ABSTRACT A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH IN A SMALL UNIVERSITY: AN EXPLORA TORY STUDY BY William Harold Garner Institutional research as a new and rapidly developing specialization in college administration lacks the literature, the theory, and the experience to provide guidelines for the establishment of a new office of institutional research. This study was designed as a systematic approach for establishing a research office in a small university. The objectives were: 1. To develop an appropriate operational philosophy for the institutional research function for Ohio Northern University. 2. To identify and mobilize the positive and supportive forces for institutional research from within the faculty, administration, and student body. William Harold Garner 3. To develop a means of identifying the needs for institutional research which exist on the campus and to determine appropriate priorities for their study. The procedure was to make the study asthe new Director of Institutional Research for Ohio Northern University. Initial steps included personal interviews with university officials, the develop- ment of an advisory committee, and reading and research in the institutional research field to develop an operational philosophy. Exploratory meetings were planned and held with each of the academic departments and administrative units of the university, and with Several student sample groups, where the new Director made a presentation on the nature, needs, and potential of the new office. A discussion period followed and the "Inventory for Institutional Research" was introduced and promoted. The Inventory obtained from the respondents personal information, attitudes and opinions toward institutional research, extensive suggestions for areas wherein institutional research might appropriately and advantageously be conducted at Ohio Northern University, and an inventory of research data and information already available. From the results of the Inventory, 15 of the most prominent suggestions for research were selected for the second survey where rank-order "Priorities for Institutional Research" were established. William Harold Garner The initial result of this study was an operational philosophy, stated in this definitional form: Institutional research is a centrally coordinated program of self-study within an institution, designed to systematically collect, analyze, evaluate, and interpret variegated forms of information as it relates to any pertinent aspect of the university operation, or its components, in order to provide the data base from which the institution may- make more efficient, effective, and educationally sound use of its resources to fulfill its avowed purpose. The exploratory meetings proved to be the main source of information on institutional research for the persons attending and the means for productive relationships and helpful communication between the new Director and the respective groups. The "Inventory for Institutional Research" provided an initial collection of suggestions for institutional research and the survey on "Priorities for Institutional Research" gave them a rank-order. Additional conclusions resulting from the study were: 1. . The development of an operational philosophy is a decided asset in the initial stages of establishing an office of institutional research. 2. The new research office tends to become functional as a service to various segments of the university in proportion to its freedom to develop direct relationship to those segments. William Harold Garner The personal attributes and behavioral patterns of the director of a new office of institutional research con- stitute an important resource for his. success and ac- ceptance in a small university. Exploratory meetings with sub-groups made a decidedly positive overall contribution to the understanding and acceptance of institutional research. The questionnaire had mixed but predominantly positive value as an instrument in providing priorities for and promoting institutional research. Respondents' personal opinions and expectations of institutional research were more related to their member- ship in a sub-group as student, faculty member, or administrator than any other variable. There were decided assets, both tangible and intangible, in having the new office underwritten by a federal grant. A SYSTEIWA'I‘IC APPROACH TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH IN A SMALL UNIVERSITY: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY BY William Harold Garner A THE SIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 DE DICA TION This study is dedicated to my wife rIina and my children, Stephen, David, and Terri, who, by direct encouragement and personal understanding, provided unlimited resources of creative motivation for the beginning, continuation, and completion of this experience of educational growth and development. ii AC KNO WLE DGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge the contribution of his advisory committee for their assistance in developing both a spirit and structure in which this study could be a practical and significant part of his larger educational experience. These persons were: Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, Dr. Van C. Johnson, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, and Dr. Ruth Hill Useem. Special tribute is given to Dr. Van C. Johnson who, serving as chairman of the committee, gave added personal interest and constructive counsel to make the study meaningful. iii "firvfi A?” l u: Hue: 'Tfi J . . In“? ‘L‘ U ‘-A N ; Pf‘r, ~n binaw'ye. O vi r el- .l I“ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...................... x Chapter I. THE PROBLEM .................... 1 Introduction ..................... 1 Statement of the Problem .............. 4 The Purpose of This Study ............. 13 Scope and Limitations of the Study ......... 14 Related Theory ................... 15 Definitions ...................... 20 An Overview of the Study .............. 24 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........... 25 General and Introductory Studies .......... 27 Historical Studies .................. 30 Descriptive Studies ................. 31 Specialized Studies ................. 33 Philosophical and Theoretical Studies ....... 34 Related Studies ................... 39 Summary ...................... 41 iv -.~-:! "I .u \. .li \. &f_ P. a!“ ban. ‘ «new: I,“ Chapter III. METHOD OF STUDY .................. The Case Population ................. The Procedure .................... The Instruments Employed ............. The Analysis ..................... Summary ....................... IV. THE FINDINGS: A REPORT AND ANALYSIS The Operational Philosophy ............. Findings from the Exploratory Meetings ...... Findings from the "Inventory for Institutional Research" ..................... Findings from the Survey on "Priorities for Institutional Research" .............. Summary ....................... V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............ Summary ....................... Conclusions ..................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ APPENDICES ......................... Appendix A -- Presentation to University Faculty - September 16, 1969 ................... Appendix B -- Outline of Presentation by Director of Institutional Research at Exploratory Meetings with Sub-groups at Ohio Northern University ........ Appendix C -- An Exploratory Session on Institutional Research ......................... V Page 48 48 5 1 5'7 60 ’7 2 7 4 '74 139 141 141 155 163 166 169 SIX ‘nh‘fi nut/3“ At1&.‘$ D .vufifi b k‘ nnfiAwi-L 9 npy’CJ' .X a ‘f‘ . Resea X mm .1 T. r. r C.» O nko$x n? DB“ 4 n . , “-v‘ .3 “Cull 7‘” UV .. Page Appendix D -- Inventory for Institutional Research . . . 171 Appendix E -- Follow-up Card for Inventory for Institutional Research ................ 180 Appendix F -- Cover Letter for Inventory for Institutional Research ................ 181 Appendix G —- Exploratory Meeting Evaluation ..... 182 Appendix H -- A Survey on Priorities for Institutional Research ....................... 183 Appendix I -- Cover Letter for Survey on "Priorities for Institutional Research" .............. 184 Appendix J -- A Field Test Report on "Inventory for Institutional Research" .............. 185 Appendix K -- Additional Tables of Research Data . . . 186 vi Table 1. Sum-me of In: Bela 2. Nature on In. CA3 Nature Meet 4- Percer Instit 5- Prima: NortlJ 6- Numbe Ohio Reta-t Numbe Held I A (link; Relatic to AC F 10. Acacia: 11' DegrEe Ct Soul‘ce & L Table 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Summary of Evaluative Ratings Given by Director of Institutional Research to Various Areas Related to Exploratory Meetings .' .......... Nature of Questions Raised in Exploratory Meetings ' on Institutional Research ............... Nature of Comments Offered in Exploratory Meetings on Institutional Research .......... Percentage of Response on "Inventory for Institutional Research" ................ Primary Relationship of Rewondents to Ohio Northern University ................. Number of Years Completed by Respondents at Ohio Northern University in Primary Relationship ...................... Number of Other Institutions Where Respondents Held a Similar Primary Relationship ........ Administrative Area Relationships by Administrative ReSpondents ............. Relationship of Faculty and Student Respondents to Academic Divisions or Colleges ......... Academic Rank of Faculty and Administrative ReSpondents ...................... Degree of Present Understanding of the Role and Function of Institutional Research .......... Source of Present Understanding of the Role and Function of Institutional Research .......... vii Page 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9O 91 92 94 l eat. Tar. s O 7. P" Table 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Relationship of Present Degree of Understanding of the Role and Function of Institutional Research With the Source of That Information ......... A Summary of the Hopes and Expectations Which Ohio Northern University Administrators, Faculty, and Students Have for the Function of Institutional Research ................ A Summary of the Reservations and Cautions Which Ohio Northern University Administrators, Faculty, and Students Have for the Function of Institutional Research ................ Distribution of Positive-Negative Index among Sub-groups of Ohio Northern University ...... Potential Value of Institutional Research as Seen by Sub-groups .................... Relationship of Potential Value of Institutional Research to the Positive-Negative Index of Respondents in Sub-groups at Ohio Northern University ...................... Relationship of Potential Value of Institutional Research to the Source and Degree of Understanding Held by Sub-groups ......... Expected Support and Cooperation for the Institutional Research Function for and by All Sub- groups .................... Expected Resistance for the Institutional Research Function for and by All Sub- groups ......... Suggestions by Ohio Northern University Administrators, Faculty, and Students for Institutional Research Studies ............ Average Number of Responses Given by Sub-groups by Category on the "Inventory for Institutional Research" ...................... Page 95 97 99 102 104 106 109 115 Table Page 24. Summary of Inventory of Current Data as Reported by Administrators and Faculty at Ohio Northern University ...................... 125 25. Response on Survey on "Priorities for Institutional Rewarch" ............... 129 26. Summary of Survey on "Priorities for Institutional Research" ...................... 131 27. Summary of Institutional Research Area Designations for Regular, Recurring Study or One-time, Occasional Study ............ 136 ix ngtre A at: n: 1. Angie. r “a.: L' \1. LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Anticipated Support or Resistance by Institutional Sub-groups for Institutional Research ........................ 68 37330 DUCT h“ Ins ~'. 1 ; :5. .ntegrai ; a“. Illy SCster' research" CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM INTRO DUC TION Institutional research is in its early stages of development as an integral function in the administration of colleges and universities. Only scattered examples of what today is referred to as "institutional research" were in existence in any formalized fashion before World War II. Until the post-war era, institutional research was largely informal, unstructured, and without conscious definition. In the last fifteen years, however, institutional research has evolved as a formalized function at an increasing rate. Rourke & 1 report that only 15 institutions had offices for institutional Brooks research in 1955, but by 1964 there were 115 such offices. Today, there are several hundred. 2 Institutional research has developed as a product of our times. A number of forces have converged to bring this new specialization 1Francis E. Rourke and Glenn E. Brooks, The Managerial Revolution in Higher Education (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins Press, 1966), p. 30. 2Based on a review of the titles of 731 members of the Association for Institutional Research in its 1969-70 Directory. 1 irziustry 'mt fiationel Pr do: could a one percent A s aspecialty l (graduates) ' faculties am accountabilit Ana ‘, ‘ me challerge 2 into being. For one, the place and principle of research as a societal function has reached general acceptance in our society. Business and industry invest from one percent1 to three percent2 of the Gross National Product in research and development; many feel that educa- tion could advantageously invest more than its current one-tenth of one percent into its own research interests. 3 A second force in the emergence of institutional research as a Specialty has been the pressure for colleges to increase their output (graduates) while still being confined to restrictions on their inputs of facilities and funds. A higher rate of efficiency and greater degree of accountability is being demanded of educational institutions. An additional force confronting colleges and universities is the challenge to justify their position as "gatekeeper" to the major professions and vocations in society. Thus, the question of the quality and legitimacy of higher education in general, and liberal education in particular, has created a pressure which has helped foster the move toward institutional research. A related force, which supports the evolution of institutional research, is the development of improved methods and techniques for 1Patricia c. Sexton, The American School: A Sociological Analysis (Englewood Clifis, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967), p. 108. 2Joseph Michaels, "Guidelines for the Establishment of an Office of Institutional Research and Development at Pasadena City College " (Los Angeles, California, 1966), p. 12. 3Sexton, op. cit. , p. 108 cgtitative 1 ::.e process: psychology" ne=~1rernen educational r the behavior; 3 quantitative and qualitative measurement of education and administra- tive processes. Earlier research in education was largely confined to what is known to many as "educational research" or "educational psychology" and research on the "nature of intelligence, " "testing and measurements, " and "learning theory. " But now, the concept of educational research has expanded to include a broader spectrum of the behavioral disciplines and their relationship to the educative process. Improved research methodology has developed from behavioral perspectives. Other forms of research and analysis which are in various stages of experimentation and development relate to the administration of colleges and universities. Systems, models, simu- lation, and computer-assisted techniques are currently among those in development and early use. The growing complexity of governing institutions of higher learning has contributed to the rise of institutional research. More and more, college and university administrations are being forced to base their decisions on hard fact instead of intuition. The system of administration -- based on the collegial authority of administrators, faculty, and to a growing extent, students -- requires that empirical facts and information be available as a data base for effective decision-making. One final force which, together with the rest has led to the development of institutional research as a product of our times, is the increasing emphasis on financial accountability being required by I ,. n r» .. A II I . . N w . . w . Al- . « or. .r q . . . t .. . p. . 1 YA . a. n. s. A n~ YA 5.4 .H,‘ w 1 A -_ tau r. ..a. a .l a \ . NW N; l V.” 2m e Av all n» H Mi Mb. .L 2* a... t2. .3 8 ma ,_ A T. 3 rl P W... H4 8 E . . . p : . « n1 .. l. h h ‘ . O :4 ,-., c nut l .«U. S t . a u . a. . n y n C h pi .olu : a 7g ell QM I ..t «A: E S ... l k y mi n . T C ....u C :h C. S r} «U . . Ll. . a 91 ab . . AJ. Q 4 r. 7.7. : . a o e m . fir « c .s. «b 12.. AJ w . . ., . 6 «ml .5 u | o. . 04H; AHV NHV -. Heel t. [61$ h_ t $.L. w FED Tu w“ e; rfi r...“ at. A; ~ “ MW 000 : Q Qw .1. MC. 4d. .n or or c . . . . . I l. Ante A T? o. 1 .r . T h a l , w“. W W. l 3.”. tr . S fi\.u n . n . Ff K. ...~ A w a c. A 4. Met Maw 4 foundations, state legislatures, the federal government, and the general publics and constituencies of our institutions. Cost- benefit analyses and cost-accounting procedures are increasingly expected. The institutional research function is instrumental in assisting in this kind of data collection and analysis. In many ways institutional research has evolved as a specialty in college administration to meet these needs and demands by our society. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM A number of problems exist within the field of institutional research as a result of its rapid development as a new specialization. In general there is a lack of definition for institutional research, its purpose, and role. There is an absence of a conceptual philosophy, an operational framework, or a body of knowledge. Institutional research struggles without uniform definitions of terms, units of measure, or methods for analysis. Its major professional organization (Association for Institutional Research) is only five years Old. 1 Its literature is sparse and suffers from being either too general or too Specific. As a profession institutional research has yet to "come of age. " "Institutional research is not yet sure of what it is or where 1The Association for Institutional Research was formed in 1965. it is going . Sawfly. ' ‘54. .M $oh‘b attempts to ‘1 siege 0? Ll 5 it is going . . . Like a new freshman, it is passing through a crisis of identity. "1 More specifically, several major problems and needs of institutional research come into focus when an individual institution attempts to establish an office of institutional research. Here the college or university is confronted with the need to develop its own guidelines for the establishment of its institutional research office. Even if the profession were more highly developed, and even if a body of knowledge and operational philosophy did exist, in the last analysis each institution faces a number of specific needs in inaugurating institutional research. These needs can be summarized in four parts: 1. To develop an appropriate operational philosophy for the institutional research function for that institution. 2. To identify and mobilize the positive and supportive forces on the campus for institutional research from Within the faculty, administrators, students, and others (and conversely, to reduce the negative forces which are identified). 3. To develop a means of identifying the needs for institutional research which exist on the campus and to determine some kind of priority for their study. lHenry Dyer, "Can Institutional Research Lead to a Science of Institutions?", The Educational Record, Fall, 1966, p. 453. a . ‘ v‘ 0 :L‘ .' 6.. ;.L‘lt.cn -I ”l.“ ‘:3 ".fl‘ CU‘QLVS Subn S} ‘1“77‘ “l" sex, I 41 ,,dat 1: Usually or 'H ‘nn 6: 1:;‘6‘ GL‘LOHS Yb; came Patter F 4 ‘ . :31. r016 01 Z 6 4. To incorporate the very empirical methods of analysis for its own operation and establishment which institutional research will be expected to offer to other operations within the college or university. AN APPROPRIATE OPERATIONAL PHILOSOPHY The scope of institutional research is as broad as an institution -- and beyond -- or as specific as a special area of interest. Studies such as Swanson's, l Moore's, 2 and Rourke & Brooks'3 have shown that institutional research has no single format -- organiza- tionally or philosophically. Programs range from having centralized operations with large staffs to those which are decentralized with a single staff member. "No two colleges or universities follow the same pattern for an institutional research operation, for the nature and role of the institution, not to mention the personality factors involved, necessitate wide variability. "4 For these and other reasons, 1Herbert L. Swanson, An Investigation of Institutional Research in the Junior Colleges of the United States (California: University of California, Los Angeles, 1965). 2Philip S. Moore, Report on Institutional Research and a Prcmosal for Its Organization at the University of Notre Dame (South Bend, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 1965, mimeographed). 3Rourke & Brooks, op. cit. 4Joe L. Saupe, Memo to a Newcomer to the Field of Institutional Research (a review prepared for the Association for Institutional Research, 1967), p. 1. d: [Linant p}: tttim will r. C) D (I) in (3 :3” g. (I ('1 t 7 Spraguel feels that we cannot even anticipate the emergence of any one dominant philosophy or pattern of organization. Instead, each insti- tution will need to formulate an operational philosophy for institutional research which is appropriate to its size, its nature, its goals, and its purposes -- a philosophy which "projects for a given institution the creative, dynamic Spirit of curiousity. "2 "The indigenous features of each institution must modify the model appropriately. "3 POSITIVE AND SUPPORTIVE FORCES Institutional research, to survive, must enjoy a wide range of support throughout the university or college. It must be able to draw together data from a number of sources and conduct its studies. It must have a means of communication and quality of relationship which will allow the results of studies to be accepted and used in the decision- making functions. 4 As Brumbaugh has noted: 1Hall T. Sprague, Institutional Research in the West. Report of a Survey of Institutional Self-Studies at Western Colleges and Universities (Boulder, Colorado: The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1959). 2Swanson, op. cit., p. 29. 3Lewis B. Mayhew, "Educational Research, Its Capabilities and Limitations, " College Entrance Examination Board, Research in Higher Education (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965), p. 7. 4W. Hugh Stickler, "The Expanding Role of Institutional Research in American Junior Colleges, " Junior College Journal, 31:548 (May 1961). Even t1“. grovisi;I acuity 2|- office c: splerdi ; resear: which tl' loer 5;. 51?;ort, it v I the College : V a; V b J 7* . . “min Instit ban ll 7‘ ~.::Jv ‘ ‘i‘ y e131" "we, {‘11: 8 Even though responsibility for institutional research is centralized, provision should be made for wide participation by members of the faculty and administration in planning and conducting projects. An office of institutional research cannot operate effectively in splendid isolation. Participation by the faculty in institutional research not only educates the faculty member to the issues with which the institution is confronted but also prepares him to con- sider sympathetically the implications of research findings. Stecklein has observed that this wide participation by both adminis- tration and faculty "can increase the flow of communication . . . as well as their communality of purpose. "2 Although institutional research needs to have a broad base of support, it will likely face considerable natural resistance from within the college or university. There are those who suSpect that research is an antithesis to teaching. 3 Some are defensive about evaluation or investigation of their jobs, whether they be administrators or faculty. Others are apprehensive about the addition of what appears to be another administrative office. Still others are suspicious of the whole concept of statistical analysis and its interpretations and have 'inisgiving{s] . . . about research that involves human behavior and human institutions. "4 Rourke & Brooks note that "resistance to these 1A. J. Brumbaugh, Research Designed to Improve Institutions of Higher Learning (Washington, D. C.: American Council on Educa- tion, 1960), p. 34. 2John E. Stecklein, "Institutional Research: Current Status and Future Requirements, " Current Issues in Higher Education (1962), p. 252. 3This may be especially likely in liberal arts colleges, with heavy emphasis on the faculty teaching function. 4Brumbaugh, op. cit., p. 33. fiuoo: Lhew Q 9 . O vrfi.‘ . ..lDL- 3 0 V'“ ‘mfflll... D 5.- an 9. L, i: . q. ,l vi ““5u5 L4 .rV¢. "v- 0.. 9 managerial techniques springs mostly from men who misunderstand the nature of modern administration or whose positions are threatened by a rational handling of educational resources. "1 "[A] major problem, then, centers on the fact that institutional research does not present a clear coherent picture of itself to the academic community. It means different things to different people. "2 One aspect of the problem which confronts the establishment of institutional research is the need to face these resistances realis- tically and eliminate as many of them as possible. Brumbaugh feels that a key to this is "the maintenance of free and open two-way channels of communication between the administration and the faculty. "3 Lorimer advises that one of the first steps in beginning institutional research "is to get to know the faculty. "4 Faculty involvement and support of institutional research is paramount. The value of their participation and the resulting impact of institutional research may be 5, 6 as much from the process as the results. lRourke & Brooks, op. cit., p. 2. 