2.2%) in the 30 or under aged group. Table 1 Age Distribution of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators Age Range of Administrators Number Percent 30 or under 2 2.2 31 - 40 18 20.2 41 - 50 26 29.2 51 - 60 37 41.6 61 or older 6 6.0 TOTAL “S 99.2* *Rounding adjustment The majority of the administrators surveyed were married (fifty-one, for 57%). For the remaining respon- dents, thirty-one (35%) indicated they were single, and seven (8%) indicated they were either widowed or divorced (see Table 2). 44 Table 2 Marital Status of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Marital Status Number Percentage Married 51 57 Single 31 35 Divorced 5 6 Widowed _2 __2 TOTAL 89 100 Information about family status was obtained by asking for the number and age(s) of children living at home. The re- sponse to this question showed that thirty-five (39%) of the administrators were parents or guardians. Table 3 shows the number and average number of children in each age group as reported. Upon reviewing the professional backgrounds of the respondents, it was found that with the exception of two subjects, all others (eighty-seven) had attained the ter- minal degree. Seventy four (85%) of those held a doctorate of philosophy degree and thirteen (15%) held a doctorate of education degree. Analysis of academic rank (Table 4) reflects the various levels normally found in institutions of higher education, with sixty-two (70%) as full profes- sors, eighteen (20%) as associate professors, nine (10%) as assistant professors and no instructors or others specified. 45 Table 3 Number of Children and Average Number Of Children by Age Range, as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators Age Range of Children NO Children 54 61 to 5 years 6 2.5 3 3 6-10 years 9 1.3 6 7 11-15 years 27 1.3 21 24 16 & Older 31 1;; 21 _23 TOTAL 83 1.7 105 119 (a) Number Of children in each age range as reported by the study sample. (b) Average number Of children in each age range as reported by the study sample. (c) NOTE: The number of administrators reporting and the percentage total more than 89 and 100% because some respondents reported having children in more than one age range group. Table 4 Academic Rank Of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Academic Rank Number Percent Full Professor 62 70 Associate Professor 18 20 Assistant Professor 9 10 Instructor or Other 0 0 TOTAL “9’ W 46 The diversity Of titles attached to the position of unit administrator was the basis upon which subjects were asked to provide their Official titles. Distribution Of responses to all titles considered in the research instru- ment are displayed in Table 5. Table 5 Official Titles Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Administrative Title Number Percent Head ' 36 40 Chairperson 32 36 Dean 3 4 Director 5 5 Program Coordinator 3 4 Professor in Charge 12 11 TOTAL 9 100 Sixty-eight (76%) of the participating administrators held the titles of "head" or "chairperson," and twenty-one (24%) reported their Official titles as dean, directors, pro- gram coordinators, and professors in charge. Tables 6, 7, and 8 summarize data regarding location, type, and years of previous work experience in administra- tion. All respondents were concluded to have had previous administrative experience either in or outside academia. Fifty-seven (64%) of the sample had previous experience in education administration, and thirty-two (36%) had experi- ence outside Of education administration. It was further 47 Table 6 Location of Previous Administrative Experience of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Location Of Previous Administrative Experience Number Percent In Academia 57 64 Outside Academia 32 36 TOTAL 89 100 Table 7 Type Of Previous Administrative Experience Of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Type Of Previous Admin- istrative Experience Number Percent Previous Experience as a Department/Unit Admin. 30 34 NO Previous Experience as a Department/Unit Admin. 52 66 TOTAL 89 00 Table 8 Range of Years Of Previous Experience As an Educational Administrator as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Range Of Years of Previous Administrative Experience Number Percent 0 - 2 23 26 3 - 5 15 17 6 - 10 26 29 11 - 15 9 10 16 or more 16 18 TOTAL 89 100 48 revealed that thirty (34%) Of the eighty-nine subjects had held the position Of a previous department administra- tor, with fifty-nine (66%) without previous experience in department administration. Regarding tenure (length Of time) in present position, six to ten years was the average length Of time reported by administrators. The range of years were: 0 - 2 years, 3 - 5 years, 6 - 10 years, 11 - 15 years, and 16 years or more. Inquiry about the methods used in the selection or appointment of the research subjects to their present positions showed the faculty selection with administrative approval was used in forty-seven (53%) Of the cases. The second most common method was that of administrative ap- pointment with faculty approval, which applied in twenty- six (29%) cases. The other two methods Of appointment enumerated in this study, "administrative appointment," and "faculty selection," were utilized for the remaining sixteen (18%) respondents (see Table 9). Table 10 illustrates responses to the range of years of experience in present administrative position. Thirty- three (37%) of the respondents had held their present administrative positions for 0 - 2 years, twenty-two (25%) for 3 - 5 years, twenty-four (27%) for 6 - 10 years, four (4%) for 11 - 15 years, and six (7%) for sixteen or more years. 49 Table 9 Selection/Appointment Method Reported By Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Method Of’Selection/Appointment As Administrator Number Percent Election by Dept. Faculty 47 53 Appointment by Administration 26 29 Election by Faculty with Administrative Approval 10 11 Appointment by Administration with Faculty Approval 6 7 Other 0 0 No Response _9 _9 TOTAL 89 100 Table 10 Range Of Years in Present Position as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Range Of Years in Present Administrative Position Number Percent 0 - 2 33 37 3 - 5 22 25 6 - 10 24 27 ll - 15 4 4 16 or more _§ __1 TOTAL 89 100 In relation to the trend Of selecting administrators from either within or outside the institution in which there is a position vacancy, fifty-one (57%) of the total sample were found to have held their immediate previous positions in the same institution as that which they cur- rently represent. The other thirty-eight (43%) 50 respondents were found tO have held their immediate previ- ous positions in organizations external to that which they are currently affiliated. Efforts to determine the length Of term for which department/unit administrators were appointed proved futile because most failed to specify the number Of years. Ac- cessible data, however, show that sixty-two (70%) Of the respondents are appointed for indefinite periods Of time and twenty-seven (30%) for a definite period. Other data regarding policies and procedures appli- cable tO home economics department/unit administrators reveal that at the time Of appointment only twenty-three (26%) Of the subjects had access to job descriptions Of their positions as department/unit administrator. The remaining sixty-six (74%) reported that no job description was provided at the time Of appointment; more importantly, when asked if they now have access to a job description Of their present administrative position, there was some de- gree of change in that forty-one (46%) reported they now have access, while forty-seven (54%) still do not. The results of data concerning subjectivity to periodic evaluations indicate that seventy-six (83%) Of the administrators surveyed are subject to periodic evalu- ation and thirteen (17%) are not. The importance of these findings are evidenced in the fact that forty-seven (54%) of the entire sample may not be totally aware Of the cri- teria by which their performances are evaluated. This, 51 in turn, brings into question the basis upon which those appointed for indefinite terms are maintained and those appointed for definite periods are relieved. Degrees Offered and faculty size were examined as indicators Of the degree Of complexity Of the academic settings from which the sample for this study was drawn. From the data summarized in Table 11, seven (8%) of the sample represented departments which Offer only baccalau- reate degrees. Forty-three (48%) represented departments which offer both the baccalaureate and master's degrees, and thirty-nine (44%) Offer the bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees. Table 11 Academic Degree(s) Offered by Home Economics Departments/Units As Reported by Administrators (N = 89) Academic Degree(s) Offered " " Number Percent Associate 0 0 Bachelor's only 7 8 Bachelor's & Master's 43 48 Bachelor's, Master's and Doctor's 39 44 Other _9 __2 TOTAL 89 100 Additional knowledge about the organizational struc- ture and supervisory responsibility was gained by deter- mining the number Of full-time equivalent faculty. Figures 52 in Table 12 show a breakdown Of administrator's responsi- bilities for supervising full-time faculty (see Appendices J and K for details of all demographic responses). Table 12 Range Of Full-Time Equivalent Faculty Responsible to Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Range Of Full-Time Equivalent Faculty, Number Percent l - 5 ll 12 6 - 10 21 24 ll - 15 30 34 16 - 20 . 9 10 20 or more 18 _32 TOTAL 89 100 Collection of Data Designation Of land grant institutions as the locale of the population for this study resulted in the survey Of one hundred and forty home economics unit administrators representing four defined geographical regions (see Table 13, "Population Regions"). For the purpose of expedience, data were collected by the use of a mailed questionnaire. Each administrator was sent a research packet containing a cover letter outlining the Objectives of the research and requesting their assis- tance, a three-part questionnaire, and a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope to return the instrument (see Appen- dix G). A period Of three weeks was allowed for reply. 53 Table 13 Geographical Regions for Population West Region (14) Alaska Hawaii Oregon Arizona Idaho Utah California Montana Washington Colorado Nevada Wyoming Guam New Mexico Midwest Region (11) Illinois Minnesota Ohio Indiana Missouri South Dakota Iowa Nebraska Wisconsin Kansas North Dakota Northeast Region (12) Connecticut Maryland New York Delaware Massachusetts Pennsylvania Washington, D.C. New Hampshire Rhode Island Maine New Jersey Vermont South Region (16) Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi N. Carolina Oklahoma Puerto Rico S. Carolina Tennessee Texas Virgin Islands Virginia W. Virginia Those not responding within that time were sent reminders (see Appendix H) emphasizing the importance Of their con- tribution and reiterating a request for the return of the instrument. Table 14 shows the details Of instrument returns. 54 Table 14 Number and Percentage Of Responses to Questionnaire, Reported by Region (N = 140) Questionnaires Region Mailed Returned Eligible Ineligib1e(a) West 26 (19%) 21 (15%) 21 (15%) 0 (0%) Midwest 47 (33%) 35 (25%) 32 (23%) 3 (2%) Northeast 31 (26%) 19 (14%) 17 (12%) 2 (1%) South 36 (26%) 23 (16%) 19 (14%) 4 (3%) TOTAL 140 (100%) 98 (70%) 89 (64%) 9 (6%) (a) Questionnaires received after the second deadline or received with incomplete data were considered ineligible for the study. Significant to this study is the fact that ninety- eight (70%) Of the mailed questionnaires were returned and that eighty-nine (64%) of the questionnaires were eligible for inclusion in the study. The remaining nine (6%) were either returned after the second deadline or were returned not filled out. The geographical locations Of those who responded have also been tabulated in Table 14. Institu- tions represented in this population are listed in Appen- dix I. Procedure for the Analysis Of Data Prior to the collection of data, a coding for the name of institution, Official title Of respondent, and name of department/unit was established to facilitate accounting for returned instruments. Codes were later established for 55 each item Of part I and II and all those in part III which did not require Open response. Those requiring Open response were analyzed by the researcher who recorded all responses except duplications. The list Of recorded responses to each item was later ex- amined for the detection of similarities and repetitions. Following this, appropriate term were either collapsed or deleted to form a list of open responses that could be coded. A data code book was prepared for use in trans— ferring the responses Of each participant from the ques- tionnaire onto keypunch cards. The accuracy of this Opera- tion was verified by the punch/repunch method involving two keypunch Operators. In addition, a printout from the cards was proofread for errors. As the dependent variable Of this investigation, role strain, operationalized as job related tension, was a matter Of preeminence in the collection and analysis Of data. It was explored through the use Of a five-point nomi- nal scale on which respondents were to indicate how fre- quently they felt bothered by certain occurrences and situ- ations related to their work. Using the method Of Snoek (1966), a range Of 1.0 as low ("very rarely") to 5.0 as high ("very frequently") was used to measure the level Of job related tension or role strain. Using these data, a role strain tension index score for each member Of the sample was computed as the mean frequency score based only on the total number of items each respondent considered 56 applicable to his or her job (so that unmarked items would not influence the findings). The results Of these analyses can be reviewed in Appendix L. The mean role strain index score for the total sample was computed as 54.753, with a standard deviation Of 14.670. Measuring 1.00 standard deviation units on each side Of the mean, sixty-eight and forty were shown as the demarcation scores for high and low tension (see Figure 2). By this method, individuals scoring upward of sixty-eight were classified as high tension cases and those scoring below forty as low tension cases. These two samples are impor— tant, as they provide the data upon which the hypotheses are based. Another dimension was added by including a third role strain group. This group consists Of all scores within one standard deviation on each side Of the mean and is labeled as "medium role strain." By adding this third group, com- parative analysis can be made on the total sample. Addi- tionally, the "medium" category strengthens what can be generalized about the low and high role strain categories because it allows one tO examine the spectrum Of scores from lowest to highest. Responses by the total sample to each tension index item were computed (see Appendix M). Appendix M illustnptes the mean score for each index item. Using a mean score (2.500+) as indicative Of those items that tend to be high 57 CHMHfim QHOM MO mHm>01H .HOM mHCHOnw COflHMOHMEmQ OCHHMUHUCH 0>HDU COfluDQHHHmHD OOH mm om mm om mm on b h b p b mm b mouoom h om Mm om b mv b .m muomwm 0v mm om mm ON ma 5 n P b 1mm Tom rmh Ion Imo .Iow lmm Iom >Ocmowoum A+v Om H” :HmADm cmflm cflmuum Eswomz AIL cm H II m... 0H1 Oh®.va ma cfimuum Bouillllllu 0N1 mNI oml mMI OVI “coaumfi>wo oumocmum mmh.vm "com: mm ”mammo caam> meI omI wocooqoum 58 role strain producers, it can be seen from Table 15 that only seven out Of twenty-four items are reasonably sound stress indicators. Table 15 Mean Role Strain Scores for High Tension Items Mean Tension Index Item Scores Feeling that the demands of your position tend to interfere with your personal and/or (2.708) family life Feeling that you do not have a reasonable balance between your administrative and other (2.898) professional work roles Feeling that you do not have sufficient financial (3 034) resources to perform assigned tasks ° Feeling that you do not have sufficient support personnel to Operate more efficiently (3.148) and effectively