2Ernest L. Boyer, "The Impact of Institutional Research on the Academic Program" (Albany, New York: Office of University-wide Activity, State University of New York, 1967, mimeographed), pp. 21- 22. 3Brumbaugh, op. cit., p. 33. 4Margaret F. Lorimer, personal interview, July 16, 1969. 5Brumbaugh, op. ci ., p. 33. 6Paul L. Dressel, personal interview, June 13, 1969. " Blunt [Poll :1; how ru; merit-er IEC , thi leads ti. recogri; ‘ I V‘ Tf‘?‘ ‘ aha. 1 ".8 enema nee Indian IS C It 10 [For] no matter how persistent they may be in their prejudices or how ruggedly they may cling to their power of control, faculty members are not immune to the argument of factual evidence. In fact, the scholarly orientation of faculty members, which often leads them to distrust 'practical' research, also leads them to recognize that it is the essence of scholarship to look at facts before drawing conclusions. 1 A further aspect of the problem is the need for institutional research to be self-validating. Quite often, the decision to begin the institutional research operation is that of a few persons who see its potential need and value and provide for its inception. Or perhaps the function is called for as a condition or stipulation of a federal or state grant. Consequently, the establishment of the new office may not have had the full and deliberate support of the majority of the faculty or the administration. In such cases, the new function is under additional pressure to "prove itself" and justify its position. It is evident from the preceding discussion that in the establishment of an office of institutional research there is a need to make some survey and analysis of the psychological and sociological 2, 3 factors which exist on a campus. Such studies are eSpecially desirable because there is good reason to believe that environmental variables, by and large, are more lBrumbaugh, op. cit., p. 33. 2Brumbaugh, op. cit., p. 24. 3Cameron Fincher, Faculty Perceptions of the Research Environment (Athens, Georgia: Institute of Higher Education, University of Higher Education, University of Georgia, 1965), p. 3. imtmdxa; itiidentfj ‘ l eter ad o “I?!“ | I; ' lLuJL I 318:1 i WJI‘IC CHIVPL‘S ll amenable to change, or subject to direct manipulation, than the other relevant variables in the situation. One of the main aSpects of the problem in establishing a new office of institutional research is this need to survey the institutional climate and identify the positive and negative forces in order to eliminate the latter and develop the former in its support. THE NEEDS AND PRIORITIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ON THE CAMPUS Another fundamental facet of the problem in establishing a program of institutional research is the need to tailor the operation to the Specific needs and priorities which exist in a given institution. A number of authorities in the institutional research field recognize this need. Stickler's first principle, in a group of seven principles he gives as guidelines in "developing a program of institutional research, " is that: Institutional research must be planned. If this is 'research designed to improve institutions of higher learning, ' then crucial issues must be identified, priorities must be assigned, and research projects must be designed and conducted. In stressing the same need for planning, Stecklein emphasizes the need for a "broad perspective in identifying problems and areas of needed lIbid. 2W. Hugh Stickler, "The Role of Institutional Research in the 'Managerial Revolution in Higher Education': An Overview, " Introductory Papers on Institutional Research, ed. E. F. Schietinger (Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board, 1968), p. 11. rCh. a pv aD AC F s :t" 1| Df’fi - l‘t ml ‘ \u up 1 ‘OIZS “ AHA oEA rsity FPO 7 ”'1 MD A. ”a V ’\ LN H v “t ., ll "old I 9 Li V‘ ?“fi 9. “' I'd: O "W . Q ”A Mell .. V‘r ' hall. I F ,- vies . ‘h It sity KAI'FA at :1" 12 research. "1 Brumbaugh advocates "a comprehensive overview [to] identify the crucial issues, both immediate and long range. "2 Each collegiate institution presents different resources (human, physical, intellectual, and emotional), as well as its own agenda of needs to be studied by institutional research. There must be, therefore, some systematic means for identifying these needs and establishing an appropriate set of short-range and long-range goals and priorities for the conduct of institutional research at a given university or college. INCORPORATION OF THE PRINCIPLES AND METHODOLOGY OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CONDUCT OF ITS OWN OPERATION Any program of institutional research which attempts to collect data and make analyses to form the basis for enlightened decisions is under a built-in mandate to practice what it proclaims. It must, therefore, conceive, establish, and conduct its own operation in the same well-founded manner which it will suggest for others. It has been shown that the need which exists within a university or college which moves to establish an office of institutional research is the need to develop a conceptual philosophy which can be operationally applied; which is administratively sound; and which is lStecklein, op. cit., p. 251. 2Brumbaugh, op. cit., p. 34. l“. 110 i'lstitu VET: nu b V H so shell [1 u m-.~J stu go 13 related appropriately to the Specific nature and needs of the given institution of higher learning. THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY In View of the needs which exist within a small university for establishing an office of institutional research, the purpose of this study shall be to develop a systematic approach for the establishment of an office of institutional research in a small university. This pur- pose shall be fulfilled through meeting the following four Specific objectives which are in direct relationship to the general needs stated earlier: To develop an appropriate operational philosophy for the establishment of the institutional research function at Ohio Northern University, Ada, Ohio. To develop a positive identity and relationship with the faculty, the administration, and the student body of Ohio Northern University, to the end that institutional research may receive a maximum of support and a minimum of resistance for the establishment and conduct of its service. To develop a means of identifying the needs for institutional research which exist on the campus and to determine appropriate priorities for their study. SCOPE A}? SluDY N PIE. :1" establisl Uriversi-ty designed t: QECfiVe C: ‘ (‘4‘ u 6. Wine: ustra" 3"“ o ' K . y‘- x“ c . ‘te‘ «In-er: A h." h ‘ i‘ Mme: :r- ,1 14 4. To incorporate in the establishment of the office of institutional research at Ohio Northern University an approach and methodology which would be an exemplary illustration to the campus community of the nature of the research that the office will be employing in its campus operation. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY This study will be limited to the early stages of the process of establishing an office of institutional research at Ohio Northern University at Ada, Ohio. The study is an exploratory one and is designed to be empirical and descriptive in nature. It follows the directive of Griffiths who maintains that "researchers in educational administration should turn to the observational and away from the experimental methods of research. "1 In the study of administrative procedures, Griffiths adds: We need descriptions of the behavior of administrators and others as they work and live in their organizations. . . . The truth of the matter appears to be that we do not know enough about the variables in administrative behavior to know which Sre the dependent and which are the independent variables. 1Daniel E. Griffiths, Administrative Theory (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959), p. 35. 21bid., p. 34. With institut ainiristrati should be be. Du :ieselopment under stuck , linlta ions 2 analysis, Thi he testing 3; it may gene: developed. arghmfllthE’ oi . . he, like ; 0 . . 0t: researcl that thel Prgamz, mVeStic l “Fania ”it (13 M) 4, O ”K 15 With institutional research being such a new aSpect of the administrative process, it is felt that this type of study especially should be basically a descriptive one. Due to the personal involvement of the writer in the actual development and establishment of the office of institutional research under study, it is recognized that the study will reflect both the limitations and strengths which come from this type of subjective analysis. This study is not intended to be experimental in design nor to be testing Specific hypotheses in a highly statistical sense. However, it may generate some observations from which hypotheses may be developed. RELATED THEORY The field of institutional research has not developed to the point that it has a body of knowledge, a generally accepted philosophy, or given theory of its own. Doi comments after reviewing the writings of men like Parsons, Anderson, Millett, Goodman, and Kerr, that . other provocative works with implications for theory and research can be cited, but these should be sufficient to indicate that there does not yet exist a coherent theory of collegiate organization from which researchers might derive hypotheses for investigations. 1James I. Doi, "Organizations and Administration, Finance and Facilities," Review of Educational Research, Vol. XXXV, No. 4 (1965), p. 350. l A ‘uu ' 115mm... ahead: 5‘ ievsted its , empna: lI‘“titu‘. A 1011:“; 2; 0f role U. - .‘PV :7 “his 4~ «ficlLefi | arr ~ l N Uh \. L. 16 This conclusion has general support from other authorities in the field as well. 1’ 2’ 3 In 1964 a national convention of institutional researchers4 devoted its attention to "A Conceptual Framework for Institutional Research. " The proceedings of that conference, plus subsequent conferences and writings support the observation that to date the most that exists in the field of institutional research is a variety of untested assumptions, principles, and concepts which have not yet led to the development of coherent theory. 5 Viewed from the standpoint of its weak theoretical underpinnings, institutional research is clearly vulnerable to criticism. With its emphasis on ad hoc studies and its preoccupation with methodology, institutional research has not taken the time to develop a foundation of concept, hypothesis, and purpose adequate to the Sort of role it desires to play. While a void does exist in regard to theory unique to institutional research, there is a proximity of relationship between 1Richard E. Peterson, "An Overview of the Development of the Institutional Functioning Inventory" (Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1969, mimeographed). 2Philip H. Tyrrell, "Programming the Unknown: Guidelines for the Conduct of Institutional Research, " Basis for Decision, ed. L. J. Lins (Madison: Dembar Educational Research Services, 1963). 3Nevitt Sanford, "Research and Policy in Higher Education, " The American College, ed. Nevitt Sanford (New York: Wiley (it Sons, 1962), pp. 1, 009-10. 4Fourth Annual National Institutional Research Forum held at Hotel Leamington and the University of Minnesota, May 17-20, 1964. 5See page 24 for definition of the word "theory" as used here. 6Boyer, op. cit., p. 25. f u .t-m SE afl )fl 1" 93:13ilsn "e ”t. I“ . Y- u If I1 c ‘ 31 us 'v V‘ L. Q io l. Vual re 2t: lio l M $ ll #313. . z-r l.‘ osoohy :r “l’:+ y .x ._:I' T‘P‘ A VOW“ I 7‘ y . C ti “on be "A a; U at 5.4 7‘ ‘¢ Q ,eI‘a‘: a e ‘ D b have A: V‘vubl‘ ‘r’Q‘vvv ~~LW l7 institutional research and what is generally known as "administrative theory. " In administration we have a field of theory in its early stages of development. With the intimate relationship which insti- tutional research does, and must, have with the process of administration, it is reasonable to recognize that relationship in this study. The methodology for this study will demonstrate this relationship, since the methods are developed on principles of sound administrative theory as it relates to planning, communication, decision-making, reporting, resistance, role expectancies, and various personal needs and relationships. In fact, as the operational philosophy for institutional research is developed in this study, Special consideration will be given to the close and yet contrasting relationship between institutional research and the decision-making function in administration. Griffiths1 and Simon2 are among a number of significant administration theorists who feel that decision-making is the core of the administrative process. In this regard, the views of Griffiths are particularly germane. In his statement of a theory of administration, Griffiths gives four assumptions, one of which is: "The Specific function of administration is to develop and regulate the lGriffiths, op. cit., p. 75. 2Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: MacMillan, 1950), p. 1. 1'. adminis: decision- In Ii :5 he re t; ,1} mszitu - Re A I all. E... D. eva- CDMH 34> ) .OJ 2%” A,“ ‘ I v; -,.‘ ‘ u‘qe.‘ b v \A C, ,‘T‘tl I A “Mal re- k; ”taugr t 18 decision-making process in the most effective manner possible. "1 He later states that this "decision-making process is the central process in administration"2 and undertakes an extensive development of the decision-making function, outlining a number of steps for this process. It is here that we note the close relationship which decision-making has with institutional research. The steps Griffiths gives are these: Recognize, define, and limit the problem. Analyze and evaluate the problem. Establish criteria or standards by which solution will be evaluated or judged as acceptable and adequate to the need. Collect data. Formulate and select the preferred solution or solutions. Test them in advance. Put into effect the preferred solution. a. Program the solution. b. Control the activities in the program. c. Evaluate the results and the process. 9‘!“ 9’5“” .03 Institutional research has a very direct responsibility in Step Four -- "collect data" -- but an equally responsible, but less direct, relation- ship to the three steps Which precede: "(1) recognize, define, and limit the problem; (2) analyze and evaluate the problem; and (3) establish criteria or standards by which solution will be evaluated or judged as acceptable and adequate to the need. " Similarly, insti- tutional research would have a responsible and at least an indirect relationship to the part of Step Five, which advocates "test them in advance" and the function within Step Six to "evaluate the results and 1Griffiths, op. cit., p. 73. 2Ibid., p. 75. 3Ibid., p. 94. V J 4:; LV d “:3 “L-V V .‘3:L.,.5. ,. . '. ‘. N“: I . H Lc-Dvgb J5 r‘ ."r\ 7".” At ya» o t x l .0. ...- n. m. a . J. S .l S g u .c S f Ma. S 3 mm. C. . FL“ 3» ”my % . w u U WIN t 2% W“ 2% .Drw k 1: .ml tta 3 mi. .1 mt» : l C 1 low Co . n3 .M—rv. Am“ n ”J 7M“ m0 4“ Wm. RU a A I r J L. lbw SJ as C .0“. M IMFW “. ”Q M.‘ N “K b, LA (New Y . 19 the process. " Institutional research, with its interest in model- building and various means and modes of simulation, would have a fundamental interest in the advance testing function of Step Five. Likewise, the evaluation function of Step Six is of direct interest to institutional research. One further aSpect of administrative theory which has a direct bearing on this study of institutional research is the theory which relates to resistance and innovation. Theorists have generally recognized that academic communities are highly resistant to change. Argyris1 notes that organizations are defined by a pattern of variables tending toward stability and that changes would be resisted by the system. Machiavelli recognized the laws and principles of resistance and innovation operative in groups or individuals when he wrote: It should be kept in mind that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage than to introduce a new order of things, for the introducer has as his enemies all those who benefit from the old order axéd lukewarm defenders in those who would benefit from the new. Contemporary scholars of administration such as March & Simon, 3 1Chris Argyris, Executive Leadership (New York: Harper, 1953), p. 17. 2Niccolo' Machiavelli, The Prince, Translated and edited by Mark Musa (New York: St. Martins Press, 1964), pp. 43, 45. 3James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 1958). :roarizatic U .c ' m . .31; near, Studying a: aalsis w: q reatlonshij A. r , : O 5" C.“ WA“ vté‘h'v.‘ ‘AuC..L 20 1 2 Miles, and Rogers, have given considerable attention to the problems of innovation and resistance in educational institutions and organizations. Sower, 3 as a sociologist, recognizes the natural cycle of organizations to become obsolete and offers his "Normative Sponsor- ship Theory of Updating Organizations" as a means for analyzing and studying an organization in such a manner that the very process of analysis will sponsor a means of change and innovation. The relationship of institutional research as a change agent is under experimentation and exploration by Dressel4 as well. In the absence of a theoretical base in the field of institutional research itself, a foundation for this study is being associated with a number of related principles to be found in the theory of administration. DE F INITIONS For the purpose of this study, the following definitions of terms will be followed: 1M. B. Miles (ed. ), Innovation in Education (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964). 2E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation (New York: Free Press, 1962). 3Christopher Sower, "The Normative Sponsorship Theory of Updating Organizations " (East Lansing, Michigan, 1968, mimeographed). 4Paul L. Dressel, as described in a personal interview, June 13, 1969. A inch €182 te College . i: 4 :e 7.1360 lfn "V“;IVY “N:L Lumie- D‘L 21 Academic departments. -- This reference is a general one which refers to the formal disciplinary units, known as departments, in the College of Liberal Arts at Ohio Northern University, but will also be used inferentially to include the disciplinary groupings, by colleges, in the three professional colleges, namely: Engineering, Law, and Pharmacy. Administration. -- The group of persons whose chief responsibility is to conduct the administrative duties of the college or university within the guidelines established by the governing board of that institution, and for the realization of the general educational enterprise for which the institution is known. Administrative units or administrative areas. -- The natural grouping of administrators as organized for the following staff functions at Ohio Northern University: Academic Affairs (registrars, Director of Admissions, deans of the colleges, and Director of Institutional Research); Public Relations and Development; Library; Student Personnel; Finance and Business Affairs; President of the University and those persons directly responsible to him (Director of Religious Life and Assistant to the President). Discipline. -- Discipline is used here in the academic or professional sense, meaning a field of study. ”C lll|l I . L I m s t. c. . r . . . .. . n. 7 AC E “U... h»; .1 ml (WV. .1 ti; t} P o a l A: C» n t F .1 AL nu " ab .. a Db my.“ Aw IIS «.1. .. l ply. S e C e A: a» S .0 Ptv r e m n1 r r pl Us Jo wdd r 1 l e r h a 1 . e 3 e e e S e t it I so 49L . AV "Ml if a ‘l:‘ -.( 1| "l..- fib AV Ah.» PA. MN“ m mm .l dd. L . mm.“ 1W0 ya. u .wwu e1 PM .mC. ~ 3 vii. «nun m .. ”mu an.“ .aTJ. FL n (v a . L .2“ it he ml“ 22 Division/collgge. -- The College of Liberal Arts at Ohio Northern University is composed of five divisions: Fine Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Mathematics & Natural Sciences, and Teacher Education. The three professional colleges at Ohio Northern University have no such divisions, but by reason of Size, organization, and Specialization are in and of themselves comparable to the divisions of the College of Liberal Arts. Therefore, in this study "Division/ College " refers to the relationship among the five divisions of the College of Liberal Arts and each of the other three professional colleges in their entirety. Faculty. -- The members of the teaching staff at a college or university who are under contract for this purpose and who direct at least 50 percent of their professional activity toward the teaching function. Institution. -- In this study, unless otherwise noted, the reference to institution will be understood to refer to an institution of higher learning -- a college or university. Institutional research. -- A centrally coordinated program of self-study within an institution of higher education, designed to systematically collect, analyze, evaluate, and interpret variegated forms of information as they relate to any pertinent aSpect of the university operation, or its components; in order to provide the data base from which the institution may make more efficient, effective, and educationally sound use of its resources to fulfill its avowed purpose. 1 . q I Y'Y‘fi' “P. C V‘V.L&bil, nv I. - “Vt :V' '17:; a.n.ltlu 'L.‘ 'H-l \‘A .. ””"Vflhw L‘V‘ gt- ‘l‘ St‘ddy due ‘5‘ : o “L? in tit (ff) 23 Philosophy. -- A well-developed set of beliefs and values which, having logical consistency and relationship to reality, serve as a guide to one's awareness, understanding, and behavior. Primary relationship. 7- The fundamental relationship which an individual maintains with Ohio Northern University as an administrator, faculty member, or student. Random student sample. -- That portion of the student body chosen randomly to be a part of the sample for this study. Representative student sample. -- Those students from Ohio Northern University who were a part of the student sample for this study due to their "representativeness, " by reason of their member- ship in the Student Senate (the student government on campus), the Student Religious Council (representing all campus religious interest groups), or student representatives to various academic departments. Small university. -- Any institution of higher learning consisting of multiple colleges'which are officially organized as a university and the total enrollment of which does not exceed 5, 000 students. Students. -- Persons enrolled in the regular courses of instruction in the university whose major relationship to that university is one of learning and study. 0 : V , Y other lear. l‘llC-IZ‘LS, a. Q g 1 1 ”WWW/19, . cobdf... 5v ~ 1; TC lelowing a; Ti‘i’iew of ti v"Us." ESSENCES 24 Sub-groups. -- The groups within an academic community of higher learning, which follow the natural groupings we know as faculty, students, and administrators. Theory. -- "A set of assumptions from which a set of empirical laws (principles) may be derived. "1 AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY To fulfill the objectives of this study as outlined, the following approach shall be followed. In Chapter Two there will be a review of the literature in the field of institutional research. References will be given to any studies known to be related to this one. In Chapter Three, the methodology for this study will be described, giving a rationale and a detailed description of the approach and methodology used. Chapter Four will include a report of the findings and results of the study made. Chapter Five will present a summary and conclusions of the study. 1Griffiths, op. cit., p. 28. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The literature in the field of institutional research is quite limited. It has limitations of imp, in that it does not exist in any identifiable sense prior to World War II. It has limitations of depth and _sp_c_>pe, in that, to date, the literature consists predominantly of general articles, specialized studies, or proceedings of conferences. These conclusions are based on a comprehensive survey of The Education Index, 1 for all the years in which institutional research was carried as a classification;2 Dissertation Abstracts;3 Educational Administration Abstracts;4 Research Studies in Education5 (Phi Delta 1The Education Index, A cumulative subject index to a selected list of educational periodicals, proceedings, and yearbooks (New York: H. W. Wilson Company), Vols. XII-XIX (1959-69). 2Beginning in 1961. 3Dissertation Abstracts, The Humanities and Social Sciences (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1955-1969). 4Educational Administration Abstracts, Vols. I—IV (Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educational Administration, 1966- 69). 5Research Studies in Education,Vols. I-XIII (Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 1956-1969). 25 26 Kappa); Encyclopedia of Educational Research;1 Review of Educational Research2 (American Education Research Association); and Research in Education3 (Educational Resources Informational Center). A further indication of this dearth of literature in the field is the fact that, to date, there has not been a Single mainline book focusing on institutional research as a discipline. In addition a dissertation search by University Microfilms‘l produced only three dissertation studies5 on the subject. One of the more fruitful sources of current publications in the field is a library collection of the Michigan State University Institutional Research Offices. This library, funded predominantly by grants from the Esso Foundation and maintained for and by the Institutional Research staff, contains the most comprehensive and current publications to be found, but consists chiefly of pamphlets, monographs, and articles. 1Chester W. Harris (ed. ), Encyclgpedia of Educational Research, 3rd and 4th eds. (New York: MacMillan, 1960-69). 2Review of Educational Research, Vols. I-XXXIX (Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association, 1931-69). 3Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Research in Education, Vols. I-IV (Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Office of Education/Bureau of Research, 1966-69). 4University Microfilms (Ann Arbor, Michigan). 5Two of these (MacDonald and Michael) are reviewed later and a third was totally unrelated to this study. C l . .AI D u b! b e 10“ w vb'b oil'is' Theo '1 i. .M a st. : h l .m. H... a... e r a o - D“ g mm .W“ Mb. C 3.. a C #1 are mic, 0 DD . Ht. : V. VI. . WM.“ u!“ 91 o. .. I e a V s F U “v . Y1 c I“ (9 “I mm :m AC : .t : l 4m . l .. «D «Q To hi» hi \ .. not. “Iv 9t» U «W allv NW rt“ n V “9. “NW .7 V .- IN. 0. . cu. I A c n “MW NJ... 1%. 4% at v . «Jaw t WW. vi. ab h . ..~ .3 It L t u t a as :i. I .U «a :Cw .3 .. 27 This review of literature will follow these classifications and divisions: (1) General and Introductory Studies, (2) Historical Studies, (3) Descriptive Studies, (4) Specialized Studies, (5) Philosophical and Theoretical Studies, and (6) Other Related Studies. GENERAL AND INTRODUCTORY STUDIES Because it is a new discipline, a considerable amount of the writing in institutional research is quite general. A common theme is the establishment of an awareness of need, role, and function of the discipline. Much of the current literature has been the result of con- ventions, forums, and conferences held to explore and define the need and function of institutional research. The publication of these pro- ceedings has produced a group of papers which include, on one hand, introductory material and, on the other hand, papers on specialized topics within institutional research. Examples of these are the lectures on institutional research given at Stanford University, 1959, published as College Self-Study;l or the papers delivered at an "invitational con- ference on educational research" at Harvard in 1964, as Research in Higher Education;2 and The Role of Institutional Research in Planning:3 lRichard G. Axt and Hall T. Sprague (eds.), ColleggSelf- Study (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1959). 2College Entrance Examination Board, Research in Higher Education (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965). 3L. Joseph Lins (ed. ), The Role of Institutional Research in Planning, Proceedings of the Third Annual National Institutional Research Forum, McGregor Conference Center, Wayne State University (Madison, Wisconsin: Office of Institutional Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1963). 28 the proceedings of the Third Annual National Institutional Research Forum. This latter work attempts to relate the function of institutional research to a variety of applications in both large and small, public and private institutions, but like many others is still lacking in depth and any degree of coherence or comprehensiveness. Similarly, a collection of articles by Lins, in Basis for Decision, 1 contains several general articles on the subject and then gives an assortment of scattered articles on Specific areas of institutional study. Two publications stand out in the literature as the lone attempts to give some degree of comprehensiveness to the field. The first is a short monograph written by A. J. Brumbaugh, entitled Research Designed to Improve Institutions of Higher Learning. 2 This small volume was an answer to a request by the American Council on Education for a definitive and introductory work to synthesize the early interest being shown for institutional research in the late 1950's. Brumbaugh's work was to become a foundation and reference point for the field, even though it is simply and briefly written to illustrate, in behalf of institutional research, its need, its areas of Operation, organizational factors for its conduct, and a concluding word on its effect and impact. 1L. Joseph Lins (ed. ), Basis for Decision (Madison, Wisconsin: Dembar Educational Research Services, Inc. , 1963). ZBrumbaugh, op. cit. 29 The other volume, which has given a meaningful introduction to the larger field of institutional research, is Paul Dressel's Evaluation in Higher Education. 1 This work concentrates on the academic process and its multi-faceted nature and need for evaluation. Dressel's work perhaps has not been recognized generally as being directly related to institutional research; for in the early stages, institutional research has been more inclined to focus on non-academic interests such as facilities, finances, and environmental characteris- tics. Yet, Dressel's book must be seen as one which speaks comprehensively to the broader concerns in higher education, for which institutional research must likewise develop direct interest, if it is to validate itself as a discipline. Other works which stand as a general introduction to the field of institutional research and its need and function include Ruml and 2 Morrison's Memo to a College Trustee and McGrath's Memo to a College Faculty_Member. 3 These books each seek to demonstrate how the scientific-management approach is imperative for the liberal arts college today. 1Paul L. Dressel, Evaluation in Higher Education, Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State University (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961). ZBeardsley Ruml and Donald H. Morrison, Memo to a College Trustee (New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1959). 3Earl J. McGrath, Memo to a College Faculty Member (New York: Columbia University Teachers College, 1961). 30 A publication Specifically designed to orient a newcomer to institutional research is Saupe's Memo to a Newcomer to the Field of 1 Ipstitutional Research. This is basically a handbook on what to do first -- books to buy, periodicals to obtain, contacts to develop -- and it serves as a brief and practical primer for the beginner in the field. HISTORICAL STUDIES ,A number of writers give a brief historical backdrop to their more lengthy treatment of some other aspect of institutional research. These historical sketches tend to give a summary of the formal development of institutional research since World War II. 2 One work which stands out for its historical perspective on institutional research is W. H. Cowley's "Two and a Half Centuries of Institutional Research. "3 Beginning with the consultative "research" services of Increase and Cotton Mather in the founding of Yale in 1701, Cowley traces the informal function of institutional research to the beginning and early development of the more formalized function in the twentieth century at Stephens College, the University of Illinois, and the University of Minnesota. 1Saupe, op. cit. 2Chapter Three of Rourke & Brooks, op. cit. , is a good illustration of this. 3W. H. Cowley, "Tum and a Half Centuries of Institutional Research," Axt and Sprague, op. cit. I‘ECOI'tS on ‘V ’ . 1 4“ _ 390 w..- :- 81 DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES Within the last decade, several surveys have been conducted on a regional or national scale to study and describe the contemporary place of institutional research in colleges and universities. Two of the earliest reports are those of Sprague, Institutional Research in the West, 1 and Stickler, Institutional Research Concerning Land Grant Institutions and State Universities.2 Both are based on reports on the organization of institutional research in approximately two hundred institutions. Brumbaugh notes that these two studies come to these general agreements and conclusions: There is a trend toward the centralization of institutional research functions. This centralization is of quite recent development in most institutions. The centralization of research functions is most characteristic of institutions of medium size. Large institutions more often have some type of decentralized organization, while small institutions generally lack any formal organization. Where institutional research is centralized, the reSponsibility for directing, conducting, or coordinating, the research is most often assigned to a full-time or part-time institutional research officer although in some institutions, an administrative-faculty committee serves as the planning and coordinating agent. Where there is a decentralized organization, institutional research is generally done by various persons -- deans, administrative 1Sprague, op. cit. 2w. Hugh Stickler, Institutional Research Concerning Land Grant Institutions and State Universities (Tallahassee, Florida: Office of Institutional Research and Service, Florida State University, 1959). tutiona- a vy- ' C'VII-LLLAI K A" 1‘: a w CanSIlEO. E: ('3: ‘TY‘ "1: r unvlr filvAll. “v- VU.‘ A. :V- ‘9 JV ‘us fi Q few +r ‘ LC ‘ P ayr : y. a “i.“ A: o ‘ 4 Ci ‘r‘sl e a- Y‘Q ! . "f At . ”:\EC \ (\9 CL? 82 assistants, registrars, business officers, faculty members, or special committees. A significant number of institutions that have centralized insti- tutional research functions also have institution-wide advisory committees on institutional research. Another major study was that of Rourke & Brooks in 1966, published as The Managerial Revolution in Higher Education. Some of their findings from a national survey of all colleges and universities were: The influence of institutional research is hard to determine. There was a general feeling that institutional research should be the 'right hand' to the president. Some institutional researchers participate in decision- making and2 a majority offer policy recommendations along with their reports. Two other studies which hold positions of prominence in the literature are surveys of institutional research in junior colleges. In one, Johnson concludes from his study of 100 junior colleges that: Few faculty members participate in institutional research. Administrators are eSpecially concerned with justifying their need of institutional research. The areas of 'instruction' and 'methods of teaching' are notably neglected. 1Brumbaugh, op. cit., p. 2’7. ZRourke & Brooks, op. cit., pp. 58-64. 3B. Lamar Johnson, "Institutional Research in the Junior Colleges of the West, " Institutional Research in Junior Colleges, Occasional Report from U. C. L. A. Junior College Leadership Program #3 (California: U. C. L. A. School of Education, 1962). W t A W the secct .- ‘nl‘ f‘“ A t. US$51 K. n th s 1 a: H A C". Y‘ guy ~ .5 cript' «\u A: «”1“ 1L" fin .A‘ “'\-v 2'3. 83 In the second study, by Swanson, 337 junior colleges are surveyed and show that at that time, 1962, only 19 percent had any type of formal organization for institutional research and only four junior colleges had persons assigned full-time to this task. A more recent, and yet unpublished, study of a similar nature, but based on a smaller sample, is the dissertation study of Van Istendal, "A Study of Community College Institutional Research. ”1 This, too, is a descriptive study of the current state of organized institutional research in junior colleges. SPECIALIZED STUDIES Another main segment of literature in the field of institutional research is that which pertains to reports, discussions, or designs for study of specific subject areas. Characteristic of these are the papers and proceedings which evolve from conferences and institutes of insti- tutional researchers. Collections of this type include Studies of College Faculty, 2 Manual for Measuring and Reporting the Resources and Activities of Colleges and Universities, 3 Research on Academic 1Theodore G. Van Istendal, "A Study of Community College Institutional Research" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 2Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Studies of College Facul~ty, Papers presented at an Institute for College and University Administrators and Faculty, University of California, Berkeley, July 31-August 4, 1961 (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1961). 3National Science Foundation, Systems for Measuring and Reporting the Resources and Activities of Colleges and Universities (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967). Trnn+ l I} !. ‘L Jf‘fi’ .— " ~'~'L«1'>-? Ay- JDI.LuLlL/L RAW! . 54$: - LUD‘JE‘lb-sO‘ V‘“FIO. am a: - . Co...fu-S.Lix SHDJEC'L ca errollme: r\') 34 2 The _I_n_plIt,1 Design and Methodology in Institutional Research, Instructional Process and Institutional Research, 3 and Institutional Research and Academic Outcomes. The last four publications are those of the Association of Institutional Research, and they are a part of the only series of annual convention publications currently being produced. The articles in these compilations typically relate to a general theme, but are grouped into subject categories such as space and facilities, students, curriculum, enrollment, instruction, finances, faculty, long-range planning, and admissions, and thus represent studies of a Specialized nature. PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEORETICAL STUDIES Several works exist which have made an introductory contribution toward a literature on the philosophy and theory of 1Clarence H. Bagley (ed. ), Research on Academic Input, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Forum for Institutional Research (Cortland, New York: State University of New York College at Cortland, 1966). 2Clarence H. Bagley (ed. ), Design and Methodology in Institutional Research, Proceedings of Fifth Annual National Institutional Research Forum (Pullman, Washington: Washington State University, 1965). 3Galen N. Drewry (ed. ), The Instructional Process and Institutional Research, Proceedings of Seventh Annual Forum of Association of Institutional Research (Cortland, New York: State University of New York at Cortland, 1967). 4Cameron Fincher (ed. ), Institutional Research and Academic Outcomes, Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Forum on Institutional Research (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia, 1968). cectual hr Vo. C “HI. 1. L'tu :, LSLILuthE. *tstitlt V‘ m. 1332 H flu .-. rt 1 4 v . W n u S n WI... ht; vi; 0 FA 1Q n :& cu r. so as .1. go . J 4. n. no Mu Wm . a co “a r mm _ _ d. S Ma S: N. 8 .mt C v... a a .m tm J. U. uh Bf“ A V n. “,8 A: V: a 9% AU \flIU . m . n v «U «,0 I. a: flu .ni .. a. g F». H nlv «C w u at» We hf a L. r4 35 institutional research. The most widely circulated work is _A_ Conceptual Framework for Institutional Research. 1 This is a compila- tion of the proceedings of the Fourth Annual National Institutional Research Forum, and focuses on the role of institutional research in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policy within an institution. Several views are offered on this role. As a result, an institutional researcher is variously projected as "innovator, " "decision- maker, " "change-agent, " and "policy implementer. " As such, the proceedings are exploratory in nature and not definitive. Another well-circulated work is an article by Henry Dyer, "Can Institutional Research Lead to a Science of Institutions? "2 Dyer considers both the applied and p313; approaches to institutional research as a science, and concludes that elements of both are needed. His main theme, however, is to state the case for measurement to be central in defining institutional goals, measuring progress toward these goals, and identifying the positive and negative factors within that progress. Another paper on institutional research which has yet to be published is Boyer's "The Impact of Institutional Research on the 1Clarence H. Bagley (ed. ), A Conceptual Framework for Institutional Research, Proceedings of Fourth Annual National Institutional Research Forum (Pullman, Washington: Washington State University, 1964). 2Dyer, op. cit. 36 Academic Program. "1 The author decries the lack of substantive evidence to show the impact of institutional research on the collegiate academic program as contrasted to its marked influence in the administrative system. Of importance in this study are Boyer's suggestions for increasing this impact on the academic area and a proposed research model for doing it. He suggests: First, the identity and the purposes of institutional research must be sharpened. Second, institutional research must increasingly turn its attention to more fundamental education problems. Third, comprehensive and empirically supported theories must be developed to guide the research effort. Fourth, the practitioners of institutional research must themselves actively participate in the process of institutional change. Fifth, the findings of research must be pictured and disseminated in better fashion. Sixth, the impact of institutional research will increase %5 the institution itself deepens its own commitment to change. Boyer then outlines the prOSpectus for a cooperative institutional research model. He asks the reader to [n]ote especially the theoretical rationale and its relationship to institutional objectives, the effort to involve representatives from all segments of the campus community as interpreters and evaluators as well as subjects, the awareness that top level com- mitment to the project is essential, and the clear intention to encourage changegs in institutional objectives and methods if the results warrant. 1Boyer, op. cit. 2Ibid., pp. 20-31. 3Ipid., p. 36. Long- . conclus Elsa ion of (C‘vyv Q“‘Cr 37 The steps in his outline for the research project include the following: A problem is identified and its larger significance noted. Detailed aims are set forth. A methodology is defined. The total campus is involved (opinions and discussion sought from all segments). A commitment to change is established. Long-range goals and purpose are formulated. In conclusion, Boyer notes that "the project should lead to an identi- fication of some of the forces and processes whereby change occurs in institutions of the type being examined. "2 Other literature related to the theoretical and philosophical aSpects of this study is found in the general area of administrative theory. Here, a brief reference should be ample to recognize the important place of such classic writings of Simon, 3 Barnard, Griffiths, 5 and others who, as administrative theorists, provide a context for certain considerations of this study. 1Ihid., pp. 37-42. 2Ibid., p. 42. 3Simon, op. cit. 4Chester 1. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938). 5Griffiths, op. cit. . . . t IUL v :i A §K .Lrlc < ~...- h\\ ,;>\ C . .L u .t Wt. Nut. AL 11; WA n .M. ev we C O 31 ab my .C. .3 C. M: In... my Am. - . C e r t h. an .1 2 E h I C. a Q C .v . .. S e a r a r... e C o H l I e .. S Ma .mw. w. tam 0 .$ 4m. 6 w“ 9. have» M Q. 3 m... 9 Ma mt .3 .6 T. h be i.” F. r u- . . a r t. .. . . . a an a m. m an e m... h .w .w m... n. at. :3... .... a .. E c. C :c "I“. m" "my; rm; it. an .L vii . F 38 A little-known work of Schechter, Design for Decision, 1 makes an impressive point of the need for a total systems attitude, as well as practice in management of higher education today. He advocates "participative management"2 as an administrative format for effective programming for planning and decision- making. This work, likewise, relates only indirectly to the concerns of this study. One final contribution, worthy of mention in this section, is "Two Cultures: Some Empirical Findings, " by Lionel S. Lewis. 3 Lewis explores C. P. Snow's4 theory that the intellectual life in the Western world had polarized into groups of scientists and humanists. The Lewis study supports this hypothesis of variations in the institutional climate on a college campus as it relates to the concept of research. Observations such as these, of course, have implications for institutional research, and thus for this study. 1w. H. Schechter, Design for Decision (Tarkio, Missouri: Tarkio College, 1967, mimeographed). 2Described by Schechter as " 'Management is the development of people, not the direction of things, ' . . . it is the totality of the process necessary to challenge people to aspire to high purpose, to involve them significantly in planning and decision-making, and to help them develop working relations among themselves that are satisfying and productive in accomplishing the aims of the institution of which they are a part. " Ibid., p. 1. 3Lionel S. Lewis, "Two Cultures: Some Empirical Findings, " Educational Record, Vol. XLVIII (1967), No. 3, pp. 260-70. 4Charles Percy Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1959); The Two Cultures: And a Second Look (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1964). writings \ tcgether. next of a Pasadena “ research lit tre Dag 39 RELATED STUDIES In this final section, we shall take note of several studies or writings which have a more direct relationship to this study. The first two of these studies are similar and may be discussed together. One is by Joseph Michaels, "Guidelines for the Establish- ment of an Office for Institutional Research and Development at Pasadena City College. "1 The second is a "Report on Institutional Research and a Proposal for Its Organization at the University of Notre Dame, " by Philip S. Moore. 2 These studies are both investiga- tions for their reSpective institutions to explore the need, function, and role for a potential institutional research office on their campuses. Both studies review briefly the general development of institutional research and its definition to date. Michaels elaborates on the qualifications needed in a research director, and both writers make specific suggestions for how institutional research can be incorporated into the organizational structure of their campus. The Michaels study advocates a number of guidelines which are to be found also in this proposed study, since the suggestions were gleaned from common sources (e. g. , Swanson's and Brumbaugh's suggestion that an effective program of institutional research should 1Joseph Michaels, "Guidelines for the Establishment of an Office for Institutional Research and Development at Pasadena City College" (Los Angeles, California: University of California, Los Angeles, 1966). 2Moore, op. cit. "formulate witch proj of curiosit groups on . for resear Istitution with those the propos further de imP‘lemen research. implemen one herei unpublish. and the I: RECurring Universit “”118 an. 4O "formulate a basic philosophy of institutional research -- a philosophy which projects for a particular institution the creative, dynamic Spirit of curiosity . "). 1 Other similarities relate to the involvement of sub- groups on a campus in the process of identifying problems and concerns for research; and the use of an advisory committee for the director of institutional research. But at this point, the similarities of this study with those of Michaels and Moore cease. This study will move beyond the proposal stage of the Moore and Michaels studies cited, into a further development of an operational philosophy and into the implementation stages for the establishment of an office of institutional research. A detailed study of the process and results of this implementation procedure will be made and reported. . Another study which has only an indirect relationship to the one herein described, is that of Douglas MacDonald. This work is an unpublished dissertation entitled, "A Study of the (Informational Needs and the Development of a Proposed Form Manual for Use in Preparing Recurring Reports in the Office of Institutional Research at the 2 University of Mississippi. " This work is basically a compilation of forms and recommendations for their use for institutional research at ' lswanson, op. cit. , p. 29 2Douglas. MacDonald, "A Study of the Informational Needs and the Development of a Proposed Form Manual for Use in Preparing Recurring Reports in the Office of Institutional Research at the University of Mississippi, " unpublished doctoral dissertation (Mississippi: University of Mississippi, 1965). j-‘re UmVerSity nth this one 1 SEQ-Slim 35:08:: One 3 Of John Dale E of University (1) Wher India mate (2) What rece: Of ti“: its a result c: of research a witch is illus Oi..‘lSSell'S tram sub-gr: 41 the University of Mississippi. The parallel of the MacDonald study with this one is that both studies are concerned with the development of specific aspects of a local program for institutional research. One final study which has some relationship to this one is that of John Dale Russell at Indiana University. 1 Russell made an "Inventory of University Statistics" to answer two questions: (1) Where, within the confines of the Bloomington campus of Indiana University, could one find any kind of statistical material relating to the University and its operation? (2) What research on institutional problems is being or has recently been carried on in any unit on the Bloomington campus of the University?2 As a result of this study, Russell developed a rather detailed taxonomy of research areas with particular applications to Indiana University, but which is illustrative for others. The chief complementary relationship of Russell's study with this one is the concept of soliciting information from sub-groups on the campus on what studies and collections of data they had already completed. SUMMARY In this chapter, we have seen that the literature in the field of institutional research is limited to the recent decade. Furthermore, 1John Dale Russell, "An Inventory of University Statistics" (Indiana: Prepared by Bureau of Institutional Research, Indiana University, 1965, mimeographed). 