Thinking that the amount of work you have to (3 205) do interferes with how well it gets done ° Feeling that you have tOO heavy a work load: one that you generally cannot complete in (3.655) an ordinary week Feeling that the demands Of your position tend to interfere with your production of (3.663) scholarly work Having established three levels of role strain -— low, medium, and high -- data on age, sex, and education were analyzed separately to determine how these variables correlated with role strain. This was done by crosstabbing each of these variables with the three levels Of role 59 strain. Additionally, two-tailed tests Of significance, using Kendall's and Spearman's correlations, were utilized in order to establish relationships. From a frequency distribution showing formal education for administration, subjects were divided into those having received such training and those not. These two groups were then compared by cross tabulation with the three levels Of role strain. Using the same procedure as above, correlational re- lationships with role strain were established for those subjects whose content areas Of degree specialization and content areas Of administrative appointment were congruent and those who were incongruent. Role diversity, Operationalized as both the total number of role set relationships maintained by virtue of holding the position of unit administrator and the fre- quency of interaction with each role set relationship was measured by response on a five degree Likert-type scale to the question Of how Often, within the course Of a typical year, do department administrators interact with each Of the role sets identified. Data concerning a second independent variable, time commitment (the extent to which time is spent meeting the demands Of these role set relationships), were Obtained through the use Of a similar type scale with three response categories. Frequency distributions of "frequency" Of interaction, and frequency Of "time" interaction with each 60 role set relationship and class Of role set relationships were constructed. Mean scores of frequency Of interaction (3.00+) and Of "time" interaction Of (2.00+), for each sub- ject were extracted and analyzed by cross tabulation with the three levels Of role strain and tested by use Of Chi Square. In measuring the variable Of institutional size, respondent data on Fall term, 1977, total student enroll- ment were compiled. Eight range choices were provided for convenience of reply and ease of coding. Size of the department or unit was measured through similar means by aggregating the total number of department/unit majors enrolled Fall term, 1977. Frequency Of interaction and frequency of time spent interacting as correlates Of institution and department/unit size with role strain were analyzed by cross tabulation with previously established role set mean scores Of (3.00+ and (2.00+) and the three levels Of role strain. See Appendix N for correlation coefficients of total role strain scores and selected background variables. CHAPTER IV ANALYSES OF DATA In this chapter are the results Of empirical and statistical analyses used to test the hypotheses Of this study. The null form of each hypothesis is stated individ- ually, followed by the presentation Of relevant data. Hypothesis 1 HO: There is no relationship between sex identity and the degree Of role strain experienced by home economics department/unit administrators. H1: Research Hypothesis: Male home economics department/ unit administrators will experience a higher degree Of role strain than female incumbents in this role position. Table 16 illustrates the sex group identity Of the research sample as to the levels of low, medium, and high role strain. It indicates that twenty-eight (32%) of the total sample are male and fifty-nine (68%) female. Using the previously established categories Of low, medium, and high role strain, the sample reflects a composition of seventeen (15.5%) low strain, fifty-two (59.8%) medium strain, and eighteen (20.7%) high strain cases. (It is noted that Table 16 is based on a total compiled sample of eighty-seven respondents because two subjects failed to submit relevant data.) 61 62 Table 16 Sex Group Identity in Relation to Level Of Role Strain Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 87) ROLE STRAIN LEVEL Low Medium High Total Sex (a) N % N % N % N % Female 12 21.0 36 61.0 11 18.0 59 67.8 Male _5 18.0 16 51.0 _1 25.0 18 32.2 TOTAL 17 18.5 52 59.8 18 20.7 87 100. (a) Two Of the administrator respondents did not indi- cate "sex." Therefore, the total N for this item is 87, not 89. Analysis Of these three strain level groups shows low role strain as representative of twelve (21%) females and five (18%) males; medium strain at thirty-six (61%) females and sixteen (51%) males; and high strain as eleven (18%) fe- males and seven (25%) males. To determine the statistical significance Of this finding, Kendall and Spearman correlation coefficients with two-tailed test Of significance were computed, corre- lating sex with role strain (see Table 17). Setting a confidence level Of 0.5 or less, no evidence was given to support sex as a significant factor to role strain ex- perienced by home economics department/unit administrators. Consequently, the null hypothesis was not rejected. 63 Table 17 Correlation Coefficients Of Sex, Age and Levels of Role Strain for Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators Sex (a) Role Strain Level and Age (b) Low Strain Medium Strain High Strain N(12) N(36) N(ll) Female Sig. .758 Sig. .470 Sig. .533 Score .0378 Score .0772 Score .0910 N(5) N(l6) N(7) Male Sig. .465 Sig. .521 Sig. .895 Score .0336 Score .0619 Score .1711 N(17) N(42) N(18) Age Sig. 284 Sig. .307 Sig. .581 Score .0671 Score .0255 Score .0918 B < .05 (a) Correlation coefficients were determined by com- puting sex with total role strain scores to determine significance levels for each sex group within each role strain level. None were signifi- cant at the P < .05 level Of significance. (b) The same procedure as in (a) above was utilized to determine relationship Of age to role strain. None Of the test proved significant at the P < .05 level Of significance. Hypothesis 2 HO: There is no relationship between age and the degree H2: of role strain experienced by home economics depart- ment/unit administrators. Research Hypothesis: Younger home economics depart- ment/unit administrators will experience a higher de- gree Of role strain than Older incumbents in this role position. Data for the variable Of age were collected using categories in which respondents were identified by age 64 groups Of : 30 or under, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, and 61 or older. Distribution Of the total sample into these age brackets (See Table 18) shows two (2.2%) as 30 or under; eighteen (20.2%) as 31-40; twenty-six (29.2%) as 41-50; thirty-seven (41.6%) as 51-60 and six (6%) as 61 or Older. Kendall and Spearman correlation coefficients, using two-tailed tests Of significance, were computed to test the relationship implied between age and role strain. The results Of these computations are given in Table 17 which shows that the relationship between age and role strain is not statistically significant at p < .05. Table 18 Age Group In Relation to Degree of Role Strain as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) DEGREE OF ROLE STRAIN Age Range 19w Medium H1gh 19131(a) Gr°uPS N % N s N % N s 30 or under 0 0.0 2 100.0 0 0.0 2 2.2 31 - 4O 2 22.0 13 72.0 1 6.0 18 20.2 41 - 50 6 23.0 13 50.0 7 27.0 26 29.2 51 - 60 6 16.0 23 62.0 8 22.0 37 41.6 50.0 2 33.0 6 6.0 60.7 18 20.0 89 99.2* 61 or Older TOTAL I_I \I 0 la ...: \IH I-J \D I-‘ U1 uh *Rounding Error (a) Number and percentage for total sample 65 In Table 18, which identifies the percentage Of respondents in each age group according to category or role strain level, low strain appears to occur more Often among those between 41—50 years Of age. This Observation, however, is based on the finding that seventeen (19.1%) Of the total study sample comprised the low strain sub— sample group and that six (23%) Of this sub-sample was represented in the 41-50 age category. By the same procedure, medium role strain was found to occur most Often among those in the 31-40 year Old age category Of respondents, which accounts for thirteen (72%) of all those comprising this particular age category (N=20), and fifty-four (60.7%) Of those in the medium strain sub- sample. The relative size Of each sub-sample was an important consideration in these computations. This is especially apparent in the identification of the 51-60 age group as the one most indicative of high role strain. As Table 18 illustrates, nine (22%) Of all thirty-seven respondents in this sub-sample age group were categorized as high strain. Hypothesis 3 HO: There is no relationship between education and the degree Of role strain experienced by home economics department/unit administrators. H3: Research Hypothesis: Home economics department/unit administrators who have attained the terminal degree and who have attained congruency between content area of degree specialization (see Appendix 0) and content area of administrative appointment (see Appendix P) and who have had formal training for administration will experience lower role strain than those without these attributes. 66 Respondents in each role strain sub-sample were identi- fied according to possession Of the terminal degree and type Of program specialization; i.e., major or minor. The findings Of this analysis are presented in Table 19. From all indications there is no relationship between degree Of role strain and the attainment Of the terminal degree. This, as shown in Table 19, is attributed to the fact that with the exception Of two, all respondents held either doctorate Of philosophy or doctorate Of education degrees. Table 19 Possession Of Terminal Degree in Relation tO Level Of Role Strain as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators Indication Of Number and Percentage Total Number and Attainment Of for Strain Level Sub- Percentage for Terminal Degree Sample Total Sample Low Medium High Yes 87 98% NO 0 0 0 0 0 NO Response _3 _1% TOTAL 89 100% Analyses were also conducted in reference to each respon- dent's program Of study for the terminal degree and his or her concentrated major or minor. Similar data were also compiled regarding the respondents' master's and baccalau- reate degree programs as added dimensions not included in the hypothesis. Shown in Table 20 are the results Of the 67 Kendall and Spearman correlation coefficients (two tails of significance) for each degree and type Of specializa- tion. These findings demonstrate that neither level of degree attainment (doctorate, master's or bachelor's) is a significant correlate Of role strain. Table 20 Kendall and Spearman Correlation of Degree Attainment with Role Strain(a) Kendall Correla- tion Coefficients for Total Role Strain Scores for Type of Specialization all Subjects For Degree Program Bachelor's Major (.0167) (N=89) Sig. (.817) Bachelor's Minor (.0187) (N=89) Sig. (.796) Master's Major (-.0674) (N=89) Sig. (.650) Master's Minor (-.0773) (N=89) Sig. (.284) Doctorate Major (-.0329 (N=88) Sig. (.650) Doctorate Minor (-.1021) (N=88) Sig. (.159) Spearman Corre- lation Coeffi- cients for Total Role Strain Scores for all Subjects (.0 0) (N=89) Sig. (.809) (.0907 (N=89) Sig. (.848) (-.0818) (N=89) Sig. (.447) (-.1077) (N=89) Sig. (.316) (-.0442) (N=88) Sig. (.683) (-.1358) (N=88) Sig. (.208) Level of Significance = p < .05 (a) At no level did attainment of degree in major or minor fields correlate significantly with high role strain. Considering the administrative aspect of the variable education, study participants who had had formal education training in any area Of administration were identified. 68 Only ten (11%) Of the total study sample (N = 89) met this qualification. Those with formal administrative training were compared with the remaining seventy-nine (89%) respon- dents tO assess the differences between levels Of role strain. The tabulations of Table 21 illustrate this data relationships. Only one (10%) of the ten respondents in the group with such preparation was categorized as high strain, as compared to seventeen (21%) Of the seventy-nine who had had no formal preparation for administration. Other findings reveal that, although seventeen (21%) Of the seventy-nine member sub-sample without formal prepara- tion were categorized as high strain, sixty—two (79%) of those in this group were distributed between the categories of medium and low strain. Table 21 Formal Educational Preparation In Administration as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Formal Educational ROLE STRAIN LEVEL Preparation in Low Medium High Total Administration N % N % N % N % Formal Education 5 50.0 4 40.0 1 10.0 10 11.0 NO Formal Educ. 11 27.0 41 52.0 11 21.0 19 89.0 TOTAL 26 30.0 45 50.0 18 20.0 89 100 69 In effect, the possibility Of a slight relationship be- tween the lack of formal education for administration and high role strain is indicated. However, size Of the sub- sample with formal preparation as a necessary factor for further comparison makes this relationship less than defini- tive. Based upon this rationale, it is concluded that additional data would be needed for further statistical analysis. A complete list Of content areas Of specialization as majors and minors for degrees earned by the study sample were compiled and are displayed in Appendix 0. This pro- cedure was followed in an attempt to determine the rele- vance Of congruency between this aspect Of the sample's educational background and the content area Of home economics units presently being administered by the sub- jects of this study (see Appendix P) as a correlate Of role strain. Table 22 separates the surveyed sample according to those indicating congruency between content area of terminal degree specialization and content area of administrative appointment, and those indicating incongru- ency between these variables. An example Of "congruency" is explained as a hypo- thetical situation in which an administrator identifies "Child and Family Science" as the content area in which his or her terminal degree is conferred, and is presently the administrator Of a department Of the same or a related content area such as "child development." "Incongruency," 70 Of course, would exist if that same person were the admin- istrator of a department Of a different or unrelated con- tent area, such as "Home Economics Education." Table 22 Congruency Of Academic Preparation in Relation to Administrative Appointment by Level Of Role Strain as Reported by Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators (N = 89) Congruency of ROLE STRAIN LEVEL Academic Prep. & Low Medium High Total Admin. Appt. N % N % N % N % Congruent 21 39.0 24 44.0 9 16.0 54 60.0 Incongruent 19 29.0 1_ 29.0 1_ 42.0 15 40.0 TOTAL 33 37.0 34 38.0 23 25.0 89 100 As shown in Table 22, fifty-four (60%) Of the re- search sample indicate congruency between content area Of degree conferment and content area Of administrative ap- pointmenta Those comprising this congruency group reflect the following distributions: twenty-one (39%) low strain, twenty-four (44%) medium strain, and nine (16%) high strain. By comparison, the incongruent group, thirty-five (40%) Of the total sample is distributed as ten (29%) low strain, ten (29%) medium and fifteen (42%) high strain. Intercomparison of percentages within the congruency sample suggest a positive relationship between congruency Of content area Of terminal degree conferment and content 71 area of administrative appointment, and low role strain. On the other hand, similar analysis Of the "incongruency" sub-sample identifies fifteen (42%) as high strain in comparison to ten (29%) in the low strain category. Given these findings, it is concluded that although a pOsitive relationship tends to exist between congruency Of content area of terminal degree conferment and content area Of administrative appointment, and high role strain, additional data would facilitate statistical analysis for significance. Thus, the null Of the