2Ibid., p. l the literature in that it is q Illu: (5) Philosopii Onlj one herein pi namer. In ; inject the e: follow it thro- Yiiiueness O, 42 the literature reflects the early stages of a discipline in development in that it is quite general and fragmentary. Illustrations were given of works that are categorical representations of (1) General and Introductory Studies, (2) Historical Studies, (3) Descriptive Studies, (4) Specialized Studies, (5) Philosophical and Theoretical Studies, and (6) Other Related Studies. Only a few studies were found to have any relationship to the one herein proposed, except in a general, indirect, or very limited manner. In short, no study is known to exist which has sought to project the establishment of an office of institutional research and follow it through its early stages of development. Herein is the uniqueness of this study which Shall be described in the next chapter. study was 6 employed a 'Mv we dose. v ’5 we . mastering v) The art CHAPTER III METHOD OF STUDY The method of this study was to describe the establishment of an office of institutional research at Ohio Northern University. The study was empirically oriented to the needs of that university and employed an analytical self-study approach in which the researcher was both observer and participant. THE CASE POPULATION Ohio Northern University, located in Ada (4, 000 population), in the northwestern part of Ohio, is a private university affiliated with the United Methodist Church. The university is nearly 100 years old and consists of a liberal arts college and three professional colleges: Engineering, Law, and Pharmacy. The College of Liberal Arts is made up of 16 departments: Art, Biology, Business Administration, Chemistry, Education, English, Foreign Languages, Health and Physical Education, History and Political Science, Industrial Arts, Mathematics, Music, Philosophy and Religion, Physics, Psychology and Sociology, and Speech and Theater. In 1968 after a two-year study, the college inaugurated a thoroughly 43 y - li’illCh open. WmeAme .achelor of 44 revised, new liberal arts curriculum, which accentuates flexibility in a broad interdisciplinary course of study. Students may earn a bachelor of arts degree. The College of Engineering offers a four-year program leading to a bachelor's degree in civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering. The program is accredited by the Engineers' Council for Professional Development. The College of Pharmacy occupies a new $1. 5 million building which opened in 1966. The five-year pharmacy program is accredited by the American Council of Pharmaceutical Education and leads to a bachelor of science degree in pharmacy. The College of Law offers a three-year graduate program leading to the degree of juris doctor. It is accredited by the American Bar Association, the Association of American Law Schools, and the League of Ohio Law Schools. The university is situated on 130 acres; includes 43 buildings; is valued at $13, 052, 6971 with endowments of $3, 183, 160. 2 Its main library has over 77, 000 volumes and its law library, over 41, 000 volumes. The university is controlled by a 42-member board of trustees representing The Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church, and is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. 1’ 2Based on figures for 1968-69. retention r ago, 39 pe; have been t the faculty the attritioi 20 percent, 45 The full-time teaching faculty numbers 143, l and with 35 administrators makes a total academic staff of 178, of which 42 percent hold the doctor's degree. There is also a 24-member part- time faculty, which makes a full-time equivalent teaching staff of 155. There is a low turnover rate among faculty and staff. The retention rate from twenty years ago is 31 percent; and from ten years ago, 39 percent. One faculty member is in his fortieth year and three have been on the staff for 25 years or more. Thirty-eight percent of the faculty are on tenure; and in the last four years, from 1966 to 1969, the attrition rate for the administrative and teaching staff has been 20 percent, 17 percent, 14 percent, and 13 percent, reSpectively. The distribution of the full-time teaching faculty by rank is: professors, 34 (24%); associate professors, 37 (26%); assistant professors, 47 (33%); and instructors, 25 (17%). The distribution of the teaching faculty by age is: Under 30 9% (Accumulated) 30 - 39 32% Under 40 41% 4O - 49 28% Under 50 69% 5O - 59 27% Under 60 96% Over 60 4% Few studies have been made of the student body, but general indications support the observation that they tend to be conservative in 1These and all other figures to follow in this chapter are for the year 1969-70, unless otherwise noted. sscio-econoi on ,- .o . 1 “L; stih fit (‘1 ‘u.’ he. a u c. H“ . A Wt. m} t.. r“ an .3 r IVL an e . «0 ram Me r. u. u NC the 46 a social, cultural, and political sense. Coming from moderate socio-economic backgrounds, many are first-generation college students . Seventy-nine percent of the students come from Ohio and the balance from 30 other states and 14 foreign countries. The geographic distribution is as follows: Ohio ......... 79% New York ...... 7% Pennsylvania . . . . 5% New Jersey ..... 4% Connecticut ..... 1% Indiana ........ 1% Others and Foreign . 3% A profile of first-time freshmen entering in 1968- 69 showed these ranking in their high school classes: Ranking Men Top 1/5 of class 24% Top 2/5 of class 47% Top 1/2 of class 60% Women 41% 66% 76% The students are enrolled in the four colleges in the following distributions: 4'7 College Men W__q;r_n__en _'I‘_o_t_a_t_l_ Liberal Arts 987 712 1, 699 Engineering 290 O 290 Law 178 2 180 Pharmacy 114 31 145 TOTAL £569— —745 2, 314 Fraternities and sororities are central to campus life. Fifty- two percent of the men are in one of the nine national social fraternities and 35 percent of the women belong to one of the four national social sororities. Seven professional and 19 honor societies claim 2 percent of the student body in membership. In recent years, the average annual attrition rate for students has been 20 percent, which includes a 7 percent rate for annual failures. Of the entering freshmen, 52 percent graduate and 17 percent of the graduates matriculate for further study. The university has over 12, 000 alumni covering its nearly 100-year history. In this study, attention is focused on the entire administrative staff and teaching faculty and several samples of the student body. The teaching faculty were contacted in the following colleges or departmental groups: 48 Number of Collgge or Department Faculty College of Liberal Arts ......... 111 Art .................. 4 Biology ................ 9 Business Administration & Economics ............ 7 Chemistry .............. 7 Education ...... . ......... 10 English ................ 11 Foreign Languages .......... 7 Health & Physical Education ..... 11 History & Political Science ..... 8 Industrial Arts ............ 3 Mathematics ............. 10 Music ................. 5 Philosophy & Religion ........ 6 Psychology & Sociology ....... 4 Physics ................ 5 Speech & Theater ........... 4 College of Engineering ......... 16 College of Law .............. 7 College of Pharmacy .......... 9 TOTAL TEACHING FACULTY (less deans) 143 II\ ‘ ‘1 t . u M 0 Ln. tam a . . 1 - U N3 i I . S . Nu S . fit» 0. N: V .A A ~ Is d 6 Id . u I. A v S a I». an aw Ml e a. e . r 3 ll .3 % art. 44 E. T U «met. .3 :n... a t. on ..Y . I; .m ARV Cl WI U Q .v Alta VI 8 Afls . v . ml.“ CV F1 My WY. Nirl. .c L. «.7.qu “we r L. . . ( A 4.5 t»# at "it up A~ » t Ylnl \ “I «wt* ‘7... 49 The administrative staff were contacted in the following groups: Development and Public Relations . 5 Academic Affairs and Others . . . 13 Student Personnel ......... 8 Financial and Business Affairs . . 4 Library ............... 5 Total Administrative Staff 35 The student groups in the study were of two types. The first type included those who were representative in nature and were included in the study by reason of their membership in the Student Senate (the student government on campus), the Student Religious Council (representing all campus religious interest groups), or student representatives to academic departments. The number in each of these groups is as follows: Student Senate ............ 16 Student Religious Council ...... 24 Departmental representatives . . . 4 Total Representative-type Students 44 These students were chosen because of their representativeness to see if their response to institutional research would differ in any Significant way from students chosen randomly. The departmental representatives were already an active part of the departmental structure in two departments and so their inclusion was natural. The Student Senate and 50 the Student Religious Council were chosen because of their representativeness and their availability. It was felt to be necessary to have several student groups which might be contacted personally and directly as a group, in the same manner used with the faculty and the administrative groups. Such contact would not be practical with the random sample of students. The second type of sample included in the study was a random sample of 476 students, which represented one-fifth of the student body enrolled in the fall quarter. A sample was chosen which allowed random representativeness from the four colleges -- various class levels, sexes, academic levels, etc. The sample was obtained by selecting every fifth card from a randomizedlideck of the registrar's current enrollment cards at the computer center. A check of the sample showed the following relationship to the actual enrollment: Percent of Students Percent of Students College Enrolled in Sample Liberal Arts 73.4 72. 5 Engineering 12. 5 11. 5 Law 7. 8 7. 5 Pharmacy 6. 3 8. 5 100. O 100. O lRandomization was completed by the Director of the computer center by the "psuedo-random number technique. " TIE PROC: To .' 1 commitment ’r‘.‘ t 3 pm (.2. $3 (I) :5 l_l n 5 Vale Of 111;. 51 THE PROCEDURE To initiate the study, it was first necessary to obtain a commitment from Ohio Northern University for the project and study. It had been learned in June of 1969 that Ohio Northern University, along with three other adjacent private colleges, had been the recipient of a federal grant under Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The grant was to provide for, among other things, the establishment of a half-time office of institutional research. In anticipation of the potential value of this research function to them, Ohio Northern University decided to add sufficient resources to make the position a full-time one. After initial consultations and interviews between the researcher and Ohio Northern University officials, and between the researcher and his doctoral committee, all parties committed them- selves to the study proposed and the project began on September 1, 1969. DEVELOP AN OPERATIONAL PHILOSOPHY The second step in the procedure was the development of an operational philosophy. Considerable attention was given, during the review of literature, to the views, attitudes, and experiences of others in institutional research. Particular concepts were identified and various operational options were noted, as other studies, conference proceedings and writings were reviewed. A‘ was conduc to gain the cperationa Vt personal ii to discovel office. Th each of the l‘lrancial 1 Pailigious I of each of t Or. Operational 52 At the same time, personal interviews and correSpondence was conducted with a number of knowledgeable persons in the field, 1 to gain their insight and counsel relating to various aspects of the operational philosophy. When the study began at Ohio Northern University in September, personal interviews were arranged with strategic persons on the campus to discover how the university viewed the establishment of the new office. These interviews were held with the President of the University; each of the vice presidents, or their equivalents (Academic Affairs, Financial Affairs, Development and Public Relations, Student Affairs, Religious Affairs); the deans of each of the colleges; and the chairmen of each of the academic departments. One of the intrinsic concepts in the development of the operational philosophy was to establish an advisory committee which would immediately serve as consultant in the development of both the philosophy and subsequent operation of the office. In consultation with the immediate organizational superiors (the University President and the Academic Vice President), a committee of five was formed and was composed of the University President, the Academic Vice President, the Chairman of the Faculty Senate, the Chairman of the Student Senate, and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. This committee reviewed the operational philosophy as it was 1These included Dr. Paul Dressel, Dr.. Margaret Lorimer, Dr. Richard E. Peterson, Dr. Cameron Fincher, and a number of colleagues. detrelcped by a»... fiice of 31v E’CPLORAT .‘DlillilSTR STUDENT G The meetings wi respective c selected stu heads of the time and pie researcher 53 developed by the researcher1 and incorporated in the establishment of the Office of Institutional Research. EXPLORATORY MEETINGS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE, FACULTY, AND STUDENT GROUPS The third phase of the procedure was to conduct exploratory meetings with all members of the faculty and administration in their respective departments or administrative units, and with the several selected student groups. These meetings were arranged through the heads of the departments, administrative units, or student groups at a time and place of their convenience. An opportunity was afforded the researcher during the Faculty Week2 to announce the plans for these meetings and stimulate some expectation for them. 3 During the period from October 15 to November 15, these exploratory meetings were held. The format of the meetings included these four elements: 1. An introduction of the purpose and procedure of the meeting. 2. A presentation by the Director of Institutional Research to introduce the field of institutional research in general elaborate on an operational definition of institutional research lThis operational philosophy is described in Chapter IV. 2A week of orientation and planning at the beginning of the academic year. 3See Appendix A for the content of this presentation. 4A fuller outline of the presentation can be found as Appendix B, and an outline of the meeting, given each participant, is Appendix C. CAT) a, F JCSEaFCh, r"? .ne Intent: 5- :“1 (I) : v (I) «s (D i ‘I F—I [\O 54 give illustrations of institutional research explain the particular potential and procedure for institutional research at Ohio Northern University 3. A discussion--an opportunity for questions and comments. 4. The presentation of the "Inventory for Institutional Research"1 with emphasis on its purpose and instructions for its completion and return. COLLECTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF DATA The main source of data was the "Inventory for Institutional Research, " as described more fully in a later section of this chapter. The Inventory was distributed to each person in attendance at the various exploratory meetings to be completed and returned to the Office of Institutional Research, via campus mail, within ten days. Members of the groups who were absent were given an informal report of the meeting and their copy of the questionnaire by the group chairman. A follow-up procedure was built into the questionnaire process, so that whenever a reSpondent completed his questionnaire to return to the Office of Institutional Research, he also completed a prepared 3 x 5 3 card for his chairman, indicating that he had completed and returned his questionnaire. Follow-up calls from the Office of Institutional 1See Appendix D. 2See page 57. 3See Appendix E. 55 Research obtained a report of the return for that department, area, or group, and encouraged the chairman to prod those still outstanding. This questionnaire was also mailed with a brief cover letter1 of explanation to the random sample of students since it was impractical physically to gather such a group together for an exploratory session. These questionnaires likewise were returned by campus mail, or regular mail in the case of off-campus students, in pre-stamped envelopes to the Office of Institutional Research. In the case of the random sample, no type of follow-up was planned or used. Other data were secured from an evaluation report2 prepared by the researcher on the responses which each chairman and his 3 were given respective group gave to the exploratory meeting. Ratings for responses to the underlying purpose of the meeting, the presenta- tion by the Director of Institutional Research, the discussion, and to institutional research in general. In addition, a record was made of the attendance, the questions asked, and the comments offered. By theSe Several means just described, data were collected from the campus sub-groups. These data were tabulated and classified, as described more fully in the forthcoming section of this chapter on analysis. 1See Appendix F. 28ee Appendix G. 3Ratings used were: positive, slightly positive, slightly negative, and negative. ”Inve: univ e r U n’ ‘ that were and askec' 56 RESULTS AND RE-INVENTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY The next step in the study was to report the results of the "Inventory for Institutional Research" to the various segments of the university community who had participated in the exploratory meetings and the initial inventory. This was done in January at the regularly scheduled meeting of the student groups and the meeting of the combined all-university teaching faculty and administrative staff. At these meetings, a printed report1 of the findings of the Inventory was distributed, a brief verbal interpretation was given, and the follow-up survey, "Priorities for Institutional Research, "2 was distributed. This survey form listed the fifteen leading subject areas that were selected in the initial "Inventory for Institutional Research, " and asked the respondents to assign a number of rank-order to the complete list of suggestions. The survey also provided for the classi- fication of priorities for studies into one of two types: (1) continuous -- long-range studies, or (2) occasional -- Short-range studies. The same groups of students in the random sample for the first questionnaire were used for the second questionnaire. Since there was no means of reporting to and re-surveying only those students in that sample who had responded on the first questionnaire 1This report contained the information shown in this study as Tables 14, 15, and 22, 2See Appendix H. 57 and since there were many impracticalities associated with a personal reporting session for the entire random sample, it was decided to make this second contact by mail, after the same manner used with the first questionnaire. The survey on "Priorities for Institutional Research" was mailed to the student random sample with a cover letter1 noting the availability of the printed report of the first questionnaire to all those requesting it. The results of this second survey from the sub-groups were then tabulated and taken by the Director of Institutional Research and his adviSOry committee as a basic source of information for projecting priorities for both long- and Short-range research studies. THE INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED The primary instrument for this study was the ”Inventory for Institutional Research. "2 The Inventory was designed by the researcher and consisted of four parts, covering eight typed- multilithed pages and a combination of 27 open and closed answer questions. Part One was composed of Six closed answer questions of personal information regarding the respondents, namely: primary relationship to Ohio Northern University (faculty, student, or adminis- trator); years completed at Ohio Northern University; experiences at 1See Appendix I. 2See Appendix D. 58 other colleges in a similar relationship; their academic rank; and the academic or administrative area to which they were now related. Part Two asked for responses to eleven questions dealing with their present opinions of institutional research: its potential value for Ohio Northern University their hopes and expectations for institutional research their reservations and cautions about institutional research the degree of their present understanding of the role and function of institutional research the source of their present understanding of the role and function of institutional research the degree of cooperation and support expected from each of the university sub-groups -- faculty, students, and administrators the degree of resistance expected from each of the sub-groups Two of the foregoing questions (on hopes/expectations and reservations/ cautions) were open answer type and the rest were closed answer questions. The third part of the Inventory was promoted as the heart of the Inventory and dealt with "suggested areas for institutional research. " Ten general categories1 of typical institutional research topics and examples were given. Respondents were asked to "list under the various categories in the spaces provided [their] suggestions for studies which [they felt] would be valuable for us to conduct at Ohio Northern 1These categories were developed after a comprehensive examination of other studies and classifications in the field of institutional research. 59 University. " They were asked to use the examples given, as stimulators, and select from them as they chose, but to give answers which represented their additional personal thought and selection. In addition, the respondents were asked to give a rating to those items which they deemed of "special significance" and "extra Special significance. " The final part of the Inventory (which was not answered by students) was an "inventory of current data. " Here individuals of the academic departments and administrative units could indicate the existence of any reports or summaries which had already been compiled by them on an occasional or regular basis. Since this information needed the identification of department, office, or individual, this page was the last in the Inventory and could be properly identified, detached, and turned in separately from the rest of the Inventory. A pilot study was made on the early draft of the Inventory. The Inventory was mailed with a "Field Test Report"1 to 18 persons representing students, administrators, and faculty. Reports and sug- gestions for minor modifications were returned by 12 of these persons, which represented: two students, two faculty, eight administrators (including six institutional researchers), and were from five different institutions . 1See Appendix J. 60 The secondary instrument employed in this study was a survey on "Priorities for Institutional Research. "1 As a follow-up to the results of the earlier "Inventory for Institutional Research, " it listed 15 of the major areas identified in that earlier survey, and asked the respondent to select and establish an order of priority for all 15 areas and to classify each selection as (1) a continuous, long-range type study; or (2) an occasional, short-range type study. The only other information the survey instrument gave was the identity of the respondent's sub-group, as a student, faculty mem- ber, or administrator. This was accomplished with the use of different colors of paper for the survey blank. This provided for a comparison of the responses of these respective groups in the analysis. THE A NA LYSIS Most of the data collected in this study were of a descriptive or "nominal"2 type. The analyses were therefore restricted to that which is appropriate for frequencies, totals, and percentages. The Chi-Square test was used as the test for significant differences between the observed and the expected responses within, between, and among various groups, categories, and classifications of data. Where 1See Appendix H. 2A statistical term for descriptive type data which simply names, defines, or classifies information or items. it the close Research. " AI. used in the lations of ti for a given developed In the various respondent therefore, CA3 61 frequencies in the cells were extremely small (under 5), or extremely large, the Yates Correction for Continuity1 was employed. This analysis was computed for each of the variables identified in the closed-answer questions on the "Inventory for Institutional Research." An analysis of the responses to the open-answer questions used in the first questionnaire was limited to classifications and tabu- lations of the responses by type and frequency. In this case the answers for a given question were all reviewed and then a classification developed and tabulations made. In Part Three of the "Inventory for Institutional Research, " the various responses within a given category could be weighted by the respondents according to a three-level scale. In the tabulation, therefore, weights were assigned as follows: 1 = simple listing of suggestion by respondent 2 = listing of suggestion, with the addition of a (+) 3 = listing of suggestion, with the addition of a (++) This weighting technique provided for the establishment of a quasi- rank order for the responses given within that area. Two types of summary—tabulations were given. The first was an expression of average power or intensity for the responses given. The second was a "weighted frequency" which was a product of the frequency of a 1N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods, 2d ed. (New York: Harper and Row), p. 166, 62 response times its given weight on the weighting scale just described. Tabulations were tabled to permit a comparison of reSponSes between the sub—groups as well as to Show a grand total. In addition to the two modes for reporting the responses of Part Three of the Inventory, there was the need for two means of selecting the responses to be reported. Due tothe manner in which the Inventory was constructed, the responses received we re of two types. First, there were those which were a direct selection from illustrative examples listed in each of the areas in this section of the Inventory. As a result, the power of suggestion led to a high frequency of this type of choice. In contrast, the second type of response included those not listed in the questionnaire and given spontaneously. It was necessary, therefore, to take these differences into account when developing a list of the responses based on frequency of mention. To compensate for this imbalance, separate minimum frequency levels were established for each of these types of response in the tables and listings. For example, in the tabulation report prepared for the sub-groups, categories were tabled only if the listed type responses were selected by at least 40 respondents on the Inventory and the unlisted type by at least 10 respondents. When selecting the 15 top categories for the "Priorities for Institutional Research" questionnaire, the criteria for selection was that listed type reSponseS must have a simple frequency of 58 or more or a "weighted frequency" of 120 or more on the 63 tabulation from the first questionnaire. Unlisted type responses were included if their simple frequency was 20 or above, or their weighted frequency was 40 or higher. An analytical technique employed which needs further description is that used to obtain a positive-negative index toward institutional research. This index was a value given to each respondent based on the detection of any discernible bias toward the institutional research function which could be detected from a comparison of answers given to Question Nine on "hopes and expectations" and Question Ten on "reservations and cautions. " A five-step Likert-type scale was used where: l = Very Positive 2 = Positive 3 = Neutral - balanced 4 = Negative 5 = Very Negative Three persons served as raters and reviewed these data individually and then consolidated their ratings for the final index. An element of "conservatism" was intentionally employed in this rating process, wherein a negative or positive response was assigned only when the presence of this bias could be clearly established. Otherwise, a neutral rating was given. 64 These areas of evaluation, tabulations, and analysis were conducted in relation to the initial survey from the "Inventory for Institutional Research. " 1. 10. Summary of evaluative ratings given by Director of Institutional Research to various areas related to exploratory meetings. Nature of questions raised in exploratory meetings on institutional research. Nature of comments offered in exploratory meetings on institutional research. Percentage of reSponse on "Inventory for Institutional Research. " Primary relationship of reSpondentS to Ohio Northern University. Number of years completed by respondents at Ohio Northern University in their primary relationship. Number of other institutions where respondents held a similar primary relationship. Relationship of Administrative respondents to administra- tive area. Relationship of faculty and student respondents to academic divisions or colleges. Academic rank of ’aculty and administrative respondents. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 65 Degree of present understanding of the role and function of institutional research. Source of present understanding of the role and function of institutional research. Relationship of present degree of understanding of the role and function of institutional research with the source of that understanding. A summary of the hopes and expectations which various sub-groups at Ohio Northern University hold for the contribution of institutional research. A summary of the cautions and reservations which the various sub-groups at Ohio Northern University hold for the function of institutional research. Distribution of positive-negative index among sub-groups at Ohio Northern University. A comparison of respondents' years with Ohio Northern University with their index of positive-negative response. A comparison of number of other college experiences of respondents with their index of positive-negative response. A comparison of respondents' rank with their positive- negative index. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 2'7. 66 Relationship of the positive-negative index to the source and degree of understanding of institutional research for sub-groups at Ohio Northern University. Relationship of the positive-negative index to the divisional/college relationship of faculty and students at Ohio Northern University. Potential value of institutional research function as seen by Ohio Northern University sub-groups. A comparison of respondents' years with Ohio Northern University with their opinion on the potential value of institutional research. A comparison of number of other college experiences of respondents with their opinion of the potential value of institutional research. A comparison of administrative and faculty respondents' rank with their opinion of the potential value of institutional research. Potential value of institutional research as seen by faculty and students by divisional/college relationship. Relationship of potential value of institutional research to the source and degree of understanding of institutional research held by sub-groups. 28. 67 Relationship of potential value of institutional research to the positive—negative index of sub-groups at Ohio Northern University. The series of analyses which follow (29-42) will be those made of various combinations of opinions which administrators, faculty, and students hold toward the anticipated support or resistance which the respective groups will have toward institutional research at Ohio Northern University. The position and relationship of these tabulations can better be understood by referring to Figure 1. In this figure the Symbol illustrates the point at which a cross-section of information was summarized and reported. Capital letters in the code refer to data on cooperation and support and the lower case letters refer to data on resistance. 29. 30. 31. Expected support and cooperation for the institutional research function for and by all sub-groups at Ohio Northern University. (Figure Key A) Expected support and cooperation for the institutional research function by administrators, as seen by administrators, faculty, and students. (Figure Key B) Expected support and cooperation for the institutional research function by faculty, as seen by administrators, faculty, and students. (Figure Key C) 68 com .a .5 case .M 5339.. a com .a .2 some .m 538%.. o new .a .8 23a. .M nonoaaa. a a9. .a .3 ones .M nocoaaa. a Sm .a .2 canes .M panacea... c Q: a .ma case .m seepage. m mom .a .2 case .m anaconda. o RH a .fi once .m anaconda. o mom .a .S seas .m 3.83%.... o can. a .2 some. .M seconds o Sm .a .8 case .m second... n has .a .2 once .m encodes m a9. .a .3 case 3 mg .a .om some a. mamfifism Ho nonsmooq mom 3de F3885. Lo cofimood mom 339m oosmsmflmom so moflnfifism “nommsm so moEmEESm .bflmmmfisb Eofiaoz 030 R genomes RSOSBSmE. Sumac“ o5: EB mango o>fioo©mou mfi £033 mosmsmamos no Hogan cosmmfloflcw mfi Emacs can: mssoUBm was .3303 .mnofimfimwfigm £033 22ch ofi .8 98323800 303$, mEBOHm vmmflnmfifidm can 693.330 on 33 coflmfiaowfi 2033 R msfioa mfi wo 53233: :< m a mmboE a. o z m mazmopam >3 9 mezmooam o < H m a. m a D m Ensues - - Ensures a. m H < a. m mmoafiaamezazoa. gasses/ago... 2 H ”mom Sm Eozfimammm “so mg $0.38 Ea ESE/a. nzoazaao 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 3'7. 38. 39. 69 Expected support and cooperation for the institutional research function by students, as seen by administrators, faculty, and students. (Figure Key D) The support and cooperation which administrators expect from administrators, faculty, and students for the institutional research function. (Figure Key E) The support and cooperation which fa_<:_ul_ty expect from administrators, faculty, and students for the institutional research function. (Figure Key F) The support and cooperation which students expect from administrators, faculty, and students for the institutional research function. (Figure Key (3) Expected resistance for the institutional research function for and by all sub-groups at Ohio Northern University. (Figure Key a) Expected resistance for the institutional research function by administrators, as seen by administrators, faculty, and students. (Figure Key b) Expected resistance for the institutional research function by faculty, as seen by administrators, faculty, and students. (Figure Key c) Expected resistance for the institutional research function by students, as seen by administrators, faculty, and students. (Figure Key d) 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 70 The resistance which administrators expect from administrators, faculty, and students for the institutional research function. (Figure Key e) The resistance which faculty expect from administrators, faculty, and students for the institutional research function. (Figure Key f) The resistance which students expect from adminis- trators, faculty, and students for the institutional research function. (Figure Key (3) Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of goals and objectives. Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of students. Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of faculty. Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of administration. Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of curriculum and library. Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of instruction and teaching methods . Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of space and facilities. 71 50. Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of budget and finance. 51. Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of admissions and enrollment. 52. Suggestions by university sub-groups for institutional research studies in the area of public relations. 53. Response of individuals and groups to inventory of current data (past and present reports and summaries). 54. Evaluation of elements of the exploration meetings as made by the researcher. 55. Evaluation of questions raised in exploratory meetings. 56. Evaluation of comments made in exploratory meetings. The data received from the second survey instrument, "Priorities for Institutional Research, " were "ordinal"l in nature and could therefore be statistically analyzed by those methods which are appropriate for rank-order data. The reSponses were given in the form of numerical ranks for all 15 items given. These numerical ranks provided a numerical value that was used for tabulation purposes (e. g. , the eighth ranked item = 8; the eleventh ranked item = 11, etc.) in which the higher the numerical value for the item, the lower the position in the rank-order. The numerical values for these items were 1A statistical term used to describe measurements which are composed of rank-order, starting with either the largest or the smallest. 72 then converted into standard scores so that the scores of the sub-groups on a particular item would be additive for meaningful and valid totals and a composite overall rank-order. A comparative analysis of the rank-orders for priorities given by the sub-groups was made by means of the Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient technique. SUMMARY In outlining the method of study for this research project, the initial task was to describe Ohio Northern University as the case population -- its composition and character as a university, colleges, student body, faculty, and administration. A demographic profile was given of the sample and survey population. The procedure for the study was shown to follow five steps: (1) obtaining a commitment with Ohio Northern University for the study; (2) developing an operational philosophy; (3) holding exploratory meetings with sub-groups on campus; (4) collecting and classifying the data; and (5) reporting the results and re-inventorying the university sub-groups to establish long- and short-range priorities for institutional research. Two instruments used for the initial and follow-up surveys were described. The first, "Inventory for Institutional Research, ” was designed to obtain from the respondents personal information, 1Ibid. , p. 206. 73 present opinions on institutional research, suggestions for areas of study in institutional research, and a listing of current data already assembled as reports and summaries. The second instrument was designed as a follow-up survey on "Priorities for Institutional Research" in which the results of the first inventory were selected and ranked in a list of long— and short- range priorities for research at Ohio Northern University. Since most of the data secured were nominal and some were ordinal, the procedures used for the analyses were those appropriate to these data. CHAPTER IV THE FINDINGS: A REPORT AND ANALYSIS The report of the findings in this study will follow the format of the procedure used for conducting the research. First, a report will be made of the results obtained in the development of an opera- tional philosophy. Second, the results of the exploratory meetings will be given. Third, the findings of the "Inventory for Institutional Research" will be detailed. Last, the final phase of the study reported will be the results of the second survey of the sample populations which used the "Priorities for Institutional Research. " THE OPERATIONAL PHILOSOPHY As a result of numerous personal interviews, review of literature, and personal correspondence and study, the following philosophical definition of institutional research was developed as an operational framework: Institutional research is a centrally coordinated program of self-study within an institution, designed to systematically collect, analyze, evaluate, and interpret variegated forms of information as it relates to any pertinent aspect of the university operation, or its components, in order to provide '74 75 the data base from which the institution may make more efficient, effective, and educationally sound use of its resources to fulfill its avowed purpose. Each segment of this definition was developed to identify a fundamental concept for the operational philosophy. "Institutional Research . . . " In these opening words, "institutional research, " a basic set of concepts is implied. The phrase has grown in acceptance and usage in recent years and has a particular identity to institutions of higher learning. The term "research" has no such universally accepted definition. To some, research is a term which refers to the "pure, " "hard, " or "basic" research, often associated with the basic sciences. For others, the word is more broadly (and legitimately) used to include reference to "applied" research or "operational" research. The results of this study have been that both applied and operational research are appropriate to institutional research, but the heaviest accent must be on the applied aspect of its function. This interpretation of "research" was found to be most acceptable to the subjects of the study at Ohio Northern University, as shown through the hopes and reservations they expressed in both their informal conversations and their formal responses on the "Inventory for Institutional Research. " Being an institution with a decided emphasis on the teaching function and the liberal arts, it was recognized that '76 the operational philosophy most acceptable, as well as theoretically sound, was one which combined both the pure and applied types of research, but with a major emphasis on the latter. ". . . Centrally Coordinated Program of Self-Study . . . " Self-study has been found to be a central concept in a philosophy of institutional research. The process of self-study has been accepted by behavioral scientists, accreditation bodies, legislators, and educators as a legitimate means of study and evaluation. The question confronting this study was how centralized the function of institutional research should be to facilitate self-study. The experience of other schools leads to both extremes. The University of Minnesota, for example, has a large staff of nearly 20 persons1 and a highly organized central operation. On the other hand, the University of Wisconsin is an example of a decentralized research function, in which a central coordinator serves as a consultant to faculty and others who perform the research function. Our findings have been that there is no single 'lbest" organization for institutional research. Therefore, feeling Quite strongly that the success of the research function would depend on the active participation of all administrative, student, and academic personnel involved, a philosophical stance was founded on these principles: 1 Moore, op. cit., p. 5. '77 1. The Office of Institutional Research at Ohio Northern would actively support any and all institutional research possible within various departments, units, and groups -- in a decentralized manner. 2. At the same time, the Office of Institutional Research would design and conduct studies which were needed and which would not otherwise be completed. The emphasis would be on active encouragement of the "subletting" of as many future and continuing studies as possible to appro- priate individuals, departments, or units. This would free the Director of Institutional Research to be consultant to others for their respective studies as well as be able to conduct studies himself which were new or otherwise unique. One of the chief findings for the appropriate role of the institutional researcher was that he should be a central coordinator of institutional data. The office would maintain a data bank of its own, but even more important, would have knowledge of and access to all kinds of information at its respective points of origin and maintenance. ". . . Systematically Collect, Analyze, Evaluate, and Interpret . . . " There was found to be general agreement that a primary function of institutional research was to "systematically collect" data, 78 information, and facts of all kinds. Systematization was deemed essential to meaningful studies. Similarly, it was found that most of the sources felt that institutional research must include an evaluative, analytical, and interpretative function. In recognition that "figures don't lie, but liars figure, " it was realized that a special integrity is expected and required in these functions. Responsible analysis and interpretation were seen as basic assumptions for an operational philosophy. ". . . Variegated Forms of Information . . . " Data may take many forms: tables and figures, summaries and lists, ratios and correlations, diagrams and graphs, or facts and feelings. Generally, institutional research must be free and able to employ any of these forms as needed and appropriate. ". . . Any Pertinent Aspect of the University Operation, or Its Components . . . " The university is composed of a number of component groups and distinctive operations. Groups are typically described as students, faculty, and administrators, or departments, divisions, or colleges. Operational functions can be identified as academic/non— academic, teaching/learning, or financial/academic/administrative. Institutional research is found to be most able to fulfill its purpose of serving the larger interest of the university when it is available to serve in any of the separate interests of these operational 79 and component parts as well. The only guiding principle must be that the specific area of investigation be potentially pertinent to the larger purposes of the university. Insofar as institutional research is generally considered an administrative-type function, a broader understanding of its role must be promoted if it is to be functional on an all-university level. Individuals and members of departments and college units needed confirmation that institutional research is a service available to their own needs and interests, the crucial factor being that the service not only be of interest and assistance to an individual part, but that it also contribute to the larger purpose of the institution. ". . . In Order to Provide the Data Base from Which the Institution May Make More Efficient, EffectiveLand Educationally Sound Use of Its Resources . . . " A realistic operational philosophy must include the recognition that the institution of higher learning is, in the best organizational sense of the word, a bureaucracy. As such, it typically incorporates a significant degree of misuse, under-use, and overuse of resources -- human, financial, time, space, energy. In recognition of this fact, there was found to be considerable interest in seeing institutional research do for educational administration what the efficiency expert does for industry. But coexistent with this desire for increased efficiency and effectiveness of operation was a distinct reservation in how far this efficiency-thrust ought to be extended into the academic 80 areas. As important as efficiency and effectiveness were recognized to be, there was considerable support for a countervailing force we could call "educational soundness. " Institutional research must maintain an interest in the components related to educational quality as well as those related to quantity. The particular task of institutional research is to provide the data base from which decisions can be made which meet the criteria described. In such a position, institutional research maintains a degree of separateness from policy and decision-making and does not become directly involved in the implementation of these functions. Such a level of objectivity is recognizably difficult and highly desirable, and is seen by some as mandatory. The institutional researcher is reSponsible for projecting facts, alternatives, implications, and interpretations, but he clearly is expected to remain impartial and objective in the matter of making decisions and implementing them. ". . . To Fulfill Its Avowed Purpose. " A final facet of an operational philosophy for institutional research is the need to recognize its relationship to the larger purposes of the institution. Just as the means of instruction and the structure of the collegiate organization find both their shape and meaning in the larger purpose of the institution, so institutional research must find its means and mode of operation in the larger purpose. Philosophically, institutional research is not seen in a vacuum nor in an isolated corner 81 of the academic task. It is not capable of permeating the full scope of the areas of need and of accepting a disproportionate responsibility for problem-solving and change; yet it is seen as a contemporary attempt to provide an empirical foundation of fact and reason for higher education. FINDINGS FROM THE EXPLORATORY MEETINGS Exploratory meetings were held for 25 groups of administrators, faculty, and students in their reSpective organizational units. 1 All group chairmen cooperated fully in arranging for the meetings, each of which lasted from 40 to 80 minutes. The overall attendance for these meetings was 87 percent. The Director of Institutional Research made evaluative ratings of several aSpects of these meetings. These ratings are summarized in Table l. The Director felt that there was a decidedly positive response to the concept and purpose of the exploratory meeting and its main components -- the presentation by the Director and the discussion. A moderately positive overall response was reported for institutional research in general, as a result of these meetings. In an analysis of the nature of the questions raised in these meetings, Table 2 shows that the majority of the inquiries were for information and clarification. Questions on the scope and nature of institutional research were next in frequency. 1See pages 21-23 for the earlier definition of these groups. 82 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATIVE RATINGS GIVEN BY DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH TO VARIOUS AREAS RELATED TO EXPLORATORY MEETINGS Area of Response Evaluation of Responsea Some Some Positive Positive Negative Negative Group's own concept of exploratory meeting 8 4 Response to presentation by Director 10 12 Discussion 8 13 1 Inventory for Institutional Research 1 6 Follow up Institutional research in general 5 l4 1 aRatings were only given when there existed some evidence of a reportable response. Therefore, the table does not reflect a response in each area for each meeting. A study of major comments and opinions offered (as compared to questions) in the discussion part of these meetings is reported in Table 3. Here the most frequent type of comment was related to suggestions for specific studies, followed by expression of frustration, personal concern and words of advice for the Director of Institutional 83 TABLE 2 NATURE OF QUESTIONS RAISED IN EXPLORATORY MEETINGS ON INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Type of Question Frequency Informational -- clarification type question ......... 15 On the scope -- nature of institutional research in general ........................... 13 The availability of institutional research to a particular group or individual .................... 10 Procedure and methodology of institutional research . . . . 7 Technical questions on survey methodology, analysis, and interpretation ..................... 7 Regarding specific studies .................. 6 Principles and philosophy of institutional research operation (e. g. , publication of results) .......... 5 Organization for institutional research function ....... 3 Qualifications of Director of Institutional Research ..... 