entire hypothesis is neither rejected nor accepted. Hypothesis 4 HO: There is no relationship between role diversity as the number Of different role set relationsihps maintained, and the degree of role strain experienced by home economics department/unit administrators. H4: Research Hypothesis: The more role-set relationships maintained by home economics department/unit adminis- trators, the higher the role strain Of these role incumbents. An inventory Of forty-six role set relationships was included as part Of the research instrument in anticipation of this hypothesis. A frequency distribution Of the number Of role set relationships maintained by all department/unit administrators in this study shows that, with the exception Of four respondents, each subject Of the sample maintained relationships with all forty-six sets. The other four reported maintenance Of relationships with 92% of the forty-six sets. Considering this, it was concluded that further analysis of a possible relationship between the number Of role set relationships maintained and the degree 72 of role strain was inappropriate because Of inconclusive data. Hypothesis 5 HO: There is no relationship between role diversity as the frequency Of interaction with role set relationships maintained and the degree of role strain experienced by home economics unit administrators. H5: Research Hypothesis: The higher the frequency Of interaction with role set relationships, the higher the degree Of role strain among home economics unit administrators. The role set interaction inventory was also used for the collection Of data in order to test this hypothesis. In this case, participant response to the inventory was re- ported by a five degree Likert scale including categories of frequency ranging from "1" (very rarely) to "5" (very frequently). A frequency distribution table was constructed to determine the overall frequency of interaction with each role set (see Appendix Q). Empirical analysis Of these distributions resulted in the arbitrary selection Of 3.00 or more as the mean frequency response score of these role sets showing a high frequency Of interaction. Identified in Table 23 are the eighteen role sets which met this cri- terion and which served as the basis for further analysis. Following these procedures a frequency count was again conducted to ascertain the role strain level Of those participants to whom the identification Of the eighteen high frequency role sets were attributed. The results Of 73 Hoccomuom coflumum Amwm.mv unwaflummxm HonouHoOflumd pom cofimcmuxm T>Huoummooo .umwa can an owummmo mEmHm Aomm.qv suasomm Hmucmsuummwo Aamm.mv Iona HmeofluosuumcH Amsuo no Aomv.vv HoocOmuom mooa>uom mommmau ca OOHHOHcm mucmooum HOUHCEOOBIHOUHNOHU Ammv.mv zuasomm UGHOO Amm~.av has: mofisocoom 0E0: map mo ianv.mv muoflmz mumsomumumeca HoumuuchHEO¢ moano Ho coon mcowusuflumcH Amvv.mv Mosuo Eonm muouama> Ihmm.mv mm¢u0aEEoo mamaaou . . uO\Ocm Honcoeuummoo Dam mucoooum O>Huoommoum Aomm.mv muons: mumoomuw Avmm.mv mucmooum Mommcmue . oocmumwmmd HO\Ocm Awmm my wuaoomm 302 Amam.mv mOfl>O¢ mcfixmom mucoooum moweocoom meom ca mafia: omumsomuw no mcflumoomuo Amvh.mv OHEmomom Ho mucmEuummmo . Amnuo mo mu0umnuwa:aE@« Amvo me muasomm 0>Auomamoum HOOGOmHmm wooum\xH03 Amvo.mv mwmuuflaaou >uamu0>HcDIHH< Ammw.mv one mucmumwmmd mumsomuo Avmo.mv Amvuoumuumflcflaom noummmmm cOHuomumucH mo mmflnmcowumamm cofluomuoucH mo mmwgchwumHmm aocmsqmum mo pom maom hocmovmum mo pom maom mouoom cow: mouoom cmmz cowuomumucH mo mocooqoum How +oo.m mo OHOOm com: d mcfl3onm muom maom mo HonEoz Hmuoa "cowmcme nmfim mcflumowocH mmfinmcoflumHmm pom Odom mm magma 74 this tabulation, as shown in Table 24, identify the role set relationships which correlate with high role strain. It should also be mentioned that thirty-five percent or greater was arbitrarily chosen as the criterion for the percentage Of population response necessary for high corre- lation with levels of role strain. Subsequently, each role set inCluded in Table 25 not only represents a mean fre- quency interaction score Of 3.00+ but was reported as such by thirty-five percent or more of the research sample. See Table 26 for role set relationships which correlate with low role strain. The inventory Of role set relationships was clustered into the groups Of Home Economics Administrative Person- nel, Faculty-Staff, Student Personnel, Institutional Per- sonnel, and External Personnel (Table 27). Because of this, some consideration was given to the relationship between the frequency Of interaction with each cluster Of role set relationships and the degree Of role strain. This approach was taken to acknowledge the impact of other role sets within a given cluster which may not qualify as indi- cators Of high strain but which certainly Contribute to the overall frequency Of interaction with the cluster group of which they are a part. Data in Table 27 which include only those role set relationships reflecting a mean frequency Of interaction score Of 3.00+, and Table 23 which shows the role strain level of participants indicating such frequency Of 75 Table 24 Role Set Relationships with High Frequency Of Interaction and Level Of Role Strain (N = 89) Role Sets ROLE STRAIN LEVEL Low Medium High N % N % N % Total N Research Administrators All-University Committees Prospective Faculty Graduating or Graduated Stu- dents Seeking Advice and/or Assistance Transfer Students Prospective Stu- dents and Visi- tors from Other Institutions Undergraduate Majors Joint Faculty Students En- rolled in Classes or Other Instructional Programs Offered by the Dept. Cooperative Extention and Agricultural Experiment Station Personnel Graduate Assis- tants and Work/ Study Personnel -32 29 -52 19 13 26 25 -43 18 24 36.0 32.0 58.0 21.0 15.0 29.0 28.0 49.0 20.0 10.0 28.0 39 39 29 56 63 27 39 28 56 42 47 44.0 44.0 32.0 63.0 70.0 30.0 44.0 31.0 63.0 47.0 52.0 18 21 14 13 36 20 18 16 38 18 20.0 24.0 10.0 16.0 15.0 41.0 28.0 20.0 17.0 43.0 20.0 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 76 Table 24 (Continued) Role Sets Administrators of Other De- partments or Academic Units in Home Eco- nomics New Faculty Graduate Majors Departmental and/or College Committees Dean or Chief Administrator Clerical- Technical Services Personnel Departmental Faculty Low 16 -31 10 17 21 11 24 18.0 35.0 11.0 19.0 24.0 12.0 28.0 ROLE STRAIN LEVEL Medium N 40 39 64 35 32 41 29 % 45.0 44.0 72.0 39.0 36.0 46.0 32.0 High N 33 19 15 37 36 37 36 % 37.0 21.0 17.0 42.0 40.0 42.0 40.0 Total N 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 77 Table 25 Role Set Relationships Which Correlate with High Role Strain (N = 89) High Strain Role Set Relationships Number* Percent* Dean or Chief Administrator 36 40.0 Administrators Of other depart- ments or academic units in 33 37.0 home economics Departmental Faculty 36 40.0 Clerical-Technical SerVIces 37 42.0 Personnel Departmental and/or College 37 42 0 Committees ° Cooperative Extension and Agri- cultural Experiment Station 38 43.0 Personnel Prospective Students and Visitors 36 41.0 from Other Institutions * Total N exceeds 89 (100%) because respondents could make more than one choice. Table 26 Role Set Relationships Which Correlate with Low Role Strain (N = 89) Low Strain Role Set Relationships Number* Percent* Research Administrator(s) 32 36.0 Joint Faculty 43 49.0 Prospective Faculty 52 58.0 New Faculty 31 35.0 * Total N exceeds 89 (100%) because respondents could make more than one choice. 78 Table 27 Mean Scores for Frequency of Interaction with Clusters of Role Set Relationships Mean Scores of Frequency Clusters Role Sets of Interaction Dean or Chief Administrator (4 293) Home of Home Economics Unit ' Economics Research Administrators (3.024) Administrative Administrators of other Personnel Departments or Academic Units (3.747) in Home Economics Departmental Faculty (4.580) Joint Faculty (3.493) Prospective Faculty (3.048) Faculty- New Faculty (3.824) Staff Clerical-Technical Services (4 420) Personnel ' Departmental and/or (3 867) College Committees ’ Students Enrolled in Classes or Other Instructional Pro- (3.561) grams Offered by the Dept. Undergraduate Majors (3.471) Student Graduate Majors (3.880) Personnel Graduating or Graduated Students (3 216) Seeking Advice and/or Assistance ° Transfer Students (3.294) Graduate Assistants and Work/ (3 625) Study Personnel ' Cooperative Extension and Ag- Institutional ricultUral Experiment Station (3.573) Personnel Personnel All-University Committees (3.045) Prospective Students and External Visitors from Other (3.443) Personnel Institutions 79 interaction, as presented, were not useful as a basis for comparing one cluster to another because of their exclusive concentration. Instead, and because each cluster included several more role sets with a 3.00+ mean frequency of interaction score, it was necessary to review each cluster individually. Table 28 gives the results of this analysis in which the mean frequency of interaction score for each role set has been used to compute the Chi—Square value for each cluster of role set relationships. Table 28 Chi-Square Values for Each Cluster of Role Set Relationships Cluster of Role Set Chi-Square Relationships Values Home Economics Administrative Personnel .7233 Faculty-Staff .8198 Student Personnel .8539 Institutional Personnel .1027 External Personnel .6422 Level of Significance: p < .05 Final results of these analyses show the role set of Dean or Chief Administrator as a correlate of high role strain. At the other extreme, the role set of Research Administrator(s) appear to correlate positively with low role strain. Considering the clusters of role set rela— tionships, Faculty staff excelled as the group with which 80 the highest frequency of interaction is associated. To be more specific, this cluster of role set relationships is a more positive correlate of high role strain than any other group. Statistical tests for a relationship between cluster of role set relationships and the frequency of interaction and role strain were performed using Chi-Square calcula- tions of the total number of role sets maintained by the total sample. As can be seen in Table 28, none of the results were significant at the p < .05 or less level. Thus, the basic conclusion drawn is that clusters of role sets used in this study are not significantly related to high role strain. Hypothesis 6 HO: There is no relationship between the extent to which time is spent meeting the demands of role set rela- tionships and the degree of role strain experienced by home economics unit administrators. H6: Research Hypothesis: The more time spent meeting the demands of role set relationships, the higher the degree of role strain among home economics unit ad- ministrators. Exploration of the relationships between "time com- mitment" and the degree of role strain began with the construction of a frequency table showing the mean amount of time devoted to each role set relationship. Role sets reflecting a mean "time commitment" response score of 2.00 or more were extracted for subsequent analysis. (This particular score was arbitrarily chosen as 81 indicative of high time commitment based on the response scale of "l-too little" to "3-too much.") Table 29 was developed following this procedure and lists the five role sets which scored accordingly. Table 29 Role Set Relationships of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators Indicating Mean Scores of 2.00+ for Time Commitment Role Set Mean Scores of Relationships Time Commitment Clerical-Technical Services Personnel (2.059) Department and/or College Committees (2.284) Affirmative Action and/or Collective Bargaining Unit Personnel (2'024) Physical Plant Development and (2 035) Maintenance Personnel ' All-University Committees (2.058) Table 30 gives the strain group identity of all par- ticipants responding to each of these role sets. As previously explained, a population response rate of thirty- five percent or more was necessary for consideration as a correlate of the levels of role strain. In Table 30, "Department and/or College Committees," "Affirmative Ac- tion and/or Collective Bargaining Unit Personnel," and "All-University Committees" appear as correlates of high role strain. Further examination reveals "Physical Plant 82 Development and Maintenance Personnel" as the single role set showing the most positive correlation with low role strain. Table 30 High Demand Role Set Relationships: Role Sets Indicating a Mean Score of 2.00+ For Time Commitment in Relation To Level of Role Strain (N = 89) LEVEL OF ROLE STRAIN Role Set Low Medium High Total Relationships N % N % N % N % Clerlcal'TQChnlcal 22 23.0 54 62.0 13 15.0 89 100.0 Services Personnel Physical Plant De- velopment and Maintenance Personnel Department and/or College Committees All-University Committees Affirmative Action and/or Collective Bargaining Unit Personnel 59 66.0b 17 16 18.0 39 22 23.0 32 11 12.0 37 19.0 13 15.0 89 100.0 44.0 34 38.0a 89 100.0 36.0 35 41.0a 89 100.0 42.0 41 46.0a 89 100.0 aThese role set relationships with high role strain. b with low role strain. correlate positively This role set relationship correlates positively 83 The isolation of only five role set relationships as the sub-sample of role sets used to examine the relation- ship between time commitment and role strain circumvented further analySis relative to time committed to the clusters of role set relationships. It can, however, be pointed out from observation that only two of the role set relationships in the sub-sample group of five belonged to the particular cluster of "Faculty-Staff." However, the concurrence of this finding with prior results which identify this cluster as that which home economics unit administrators interact most frequently is virtually unimportant when viewed in the context of previous findings showing no significant relationship between clusters of role set relationships and the frequency of interaction and role strain. Hypothesis 7 HO: There is no relationship between institution and unit size and the degree of role strain experienced by home economics unit administrators. H7: Research Hypothesis: Home economics unit administra- tors of large units and in large institutions will experience a higher degree of role strain than those in smaller ones. In the investigation of role strain as a dependent variable of institution and unit size, a frequency count was taken of the total nUmber of respondents concurrent to each of eight sizes of institutions and eight sizes of departments, as included in the research instrument. Through empirical analysis, a positive correlation was found to exist between size of institution and size of home economics academic unit or department. Table 31 illustrates this relationship as a near-perfect positive regression in which all situations show that the smaller 84 Hana we mmH omma mm he Amaoa 23 New. mm 2:. m fl 8838.8 oov ma mm omm ma m ooo.omIHoo.>H mmm m mm omm NH m ooo.nHIHoo.eH mwoa mmm HO m om com S v ooo.vHIHoo.HH mma o ma oma h n ooo.HHIHoo.m mea o m ova 0H oa ooo.mIHoo.m mm o 0 mm v v ooo.mIHoo.N o o o o o o ooo.m Moos: muoflmz mo o.£m mumummz mMonzomm Nmomoumu zoom muommumo 30mm Nuomoumo HOQEDZ HOOOB muoflmz mo HOQEOZ ommuo>d CH Omucmmmuomm OH omucomonmmm Onwm manoeuummoo mucoEuHmmmo coHDsuHumcH mo umoasz mo HooEDz hbma mucmocommmm mo muflco\mucweuummoo mOflEocoom oEom 2H .EMOB Hamm omaaoucm mnommz mo HOQEDZ ommuo>¢ ocm mnwm coflusuaumcH Hm magma 85 the institution, the smaller the department; and the larger the institution, the larger the department. It should be noted that data concerning department size are based on the total number of department majors reported by each respondent. In view of this, and because most insti- tutions were represented by more than one department/unit administrator, Table 31 includes averages for the number of majors corresponding to each size institution which were computed to allow for the variance among units and to facilitate ease of illustration. Following this, frequency distribution tables were constructed to determine the strain group identity of all respondents associated with each size institution. Table 32 shows the general results of these findings. As it appears, high role strain is more prevalent among institu- tions serving a total student population of 14,001 to 17,000 persons and a corresponding total average department size of two hundred and eighty-three majors. In contrast, low strain level for administrators was most apparent in insti- tutions of 5,001 to 8,000 students with a concordant average size department of one hundred forty-eight majors. As a concluding point it is emphasized that even though five (41%) of all departments in the sub-sample group of 14,001 to 17,000 students reflect the condition of high role strain among home economics department/unit adminis- trators, and six (60%) of those in the sub-sample group of 5,001 to 8,000 students reflect the condition of low strain, 86 total sub-sample sizes of only twelve and ten departments, respectively, are considered too small to be indicative of any general trend. These findings, however, do imply a need for additional research involving samples large enough to withstand statistical analyses. Table 32 Number of Home Economics Department/Unit Administrators in Each Institution Size Category in Relation to Level of Role Strain (N = 88)a LEVEL OF ROLE STRAIN Institution Size Low Medium High Total Category, N % N % N % N Under 2,000 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 2,001 - 5,000 0 0.0 4 100. 0 0.0 4 5,001 - 8,000 6 60.0 2 20.0 2.20.0 10 8,001 - 11,000 2 28.0 4 58.0 1 14.0 7 11,001 - 14,000 2 50.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 4 14,001 - 17,000 2 18.0 5 41.0 5 41.0 12 17,001 - 20,000 4 31.0 4 31.0 5 38.0 13 20,001 or More _3 10.0 1H 42.0 11 34.0 1H TOTAL 25 37 26 88 aFigure based on the total number of participants responding to the item from which these data were compiled. 87 Hypothesis 8 HO: There is no relationship between institution and unit size and role diversity as the number of role set relationships maintained by home economics unit ad- ministrators. H8: Research Hypothesis: Home economics unit administra- tors of large units and in large institutions maintain more role set relationships than those in smaller ones. Efforts to determine the existence of a relationship between size of department/unit and institution and role diversity as the number of role set relationships main- tained by department administrators were aborted due to inconclusive data as explained in the discussion of hypoth- esis 4. Therefore, the null hypothesis remains untested and is necessarily accepted as stated. Hypothesis 9 HO: There is no relationship between institution and de- partment size and role diversity as the frequency of interaction with role set relationships maintained by home economics administrators. H9: Research Hypothesis: Home economics department/unit administrators of large departments/units and in large institutions will interact more frequently with role set relationships than those in smaller ones. Data already compiled in Table 23 were used to ex- amine this hypothesis. Role sets reflecting high fre- quencies of interaction (those with mean frequency inter- action scores of 3.00+) were analyzed to determine the size of the departments/units and institutions represented by those indicating such levels of interaction. This was achieved through the construction of the mean frequency of interaction scores exhibited in Table 23. The results 88 suggest that there is a positive relationship between de- partment and institution size and the frequency of inter- action with role set relationships. To test this, Spear- man and Kendall correlation coefficients were computed and two-tailed tests of significance applied. The results (.162 level of significance) provided no support at the p < .05 level or less for a relationship between these variables, and the null hypothesis was, therefore, accepted. Summary and Discussion Impetus for this investigation was received from Miles (1976) who suggested that, while a number of studies in- volving job-induced tension and anxiety and the propensity to leave the organization have been pursued and operational definitions and measurements for certain theoretical con- cepts reported, more needed to be done to relate these occurrences to specific organizational roles and to explain them on the basis of role requirements imposed on role in- cumbents. In view of this and other reports which docu- ment the complexities of the specific roles of higher edu- cation department/unit administrators and the posture of professionals regarding this position, this investigation concentrated on the relationship of demographic character- istics and structural-organizational prOperties and role strain among home economics department/unit administrators. 89 The Snoek study (1966) explored the theoretical con- cept of role strain, the felt difficulty of fulfilling multiple role demands, as a dependent variable of role set diversity, the requirement to maintain relationships with a wide variety of individuals in complementary roles, and organizational size. The Job Related Tension Index was used as an indicator of role strain and for the collection of data from a national sample of salary and wage workers. The results of the Snoek study supported the hypothesis that role strain will be more common in jobs requiring the individual to maintain a highly diversified set of role relationships and that role strain in more common in large than is small organizations. He also reported that high role strain was more prevalent among men, among those younger in age, among those with higher educations, and among those with supervisory responsibilities. A survey of literature on higher education administra- tors revealed that, although some studies have addressed the population of department/unit administrators, there is an absence of studies on the status and outcomes of indi- viduals in this role position and the significance of organizational processes and structures as factors of stress. This not only adequately describes the situation of most disciplines, but is especially relevant to that of home economics. Bearing this in mind, the objectives of the study were: (1) to identify factors in the educational and professional backgrounds of home economics department/ 90 unit administrators which may predict role strain; (2) to explore conditions and procedures relevant to the appoint- ment, operation, and evaluation of home economics depart- ment/unit administrators which may influence role strain; (3) to develop a suitable instrument for use in determining the degree of role strain produced by certain conditions under which home economics department/unit administrators work; (4) to identify the inventory of the role set rela- tionships maintained by home economics department/unit administrators; (5) to determine the extent to which each role set relationship(s) and cluster of role set relation- ships contribute to the role strain of home economics department/unit administrators; and (6) to determine which role set relationships and clusters of role set relation- ships demand the least and most amount of time. In order to achieve these objectives, the Job Related Tension Index, as used in the Snoek study, was modified to accommodate the population of this study and was used in the development of the research instrument. A second part, consisting of an inventory of forty- six role set relationships, was constructed using ideas from Litherland (1975) and others and was added along with a section soliciting information about the personal and professional backgrounds of participants and the opera- tional procedures of the settings in which they work. A panel of experts with experience in home economics depart- ment/unit administration was used to evaluate the 91 instrument proposed for this study. Following their sug- gestions, the instrument was revised to meet their stan- dards and resulted in the instrument used in this study. All U. S. land grant institutions (excluding Michigan State University), including those in the American terri- tories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, were surveyed to identify the population for this study. This resulted in the identification of one hundred and forty home economics department/unit administrators to whom questionnaires were mailed. Of the one hundred and forty questionnaires mailed, a total of ninety-eight (70%) were returned. Nine (6%) of those returned were ineligible for inclusion in the study, which resulted in a total research sample of eighty-nine participants representing sixty-four percent of the total number approached. Codes were assigned for each item of the research instrument and a code book was developed for the transfor- mation of data for computer application. The responses of all eighty-nine subjects were coded onto key punch cards and verified for accuracy. Frequency distribution tables were established to stratify responses as a first step toward the examination of the relationship of selected variables. Chi-Square, and Kendall and Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients were chosen as the methods for testing the null hypotheses, with p < .05 as the alpha level for rejection. Findings regarding demographic vari- ables and role strain among home economics department/unit 92 administrators suggest that high role strain was experienced more often by male department/unit administrators, by those older in age, by those whose content areas of terminal degree conferment and content areas of administrative appointment was incongruent, and by those without formal educations for administration. However, statistical analysis of these findings did not refute the hypothesis of no relationship among sex identity, age, and education (operationally defined as the attainment of the terminal degree), congruency of content area of terminal degree conferment and administrative appointment, formal education for administration, and the degree of role strain experienced by home economics department/unit administrators. The relationship between role diversity, as the number of role set relationships maintained by home economics department/unit administrators, and role strain could not be examined due to the lack of sufficient data. Conse- quently, the hypothesis of no relationship between this aspect of role diversity and the degree of role strain experienced by home economics department/unit administrators remained untested. Efforts to examine the relationship between role diversity, as the frequency of interaction with role set relationships, were continued using Chi-Square analysis. Chi-Square values were computed for all of the forty-six role sets, with seven previously identified (by frequency and percentage of response) as correlates of high role 93 strain. The role sets in this group included "Dean or Chief Administrator," "Prospective Students and Visitors from other Institutions," "Administrators of Other Depart- ments or Academic Units in Home Economics," "Departmental Faculty," "Clerical-Technical Service Personnel," "Depart- ment and/or College Committees," and "Cooperative Extension and Agricultural Experimental Station Personnel." Using percentages, Cooperative Extension and Agricul- tural Experiment Station Personnel excelled as the role set with which the greatest number of those of high strain reported a high frequency of interaction. However, since none of the Chi-Square values fell within the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis of no relationship be- tween the frequency of interaction with role-set relation- ships and the degree of role strain experienced by home economics department/unit administrators was accepted. Additional analyses were conducted to determine if a rela- tionship existed between the frequency of interaction with clusters of role set relationships and the degree of role strain. Of the five clusters used in grouping the role set relationship, the Faculty-Staff category showed the strongest correlation to high role strain, and External Personnel the least. Chi-Square calculations for each cluster were obtained to test the possibility of a signifi- cant relationship, but none were deemed significant. Data on the extent to which time is spent meeting the demands of role set relationships were collected to verify 94 a relationship between time commitment and role strain. A frequency count of responses to this research item was con- ducted to determine the mean score for the amount of time committed to each role set. From the results, "Department and/or College Committees" and "Legal Personnel" role sets were shown to receive the most and least amounts of admin- istrator time, respectively. Using the mean score of 3.00 or more, five role sets were identified as representative of high time commitment. However, when cross-tabulated to determine the strain level of those reporting this degree of time commitment, only three measured up to the thirty- five percent or more population response rate necessary to be considered a correlate of high role strain. Those correlating with high strain include "Department and/or College Committees," "Affirmative Action and/or Collective Bargaining Unit Personnel," and "All-University Committees." Chi-Square calculations for each of these proved insignifi- cant in value, which justified acceptance of the null hypothesis of no relationship between time commitment and the degree of role strain experienced by home economics department/unit administrators. In examining the degree of role strain experienced by home economics department/unit administrators of different sized departments/units and institutions, a positive cor- relation was found to exist between institution and depart- ment size. A frequency count of responses to each of six categories of institutional size was conducted and the 95 results of these findings were analyzed for strain level identity in order to determine the association between size of the department/unit and institution and role strain. It was shown that high role strain is more preva- lent among department/unit administrators in institutions with total student populations of 14,001 to 17,000 and a corresponding average size department of two hundred and eighty-three majors. These findings plus the high preva- lence of low role strain among administrators in institu- tions of 5,001 to 8,000 students and an average of one hundred forty-eight departmental majors suggests a tendency toward a positive relationship between the variables of size and degree of role strain. The significance of this relationship was not statistically tested due to the smallness of the sub-sample group from which data for this observation were drawn. Therefore, the hypothesis remains untested as stated in null form. Exploration of the relationship between institution and department/unit size and role diversity as the number of role set relationships maintained was considered in this investigation, but was discontinued based on the finding that all subjects maintained relationships with forty-two of the forty-six role sets inventoried. This, of course, provided an unsound basis for comparative analysis and resultant findings of pertinence of the test of the hypoth- esis. This, the hypothesis that there is no relationship between institution and department/unit size and role 96 diversity as the number of role set relationships main- tained by home economics department/unit administrators, remains to be tested. Defined also as the frequency of interaction with role set relationships, role diversity was examined as a depen- dent variable of institution and department/unit size. A review of relevant frequency tables already constructed pro- jected a positive relationship between these variables. Spearman and Kendall correlation coefficients, using two- tailed tests of significance, were administered but failed to support this projection. As a result, the null hypoth- esis of no relationship between role diversity as the frequency of interaction with role set relationships was accepted. CHAPTER V FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS The results of this study seem to suggest that certain work-related conditions are factors of tension for home economics department/unit administrators. Interference