2 Total ................... 68 Research. Questions and comments which gave an overall tonal balance of negativism and/or despair in the discussion existed in two meetings -- one with the staff of Student Personnel and the other with the staff of Development and Public Relations. In each case the source of these feelings evolved from a single individual, but was unchallenged by the rest of the group. 84 TABLE 3 NATURE OF COMMENTS OFFERED IN EXPLORAT‘ORY MEETINGS ON INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Type of Comment Frequency Suggestions for specific studies needed ........... 8 Expressions of frustration .................. 7 Personal concerns and observations ............. 6 Direct advice to the Director of Institutional Research . . . 5 On the value of institutional research ............ 1 On the distrust of institutional research ........... 1 Total ................... 28 EINDINGS FROM THE "INVENTORY EOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH" The "Inventory for Institutional Research" was distributed personally by the Director of Institutional Research to all persons attending the 25 exploratory meetings. Group chairmen followed up the absentees at their respective meetings, and the random sample of students was contacted by mail as described earlier. Table 4 shows the percentage of return for each of the sub-groups. The adminis- trators showed the highest return at 94. 6 percent, followed by the faculty and students. Tests of significance at the . 05 level showed that in these percentages there was no significant difference between the response rate of faculty and administrators; nor between the students 85 TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSE ON "INVENTORY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH” Inventories Inventories Percent of Sub- Groups Sent Returned Return Student departmental representatives 5 5 100. 0 Student Religious Council 24 5 20. 8 Student Senate 16 6 37. 5 Subtotal -- repre- sentative student groups (45) (16) (35. 5) Student random sample 476 110 23. 1 Subtotal -- all student groups (521) (126) (24.2) ' Administrators 37 35 94. 6 Faculty 143 116 81. 1 Grand Total 701 277 39. 5 of the random sample and the students from the representative groups. There was significant difference between the students as compared to both the faculty and administrators. 86 PERSONAL INFORMATION The preliminary questions on the Inventory (in Part One) dealt with personal data. Table 5 reports the results on the question of "primary relationship" to Ohio Northern University. TABLE 5 PRIMARY RELATIONSHIP OF RESPONDENTS TO OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY Relationship Number Percentage Administrative 35 12. 6 Faculty (teaching 50% plus) 116 41. 9 Student 126 45. 5 Total 277 100. 0 The results of the question relating to the number of years which the respondents had completed at Ohio Northern University are shown in Table 6. The majority of both student and administrative respondents are in their first year at Ohio Northern University, while the majority of the faculty have completed 6 - 10 years. The percentage of students responding for the five levels from freshman to fifth-year students corresponds favorably to the actual percentage distribution in the entire student body during the same time period where the respective 87 TABLE 6 NUMBER OF YEARS COMPLETED BY RESPONDENTS AT OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY IN PRIMARY RELATIONSHIP Administrators Faculty Students Years Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 8 22. 8 16 13. 8 38 30. 2 1 4 11.4 15 12.9 28 22.2 2 5 14. 3 14 12. 1 16 12. 7 3 5 14. 3 17 14. 6 30 23.8 4 3 8. 6 4 3. 4 12 9. 5 5 ' 2 5. 7 9 7. 8 2 1. 6 6 - 10 3 8. 6 24 20. 7 11 - 20 5 14. 3 14 12. 1 Over 20 . . . . 3 ~ 2. 6 No response Total 35 100. 0 116 100. 0 126 100. 0 enrollment percentages were 34, 23, 19, 21, and 3 percent from freshmen to fifth-year students. 88 The results of the response to the question on the "number of other institutions where [respondents had] a similar relationship " to the one reported are shown in Table 7. More than one-half of the faculty and administrators, and more than two-thirds of the students first entered their present type of relationship at Ohio Northern University. One-fifth of the students and nearly one-fourth of the faculty respondents have been at one other institution in similar capacities. TABLE 7 NUMBER OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS WHERE RESPONDENTS HELD A SIMILAR PRIMARY RELATIONSHIP Number of Administrators Faculty Students Other Institutions Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 20 57. 3 58 50. 0 88 69. 8 1 5 14. 3 28 24. 1 26 20. 6 2 5 14. 3 15 12. 9 5 4. 0 3 or more 4 11.4 14 12.1 4 3.2 No response 1 2. 7 1 O. 9 3 2. 4 Total 35 100. 0 116 100. 0 126 100. 0 The organizational relationship of administrative respondents was found to be as shown in Table 8. 89 TABLE 8 ADMINISTRATIVE AREA RELATIONSHIPS BY ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONDENTS Administrative Area Number Vice President for Academic Affairs ........... 14 Vice President for Development 85 Public Relations . . . 6 Vice President for Financial Affairs ........... 4 Dean of Students ...................... 5 University President ................... 4 Other (no response) .................... 2 The relationship of faculty and student respondents to academic divisions and colleges is summarized in Table 9. At Ohio Northern University, administrative personnel may be given academic rank. Table 10 reports the dispersion of the faculty and administrative respondents according to rank. PRESENT OPINIONS The second part of the "Inventory for Institutional Research" dealt with the present opinions of the respondents toward institutional research. In one question reSpondents were asked if the level of their "present understanding of the role and function of institutional research" was complete, sufficient, meager, or non-existent. The responses in 90 TABLE 9 RELATIONSHIP OF FACULTY AND STUDENT RESPONDENTS TO ACADEMIC DIVISIONS OR COLLEGES Student Student Representative Random Faculty Sample Sample Division/ College No. % No. % No. ‘70 College of Liberal Arts: Fine Arts 12 10. 3 1 6. 3 10 9.1 Humanities 21 18. 1 2 12. 4 7 6. 4 Social Sciences 17 14. 7 4 25.0 15 13.6 Math/Natural Sciences 26 22. 4 1 6. 3 12 11. 0 Teacher Education 19 16.4 4 25. 0 22 20. 0 Total Liberal Arts (95) (12) (66) College of Engineering 10 8. 6 1 6. 3 15 13. 6 College of Law 4 3. 5 13 ll. 8 College of Pharmacy 5 4. 3 1 6. 3 15 13. 6 No response 2 1. 7 2 12. 4 1 . 9 Total 116 100. O 16 100. 0 110 100. 0 91 TABLE 10 ACADEMIC RANK OF FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONDENTS Faculty Administrators Total Rank No. ‘70 No. % No. % Professor 25 21. 6 8 22. 9 33 21.9 Associate Professor 33 28. 4 8 22.9 41 27. 2 Assistant Professor 33 28. 4 7 20. 0 40 26. 5 Instructor 22 18.9 3 8. 5 25 16. 6 Lecturer, part-time, etc. 3 2. 7 3 1. 9 No rank 9 25. 7 9 5. 9 Total 116 100. O 35 100. 0 151 100. 0 Table 11 show that the majority (61. 1 percent) of the students felt their understanding was meager. On the other hand, the majority of both the faculty (59. 5 percent) and the administration (65. 7 percent) felt their level of understanding was sufficient. Statistical analysis shows that there are significant differences which exist at the . 001 level between the responses of the total students and faculty, and between the total Students and administration. In addition, there is no significant dif- ference at the . 05 level between the two student samples, nor between the faculty and the administrators. 92 .mHBmfimHCHSHVm Home 328me H38 c6953 cam .5303 Home 3:82am H.138 smegma Hm>mH Hoo . Q: E “238 mmocmpmHHB LROHHEmHm o .03 Rm o .02 mm o .03 mHH o .03 mmH o .03 oHH o .02 H ESP 5 . N . . . . . . . . © .H N w .H N . . . . @WCOQWQM 02.. m .@ PH . . . . s .H m a .HH H s .2 H . . . €833-62 H .vw mmH 0 .0m N. w .mm mm H .H© E. N. .mo mm 0 do w Somme/H o .3 mmH N. do mm m .3 mm m .mm 0m a .0m mm m. .me N. EoHoHHHm s .w H m .3 m m .n o m .H N m . H m .w H 963800 § 00.2 § .02 Q5 .02 § .02 § 002 O5 002 ocfigumnmoqb muqmvgm 295mm magma Ho monomo H.305 aoflmbmHfiSEH 330mm H305 888mm m>flSmmmmHQO 333m. 3356 m0mflflcmmopmmfi 3:0an .850 Zn 000 3:0me H0 038mm 80053 05 00058 H0>0H Hoo . 0E. Hm smem 80:090ng ”28330060 o.ooH Rm 063 mm 0.03 mHH 063 @NH 063 oHH o.ooH mH H.309 as. e 0.m H a. H on m o.m m .. .. 850822 mism on m.m H mm 3 max. mm o.mm Hm o.mH m mpofimzm 0s 80c 380500.55 0.2 mm quH m m.mH mH de mH o.HH NH o.© H 9238ch can mcoflmmmméoo as mm 5% a 90 2 TN m 05 m .. .. saga mango 3%QO mdw mHH m.wm mH H.mm ms m.HH mH o.m m 0.5 mH 8825 $0 an coflficmmmnfl & .02 § 00.2 $ 00.2 § 002 g .02 § 00.2 quogumgwch m 038mm 038$. - H0 mend—om somvfim. H805 coflmbmHfiSHé 3398 HS 0 .H. 2803 0>fl300m030m «30096 30006 momfimmmm Q<0 00.200000 020 000.0000 0090000000200 0000003000 20000000 0000 00003 020000000000 000 00000 000. 00 0002200 0 EH mequB 98 .0000 03000 000 00000 00 000 00 000000000 00000 0 000 0303 0000000000 0H00 0050000 00 000000000 000 000000000 0030 0000000 00.00 00 00 00 0 00000000 02 0H m H 0 .00000 0000 00 002000 0000000, 000 000 00000300 05 00 0500000000000 0030mm o0 w 0H w 0000000 000 .0003 000001003 003000.30 .3000 000000500 000 00 0000000200000 000 00000000 00000003 mH wH m H .000 .000000 0000000600000 6009000200 030000 00 000A 0H 0 0 0 0000000003 00.0 00000000 .0000 0.0003000 00 0000000000003 Emuz 00.an 0HHu2 mmuz H00 0 .0 00000000 00300.0 00500003000000 000000002 00000000005 00 0000000000000 00003000 .3 wH MAm4 3 m >4 m m some go won/H8630 new 3005."... 358mm“ .95 new 3.3 H.383 mo QEmdoflmHom + wEmUBm go 856.833 E o.m mm 3 m.m mm 2 w; s m . . . . . . E68323 B mo>flomBo Ho mflmcoflflmm+ >4 «m cm m4 N. w mg m: m m4 2 N. “883319 Ho 66.5% new $336.30 mnofimmmm+ TN 8 ow Tm we mm on em E an S m. Seaweed 3666385 Rm 8 me Tm mm mm Tm um ma m.m m e 888:0 98 83.9830 ammoflfiswfi m4 mm on as nm 3 m4 ow mm Tm S a $58.56 aaonafina m4 mm mm mg «em on ma em 3 o.m OH m 8.898% fiaoflBSwfi as x: mm a; e. on ma mm. on H .N am E 8856 688782 3833665 ”mgomhmo 072 @200 .96 RE H .93 Rt» % .98 was w .96 0.33 M. menu—m p8 «830.5 633995 H.305 BamUBm 338m 3863958344 mmmODBm momacemmmm AmHmm+ 8.H 88 H8 H.8 88 08 8.H 88 8H 8.H 8H 8 8888888 828888 889.8888 8.H H8 88 8.H 88 88 8.H 8 8 8.H 8 8 8888838 3838805388... 8.H 8HH 88 8.H 88 08 8.H 88 88 8.H 8H 8H 88388888288828 8.H 88H 88 H8 88 H8 8.H 88 88 8.H 8H 8 88.388888 8888882888 8.H 88H 88 0.8 88 88 8.H 88 88 8.H 8H 8 8038288888 .8 8888.880 "20888888828208 .98 8.83 8 .98 8.83 8 .98 8.888 8 .98 8.888 8 303m .808 88030.8. Umummoasm H.308. 8888838 856.88 888858253. 85288900 .... mm mdmflw 119 l\l: ll... . 1‘1 .mm8 .Q .8388. 80 8:8 8 808.008 9% 88 . . m8 . . . . om . . . . 2 88.8.8 838 .88 mmcommmgucoz 8.H 8H 0H 8.H 8H 8 0.8 8 8 . .. .. 8888888285.. 8.H 08 8H 8.H 8H 8 0.H 8 8 0.H H H 88888088880 8.8898 08 888.300 85883 80 8288883“: 8.8 mm 88 8.8 88 m 8.8 m 8 . . . . . . 88898 8580838028 .m> 888.300 Umpflamm+ H.m om 8H 8.8 8 m m.m mm 08 o.m m 8 888.300 333 3880308 8.8.8980 8o c088838>m+ H.8 88 8H 8.8 H8 8H 0.8 8 8 8.H 8 8 8888.38 .8888 88888083 808868: 888688.886 862+ 8.8 88 88 8.8 88 88 . . . . . . 0.8 8 H 8.38 8.828888 8838880 3888988888 98 ofigvmnom $860+ 8.H 88 88 H.8 88 88 8.H - 88 8H 8.H 8 8 8888838 88 8.8.5288 88b 8.8 8m 08 m.m 8 mm 8.8 S 88 8.8 8 8 808.8880 888.300 fimflmmfl 02¢ 8285880888850 .98 8.83 8 .98 8.8.3 8 .98 8.83 8 .98 8.83 8 88:6 .88 88030.88 80888896. H.308. 8888838 8:888 888888888888 Umscfinoo In mm mamflb 120 .NNH d .8388 80 80:8 8.8 305008 mmm . . . . mm . . . . 8m . . om . . . . 88 88.8.8 885. .88 mmcommmmucoz 8.8 88 8H 8.8 8H 8 8.H HH 8 . .. .. 8888838 88 898888888 mm mmmam>flom88m 33088.8. + 8.8 mm 88 8.8 88 HH 8.8 8 8 0.8 m N 888888 98888.8 888880-298 >893 80 8885883: 98 mmmam>flom88M+ 0.8 88 88 8.8 H8 8H 8.H 88 88 8.H 8 8 8838888820 80883888 088 8388.880. 0.8. cm 88 8.8 88 mm m.m mm 88 8.8 m N 8888680088 80888888888 0.8 80H 88 8.8 88 8H 8.H 88 88 0.H 8 8 828888 822883888 88.38 8.H 808 88 8.8 88 88 8.8 88 mm 8.8 8 m 8888 88880 H.8 8HH 88 8.8 88 88 H.8 88 8H 8.H 8 8 888888888828 8.8 88H 08 8.8 0HH 88 0.8 88 88 8.H 8H 8 H8388 38888888888 8.88888. nZOwHOBmHhE 07:8 80888.92 02888985.. .98 8.83 8 .98 8.83 8 .98 8.888. 8 .98 8.83 8 83m .808 %o8qo.8. 88880895 8888“. 88.5va 38:08.88 8808888858888 809588200 :1 mm mdmflqfl. 121 888 .88 .8883 80 98 8.8 803008 mmm . . . 8m . . . . 88 . . . . 88 . . . . 88 8988 8885 .808 mmdommgéoz 8.H 8H 8H 8.H 8H 8 8.H 8 8 .. .. .. 888838 8:888 8888 88880888588 H88 88888858 80 8858.88: 8.8 08 88 8.8 m 8 8.8 m8 8. 8.8 m 8 .3m .3838. 38858888 £838.83 8 @8888 0888?: 8.H SH 88 8.H 88 H8 8.H 88 88 8.8 8H 8 888888288ng 8888888800 878089888858 0818m5n8 . . . . mm . . . . mm . . . . 88 . . . . 88 88.88 mi: .808 mmcogmmyncoz 8.8 88 cm 8.8 mm 88 8.8 8 m 0.8 m 8 Bmoo 8830.8 8 $38 .838 $808883 80 som88888800+ 8.8 88 88 0.8. 88 mm 8.8 88 88 8.8 8 8 88888 80 8.30m 8.8 88H 88 8.8 88 88 8.H H8 88 8.H 8 8 8.88380 23885888 8.8 N88 88 0.8 mm8 mm 8.8 8m 88 0.8 m m mmmfifio EmfiBm 8858 £38 £08883 8o coflaggm fivZfifim 07888 9888885 .988 8.83 8 .028 8.83 8 .98 8.83 8 .988 8.83 8 88838 808 88088898. 8833895 H.398 8888838 883088 8888888383 Encammm .. 88 88mg .3903 888.828 u .828 8898 28380888388 8.880QO 8.388 n m 8888 628808888588 8.880QO n 8 60880888888888 u 8 @8883 888.808.. 38888» m .. m u 8 8 so 838 30883 80.8.8988 898888 8805588983 8808588888 88888883 u 8 .88» 5088880828 80 8895588888 n 8 68078 .8 + v 88 8839888 8888 32882088888 880$ .Ho 08 88 88908888208888 8898088sz 8828 888888888888 85 :8 88838 “on mmofi 8o .wucmccommwp O8 6888 88 3 8308.888 828 8888588888588 85 c8 83.8.88 8.88» H8088? mmofi 8820 8.88 8688.88 .8088on 122 . . . . 88. . . . . om . . . . 8m . . . . m 88.88 .888: .808 mmcommm8ucoz 8.H 88 88 H.8 88 8H 8.H 8H 88 . . . . . . 8888838 8888888 80 82888888888808. 8.H H8 88 8.H 88 8H 8.H 88 8H 8.H 88 8 88288888888820.8888 8.H 88 88 8.H 88 H8 8.H 88 8H 8.H 8 8 82888888. 8.H 88 88 8.H 88 88 8.H 88 8H 8.H 8 8 802888 8.H 88 88 8.H H8 88 8.H 88 8H 8.8 8 8 828888 888888288 88.88 8.H 88 88 8.8 88 88 8.H 88 88 8.H 8 8 888888.38 88.8 8888288 88.98 8.H 888 88 8.H 88 H8 8.H H8 88 8.8 8 8 38.82388 80 8888883888880 8.H 88H 88 8.H 88 88 8.H 88 88 8.H 8H 8H 8.38 8:888 18nd .mcaqufimv 88088088 3888838 "82388qu888 QZ< 980838828888 .888 8.83 8 .888 8.83 8 .888 8.83 8 .888 8.83 8 888856 .808 88088898. 883.8383. 830.8. 888838 888888 flambmgag 858888888800 1... mm mqmgdu 123 mmmcommmm 80 885.92 088.8388 8 .H 888 8 .H 88H H .H 88H 8 .H 88 88886.8 8:888 8 .H 888 8 .H 888 8 .H 88H 8 .H 88 8888:0888 888 882828.88. 8 .H 888 8 .H 88H H .H 88H 8 .H 88 888888 888 888888 H .H H88 8 .H 88H 8. HHH o .H 88 8885888 888 8888 8 .H 888 8 .H 888 8 .H 888 8 .H 88 8808882 8888888.. 888 888.5qu 8 .H 888 8 .H 888 8 .H 88H 8 .H 88 8.88.53 888 83828.80 8 .H 8H8 8 .H 888 8 .H 88H 8 .8 88 88888888888 8 .8 888 8 .8 888 8 .8 888 8 .8 88 883888 8 .8 888H 8 .8 888 8 .8 888 8 .8 8HH 8888838 8 .H 888 8 .H 88H 8 .H 88H 8 .H 88 8828.50 888 288 .8>< .02 .8288 .02 .838. .02 .8>< .oZ 888uz 88Huz 8HHuz 8% 8888888 H888. 8888838 88888.8 88888883888. =mom< mm mqmfib 124. which they had as individuals or as members in a department or administrative position. These data consisted of regular or occasional compilations in the form of reports, summaries, or uncollated information. The response on current data came almost entirely from administrators and faculty. Students were not expected to respond to this section of the Inventory unless they represented a group which had some kind of data to report. Table 24 summarizes the type of data reported, according to the source or focus of the data by academic department, administrative unit, college, or the university in general. Some duplication may be present in the summary since no detailed effort was made to determine if two persons were reporting on the same study under differing titles or descriptions. The obvious dupli- cations were eliminated. In contrast, there is considerable likelihood that substantial data were not reported, as some respondents felt that their data were not significant enough to mention. FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY ON "PRIORITIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH" The second instrument of the study was the survey on 1 "Priorities for Institutional Research. " This survey consisted of the 15 top suggestions obtained on the first questionnaire. The method used for selection of these 15 items was to include those items which on the 1See Appendix H. TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF INVENTORY OF CURRENT DATA AS REPORTED BY ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY AT OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY Type of Report, Summary, or Other Study 125 Annoeg uo eieq iueuxenetqov inepmg squeqms -qu eptsmo Ag tunrnotmno go uonenreng {Suture 91 go uonenpang uouomisul' to uonenteAg semnpeaf) no “81190 squepms uo meg 3103 [Old retoedg/qoaeesea uouoefoad ebueH -buoq seuoiueAuI Apms reuotqexedo 31.1 ode'a {enuuv suodeg uoneirpexoov seAnaefqo 2? Steos Source and/or Focus of Current Data All university College of Liberal Arts College of Engineering College of Law College of Pharmacy Dept. of Art Dept. of Biology 126 883m .8850 .Ho .mhmfifism Jnommm 80 898.8 m H . 8 803888582 80 .58 . . H H H 8888. 8838885 80 .888 H 8 H H H . . 8888888888088 8888a 80 .888 8 8 . . . H . . . . . . scamosvm 8838888 8 £88m 80 .888 8888:8884 288.888 Ho .38 8 m H 8 m m m . 8 883858 80 .38 . . 8 H . . 8 . . . . . H . . 8088888880 .888 8 H 8 H 8 H H H 8 H H . 853888080 .888 H .. .. .. .. .. 8 .. m mowfiocoomé mofimfimHfifiv< mmmfimzm 80 :8me I 88888888888888.8888: .. p80888888888.889..n88 e In n n e u s 8 8.8.8.8888. 888888.88mmw J V m m. m. .b m. m. m. 9 $ 8 W We m. m mm 8.88. O 38 8:98.30 m m e m w w u w m n W 8m s m. .m m. m 80 mdoom 8398.8 meadow m m m I. I. I. w m .8 d 88 u. u w .M e "m m: m m. m m. 9 mm .88. w w W .8. A d m 8 8 8 s 8. 8 8.888888 2. 88 838.8 TABLE 24 - Continued Type of Report, Summary, or Other Study 127 51111023 uo meg quemeAemov nuapms siueqrns -uoo eptsmo £8 umrnotung ;o uonenrehg bumeeq io uon'enreng uononnsul go uon'enrezxa seqenpeas uo meg squepms no mo sqoefoxd retoeds/qoaeasaa 4 uonoefoad 951mg -f>uor1 seuoqueAuI Apmg muonexedo sqaodea renuuv 2 5362, suodea uoneqrpexoov seAnoetqo 99 81909 Source and/or Focus of Current Data Dept. of Music Dept. of Philosophy & Religion Dept. of Physics Dept. of Psychology & Sociology Dept. of Speech & Theater Accounting Admissions Development & Public Relations & Alumni Building 8: Grounds TABLE 24 - Continued 128 Aimoeg no 12qu iueweAemov iuepnqg squeitns -uo;) aptsqno Ag tum-naming) go uon'enrena butuae 91 ;o uon'enteng uononnsul go uon'en'feng serenp'eag) uo ereq squepms no 8120 8199§0Jd remedS/qomese/H uouoetoad ebuea -f>uor1 1 seuoqueAuI Type of Report, Summary, or Other Study Apms reuon'eaedo snode’a tenuuv siaodaa uon'eupeaoov 3766 .11.... seAnoefqo 1? 81209 Source and/or Focus of Current Data Financial Aids Library Student Senate Student Personnel President & Vice Presidents Figures are the number of units (summary, reports, etc.) reported as having been completed in the last five years. 129 results of the first questionnaire as a listed item had either a weighted frequency of 120 or more or a simple frequency of 58 or more, or as an unlisted and spontaneously given response had a weighted frequency of 40 or more or a simple frequency of 20 or more. By this method the 15 items on the second survey represented one or more selections from each of the ten main categories (goals and objectives, adminis- trators, etc. ); the first choice of each sub-group in its own respective category (e. g. , students' first choice about students, etc. ); and the first choice within the ten categories for administrators, faculty, and students -- six, eight, and nine times respectively. The survey on "Priorities for Institutional Research" was distributed to the same groups and individuals who had received the first questionnaire. They responded as follows: TABLE 25 RESPONSE ON SURVEY ON "PRIORITIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH" Surveys Surveys Usable Sent Returned Surveys Group No. No. % No. % Administration 37 V 31 83. 8 28 75. 7 Faculty 143 101 70. 6 82 57. 3 Students 504 167 33. 1 147 29. 2 130 A misunderstanding of the instructions or failure to follow them fully resulted in a number of questionnaires being returned in which all 15 items were either not ranked fully or not ranked in a consecutive numerical order. This rendered these questionnaires unusable. A comparison of the rate of response to this questionnaire with that of the first one shows that in the case of the second one the response of the administrators and the faculty was moderately reduced while the response rate of the students was increased. The specific results of the survey on priorities are shown in Table 26. By converting the total value given by each of the sub-groups for each of the 15 areas of study into standard scores, it was possible to combine the data into a reliable composite ranking. This shows that the highest priority was given to the area of "course offerings and scheduling, " and the next highest was "evaluation of teaching effective- ness. " The lowest priority was given to "university-community relationships, " with "institutional religious objectives and degree of fulfillment" being next lowest. The variations in priorities between the sub-groups can be noted by a comparison of the resulting rank order for each group. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was determined for each of the possible comparisons. 131 .82 d .833 Ho 95 8.8 mmsofiofl mom 8 8.H8 HH 8.88 888H H H88 888 8 8.88 88H 8883 892 -82 88823388 .8 8H 8.88 8H 8.8.8 8H8H s 8.88 8H8 HH 8.88 888 38838 8238 698 383398 88 moflmflmsowpmno .o 8 8.88 8. H88 8.82 0H 8.8 88 8 8.8.8 88H 8.3888 ocHonSuconHomU 8328383 .8 8 m.m8 m m... .3 ommH m 8.8m mmm 8 H68 mmH A88 .3328 .3: 8.88253 3833 2088838 .8 88.5 ouoom 88.5 8.80m 93> .8va 0.80m de> .8880 8.80m 83.88“ E .Uu—m 83mm .Em H.305 #3 .3m awn—0.H. cg 3.3m .mdmuoH. .638 .88 smmuZ 88H n Z mm N Z mm H. Z $88.3fl 63800.5 .38 38838 538.8 28.85.8383. mfimomfioo _.mUMED .m 820 8.80m .8th 8.80m 38> 86.80 8.80m 38> 86.80 8.80m 38> 8.8m .85 8% .3m 88B xcdm .Bm H.305 oxcdm mgm 81308 $ng bwfiuZ mmuZ mmuZ 88D 386885. figomm mpogwbmfififigw 8808380 .838 .88 mmmfiw 888385 60.95300 I. om mqmfifi 133 «H m .©© H v .@m mH w .vm m mHv mH m .mw mmbH H» m .mm Sm OH m .mm mmmH H m .HVm HHH. mH m .HN. me m H .HVHV mwm mH m.mm Hg. m m .3» >me HVmH d .833 Ho H88 8 88508 88m mH w .O© mwm H m .me NE > m .om mmm m w .mHu mom EmEHHE HE Ho 8888 98 838830 36822 $82358 .8 8883838 @5888 Ho coprsHmkwm .H 858 #55880 Ho 28: -88 m>5wfimHBEv< .x 9246838 98 mofi8¢o mmpsoo ..H .820 8.80m 86.5 8.80m «58> .8ng 8.80m 83.3w .8890 8.80m 38> 8m .3m. Mag .Em H308 xddm .Em H805 “2qu mEm mHSoB Emuz wauz mmuz mmuz Ema mfimvfim Egofim maogmfichHSEH 883800 5% .88 .824 vmumommsm @835qu .... mm mqmfib 134 588888 8388882 8 E53» 868 82 8E 8 Eco 88:88 86.5 E 8688 .0H 3 838386 68688 85 68 om 8H 8.88 85 8.863 8888 .H. m 68:88 choEEoo 3 8:3 85 8888 N 8838338 8fi Ho 203888883 8 8H 8.8% .668 8.88m 68688 8686 .5238 3H 833 85 .8835 88, 8:9: 85 8665 E 888688889 .3 6869888 883.? 8388:: 8E Ho 86.333 8 8H 83;; H.309=an HH m .mm m m .06 m w .bm 52. m w .HVHV ©HoH NH m .8. mmv 6 H .66 mmm HVH m .8 HEN m o .H@ Hmm 8888868 38658 68 .888 506:3 Ho 603838ka .0 738 .8808 .8383 .888 mg 8808 “H63 8623 Ho 8836:8me .: 86.5 8.88m 86.5 8.88m 83.2w 86.5 8.88m 98> 86.5 8.8 om 856g 888 .38 838 .38 Boa g .38 H38. 0888 .838 £38. bmmnz 372 mmuz mmuz 38 38638 338.8 203885863 886808800 a63m 8% 82¢ 688838 68:58:00 In mm memED .8 mm: E. 2;. 8m mm om S S @52qu 883-82 $863698 a 02 t. EH mm 8 6m om m 383.... 9:88 as 38338 Ho 8833888860 .8 mom E 2: mm. 8 E 8 N 838088 mcmefinconHog 8>flmfimEHE6< .n mmH mm 00H 3 3 mm 8H 0H 738 $38,835. 66866.33 88823 8883848. .m .80 68m .800 .083 .880 .on nmooO momm 1 >655 8% 888.3 6888895 emmuz stuZ mmuz mmuz mason. 38638 338.8 £82338< 86.8 829888 .82? .820 mo 828 828888 .8388 mom mzofi5mfimfififiv< .x mm HS pm 0: mm 3 NH 3 aocfldumzom 98 macflmfio @2200 mm mm: mm mm 3 om ma 3 m mnofifimflfigflm 8 338:3 28 383 E mmEmcomflmm .H m: YE m¢ m2 om. mm a N. omocBEm 98 98an Emcsm .3 mm: mm moH 3 no S 2 OH 83388 0.253 cam. Emmmum Ho soflmuflfib .m .80 .omm .80 .93 .000 .omm 9.000 .mon 33m no“ mmmflq. vmgmmomsm bmmuz bwfinz mwuz mmuz £309 magnum. 330mm mgoumbmwfifigw 6983300 I. 5N Mdmflh 138 438 050.3 mfimomfioo H0 Ewan 00 >053 002.303 00.0 $182 00% 03020.0 mmfiwo .000 >0 030000 0.3 88:3 093 Ecofimmooo 683-95 n .m& an 030ch 0.8 mmEBm 093 050.302 .ngommm 0: E $ 09. 8 mm 2 a 080.88 383m 000 £08 £03.30 90 cosmddgm .0 X: mmfi mm m6 3 mm 2 3 780 .Smnmoa £03003 60.8 up mumoo ”:23 mung H0 093600me .2 mmm mm :3 3 mo 3 mm m .EmEHaE %0 00.500 0:0 00330.30 050322 80033305 .8 .000 .on .000 .002 .000 .mmm nW80 030m >006 90.0. 0.00.3 0800005 ummuz BENZ mmuz mmuz 3.3 0.H. 300055 539mm myofibmflfifigw 0055300 I: 0N MAm_t__t_1_ support §_n_d_ resistance from each of these three groups. The survey on "Priorities for Institutional Research" showed a significant correlation of the priorities chosen by faculty and 145 administrators, but neither of these groups correlated significantly with students. The full impact of this study cannot be measured at this time, nor strictly by the methods of this research project. However, in light of the observations which can be made at this time and by the me ans herein described, it is believed that the procedures and methods used have been administratively productive and sound, and that the objectives of the study have been completed. CONCLUSIONS A number of conclusions have resulted from this study. Some can be documented by the findings and concrete data. Others are based on the insight and subjective judgment and observations of the researcher. Most of the conclusions, however, represent a full complement of both of these resources. These are the basic conclusions of this study: 1. The conscious discipline of developing an operational philosophy in the initial stages of establishing an office of institutional research is a decided asset. This procedure ofiered a number of advantages. It gave a rational theoretical base. It gave the Director of Institutional Research a private and public standard for guidance in his task. It allowed for the shaping of the research program to the particular nature and needs of the Specific institution. It offered a criterion for evaluating a research study in terms of its real meaning and contribution to the 146 institution. This seems eSpecially necessary in the case of the small university which must capitalize on its uniqueness of character and fulfillment of its stated purpose in order to exist. 