with the production of scholarly work, followed by the extent of the work load, the amount of work as a deterrent to the quality of it, the lack of sufficient numbers of support personnel, the lack of sufficient financial re— sources, imbalance between administrative and other work roles, and interference with personal and/or family life (in this rank order) were identified as resultant condi- tions which respondents consider most bothersome. As the paramount concern among administrators in this study, interference with the production of scholarly work was previously confirmed by Waltzer (1977) who concluded the need for administrative assistance so that adequate time could be devoted to scholarly endeavors. Other high ranked concerns which are believed to bear some relationship to this condition include the weight of work loads imposed on administrators and/or the lack of sufficient numbers of support personnel. Concerning these limitations and their perceived impact on the functions and effectiveness of de- partment administrators and deans, both Nicholson and 97 98 Litherland recommend the provision of administrative assistants to relieve administrators of certain routine tasks and responsibilities. In short, it can be said with some assurance that this study, like others which explore the functional roles of educational administrators imply a causal relationship between work overload and job tension or role strain. Data concerning sex group identity and degree of role strain gives the impression that high role strain is more prevalent among males than among females (twenty-five percent to eighteen percent). The serious consideration of this as an adequate description of the research sample is hampered by the following circumstances: of primary importance is the lack of significance when statistically tested, preceeded by the proportionately small number of males represented in this study--twenty-eight (32.2%) as compared to fifty-nine (67.8%) females--in relation to the probability of a more equal distribution for legitimate comparison. Also, as reported, sixty-nine (79.33%) of the total population are distributed between the categories of low and medium role strain, with only eighteen (20.67%) remaining in the high strain group. Even more important is the fact that, within the sub-sample groups of male and female, those reported as medium strain alone represent fifty-two (60%) of the entire study sample. In the opinion of the researcher, this provides sufficient reason to avoid any definitive conclusion about the degree of role strain attributed to gender. Nevertheless, 99 these findings concur with those of Snoek (1961) who ob- served the tendency for high strain to be more common among males than among females. In rationalizing this, he attributed it to the fact that the jobs held by males were more likely to involve role set diversification and super— visory responsibility. In the research hypothesis, it was assumed that male home economics department/unit administra- tors would experience higher degrees of role strain than females. This, however, was not based on Snoek's finding, but on the fact that men are now taking a more active role and are assuming more responsibilities in a professional field historically dominated by females, and that tension could be a function of their relatively new statuses. Statistical test of data pertaining to age and degree of role strain provided no support for a significant rela- tionship between these variables. One finding considered noteworthly is the fact that among the eighteen subjects in the second-youngest sub-sample age group of 31-40 years, only one case of high strain was identified in comparison to thirteen medium strain cases and four low strain cases. In proportion to the total sample of eighty-nine, this sub-sam- ple is representative of 20.2%, or one-fifth of all included in this study. These data tend to run counter to findings by Snoek in which high tension prevailed most often among those younger. The question of a relationship between role strain and the attainment of the terminal degree is of special 100 interest to this discussion because of its function as an important credential for employment in most areas of higher education. The assumption was made that home economics department/unit administrators who have attained the termi- nal degree will experience lower role strain. Presumably those who have completed this phase of professional devel- opment are not likely to be cast in the dual roles of stu- dent and professional, nor are they likely to suffer the anxieties of having to "measure up" for reasons of job security. Other possibilities for consideration were that the additional preparation received while pursuing the terminal degree would afford specific knowledge and skills which complement the subjects' professional roles. Since all but two in the study sample had attained the terminal degree, the relationship of this variable to role strain could not be examined. Although the Snoek report of high tension as a more common characteristic among college- educated subjects than those with lower levels of education gained no support from this investigation, the parallel be- tween the function and impact of a college degree in the work world of business and industry and the terminal degree in higher education, gives the hypothesized relationship some validity. As explained in the findings section of this research report, data relevant to the analysis of a possible rela- tionship between role strain and role diversity as the number of role set relationships maintained were deemed 101 inconclusive. It is the opinion of the researcher that this development is due, perhaps, to the basic design of that section of the research instrument used to solicit in- formation, the limited size of the study population, and/or the homogeneity of land grant institutions as the academic setting of the population to which this study is confined. In regard to role diversity as the frequency of inter- action with role set relationships and the relationship of role strain to clusters of role sets, it seemed significant that while the cluster of "Student Personnel" shows the second highest rate of frequency of interaction, it also shows the least positive correlation with high role strain than any other cluster. This finding is supportive of Litherland's, in which student affairs and activities were not concluded as functions of overriding concern for deans. Also to be mentioned is the fact that in both this study and in Litherland's, the role set cluster of "Faculty-Staff" is identified as the group with which department/unit adminis- trators interact most frequently and with which deans of home economics are most frequently involved. In this study the role set clusters of "Institutional Personnel" and "External Personnel," the role sets of "Prospective Students and Visitors from Other Institutions," respectively, were the only ones found to correlate positively with high role strain. To account for this, it is speculated that the nature of demands made by role set relationships is, perhaps, 102 a more significant factor than frequency of interaction or that there is, at least, a correlation between the two. Further scrutiny of findings about time commitment and role strain reveal that out of a total of forty-six role set relationships, "Departmental and/or College Committees," and "All-University Committees" were the only sets that showed a high correlation between frequency of interaction and time commitment. This projects the need for further investigation, since many other role sets showed either high frequency of interaction or a high degree of time commit- ment, but no correlation between these variables. In terms of role diversity as the number of role set relationships maintained, not enough data were available to accommodate preliminary analysis; therefore, the relationship Of this aspect of role diversity and time commitment was not considered. The possible relationship of time commitment and size of the institution and department/unit, although not hypoth- esized, was explored using compiled data showing role sets of high frequency of interaction (see Table 33). Following this, additional analysis to determine how participants in each sized institution responded were conducted. Table 33 further shows no obvious pattern of time commitment to any role sets. This evoked the proposition of no relationship between the extent to which time is spent meeting the de- mands of role set relationships and the size of the insti- tution and department/unit. .mucoeouumcw mnu mo oco :« coaumfiu0mcfl mo woman mowmmfia oco mo omomomo mmuz no woman mum monomflm Hmuoam 103 NOON mm o.NN 8N o.oa m o.NN NH o.vN NN o.ON NH mqaaoe .mm .mqmm mm dqml «I .quI ml mama NI dqml MI Duos No Hoo.ON NH o.m a o.H N o.N N o.m s o.N N ooo.0N I Noo.NN NH o.m m o.N N o.N N o.m m o.N N ooo.sa I Noo.aa a o.H H 0.0 o o.N N o.N N o.N H ooo.¢a I Noo.HN a o.N N o.N N o.N N o.N N o.N N ooo.NN I Noo.m 0N o.m a o.N N o.o o o.N N o.m N ooo.m I Noo.m s o.N N o.o o o.o o o.H N o.N N ooo.m I Noo.N o o o o o ooo.N Amos: 2 muommumo mNfim cofluoufiumcH Ouflm cofiusuflumcH OB cofiumamm OH ucmEuHEEOU OEHB How +oo.~ mo OHOOm com: d mafiumowch mumm maom "mQNAOOONDOHDm pom maom panama nmflm mm OHQMB 104 Limitations of the Study It is necessary that the researcher identify and explain the limitations of this investigation. These limi- tations are described, at least in partial detail, to pro- vide the reader with a clear understanding of the conditions which govern the application of results. The scope of this study is, in itself, a testimony to its many limitations. Essentially, and because it is con- fined to the specific population of home economics depart- ment/unit administrators in land grant institutions, the results reported are necessarily considered inapplicable to any other group in any other setting. Concentration on the province of the professional role of the home economics department/unit administrator negates the effectual con- sideration of other roles in which participants may be cast simultaneously and which may influence professional role performance. Taken as a single attribute in a personal context, the variable role strain is used to indicate perceived rather than actual patterns of difficulty which, of course, may vary from those revealed by observation or other formal methods of evaluation. Another circumscription is the lack of consideration for the idiographic factors of personality structure, interpersonal competence, and repertoire of life experiences as influences which may affect administrators' perceptions and/or endurances of strain. Further, the index used to measure role strain was limited to the 105 inclusion of items phrased in a "negative sense" which may have had a persuasive effect on those surveyed and which are acknowledged as an element of bias. From observation, it may be assumed that each item was specifically designed to allow indication of the respondent's personal feeling concerning a general work condition or circumstance. As a result, no provision was made for the reflection of specific conditions or circumstances which could bear a significant relationship to the responses given. The inventory of role sets included in Part II of the instrument should not be looked upon as either exhausive or representative of that which is normative. Rather, they should be viewed in the context of a singular attempt to- ward the systematic analysis of the department adminis- trator's interaction frame. At the same time, this study does not presume to make any inference as to the nature or extent of the obligations or work tasks involved in or resulting from such interaction. Other limitations associated with this study include the projection of a static relationship between the extent to which time is spent meeting the demands of role set relationships and the frequency of interaction with role sets. As presented, no consideration is given to the "fluctuating effect;" that is, the acclivity and descent of interaction with particular role sets which occur in conjunction with various activities and functions of operation. 106 Locus of control, accessibility to and use of support personnel are identified as important factors which are not considered in this investigation, but which definitely in- fluence both the number of role sets with which an adminis- trator interacts and the associated frequency of inter- action. In this study, the variable of education is, by defi- nition, restricted to a consideration of formal learning experiences and the attainment of an earned degree or valid certification. Unfortunately, neither the value nor the impact of informal educational experiences were considered in the treatment of this variable. This research does not purport to outline any criteria by which the role performance of department/unit adminis- trators may be judged, nor does it suggest answers to any problems which may exist. It is, however, presented with the intention that it will stimulate further inquiry into a subject characterized by a paucity of research and that this information can serve as a data base for future com- parative studies. Implications for Future Research It was the intent of this study to explore how the demographic characteristics of sex, age, education, role diversity and the structural properties of institutional and department/unit size relate to the role strain of home economics department/unit administrators. Although some 107 correlations between variables were found, most were not significant, which raises a number of questions and ideas for research leading to further exploration. For example, two of the more important questions raised by these findings are: To what extent is the instrument used in this study effective in the measurement of role strain and role set interaction among home economics de- partment/unit administrators? As used, this modification of the job related tension index and the role set inventory represents an initial application. Therefore it is recom- mended that they be used again to test their relia- bility and so that they may be refined as needed for use as effective data collection tools. Con- straints in the design of the present investiga- tion suggest additional research involving various type institutions of higher education to determine the extent to which the tension items of the JRTI and the inventory of role set relationships re- flect those other than home economics department/ unit administrators in land grant institutions. What other factors, personal, professional and/or organizational, are possible correlates of role strain? While the present investigation explored the corre- lation of sex, age, and education, and future role strain studies may be directed towards the isola- tion and examination of role expectations and 108 need-dispositions which, according to Sweitzer (1969), are necessary for understanding the behav- ior and interaction of specific role incumbents in a given institution. The interrelationship be- tween basic personality structure and social orien- tation, and role performance suggests further study for greater insight into the specific factors of personal values, standards, morale, role per- ception and orientation, and general and vocational philosophy as possible correlates of role strain. Other factors which may also impact role strain are competence, which entails the command of relevant knowledge and skills; the ability to communicate; the ability to identify, analyze, and solve prob- lems; the ability to make and evaluate decisions; and the abilities to influence and lead others. The interpersonal qualities of humor, flexibility, empathy, perceptiveness, and teamsmanship are also demanded of department/unit administrators and may logically be considered to bear some relationship to the degree of role strain experienced by home economics department/unit administrators. Analysis of the procedures concerning the selection, appointment, and evaluation of department/unit administra- tors indicates much diversity and an impressive number of situations in which incumbent administrators were uncertain and had to speculate about such matters. Upon this basis, 109 a more extensive study relating these results to adminis- trative role strain is suggested as an approach to the identification of particular factors which influence atti- tudes and interests in the focal role positions. In addition to role diversity and department/unit and institution size, as the organizational-structural factors included in this study, others not included should be ex- plored in order to determine their significance. By nature, the role of department/unit administrator is such that strain may be caused by a number of factors not included in this study. Thus, research should be di- rected towards the isolation and examination of particular work conditions, such as the availability of sufficient personnel to meet role demands (i.e., administrative assistants, clerical staff, faculty colleagues, and sub- ordinates), process and network of communication, hierar- chical structure and line Of authority, and class load and other task assignments and their relationships to conflict and role strain. In addition, surveys are needed to de- termine the extent to which ancillary programs are avail- able and used by home economics department/unit administra- tors and to identify others which are needed to help cope with increasing role demands. 110 Implications for the Field of Home EcOnomics The examination, discussion, and implications of issues peculiar to the role position of the home economics depart- ment/unit administrator stands out as the major observation of this study. In the basis of these study findings, it appears that if the position of department/unit administra- tor is to be successfully negotiated, a functional evalua- tion should be conducted to determine exactly what incum- bents in these positions are doing, to determine what is normative and should be done by incumbents, and to identify and justify the needs and goals toward which the department/ unit administrator should be working. This, of course, could best be achieved by the initiative of each institu- tion. However, because experience as proven differently, those professional organizations committed to the service of professionals may have to assume a more assertive role in meeting this end. Should this approach be taken, it should facilitate the development of a written document that conceptualizes what the position of home economics department/unit administrator encompasses in terms of per- formance tasks, personal and professional qualities, and characteristics. Home economics professional organizations should con— sider the development of an "idea depository," such as a data bank, think tank, or idea exchange for the collection and dissemination of information and techniques which have 111 been successfully employed in departmental-level adminis- tration or which are new and may prove successful. Data and information compiled by this method could be used for time studies and work load investigations which might help to alleviate the frustration of unrealistically imposed deadlines and over-assignments, to name a few. It is also recommended that home economics departments/ units and colleges and universities, in general, design or revise graduate curricula to include or place more emphasis on information, techniques, and skills needed at lower levels of higher education management, such as department administration. Specific offering suggested for inclusion should involve special training in conflict management and creative problem solving, and an exploration of the range of opportunities for which department/unit administrators qualify as the result of administrative experiences at the departmental level. In conclusion, it is believed that inefficiencies and/ or underdevelopments which may result from the strain of meeting administrative demands are counter to the develop- ment and maintenance of the most effective system of higher education and its ultimate role in providing the highest possible quality of life. Thus, it is hoped that the results of this study will effectively stimulate the recog- nition of the significance of the role of department/unit administrator. APPENDICES APPENDIX A REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING RESEARCH POPULATION REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING RESEARCH POPULATION October 10, 1977 Dear Administrator: Based on my interest in the administrative leadership of Home Economics, I have chosen the department chairperson as the subject of my doctoral research. I propose to in- vestigate the role strain of department Chairpersons and I solicit your help in identifying the population for this study. Thus, you and other administrators of land grant institutions are being contacted in an attempt to develOp an accurate list of persons currently serving in this capacity. Hopefully, you will find this request reasonable and will accommodate me in launching this study by com— pleting and returning the enclosed self-addressed card at your earliest convenience. Your time and effort shall be greatly appreciated and I look forward to your immediate response. Sincerely, Carolyn H. Ellis 1571 A Spartan Village Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48823 112 APPENDIX B RESPONSE CARD TO REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING RESEARCH POPULATION RESPONSE CARD TO REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING RESEARCH POPULATION HOME ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON INFORMATION INSTITUTION: OFFICIAL NAME OF HOME ECONOMICS UNIT (Please circle one): College School Div. or Dept. of Dept. Chairperson Address Bus. Phone 113 APPENDIX C REQUEST TO JURY FOR EVALUATION OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY - OFFICE OF THE DEAN EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 HUMAN ECOLOGY BUILDING February 3, 1978 Dear Allow me to apologize for interrupting your busy schedule and for adding to the number of requests that cross your desk. My interest in your position as a research topic makes me acutely aware of the many demands made of you as department administrator. As a doctoral candidate in the Department of Family Ecology, I am preparing a dissertation on the role strain of home economics department administrators in land-grant institu- tions. I have completed a preliminary draft of the re- search instrument and it is now ready for review by a jury of experts such as yourself. Your experience as a home economics department administra- tor in a land-grant institution identifies you as one whose judgment would be valuable to the evaluation of this research instrument and as one whose comments in general would add dimension to this study. Enclosed you will find the following items: (1) a state- ment of problem for this study which I include for your reference; (2) a draft of the 3-part instrument which in- cludes the Job Related Tension Index, the Demographic Data Survey and the Role Set Interaction Inventory; (3) an evaluation form which asks your response regarding such concerns as length of time required to complete the in- strument, comprehensiveness of response items, and clarity of directions and items. I ask that you be extremely critical of this instrument. Also, feel free to identify any items you feel should be changed, deleted or added. Please assist me by reviewing the enclosed materials and returning the packet by February 13, 1978, in the self- addressed envelope to: Carolyn Hill Ellis c/o Dr. Norma Bobbitt, Assistant Dean College of Human Ecology Rm. 7, Human Ecology Bldg. Michigan State University 114 APPENDIX D JURY EVALUATION FORM JURY EVALUATION FORM PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT YOU HAVE REVIEWED. What is your estimate of the amount of time involved in completing: a. Job Related Tension Index............. ....... b. Demographic and Institutional Data........... c. Role Set Interaction Inventory and d. Time Commitment.............................. Entire instrument............................ Were the directions for each section clear? Comment: What is your opinion of the comprehensiveness of the response items included in each section? a. Does the Job Related Tension Index reflect an accurate representation of concerns or strains that bother administrators in your position? Comment: Does the section on demographic and institutional data solicit sufficient information? Comment: Does the Role Set Interaction Inventory reflect an accurate and complete listing of role sets or groups of people with whom you interact in your function as department administrator? Comment: Were you able to interpret and use the rating systems employed? What suggestions do you make for improve— ment? a. Job Related Tension Index Comment: 115 116 b. Role Set Interaction Inventory and Time Commit- ment Comment: Were you personally or professionally offended by any of the information items included in the demographic and/or institutional data section? Comment: Does the instrument offer the participant sufficient opportunity for free expression and input? Comment: PLEASE ADD ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU CARE TO MAKE IN THE FOLLOWING SPACE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INTEREST. APPENDIX E RESEARCH INSTRUMENT RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ROLE STRAIN OF HOME ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATORS IN LAND GRANT INSTITUTIONS OFFICIAL TITLE OF RESPONDENT: NAME OF DEPARTMENT: DIRECTIONS PLEASE RETURN BY MARCH 31, 1978 ALL INFORMATION WILL BE HELD STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL This survey contains three parts. Part I is designed to measure a variety of difficulties in job performance, close to the conceptual meaning of role strain. Part II is designed to: (1) determine the diversity of role set interactions in your position as department ad- ministrator, (2) determine the relative extent to which you feel each role set requires your personal time during the course of a typical academic year. Part III is designed to gather personal information about you as an individual and as a professional administrator, and about the organizational setting in which you work. Please respond to each item and provide specific infor- mation where requested. Please complete the survey by filling in the appropriate response. After completion, please return the entire instrument in the self-addressed envelope to: (Mrs.) Carolyn H. Ellis 1571A Spartan Village Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48823 Any additional information you wish to provide will be most welcome. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me collect at (517) 355—3216 PLEASE RETURN BY MARCH 31. 1 78 117 118 PART I DIRECTIONS: Most administrators occasionally feel bothered by certain kinds of things prevalent in their work. From the following list of things that sometimes bother people in your position, please indicate how frequently you feel bothered by each of them. Under FREQUENCY OF BOTHER, place an "H: on the continuum (l-"very rare1y9 to 5-"very frequently") for each of the following job related items. I Am Bothered Very Very Rarely, Frequently 1. Feeling that you have too little 1 2 3 4 5 authority to carry out responsi- bilities assigned you. 2. Being unclear about the full scope of the responsibilities of your position. 3. Not knowing what opportunities for advancement or promotion exist for you within academia. 4. Feeling that you have too heavy a work load; one that you generally cannot complete in an ordinary workday. 5. Thinking that you'll not be able to satisfy the conflicting de- mands of various people with whom you work. 6. Feeling that you are weak in certain areas and not qualified to handle some of the demands of your position. 7. Not knowing how your performance is evaluated. 8. Not knowing what your immediate supervisor thinks about your performance. 9. Not knowing where or how to get information needed to carry out the various tasks of your posi- tion. 119 I Am Bothered Very Rarely Very Frequently 10. Having to make decisions that affect the lives of individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Feeling that you may not be liked and accepted by those with whom you work closely. 12. Feeling that you have little or no influence on your immediate superordinate's decisions and actions that affect you in your position. 13. Not knowing what the people you work with expect of you. 14. Thinking that the amount of work you have to do interferes with how well it gets done. 15. Feeling that you have to do things that are against your better judgment. 16. Feeling that the demands of your position tend to interfere with your personal and/or family life. 17. Feeling that the demands of your position tend to interfere with your participation in profes- sional activities. 18. Feeling that the demands of your position tend to interfere with your production of scholarly work. 19. Feeling that the demands of your position tend to interfere with your social and civic interests. 20. Feeling that you do not have sufficient financial resources to perform assigned tasks. 120 I Am Bothered Very Rarely Fre Very quentl 21. Feeling that you do not have sufficient support personnel to operate more efficiently and effectively. 1 2 3 4 5 22. Feeling that your depart- mental faculty do not express their professional needs. 23. Feeling that you do not have the means necessary to suffi- ciently motivate your depart- mental faculty. 24. Feeling that you do not have a reasonable balance between your administrative and other professional work roles. 121 PART II DIRECTIONS: Under FREQUENCY OF INTERACTION DURING ACADEMF IC YEAR, please indicate your estimate of how often you interact with the following groups or sets of people (N- never; R-rarely; S-sometimes; O-often; V-very often). Under TIME COMMITMENT DURING ACADEMIC YEAR, please indi- cate your opinion regarding the amount of personal time you spend meeting the demands of each of the following groups or sets of people (l-too little; 2-reasonable amount; 3-too much). FREQUENCY OF TIME INTERACTION COMMITMENT DURING DURING ACADEMIC YEAR ACADEMIC YEAR ZIEIIZIJ U) MI—‘II—‘I E BBC!) :13 IRE-'4 U >4H OHZE‘E qu-Iz r—IOE EHSmE m mgoigsges (I) E4 ROLESETS Z O B ‘n N R S O V 1 2 HOME ECONOMICS ADMINISTRA- TIVE PERSONNEL Dean or Chief Administrator of the home economics unit Administrator of Academic Affairs Research Administrator(s) Life-Long Education and/or Continuing Education Ad- ndnistrator Administrator of Alumni Services Administrator of Placement Services Administrator of Field Services Administrators of other departments or academic units in home economics Other ——r _..L__ FACULTY-STAFF Departmental Faculty Joint Faculty 122 Ei FREQUENCY OF TIME INTERACTION COMMITMENT DURING DURING ACADEMIC YEAR ACADEMIC YEAR 2mm 0') [fiI—II—I g E-IE'CD III [LIE-*4: U N I4 0 H 2:9 D mF-JBZ >4ng gggmw (D e m o <<3 O meme 0 9a :2 ROLE SETS Z ‘“ O E N, R,.§ O v 1 i; 3 Prospective Faculty New Faculty Clerical-Technical Services Personnel Departmental and/or College Committees Other STUDENT PERSONNEL Students enrolled in classes or other instruc- tional programs offered by the department Undergraduate Majors Graduate Majors Graduating or graduated students seeking advice and/or assistance Transfer Students Members of Student Organi- zations Student Representatives of Administrative and Ad- visory Committees Graduate Assistants and Work Study Personnel #_fi INSTITUTIONAL PERSONNEL Affirmative Action and/or Collective Bargaining Unit Personnel Life-Long Education and/or Continuing Education Personnel 123 L FREQUENCY OF TIME INTERACTION COMMITMENT DURING DURING ACADEMIC YEAR ACADEMIC YEAR LE REASONAB AMOUNT ROLE SETS 2 NEVER :9 RARELY m SOMETIMES o OFTEN < VERY OFTEN I-‘ TOO LITTLE w TOO MUCH N Student Affairs and Stu- dent Services Personnel Physical Plant Develop- ment and Maintenance Per- sonnel Personnel and Employee Relations Unit Members Academic Services Per- sonnel Information and Public Re- lations Personnel Cooperative Extension and Agricultural Experiment Station Personnel Central Administrators and Administrators of other academic units on campus Other EXTERNAL PERSONNEL College or Departmental Alumni and/or similar interest groups Legislative and Political Personnel Legal Personnel Public Media Personnel, Publishers and Producers of professional and other literature Grant and/or Foundation Personnel Business and Community Organizations and Leaders Prospective Students and Visitors from other Institutions 124 P: FREQUENCY OF TIME INTERACTION COMMITMENT DURING DURING ACADEMIC YEAR ACADEMIC YEAR zmm U) mag E E-‘E-‘m :1: a, 9+ a O M I4 0 lfi 259 D mABZ ACES Sgggzogoo a: é <3 h. g o 32% o ROLE SETS Z ‘0 0 B B N R gs O v 1 2 3 National, Regional, State or Local Home Economics Association Officers and/ or Committee Members Other National, Regional, State or Local Profession- al Organization Officers and/or Committee Members International Represen- tatives Other 125 PART III DIRECTIONS: Please respond to each item and provide specific information when requested. ALL INFORMATION WILL BE HELD STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. 1. Female 2. Male Present Age 1. 30 or under 3. 41 - 50 2. 31 - 4O 4. 51 - 6O 5. 61 or over Marital Status 1. Married 3. Single 2. Divorced 4. Widowed Number and age of children living at home (PLEASE INDICATE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN EACH AGE GROUP). 1. None 3. 6-10 years 2. 1-5 years 4. 11-15 years 5. 16 years or older Please indicate your educational background in the cate- gories below. Earned Major Field(s) Degree & Specialization Minor Held Within It Field(s) B.A. Home Economics Biology B S. Food Service Chemistry 3E Cert. (SPECIFY) 126 What is your academic rank? 1. Professor 3. Assistant Professor 2. Associate Professor 4. Instructor 5. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) Including this year, how many years of work experience do you have as an educational administrator? 1. 0-2 3. 6-10 5. 16 or more 2. 3-5 4. 11-15 Prior to assuming your present position, where you ever a department administrator? I. Yes (PLEASE SPECIFY) 2. No Was your immediate previous position in your present institution? 1. Yes 2. No What was the primary method used in selecting you as department administrator? 1. Election by the department faculty 2. Appointment by the administration 3. Election by the faculty with administrative approval 4. Appointment by the administration with faculty approval 5. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) At the time you assumed your present position, were you given a written description of the position? 1. Yes 2. No Do you have access to a written description of your position? 1. Yes 2. No 127 Your term as department administrator is for: 1. An indefinite period of time 2. A definite period of time (PLEASE SPECIFY) Is your position subject to evaluation periodically? 1. Yes 2. No a. How frequently? b. By whom? Including this year, how long have you been administrator of this department? 1. 0-2 years 3. 6-10 years 2. 3-5 years 4. ll-15 years 5. 16 or more What was the last position you held prior to becoming administrator of this department? JOB TITLE LENGTH OF TIME What was the Fall term 1977 total student enrollment in your entire institution (university)? _____1. under 2,000 _____5. 11,001-14,000 _____2. 2,001-5,000 _____6. 14,001-17,000 _____3. 5,001-8,000 _____7. 17,001-20,000 4. 8,001-11,000 8. 20,001 or larger What is the official name of the entire home economics unit at your institution? College of: School of: Division of: Department of: Other (PLEASE SPECIFY): 128 Which of the following degrees in home economics does your department offer? 1. Associate's 3. Master's 2. Bachelor's 4. Doctor's 5. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) Approximate number of full-time equivalent faculty in the department of which you are administrator? 1. 1-5 3. 11-15 5. 20 or more (PLEASE SPECIFY) 2. 6-10 4. 16-20 What was the total number of majors enrolled Fall term 1977 in your department? Bachelor's Master's Ph.D. ___1. under 40 ___1. under 10 ___1. under 5 ___2. 41-60 ___2. 11-20 ___2. 6-15 ___3. 61-100 ___3. 21-35 ___3. 16-25 ___4. 101-200 ___4. 36-50 ___4. 26-40 ___5. 201-300 ___5. 51-75 ___5. 41-55 ___6. 301—500 ___6. 76—100 ___6. 56-75 7. 501-700 7. 101-150 7. 76-100 8. 701 or more 8. 151 or more 8. 101 or more (PLEASE SPECIFY) (PLEASE SPECIFY) (PLEASE SPECIFY) APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF JURY COMMENTS AND CRITIQUES OF INSTRUMENT PROPOSAL .Hmmomoum ucwfi Isuumcw mo mmmm maven co Omummsw Ion COwumEHOMCH mo coflumOfiHmsp d .mmcfiammm HMHHEwm mommmumxm SOH£3 .ma Emufi cuwz Ommsouo Ucm uwcoom UOODHOCH on nasonm .Ommucm O>fludfluomwo O>fimsaocw pom Hmumcmm OHOE m mm omgmom Imam mmz =mmwa >HHEMH= Ou cmmom Imo mm =OMHH HOCOmumm= .moahpm IOMAH O>Humcuwuam mo Ommo on» ca O>Hmcmmmo uaamc0mnmm cmumvflmcoo =OMHH maflEmm= Damage mnu mo Om: .Ommunm Daemon: cam mumflumouamm OHOE 0 mm cmumommsm mm3 =Oocmsamcw o: no mauuflq= .mEmuuxm oou we =mocosamcfi on: wmmunm on» no OmD mcofiusuflumafl MOO» um pass mowfiocoow Deon mufluco man no mam: Hmfioflmmo may ma page u xv .mv EmDH w®>usm mumo OflnmwumOEoo I HH puma .mumOuODCH OH>HO tam Hmfloom usoz sue? whom Immune ou camp COADAmom H90» mo mpcmE -66 men Dan» mcHHmmE . Am .mc mm stH .Omea xaflamm H90» nuflz mummuwucw ou Ucmu cofiuflmom Room mo mocmEOw we» umnu mcflflmmm . In .av SH EmDH .cofiufimom Doom CH so» pommmm umnu mcofluom Cam mcoflmwomc m.mumcfltuo lummsw wumflcmafifl Moo» co mucosawcfl O: m>mn cos umnu mcflammm u AH .mv NH SmDH xmccH CmecmB omumawm Don I H unmm H mmsmwufluo Cam mucmEEOU cuoocou mo EODH .oz MOQEOZ know Admomomm BZMEDmBmZH m0 mmDOHBHmU 024 mBZmZZOU meb m0 wmHcs .mcwnommu Ho mcoHummHHno OCH Op O>HumHmH muwm OHOH HO consHocH mnu mumsucmoom no OUDHOGH HOCDHO Op OOmH> .AUOODHOCH IOH on CHOOSM muoucm>cH umm OHom Omonu HHmV I mumm mHom I AmIH .mv EmuH Nuoucw>cH COHDOOHODCH pom wHom I HHH puma HH .omctm on OHsonm mOHHpcsoo 6cm mommHHOO .AOOODHOCH womOHHm .mHoosOm Hosuo EOHH muouHmH> uocv Hmnuo I muwm OHom I Am .mv EwuH .>>mm£ um>mon .UwuuHEEOO DEHD OED mchuwocoo HHOHOHOUOE “ODOHOUOE “uanH “uanH mmcHHmmH m.uam©commmu mnu HO :oHu HHO> uucmEDHEEOO oc "mama UHzmo¢U¢ IOOHMOH mumsvmvm wHOE m w©H>OHQ wszDQ BZMSBHZEOU MZHH. ZOHaummMBZH ou OOMH>OH on pHsonm mwflnommumu ou meuomwumo wmcommmm I AMIH .mv EODH Nuoucm>cH COHuomHOucH umm OHom I HHH ummm mumepHno new mucofieoo cuoocoo Ho EOuH .Oz HOQEOZ Hugh 131 =.mtcmEm© Hmnuo HQ om mGHOO EOHH Cwucm>mum mum use muoE comm» Ou mxHH OHDO3 50> umsp ocHHmmm= :.mucOEuHEEOO DEHD umsuo Ho mmsmoon mucmosum Ou OHQMHHO>O mm on #0: Icmo so» awn» mcHHmmm= WOCDHOGH mEOuH HmcoHuHoom HOH mcoHummomsm mconcmu o: OODUOHQ O» ODEDmmm xmnu mufl mmuommmm O>HuHmom on» usonm umn3 II mcou :H m>Hummmc nonumu on on mocoe .AcmosHocH HommnHm Dose umeuo I Am .mc am SODH A.wmosHocA mmosu HHav I AmIH .mv mmIH mamDH xmocH concme owumHOm now I H unmm >H .mHODOHDMHCHEOM Ho mesmemo OEHD may mumuHucmsw EEHH onmoHumHDMHcHE©m HmcoHp IHpmHuIcoc Hmnuo Ho mucmauummmt OOHODMHCHEOM hausHOn Ho mocmEmc .AOOODHOGH may uUOHHOH mHmumDvmcm won on Omosu HHOV muom mHom I AmIH .mv EmuH Nuoucm>cH coHuomumucH umm mHom I HHH unmm mommHuHHu Dam mucmEEou cumocoo HO EODH .oz HOQEOS mush 132 =.0Hmomm .OOCmumHmmm Dawn HOCDO: Ho wuHCmHQEm OCH mCm OUH>mm mConwm OHQOOQ waxy ROCCO mumCHEHHO ou OOUHOBOH on UHCOCm mCm mqumsum mmumsmmno I Am .mv SUCH mwoqu>CH CoHuomHmuCH pom wHom I HHH unmm =.HuHsomH «COD DCOHm>Hwa DEHDIHHCH= mmwn ImCDMHCHEmm mum 50> COHCB mo DC05uHmm Ou COUCO3OH on UHCOCm =>uHComH IOU may CH >uHsomH Omumsww DEHDIHHCH Umumsvm OEHCIHHDH: mmmunm OCH mo HOQECC wumEonummd I Av .mv SUCH Nw>nsm mumo OHCmmHmOEOQ I HH unmm > .Ummmm on OHCOCm mOHCuCCOO CmHmHOH mCm .AUOUCHOCH mmmmHHm mCoHuCuHumCH HOCDO EOHH OHQOOC DOCV ROCCO I muwm OHom I Am .mv EODH mwoqu>CH COHuomCOuCH pom mHom I HHH unmm =m>HmmmmOOC waHmmH DH MH= mcwms mCOHuCuHumCH H50» CH hhma Cum» on CoHumEHOHCH mHCu HHH3 30m HHmm OOHHOHCO Onwz muommE >CmE 30m .mCHECmCOO mEHu mnuxm mcm mCOHuCuHumCH H30» DEOmHOCuOQ mm UODHHOMOO mmz muCOm HOH uCOeHHOHCw qumCum Hmuou whoa ICum HO HOQECC OCH>HO>CH mummsvom Euou HHmm OCH mH umCB I Ava .mv EOHH >O>H5m mama OHCmmmmOEmo I HH unmm mOCwHuHCU mcm muCOEEOO CHOOCOU HO EODH .Oz HOQEOE hush 133 .mOmCOHm OH CH COHC3 CHHB mEOuH COCuO HO HHHHmHOCOm OCH Op COHumHOH CH HHHOHHHOOQO OCH Ho OmCmOOn mOmsHoxO On OHCOCm .HHH mCm HH mpnmm Eoum mOHHHu O>OEOm .OCHO3 UmOH Ho COHOH>OHQ OCH mHo>m Op .UOHCHH On DOC mHCOCm muumm HCOECHHOCH .muCOmCommOH HO HHHHmHuCOmHHCOO OCH UCm OCHDHOH Com OCHHOmOU ONHmmCmEO on UOmCmHHmOH On OHCOCO CoHumEHOHCH .hummmOOOC OH uCOEuHmmOm Ho OEmC mCm HCOOCOQO IOM HO OHuHu CO CoHumEHOHCH HHCO .UH HOOCOOC Ou OOOC OC mH OHOCH Om CoHumEHOHCH OHCu ou mmOoom mmn Ho mmC mmmOCHm HOCHHO HOCOHmOmOm .muOmmCQ HOCOE =umom= OCm =mHmC= OumHCQHCmE on so: mcHsocx uoz I IN .mc Hm SODH xOmCH ConCOB OOumHOm non "H Dumm Ho OHDHH I ANIH .mv EODH xOmCH COHOCOB UOumHOm now I H Hnmm ACOHumuCOm IOHQ HO EOummmv mCoHDOOHHQ.I EOuH OCOCQOHOE OOHHHO HCOmCommOm Ho OEmz CoHuCuHumCH Ho OOOH©m< mCm OEmz I EOHH Hmmomonm HCOECHHOCH Ho Ommm OHHHB H> OOanDHHU mCm muCOEEOU CCOOCOU mo EOHH .oz HOQEOS HCCU 134 .HHH uhmm COHHOOm OHCC Ome OH OOmCmCHmOH OC CHCOCm uCOECCHmCH .ummH COHH ImECOHCH mHCu mCHDmOCvOC HC mO>HOm HOHHOC OC mmE COHDOOHHOO muma .MHO>HCQHHOOOU EOCH mCHmmmH IHOU mo HHHCOHHHHC OCH UCm .mOmO ICuommC COHmOmOH Op mmOCmOumHOHCC .OmCommOH OmmOHOOm Op HOCOOCOH HHOCC Ho OmsmOOC OOHOHOO OC OHCOCm .mHOumummOm OOumOCu CCm mOumHmmOm OC OHCOCm .EOHH OCO OuCH OOOBOHO OC Op quunom IEH 00» Ohm UO>HO>CH mCOHummHHCO >O>Csm mumo OHCmmHmOEOo "HH unmm I CvIH .mv EOUH NO>HCm mumo OHCmmHmoEOQ I HH unmm mmmAOm AdZOHmmmmOmm QZ¢ MHHEdm mbow megfimm mBUHAmZOU BZHfifimmfl BmOS OCH Ohm HMCZ muoumuumHCHE Imm uCOEpHmmOC mm OHOH H50» CH mam: mmm OB mmHH DOM QHDOB mmwzHmommm so» om COHuHmom CCOH OH O>HumHOH mmCHCu umCz mCoHumOCO COCCOICOQO I Am .mv EOHH .mOHuH>Huom mHHmHOCOm UCm HmCOHmmOHOCm HO COHHOCOOHQ OCm CoHummHOHuqu H50» CCHB OHOHHOHCH o» mCOu CoHuHmom H50» HO mUCmE IOm On» Dmnu mcHHOOC I Am .CC mm CODH mOmeuHHU UCm muCOEEOU CHOOCOU Ho EOuH Coz HOCEOE mush 135 .OOCOQOOD HOH O>HDOOHHO OHOE mm UODmOmmCm ODO3 =OHDDHH OOH: CCm =.OEHB H0 DCCOEd OHCmCOmmOm= =.COCz OOH: .CHmDDm OHOD OD ODmHOD HODDOC COHC3 Munoz DOCOCm O>HO>CH UHCOCO OOHHomODmO OwCommOm .HH Dumm OEOOOC OD QC OO>OE OC OHCOCO COHDOOm mHCB .>>mOC u>>mOC MHODmHO IOOE «ODmDOCOE “DCmHH “DCmHH MDO> HDCOEDHEEOO 0C umHODCO>CH COHDomHODCH DOm OHom "HHH Dumm I AmIH .CV EODH NWODCO>CH COHDomDODCH DOm OHom I HHH Dumm =.OEHB HO CDmCOH: mm mOmmDCm HHODmHHQ Ioummm ODOE OC OHCOO =OB\EODH= .UODmOCwOD OC DOC OHCOCO ©Cm HOCDO mHCD OD DCm>OHOD DOC =COHDmOOA UCm COHDCDHDOCH: .mODmOCOOD OC DOC OHCOCO mCm HCCDO mHCD OD DCm>OHOH DOC Oum EOCD mODCmDm DmCD mCOHDCDHDmCH OCD mCm COCDmO OHO3 MOODmOc COHCz CH DmOH OB\EOHH xcmm mew OHDHH Don COHDmOOH a COHDCDHDOCH mDCOEDDmmOC OHCD Ho HODmDD IOHCHEmm mCHEOOOC OD DOHDQ UHOC COHD IHmom DmmH OCD mm3 DmCz I Am .dv EODH BOHOC OOHDom IODmO OCD CH UCCouvxomC HmCOHDmOCOO HCOH ODmOHOCH OmmOHm I «H .mv EODH mOCmHDHDU mCm mDCOEEOU CDOOCOO HO EODH «oz DOCEOS HASH 136 .mHmmHmCm OCD ODmDHHHomH OD COCOOC mH mDOm OHOD Ho COHDmNHuomODmO OEom mDOm OHom I CmIH .CV SODH OOCwHDHDU mCm mDCOEEOU CDOOCOU Ho EODH Ooz DOCEOS muse APPENDIX G REQUEST FOR STUDY PARTICIPATION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY - OFFICE OF THE DEAN EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 HUMAN ECOLOGY BUILDING March 8, 1978 Dear Administrator: I am a doctoral candidate in the Department of Family Ecology, College of Human Ecology, Michigan State Univer- sity. Dr. Norma Bobbitt is directing my research and my committee members include: Dr. Margaret Bubolz, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci and Dr. Lawrence Lezotte. My interest in the department leadership role as a re- search topic makes me acutely aware of the many demands made of you as department administrator. However, I must call upon you to help me in completing the research com- ponent of my program. The research that I am conducting centers around the following two important findings. First, the literature suggests that as a consequence of role performance, de- partment administrators tend to encounter conflict of various forms and degrees which result in the experience of role strain. Secondly, most demands made of department administrators are based upon interaction and involvement with an increasing number of relationships which comple- ment the function of the instructional unit. Considering this, the enclosed survey is being distributed to you and other home economics department administrators in land-grant institutions. Hopefully, you will assist in contributing to research in the field by completing this entire instrument and re- turning it by March 31, 1978 in the self-addressed envelope provided. Any information provided will be held confidential and personalization will be avoided in any report of results. Also, all participants will receive a summary report of the study. Thank you for your support and assistance. Sincerely, Carolyn H. Ellis, Doctoral Candidate 137 APPENDIX H FOLLOW-UP REQUEST FOR STUDY PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP REQUEST FOR STUDY PARTICIPATION March 29, 1978 Dear Administrator: In early March I sent you a research packet on Role Strain of Home Economics Department Admin- istrators in Land-Grant Institutions. If you have returned the packet, I ask that you disre- gard this reminder and accept this note as an expression of my gratitude for your cooperation. If for some reason you have not yet returned the packet, please do so at your earliest conveniencé or by April 7, 1978. Your response is vital to the successful conclusion of my doctoral re- search and I shall be grateful for your time and support. Sincerely, Carolyn H. Ellis, Doctoral Candidate College of Human Ecology, Michigan State Univ. 138 APPENDIX I SURVEY POPULATION: DEPARTMENT NAMES AND ADDRESSES SURVEY POPULATION: DEPARTMENT NAMES AND ADDRESSES (Unit names and addresses, per returned instruments and information supplied by these institutions.) State Unit Name and Address of Population Alabama School of Home Economics, Auburn Univer- sity, Auburn, AL 36830 Alaska Department of Home Economics, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99701 Arizona School of Home Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 Arkansas Department of Home Economics, University of Arkansas-PB, Pine Bluff, AR 71601 California Department of Consumer Science and Housing, College of Home Economics, Cali- fornia State University, Long Beach, CA 90840 Colorado Department of Child Development and Family Relations, College of Home Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Department of Consumer Science and Housing, College of Home Economics, Ayles- worth Hall, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Department of Textiles and Clothing, Col- lege of Home Economics, Gifford Bldg., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Department of Occupational Therapy, Col- lege of Home Economics, Humanities Bldg., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, Gifford Bldg., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 139 140 State Unit Name and Address of Population Connecticut School of Home Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268 Delaware College of Home Economics, University of District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Delaware, Newark, DE 19712 Department of Home Economics, Delaware State College, Dupont Highway, Dover, DE 19901 Department of Home Economics, Federal City College, Washington, D.C. 20001 Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, University of Florida, 30001 McCarty Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 Division of Consumer Science & Technology, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL 32308 Division of Home Economics, Fort Valley State College, Fort Valley, GA 30602 Department of HMC, School of Home Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30601 Department of Child and Family Development, School of Home Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30601 Department of Clothing, Textiles and Interior Design, School of Home Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30601 Department of Foods and Nutrition, School of Home Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30601 Department of Home Economics, University of Guam, Agana, Guam 96910 Department of Food and Nutrition, Division of Human Resources and Development, Uni- versity of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 141 State Unit Name and Address of Population Hawaii (Con't.) Illinois Indiana Iowa Department of Human Development, Division of Human Resources Development, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 Department of Home Economics, College of TrOpical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 Department of Fashion Design, Textiles & Merchandising, Division of Human Resources Development, University of Hawaii, Hono- lulu, HI 96822 Department of Family and Consumer Eco- nomics, School of Human Resources and Family Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 Department of Foods and Nutrition, School of Human Resources and Family Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 Department of Human Development and Family Ecology, School of Human Resources and Family Studies, 210 Child DevelOpment Lab, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 Consumer Sciences and Retail, School of Consumer and Family Science, Purdue Uni- versity, West Lafayette, IN 47906 Restaurant, Hotel & Institutional Manage- ment, Stone Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906 Child Development and Family Studies, School of Consumer and Family Science, CDFS Bldg., Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906 Department of Foods and Nutrition, School of Consumer and Family Science, Stone Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906 Department of Applied Art, College of Home Economics, 215B MacKay, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 142 State Iowa (Con't.) Kansas Unit Name and Address of Population Department of Child Development, College of Home Economics, 101A CD Bldg., Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 Department of Food & Nutrition, College of Home Economics, 107 MacKay, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 Department of Family Development, College of Home Economics, 52A LeBaron, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 Department of Home Economics Education, College of Home Economics, 1668 LeBaron, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 Department of Institutional Management, College of Home Economics, 118 MacKay, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 Department of Textiles and Clothing, College of Home Economics, 140 LeBaron, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 Department of Foods and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, Justin Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 Department of Family & Child DevelOpment, College of Home Economics, Justin Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 Department of Family Economics, College of Home Economics, Justin Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 Department of Clothing, Textiles and In- terior Design, College of Home Economics, Justin Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 Department of Dietetics, Restaurant & Institutional Management, College of Home Economics, Justin Hall, Kansas State Uni- versity, Manhattan, KS 66506 143 State Unit Name and Address of Population Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Department of Human Environment and Design, College of Home Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 Department of Family Studies, College of Home Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 Department of Nutrition and Food Science, College of Home Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 Department of Home Economics, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601 Department of Food and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813 Department of Family Life, College of Home Economics, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813 School of Home Economics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Department of Clothing and Retailing, College of Home Economics, Southern Uni- versity, Baton Rouge, LA 70813 School of Human DevelOpment, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04473 Department of Family Management and Child DevelOpment, College of Human Ecology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 Department of Textiles and Consumer Eco- nomics, College of Human Ecology, Uni- versity of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 Department of Food, Nutrition and Institu- tion Administration, College of Human Ecology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 144 State Maryland (Con't.) Massachusetts Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Unit Name and Address of Population Department of Housing & Applied Design, College of Human Ecology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 Division of Home Economics, Skinner Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA Food Science and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108 Department of Textiles and Clothing, College of Home Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108 Center for Youth Development and Research, College of Home Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108 Department of Design, College of Home Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Department of Family Social Science, College of Home Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108 Department of Home Economics, Alcorn State University, Lorman, MS 39096 Department of Home Economics, Drawer HE, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762 Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources & Home Economics, 303 Daniel Hall, Lincoln University, Jefferson City, MO 65101 College of Home Economics, University of Missouri, 113 Gwynn Hall, Columbia, MO 65201 School of Home Economics, Montana State University, Herrich Hall, Bozeman, MT 59715 Department of Education and Family Res., College of Home Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB 68583 145 State Nebraska (Con't.) Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Unit Name and Address of POpulation Department of Foods and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB 68583 Human Development and Family, College of Home Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB 68583 Textiles, Clothing and Design, College of Home Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB 68583 School of Home Economics, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89508 Department of Home Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 Department of Home Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 Department of Home Economics, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Box 3470, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003 Department of Community Service Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 Department of Consumer Economics and Housing, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 Department of Human Development and Family Studies, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 Department of Nutritional Sciences, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 146 State North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Unit Name and Address of Population Department of Home Economics, North Caro- lina A&T University, Greensboro, NC 27411 Department of Clothing and Textiles, College of Home Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102 Department of Design, College of Home Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102 Department of Home Economics Education, College of Home Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102 Department of Child Development & Family Relations, College of Home Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102 Department of Home Management and Family Economics, College of Home Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102 Department of Food and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102 School of Home Economics, Ohio State Uni- versity, 235 Campbell, 1787 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210 Department of Hotel and Restaurant Adminis- tration, Division of Home Economics, Okla- homa State University, Stillwater, OK 74074 Department of Housing, Design & Consumer Services, Division of Home Economics, Okla- homa State University, Stillwater, OK 74074 Department of Clothing, Textile & Merchan- dizing, Division of Home Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74074 Department of Family Relations and Child Development, Division of Home Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74074 147 State Unit Name and Address of Population Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island Department of Food, Nutrition & Institu- tional Administration, Division of Home Economics, Oklahoma State University, Still- water, OK 74074 Department of Home Economics Education, Division of Home Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74074 Department of Home Economics, Langston Uni- versity, Jones Hall, P.O. Box 308, Langston, OK 73050 School of Home Economics, Oregon State Uni- versity, Corvallis, OR 97331 (Four ques- tionnaires were mailed to this address) Department of Individual & Family Studies, College of Human DevelOpment, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 Department of Clothing Studies, College of Human Development, Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, University Park, PA 16802 Department of Food Service & Housing Admin- istration, College of Human DevelOpment, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 Department of Nutrition, College of Human Development, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 Home Economics Education, College of Educa- tion, Pennsylvania State University, Uni- versity Park, PA 16802 School of Home Economics, College of Educa- tion, University of Puerto Rico, Box AX - Univ. of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, PR 00931 Department of Textiles & Clothing, College of Home Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881 Department of Child Development, College of Home Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881 148 State Rhode Island (Con't.) South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Unit Name and Address of Population Department of Home Management, College of Home Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881 Department of Home Economics Education, College of Home Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881 Department of Home Economics, Campus Box 2065, South Carolina State College, Orangeburg, SC 29117 Department of Textiles, Clothing & Interior Design, College of Home Economics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007 Department of Child DevelOpment & Family Relations, College of Home Economics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007 Department of Home Economics Education, College of Home Economics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007 Department of Home Economics, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN 37203 School of Home Economics, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX 77445 Department of Home Economics and Consumer Education, Family Life College, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84112 Department of Family & Human DevelOpment, Family Life College, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84112 Department of Nutrition & Food Science, Family Life College, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84112 Department of Early Childhood and Human Development, School of Home Economics, Uni- versity of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401 149 State Vermont (Con't.) Virgin Islands Virginia Washington Unit Name and Address of Population Department of Clothing, Textiles & Design, School of Home Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401 Department of Home Economics Education & Consumer Education, School of Home Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401 Department of Human Nutrition & Foods, School of Home Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401 Department of Housing & Residential Environ- ment, School of Home Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401 Division of Home Economics, College of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas, VI 00802 Department of Home Economics, Virginia State College, Box M, Virginia State College, Petersburg, VA 23803 Department of Management, Housing & Family DevelOpment, College of Home Economics, VPI and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Department of Clothing, Textiles & Related Art, College of Home Economics, VPI and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Department of Human Nutrition & Foods, College of Home Economics, VPI and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Department of Child & Family Studies, College of Home Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164 Department of Clothing, Interior Design & Textiles, College of Home Economics, Wash- ington State University, Pullman, WA 99164 Department of Foods, Nutrition & Institu- tional Management, College of Home Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164 150 State West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Unit Name and Address of Population Department of Family Resources, West Virginia University, 702 Allen Hall, Morgantown, WV 26506 Department of Home Economics Education, School of Family Resources & Consumer Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 Department of Home Economics Communication, School of Family Resources & Consumer Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 Department of Environment, Textiles & Design, School of Family Resources & Con- sumer Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 Department of Consumer Science, School of Family Resources & Consumer Sciences, Uni- versity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 Department of Child & Family Studies, School of Family Resources & Consumer Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 Division of Home Economics, University of Wyoming, University Station Box 3354, Laramie, WY 82071 APPENDIX J DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON N mm H O O O O H O O O HHOo HDHOOOO ON N O O ON H O O O N OH O HHco .eOO Hm>oumm¢ OO O mm H OO O OOH O OO O OH O HDHOOOO\3 .EO< Hm>oumm¢ OO O mm H ON H O O OO OH HO ON .SO«\3 HDHOOOH .azazHOCOO Co aomemz .n.nm .o.sm .O.Om .O.sm .O.Om .O.nm omszm OmmmOmo O O O O O O O O O O O O DOCDO\D0DOSCDOOH ON N O O ON H O O HH O H N .Oonm .DOOO O O mm H OH N O O OO O OH O .Ooum .ooOOO OO O HO N OO N OOH O OO OH OH ON HommOOoum HHOO Ozé 32354 O O O O O O OH H O O O N OO3OOH3 OH H O O O O O O. O O O H mmouo>HO OH O HO N O O mm H ON O OH OH OHOOHO OO O mm H OOH O mm H OO HN HO HH OOHHDOC OOHOHO HOHHOOE OOIHO OOIHO OOIHO OOIHO OOIHO OOIHO HOOOCO>mOm COHOOHOHszom OHIO OHIO OIO OHIHH OHIO OHIO .Osom OO mozmHOmOxm mo OOOOH Co .oz .>< OO O OOH O HO N HO N HO HN OO NH oz OO O O O OO H OO H OO HH OO ON mm» 302 zOHemHmOOmo OOO szOHmz OH OOOOOO OO O OOH O OO O HO N HO ON OO HN oz ON N O O ON H OO H OH O HO OH OOH .HOOO mo mzHH HO onHmHmOOmo OOO zmeHHmz OH OOmOOO O O HO N OO N OO H OH O O O oz OOH OH OO H OO O HO N OO ON HO OO OOH . onHHOom mo zOHHOOHO>m OHOOHOOO ON N HO N OO O O O OO OH ON O ODHOHOOO OO O OO H OO N OOH O OO OH OH HN ODHOHOOOOH .zHEOO OO Emma OOOOOO zH MOHOzHomoo ”8553 72mm zoOmmmmHSO 9am :oHDOHomoO moOOmOomm zdmoomm . AOHuzO HOuzO HOuzO HOuzO ANOuzO HOOuzO 153 OO O OOH O OO O HO N OH O OO ON .o.nm OO O O O OO N OO H NH ON OO NH «2 O O O O O O O O O O NH O HHoo 4O HHzO OOHsozoom mzom HO ommmmmo Ommmomo OH H O O OO N OO H OO NH HO OH oz OO O OOH O OO O HO N NO ON OO ON OOH onHOHHHOzH Hzmmmmm zH onOHOom OOOH>OOO OHNHomzzH eszHOOOOO OHIO OIO NIO OIO OIO OHIO Hzmmmmm mo .szom Omamw mo .Oz .>< OO O OOH O OO O OO H OH ON OO ON oz OO O O O OO N HO N OO O OO OH OOH .zHCOO .Hmmo O O4 mozmHmmmxm ODOH>mmm O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z OOCHOO zH OOHOzHOOOOO moeommHo ZOOO zOOmmmmHOOO o