2. The new research office tends to become functional as a service to various segments of the university in pro- portion to its freedom to develop direct relationships to those segments. Institutional research is not generally understood in a small university such as the one under study. There is a decided tendency to see it as an administrative function basically directed to administrative purposes. This relationship can be broadened effectively where the research personnel are organizationally free and able to present a more extensive personal interpretation of its nature and function. In this study, the new Director was able to declare openly his availability to a_J_l__ segments of the University, as a result of his open job description and his personal philosophy. This allowed for reason- able satisfaction to be brought to a few persons who were concerned that the Director's advisory committee could not have representation from all colleges nor academic and administrative interest groups. 3. The personal attributes and behavioral patterns of the director of a new office of institutional research con- stitute an important resource for his success and acceptance in a small university. 147 Among academicians there are those who seem to view the role of an institutional researcher with considerable respect, while others look at it with varying degrees of disdain. Their support and coopera- tion tend to be directly related to the degree to which they can relate positively to the researcher, both as a person and as an expert. In this study there were several situations in which the quality of professional relationship and service advanced directly in proportion to the quality of the personal relationship. In one situation in particular, an administrative colleague of the researcher seemed threatened personally and somewhat envious of the prominence being afforded the new program of institutional research. Sensing and discovering the background of these feelings, the researcher was able by personal diplomacy to create rapport to relieve these feelings and develop in their place a cooperative and productive working relationship. 4. The exploratory meetings held with sub-groups made a decidedly positive overall contribution to the understanding and acceptance of the new Office of Institutional Research. The findings indicate that the presentation and discussion at 1 and clarification2 the meetings were a major source of information of the new service. The presentation provided a basis for many persons to develop feelings and opinions toward the potential value of institutional 1See Table 12, p. 94. 2 See Table 13, p. 95. 148 1 Still others who heard the presentation felt they lacked research. sufficient understanding to be able to answer clearly yes or no on the potential value of institutional research. Another finding from the exploratory meetings was that they provided for a constructive airing of individual and group gripes and concerns. The presence of the Director of Institutional Research was seen as a means of communication with the administration. It also hue..— «7%... symbolized the overt interest of the administration in the concerns and Y“ ‘ contribution of the respective parts of the academic community. One of the dangers of the exploratory sessions was the possible oversell and overextension of the potential value of institutional research. In the climate where there was both a strong desire for answers to problems and a desire to validate the ability of institutional research to provide answers to many educational problems, overselling and overextending the realistic potential of institutional research could lead to false hopes and expectations. Such false hopes and expectations could develop unless some conscious caution and limitations are outlined. 5. The use of the questionnaire had mixed but predominantly positive value as an instrument in the establishment of a new office of institutional research in a small university. 1See Table 17, p. 102. 149 . A positive value of the Inventory was that it demonstrated, in part, the authenticity of the contribution which the sub-groups were expected to make in relation to shaping the direction of institutional research. The Inventory served as a means of getting these individual suggestions and opinions. Another positive aspect of the Inventory was its promotional and instructional value. The completion of the questionnaire required the respondent to give some conscious thought to the research function, [- which led to a greater degree of awareness of the service. There were some negative or questionable aspects of the questionnaire which need consideration. First, it was very time- consuming. The questionnaire development, administration, and tabulation extended over a six- month period and required an estimated total of 500 hours of work. Second, the questionnaire was a difficult one to complete for the respondent. It asked for responses in areas which were new and strange for many respondents. Many questions were open-ended and required thought and effort. The total time for completion ranged from 20 minutes to an hour or more for those who supplied considerable thought and/or supplemental information. (A number of persons attached extra pages of response.) In general, the conclusion was that the positive values of the Inventory procedure outweighed the negative ones where the new research office was free to invest the early part of the first year’toward long- range goals and objectives in the research program. 150 6. The use of a two-step survey procedure produced more accurate and helpful results. This study used two surveys employing two separate instruments for the same sample population. There appeared to be decided value in the use of an initial survey to bring together the preliminary suggestions for research and then a follow-up survey to refine these results and establish priorities. This second survey made the priorities more precise, reliable, and accurate, and provided for the promotion of the results of the first inventory to the participants by using those results as the basis for the second survey. There seemed to be some trace of resistance to "another questionnaire, " but the response rate indicates that the ease of completion made the second questionnaire about equally well 1 received by administrators and faculty and better received by students. '7. The respondent's membership in one of the sub-groups (administrators, faculty, and students) was the only independent variable of personal information which had any significant relationship to personal opinions about institutional research or priorities for its function. The significant variations of response which were revealed by this study tended to follow the lines of sub-group membership. For example, the students' greatest expectation and hope for the research —* 1As shown by a comparison of the responses in Table 4 on page 85 with Table 25 on page 129. 151 function was to "evaluate and improve curriculum, " while the administrators and faculty indicated a first choice of "collection of data and information to assist in decision-making, program and policy development, and countering misinformation. " There was a similar order of difference between the students and the other two groups on their degree of understanding about institutional research. A third c-fl- -1‘n , .1 - k g. A point where the same pattern of variation showed up was on the results of the survey on priorities for institutional research. In this case the ; rank order of priorities for students did not correlate significantly with either the faculty or administrators, yet faculty and administrators did correlate significantly with each other. It must be noted that in the three areas of interest just mentioned, the differences which were found could be explained by their membership in their respective sub-groups and, more significantly, by the students' not participating in an exploratory meeting. This explanation must be considered even though a comparison of the students who did participate in an exploratory meeting with those who did not failed to show any significant differences. The sample of students who attended meetings was small enough to make valid comparisons questionable. A significant difference among reSponses by sub—groups was found in relation to their expected support for and resistance to institutional research from the sub-groups. For example, adminis- trators did not tend to see a diversity in either the support or the 152 resistance which the sub—groups would give. In contrast, the faculty and students did see a diversity at that point. In general, the administrators expected both a high level of support and resistance from all groups, while the students and faculty showed a greater range of expectation from all groups to both support and resist institutional research. None of the other independent variables, such as length of service, rank, disciplinary relationship, or experience at other institutions, 'showed any significant relationship to the respondents' personal opinions about institutional research or their priorities for its function. 8. There was a decided asset in the successful establishment of an office of institutional research, in that the main financial support for the project was underwritten by a federal grant. In addition to the obvious benefit in dollars, the federally sponsored grant provided other intangible advantages. One was that the grant allowed more comprehensive preparation for the new program and introduction of the office as conducted in this study, without pressure to produce results, demonstrate the impact of the program, and, in general, justify its function in tan’gible terms. The findings from the responseson the potential value of institutional researchl 1See Table 17, o. 102 "‘11""‘f":“.;7“‘_’ ‘4‘“?- * t 153 show a mixed reaction to the long-range value of the program even after the exploratory meetings and the other promotional aspects of this study. Most small universities, like the one in this study, suffer from financial, personal, and academic restrictions. Therefore, the addition of another administrative position would be scrutinized closely r-e— and perhaps resisted openly by faculty and students. Resistance might ! even come from other administrators who felt it was a luxury which I they could not afford. In this study it was felt that the general acceptance of the new institutional research office was considerably enhanced by the fact that it was predominantly funded from federal sources. 9. There is positive value in the establishment and use of an advisory committee. In this study a committee was chosen to serve in an advisory capacity for the Director. The committee members were chosen partly to represent1 the major sub-groups of the campus (adminis- trators, faculty, and students) and partly for the expertise they could bring to the work of the committee. In its monthly meetings this committee reviewed ideas, philosophy, studies, and concerns raised by the Director, and offered judicious and helpful counsel as the new office began its operation. What little evidence there has been to date 1There was some pressure to enlarge the membership to increase its representativeness, but this was resisted in order to keep the committee more functional. 154 would show that this committee serves a valuable function as an informed liaison between the Director and the larger academic com- munity -- offering helpful communication and interpretation in both directions. If; BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyris, Chris. Executive Leadership. New York: Harper, 1953. -—.-- Personality and Organization. New York: Harper, 1957. Astin, Alexander W. , and Panos, Robert .I. "National Research Data Bank for Higher Education, " Educational Record (1966). 3 2....“ f2. . ‘a n i" ________ "On Using Systematic Information in Making Educational Decisions, " Educational Record (1967). Axt, Richard G. , and Sprague, Hall T. (eds.). College Self-Study. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1959. Association for Institutional Research. Directory. 1969-70. Bagley, Clarence H. (ed. ). A Conceptual Framework for Institutional Research. Proceedings of Fourth Annual National Institute Research Forum. Pullman, Washington: Washington State University, 1964. Design and Methodology in Institutional Research. Proceedings of Fifth Annual National Institutional Research Forum. Pullman, Washington: Washington State University, 1965. . Research on Academic Input. Proceedings of Sixth Annual Forum for Institutional Research. Cortland, New York: State University of New York College at Cortland, 1966. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938. Barton, Allen H. Organizational Measurement and Its Bearing on the Study of College Environments. Princeton, New Jersey: College Entrance Examination Board, 1961. Boyer, Ernest L. "The Impact of Institutional Research on the Academic Program. " Albany, New York: Office of University- wide Activities, State University of New York, 1967. (Mimeographed. ) 155 156 Brumbaugh, A. J. Research Designed to Improve Institutions of Higher Learnirg. Washington: American Council on Education, 1960. Clark, Burton, "Faculty Culture, " in Study of Campus Cultures, ed. Larry Lunsford. Boulder, Colorado: The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963. College Entrance Examination Board. Research in Higher Education, Guide to Institutional Decisions. New York: College Entrance . Examination Board, 1965. ’1 .A. ' Demerath, N. J., et al. Power, Presidents, and Professors. 1’ New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967. ‘7“??? .— Dietrich, John E. , and Johnson, F. Craig. "A Catalytic Agent for Innovation in Higher Education, " in The Role of Community College Administration in Relation to Institutional Research. Report of the Drive-in Conference, Wayne State University, 1967, Rislov Sigurd. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University, 1967. Dissertation Abstracts, The Humanities and Social Sciences. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1955-69. Doi, James I. "Organization and Administration, Finance and Facilities, " Review of Educational Research, XXXV, No. 4 (1965). Downie, N. M. , and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods, 2d ed. New York: Harper and Row, p. 166. Dressel, Paul L. "A Comprehensive and Continuing Program of Institutional Research, " in Cooperative Long-Range Planning in Liberal Arts Colleges, ed. Earl J. McGrath. New York: Columbia University Teachers College, 1964. Evaluation in Higher Education. Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State University. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Drewry, Galen N. (ed. ). The Administrative Team and Long-Range Planning. Athens, Georgia: Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, 1967. (Speeches from conference on topic.) The Instructional Process and Institutional Research. Proceedings of Seventh Annual Forum of the Association of Institutional Research. Cortland, New York: State University of New York College at Cortland, 1967. 157 Dyer, Henry S. "Can Institutional Research Lead to a Science of Institutions?", The Educational Record (Fall 1966), pp. 452-65. Dykes, Archie R. Faculty Participation in Academic Decision Making. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1968. Eckert, Ruth, and Keller, Robert J. A University Looks at Its Program. St. Paul: North Central Publishing Company, 1954. Education Index. A cumulative subject index to a selected list of :— educational periodicals, proceedings, and yearbooks. Vols. XII- XIX. New York: H. W. Wilson Company, 1959-69. Educational Administrative Abstracts. Vols. I-IV. Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educational Administration, 1966- 69. I‘ up”: in 3*.-.“ . ‘W - J 1‘ Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). Research in Education. Vols. I-IV. Washington, D. C. : United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education/ Bureau of Rewarch, 1966- 69. Evans, Richard I. Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education: A Social Psychological Exploration Focused on Television and the Establishment. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass, Inc. , Publishers, 1968. Fincher, Cameron (ed. ). An Annotated Bibliography of Institutional Research, 1967-68. The Association for Institutional Research, 1968. Fincher, Cameron. FacultyPerceptions of the Research Environment. Georgia: Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, 1965. Fincher, Cameron (ed. ). Institutional Research and Academic Outcomes. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Forum on Institutional Research. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia, 1968. Fincher, Cameron. Planning in Higher Education. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia, Institute of Higher Education, 1966. Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959. "Administrative Theory and Change in Organizations, " in Innovation in Education, ed. Matthew B. Miles. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. 158 Griffiths, Daniel E. Research in Educational Administration -- An Appraisal and a Plan. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1959. Harris, Chester W. (ed. ). Engyclopedia of Educational Research, 3rd and 4th eds. New York: MacMillan, 1960- 69. Heist, Paul A. "Research in Higher Education: Current Status and Future Needs, " Current Issues in Higher Education (1962). Henderson, Algo D. "Improving Decision-Making through Research, " Current Issues in Higher Education (1963). Johnson, B. Lamar. "Institutional Research in the Junior Colleges of the West, " in Institutional Research in Junior Colleges. Occasional report from U. C. L. A. Junior College Leadership Program #3. California: U. C. L. A. School of Education, 1962. Knorr, Owen A. (ed. ). Long-Range Planning in Higher Education. Papers and discussions of the Sixth Annual Institute on College Self-Study for College and University Administrators. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1964. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. , and Sieber, Sam D. Organizing Educational Research. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. , and Thielens, Wagner, Jr. The Academic Mind: Social Scientists in a Time of Crisis. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1958. Lewis, Lionel S. "Two Cultures: Some Empirical Findings, " Educational Record. XLVIII, No. 3 (1967), pp. 260-70. Linn, R. , et al. A Guide to Research Design: Institutional Research Program for Higher Education. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1965. Lins, L. Joseph. Basis for Decision. Madison, Wisconsin: Dembar Educational Research Services, Inc. , 1963. The Role of Institutional Research in Planning. Proceedings of the Third Annual National Institutional Research Forum, McGregor Conference Center, Wayne State University. Madison, Wisconsin: Office of Institutional Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1963. 159 MacDonald, Douglas. "A Study of the Informational Needs and the Development of a Proposed Form Manual for Use in Preparing Recurring Reports in the Office of Institutional Research at the University of Mississippi. " Doctoral dissertation, 1965. Machiavelli, Niccolo'. The Prince, trans. and ed. Mark Musa. New York: St. Martins Press, 1964, pp. 43, 45. March, James G. , and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 1958. :2: Mayhew, Lewis B. "Educational Research, Its Capabilities and l 1 Limitations, " in Research in Higher Education: Guide to Institutional Decisions. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965. "Institutional Research in the Junior College: Process and F 4. Product. " Proceedings of the First Annual Conference for Directors of Institutional Research in California Junior Colleges, 1965. McGrath, Earl J. (ed. ). Cogerative Long-Range Planning in Liberal Arts Colleges. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. McGrath, Earl J. Memo to a College Faculty Member. New York: Columbia University Teachers College, 1961. McKenna, D. L. "Organizing the Faculty for Institutional Research, " Junior College Journal, XXXII, No. 2 (October 1961), pp. 104-10. Michaels, Joseph. "Guidelines for the Establishment of an Office for Institutional Research and Development at Pasadena City College. " Los Angeles, California: University of California, Los Angeles, 1966. Miles, Matthew B. (ed.). Innovation in Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Millet, John D. The Academic Community: An Essay on Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962. Moore, Philip 8. Report on Institutional Research and a Proposal for Its Organization at the University of Notre Dame. South Bend, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 1965. (Mimeographed.) National Science Foundation. Systems for Measuring and Reporting the Resources and Activities of Colleges and Universities. Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1967. 160 Peterson, Richard E. "An Overview of the Development of the Institutional Functioning Inventory. " Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1969. (Mimeographed.) Research Studies in Education. Vols. I—XIII. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 1956-69. Review of Educational Research. Vols. I-XXXIX. Washington, D. C. : American Educational Research Association, 1931-69. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press, 1962. + Rourke, Francis E. , and Brooks, Glenn E. The Managerial Revolution in Higher Education. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins Press, 1966. .4...‘ :1— “wart-r- A Ruml, Beardsley, and Morrison, Donald H. Memo to a College Trustee. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959. Russell, John Dale. An Inventory_of UniversitLStatistics. Indiana: Prepared by Bureau of Institutional Research, Indiana University, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Sanford, Nevitt. "Research and Policy in Higher Education, " in The American College, ed. Nevitt Sanford. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1962, pp. 1, OO9-10. Saupe, Joe L. Memo to a Newcomer to the Field of Institutional Research. Review prepared for the Association for Institutional Research, 1967. Schechter, W. H. Design for Decision. Tarkio, Missouri: Tarkio College, 1967. (Mimeographed.) Schietinger, E. F. (ed. ). Introductory Papers on Institutional Research. Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, 1968. ’ Sexton, Patricia C. The American School: A Sociological Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: MacMillan, 1950. Snow, Charles Percy. jibe Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1957. 161 Snow, Charles Percy. The Two Cultures: And a Second Look. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Sower, Christopher. "The Normative Sponsorship Theory of Updating Organizations. " East Lansing, Michigan: 1968. (Mimeographed.) Sprague, Hall T. Institutional Research in the West. Report of a Survey of Institutional Self-Studies at Western Colleges and Universities. Boulder, Colorado: The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1959. r"- _~..- . Stecklein, John E. "Institutional Research: Current Status and Future Requirements, " Current Issues in Higher Education (1962). ‘6 .l . ”‘M. r“- -l Stickler, W. Hugh. Institutional Research Concerning Land Grant Institutions and State Universities. Tallahassee, Florida: Office fir”: of Institutional Research and Service, Florida State University, 1959. . "The Expanding Role of Institutional Research in American Junior Colleges, " Junior College Journal, 31:548 (May 1961). "The Role of Institutional Research in the 'Managerial Revolution in Higher Education:' An Overview, " in Introductory Papers on Institutional Research, ed. E. F. Schietinger. Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board, 1968. Swanson, Herbert L. An Investigation of Institutional Research in the Junior Colleges of the United States. Report of a national study. California: University of California, Los Angeles, 1965. Thompson, Sister M. Magdala. "A Short Consideration of Faculty Reactions to Change with Suggestions for Increasing Innovation. " Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969. (Mimeographed.) Tickton, Sidney G. Letter to a College President. New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1963. . "Needed: A Ten-Year College Budget, " Reprint of Chapter 7 in FinancingHigher Education 1960-70, ed. Dexter M. Keezer. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Trow, Martin A. "Social Research and Educational Policy, " in Research in Higher Education: Guide to Institutional Decisions. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965. 162 Trow, Martin A. "Survey Research and Education, " in Survey Research in the Social Sciences, ed. Charles Y. Glock. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967 . Tyrrell, Philip H. "Programming the Unknown: Guidelines for the Conduct of Institutional Research, " in Basis for Decision, ed. L. J. Lins. Madison, Wisconsin: Dembar Educational Research Services, 1963. U. C. L. A. Junior College Leadership Program. Institutional Research in Junior Colleges. Occasional Report from U. C. L. A. Junior College Leadership Program, School of Education. California: University of California, Los Angeles, 1962. Van Istendal, Theodore G. "A Study of Community College Institutional Research. " Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Studies of College Faculty. Papers presented at an institute for college and university administrators and faculty, University of California, Berkeley, July 31 - August 4, 1961. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1961. Wilsey, .H. Lawrence. Long-Range Planning for Colleges and Universities. Chicago, Illinois: Educational Administration Division, Booz, Allen & Hamilton. -. ,1 Ah ‘nhhgqptln‘j' 1'! APPENDICES fill]. ‘_ .1. ". APPENDIX A PRESENTATION TO UNIVERSITY FACULTY - SEPTEMBER 16, 1969 I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you, the faculty, this afternoon as the Director of Institutional Research. Institutional research is a relatively new field in higher education in general. It is a completely new field to Ohio Northern in particular. Thanks to a substantial grant from Title III funds from the federal government to the college consortium of Bluffton, Findlay, Defiance, and Ohio Northern, this new position has come into being. I therefore welcome this chance to Speak just briefly to several aspects of the function of institutional research, about which I know many of you, and hopefully all of you, will have an interest. What Is Institutional Research? I have developed a rather concise, yet complex and comprehensive working definition of the task as I see it. I do not expect you to grasp it all on one hearing. In fact, I assume you will not, because I am hoping to have more time with you in smaller groups later to further interpret this. The following is the working definition: Institutional research is a centrally coordinated program of self-study within an institution of higher education, designed to systematically collect, analyze, evaluate, and interpret variegated forms of information as they relate to any pertinent aspect of the university operation, or its components; in order 163 164 Appendix A to provide the data base from which the institution may make more efficient, efiective, and educationally sound use of its resources to fulfill its avowed purpose. There it is -- a mouthfull. I trust you picked up enough to gain some preliminary description while maintaining enough mystery to make you interested in hearing more; for this is the next point for my comments. Institutional research is a university-wide operation crossing all major segments of the academic community -- faculty, students, administrators, trustees, and, on more rare occasions, alumni, parents, and others. It works for unity amid diversity and for reality amid relativity. With institutional research being such a many-faceted operation, it behooves us to practice the very rational approach, that we shall later preach, as we set up our research operation. We need to be comprehensive and systematic in our approach to our new task. It therefore is wise that we solicit the views and judgment of all major segments of the University as to what are our personalized needs and what should be our priorities for institutional research at Ohio Northern University. In the near future we will be contacting the department chairmen and deans to schedule an opportunity for me to make a direct contact with faculty groups in some natural and appropriate grouping, such as your department meeting or a divisional meeting or perhaps by colleges in a case or two. In these meetings, I will have two major goals: 1) I will attempt to further ._4‘!v-‘.- -‘ 165 Appendix A interpret for you the parameters and potential of institutional research as it was described in my earlier definition, for you and your depart- ment, for your college, and for Ohio Northern as a total university. There may even be some "overflow" or "fall-out" which may be a contribution to higher education in general. In these meetings, I will also be asking you to give some thought to areas of interest, concern or need which you can see in “. 't-L-C- .h-A‘ ~ ~- regard to any aSpect of the University operation for which institutional research might be applicable. In other words, I will be soliciting your participation in the process of identifying our particular needs at Ohio Northern and establishing priorities for the nature of our institutional research operation. Therefore, some time within the next month you can expect that we will be sitting down in a more natural setting and sharing together our insights for the direction of institutional research at Ohio Northern. APPENDIX B OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION BY DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AT EXPLORA'I‘ORY MEETINGS WITH SUB-GROUPS AT OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY Institutional Research in General Institutional Research Is a Relative Newcomer to Higher Education A. A new focus on long-standing needs. B. In the past such research was done by presidents, deans, etc. C. Now we need a regular and comprehensive approach. Institutional Research Is a Product of Our Times A. Scientific methods have evolved in education, as well as business, industry, and management. B. Legislatures and general publics expect scientific application of research methodology to the process of higher education. Growth of Institutional Research A. Full-time position -- past: 1955-15 institutions; 1965-115 institutions. B. Full-time position -- present: 1969-hundreds of institutions. Operational Definition of Institutional Research "Institutional research . . . " A. Research to many means pure, hard, or basic research. B. Research also means applied research. C. Institutional research makes claims to both, but is basically applied. 166 ‘3“. ': mu ._ ' 3; _ I 1 l $7.09“? H C 167 Appendix B . is a centrally coordinated program of self-study . . . " The merits of self-study are generally accepted. Self-study is a basic expectation in colleges today. Institutional research will coordinate and conduct self-study. Institutional research is a service function to all segments of the university in this task. . . designed to systematically collect, analyze, evaluate, and interpret . . . " A. B C. D H A. II Systematically collect the right things at the right time. Analyze information to separate fiction from fact. Evaluate data and apply value judgments to analyses. Interpret results reSponsibly according to professional standards. variegated forms of information . . . " Various forms: lists, reports, summaries, ratios, charts, etc. any pertinent aSpect of the university operation, or its components . . . " A. B. Operations: teaching, financial, administrative or service. Components. 1. Faculty, administrators, and students. 2. Departments, divisions, colleges, and all-university. 168 Appendix B VI. ". . . in order to provide the data base from which the institution may make more efficient, effective, and educationally sound use of its resources . . ." A. Efficient. 1. Institutions of higher learning are bureaucracies. 2. All bureaucracies need to correct overuse, misuse, and under-use of funds, equipment, space, time, and personnel. B. Effectiveness is prime educational goal. C. Educationally sound. 1. A keystone to efficiency and effectiveness. 2. Supercedes administrative efficiency and academic expediency. VII. ". . . to fulfill its avowed purpose. " A. Avowed purpose must be clearly understood within the institution. B. From this purpose evolve all other purposes for teaching, administration, and institutional research. VIII. Conclusion. A. Institutional research is no "cure-all, " but it can give rational evaluation to what is too often only intuitive. -’~s-1u.:..- "' ,. ‘g'gs a... APPENDIX C AN EXPLORATORY SESSION ON INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH INTRODUCTIONS 6 Purpose of meeting 6 Procedure of meeting PRESENTATION 6 Institutional research in general 6 An operational definition of institutional research: Institutional research is a centrally coordinated (1) (2) program of self-study within an institution of higher education, designed to systematically collect, analyze, evaluate, and interpret variegated forms of informa- (47 tion as they relate to any pertinent aspect of the (5) university geration, or its components; in order to provide the data base from which the institution may make more efficientgeffectiyg), and educationally sound use of its resources to fulfill its avowed pur pose . 6 Illustrations of institutional research 6 Institutional research at Ohio Northern University DISCUSSION 1 69 ._ H..- ..__.,_..4.......__. .g-- . ._ .! u 170 Appendix C PRESENTATION OF "INVENTORY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH" 6 The Inventory 6 The follow-up ' 3i "A.;.$.‘_...n_‘ .4 'm o ' Q W‘ffln- I; " APPE NDIX D INVENTORY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Introduction: In an effort to effectively launch the new program of institutional research at Ohio Northern University, it is essential that we survey a wide range of sources to discover the unique areas of need and potential for institutional research. This questionnaire is designed so that YOU as a member of one of the Special segments of this university might offer YOUR observa- tions and opinions that will assist us in identifying and developing the most appropriate areas of concern for institutional research at O. N. U. As you perhaps are already aware, Ohio Northern University is one of a consortium of schools in this area of Ohio which has received federal funding toward the establishment of an Office of Institutional Research on its campus. As a relatively new facet of higher education, a working definition such as the following should be helpful: INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH is a centrally coordinated program of self-study within an institution of higher educa- tion, designed to systematically collect, analyze, evaluate, and interpret variegated forms of information as they relate to any pertinent aSpect of the university operation, or its components; in order to provide the data base from which the institution may make more efficient, effective, and educationally sound use of its resources to fulfill its avowed purppse. Instructions: 6 Please read and answer each question carefully and thoughtfully. 0 All persons should answer the appropriate questions in Part I, Part II, and Part III. Part III is the main body of this Inventory. Be prepared to give it your greatest amount of time and thought. Only faculty and administrative personnel need answer Part IV. 171 L17“ M;‘ Ala.“ V. . Is.-.- 172 Appendix D 6 Do 93; Sign your name to the Inventory. No individual return will in any way be identified with an individual person in the report of this study. All personal information requested here is strictly to enable the Office of Institutional Research to make meaningful tabulations and shall not be used for any other purpose. 0 Please complete and return this questionnaire in the envelope provided within one week of receiving it. The date due: Thank you for your valuable assistancel ‘T. -.944\‘\‘....l ‘0' IM‘ ‘. a - - . I ‘ . OIR-ONU-69 173 Appendix D PART I PERSONAL INFORMATION (Please place a \/ by the appropriate answer.) 1. My primary relationship to Ohio Northern University is: (0) __ Administrative ( 1) __ Faculty (teaching 50% plus) (2) __ Student 2. Number of years completed at O. N. U. in the foregoing relationship: (0) __ 0 years (1) __ 1 year (2) __ 2 years (3) __ 3 years (4) __ 4 years (5) 5 years (6) : 6 - 10 years (7) __ 11 - 20 years (8) __ Over 20 years 3. Number of other colleges or universities where I have had a similar relationship to the one indicated in #1 above: (O)___0 (1)____1 (2)____2 (3) __ 3 or more (Answer ONLY if Administrative in #1 above. ) 4. My administrative responsibility is organizationally related to: (0) __ Vice President for Academic Affairs ( 1) __ Vice President for Development and Public Relations (2) __ Vice President for Financial Affairs (3) __ Dean of Students (4) __ University President ( 5) __ Other (Answer if Faculty OR Student in #1 above.) 5. My major academic relationship is to the following academic area: (0) __ Division of FINE ARTS -- College of Liberal Arts (1) __ Division of HUMANITIES -- College of Liberal Arts (2) __ Division of SOCIAL SCIENCE -- College of Liberal Arts (3) __ Division of MATHEMATICS/NATURAL SCIENCES -- College of Liberal Arts (4) __ Division of TEACHER EDUCATION -- College of Liberal Arts (5) __ College of ENGINEERING (6) __ College of LAW (7) __ College of PHARMACY “‘7 .'-t‘.—_-- if‘fiw. ' 1y 174 Appendix D (Answer, if it applies.) 6. My academic rank is: (0) __ Professor (1) __ Associate Professor (2) __ Assistant Professor (3) __ Instructor (4) __ Lecturer, part-time, etc. PART II PRESENT OPINIONS 7. 10. I feel that my present understanding of the role and function of institutional research is: (0) __ Complete (1) __ Sufficient (2) __ Meager ( 3) __ Nonexistent Indicate which one of the following means has been the major source of your present understanding of the institutional research function: (0) __ Presentation by Ohio Northern Director of Institutional Research ( 1) __ Readings on the subject (2) __ Conversations and discussions (3) __ The introductory note to this Inventory Based upon my present understanding of the role and function of institutional research, these are some of the hopes and expectations which I hold for its contribution to Ohio Northern: Based upon my present understanding of the role and function of Institutional Research, these are some of the reservations and cautions I have in regard to its function: 11 - 13. What degree of cooperation and moral support do you feel can be expected for the institutional research function from each of the following three groups at O. N. U. ‘2 Maximum Considerable Minimal None 11. STUDENTS (0) __ (1)____ (2)__ (3)____ 12. FACULTY (0)__ (1)__ (2)__ (3)__ 13. ADMINISTRATION (0)__ (1)__ (2)___ (3) __ 175 Appendix D 14 - 16. What degree of resistance do you feel can be expected for the institutional research function from each of the following three groups at O. N. U. ‘2 Maximum Considerable Minimal None 14. STUDENTS (0)____ (1)____ (2)___ (3)__ 15. FACULTY (O)__ (l)___ (2)____ (3)____ 16. ADMINISTRATION (0)___ (1)___ (2)___ (3)___ 17. Presently, the Institutional Research Office is being subsidized largely by a government grant. Do you feel that the potential value of institutional research for Ohio Northern is sufficient fo justify its support by University funds? (0) __ Yes (1) __ No (2) __ Not enough perception of its function or potential to answer PART III. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AS indicated earlier, institutional research is as broad as the operation of the university. It therefore can be quite general and/or quite specific. In this part of the Inventory, we want YOU to give YOUR suggestions for areas of institutional research which would be general or sgcifi -- university-wide or for a smaller segment. Following is a listing which classifies institutional research into ten general categories. In each of these categories, there are given some examples of typical concerns for which studies are often made in institutional research. You are asked to do two things: Step One: List under the various categories in the spaces provided your suggestions for studies which you feel would be valuable for us to conduct at O. N. U. You may select from the examples themselves, if they are appropriate, but hopefully your list will represent your personal thought and selection. Be as Specific as you can and care to be. Step Two: Go over your lists and indicate with a (+) and (++) in front of the items listed which of these suggestions you feel are of SPECIAL significance and EXTRA SPECIAL significance. + for SPECIAL significance ++ for EXTRA SPECIAL significance '1 ’ . V w - '1: Law 1'51 WW ‘1‘. ‘91-“: or.- ..In: a) In 1'76 Appendix D REMEMBER: Here is the "heart" of this questionnaire. Please give it your best thought. 1. GOALS & OBJECTIVES -- institutional philosophy, standards, objectives, institutional character and climate, long-range planning. __“":—“III I 2. STUDENTS -- analysis of student characteristics, opinions, attitudes; persistence, dropouts, transfers; geographic origins; study habits; employment; source of funds; financial aid; scholarships; costs of college attendance; activities (social, athletic, academic, etc.); academic achievement; utilization of personnel services (counseling, health, testing, etc. ); partici- pation in Sororities and fraternities; professional and graduate study. Alumni (success, vocations, opinions, etc.). luttlm- ‘- 3. FACULTY -- characteristics; work load; length of service, turn- over; professional activities; promotions, salaries; retirements and sabbatical leaves; student credit hour ratios; satisfactions- dissatisfactions; academic and personal freedom; self-evaluation. 177 Appendix D 4. ADMINISTRATION -- characteristics; length of service; functions; decision-making procedures; channels of communications, relationship to faculty; professional activity; self-evaluation; satisfactions-dissatisfactions. 5. CURRICULUM and LIBRARY -- courses listed, offered, repeated; summer session, remedial programs; honors programs; library holdings, circulation, acquisitions, student use. 6. INSTRUCTION] TEACHING METHODS -- teaching effectiveness; course evaluation, class size, examinations, grading; programmed instruction; student credit hour ratios; innovations and their evaluation. 7. SPACEjFACILIT‘IES -- Space utilization studies (classroom, laboratory, office, residence, administrative, service); student instructional Space ratios; future needs and development. 178 Appendix D 8. BUDGET/ FINANCE -- unit costs; budget projections; source of funds; expenditure of funds; evaluation of tuition, fees, and student charges. 9. ADMISSIONSZENROLLMENT -- admissions policies; test scores; characteristics of applicants and enrollees; course enrollments; enrollment projections; course screening and placement; probation. 10. PUBLIC RELATIONS -- community relationships; Special events (cultural, athletic, etc. ), use of facilities by outside groups; University service functions to outside groups; publications; mass media. 11. OTHER (Indicate any other studies which you feel ought to be conducted, regardless of where it might be classified above.) N O W I Have you completed both steps requested ? ? 1. Did you list all your suggestions for studies? 2. Did you indicate some degree of significance for some of your suggestions with a (+) for Special significance and (++) for extra special significance? n===FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL === ii Please continue to Part Iv II II I I I l == STUDENTS MAY STOP HERE ==========4 179 Appendix D (Only Faculty and Administrative personnel need answer. ) PART IV. INVENTORY OF CURRENT DATA A. REPORTS AND SUMMARIES List the reports and summaries which your department or administrative unit has made in the recent past according to the following categories: (1) One-time compilations -- (2) Occasional compilations -- (3) Regular compilations -- B. OTHER UNSUMMARIZED DATA List any other data which you regularly collect which are not summarized or reported by means just noted in A above: (use additional Sheets if necessary) WM‘. «‘mu‘noulnnu'n} nu .usT .- \ . II APPENDIX E FOLLOW-UP CARD FOR "INVENTORY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH" - _.:fl‘ln~fl'.'l)V‘.-r I". - '1 (Please return this card to the name which appears on the reverse side, at the same time ' you mail your completed inventory.) .1?”- Yes, I have completed and mailed my copy of the Inventory for Institutional Research. Name : (3 x 5 card) The follow-up card was returned to departmental or administrative unit chairman after completion of the "Inventory for Institutional Research. " 180 J k Ohio Northern University m. Ohio 45an outs. of Institutional autumn APPENDIX F 63‘ ' November 19, 1969 COVER LETTER FOR "INVENTORY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH" I am writing to you as one of a selected sample of O. N. U. students to ask for your insights and opinions on an "Inventory for Institutional Remarch, " which is enclosed. The introduction on the questionnaire will give you some background on this new service for the students, faculty, and administration of our university. (Should you have additional questions, please feel free to call me on campus extension 391 for further information.) May I count on you to take the 10 - 15 minutes necessary to complete this Inventory, within the next few days, so that I may have the benefit of your perspectives as a student? It can be returned in the enclosed envelope to any of the following points: residence hall desk "Information Desk" in McIntosh Center "Mail Room" in Willis House on Gilbert switchboard operator in Lehr Memorial 6 U. S. Mail (for off-campus students) @0630 Many thanks for your help. Sincerely, W. Harold Garner Director WHszl Enc. 181 :11 ‘v. .‘a‘n- nun—m-Ou‘. A.) n a ’ ~'_ A I APPENDIX G EXPLORATORY MEETING EVALUATION Department Unit Date Attendance Follow-up EVALUATION OF MEETING: Respgnse Rating to: 1. Own concept of exploratory meeting Pos SP SN Neg 2. Presentation by Director Pos SP SN Neg 3. Discussion Pos SP SN Neg 4. Questionnaire Pos SP SN Neg 5. Follow-up Pos SP SN Neg 6. Institutional research in general Pos SP SN Neg Nature of Response: Questions: Comments: 182 . A} .it‘tz' '9 '. Vera: .- A PPE NDIX H A Survey on . . . PRIORITIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Please review the following 15 suggestions for institutional research studies which were the leading selections of the O. N. U.‘ academic community (faculty, administrators, and students) on the recent "Inventory for Institutional Research, " and do these pwg things: (1) Rank all the items listed by putting a number (1 for first choice, 2 for second choice, etc.) in front of all the items given. (2) Review the entries you have made and circle Othose items which you feel should be studied on a regu_lar and recurring basis, as contrasted to studies on a "one-time" or occasional basis. “‘11,.81 ‘ rh-Jgifi 'Ir s I As you determine your priorities, keep in mind the need for our studies to be potentially relevant, meaningful, and helpful to some segment of our academic community or some facet of our academic function as a university -- not merely because they might be "interesting. " SUGGESTED AREAS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH (a) __ Admission policies (standards, uniformity, etc.) (b) __ Administrative decision-making procedures (c) __ Characteristics of applicants and entering students (d) __ Institutional long-range planning (e) __ University/community relationships (f) __ Faculty work loads (g) __ Utilization of present and future space and facilities (h) __ Student opinions and attitudes (1) Relationships of faculty and students to administrators (j) Course offerings and scheduling (k) Administrative channels of communication (1) Evaluation of teaching effectiveness (m) Institutional religious objectives and degree of fulfillment (n) Expenditure of funds (unit costs by area, function, program, etc. (0) Evaluation of tuition, fees, and student charges 183 J k Ohio Northern University Ada. GM 45810 Office ofolnstitutional Research APPENDDE I ? _..- COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY ON "PRIORITIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH" February 3, 1970 Dear O. N. U. Student, Recently you were one of the members of the O. N. U. student body who was selected to receive the "Inventory for Institutional Research. " Thanks to many, there was a good response to this questionnaire and the results have identified 15 areas of Special interest for study by institutional research. The next step is to take these 15 areas and further refine them into an order of priority and preference so that the work of this office in the immediate future will be in keeping with the needs of O. N. U. as seen by students, faculty, and administrators alike. Regardless of whether you completed the first questionnaire or not, would you be willing to take the 5 - 10 minutes needed for this final phase of the project and complete the enclosed survey form and return it to my office, in the near future, in the envelope provided? You may use the campus mail, the U. S. mail (if off-campus), or bring it to my office behind the switchboard in Lehr. Many thanks for your help. Your opinion will assist us in having the voice of the student in the making of important decisions. Sincerely, W. Harold Garner Director P. S. A printed copy of the preliminary report of the first inventory is yours for the asking -- just drop by our office by the switchboard in Lehr. Enc. 184 APPENDIX J A FIELD TEST REPORT ON "INVENTORY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH" We would appreciate it if you will review the proposed "Inventory for Institutional Research" as an instrument to be Used at Ohio Northern University for identifying areas of need and interest for institutional research, as well as potential opinions toward it. Please have the following questions in mind as you reivew it. Your written comments after reviewing the instrument will be appreciated. You may wish to put your comments either on this sheet or on the instrument itself, or both. Return to: W. Harold Garner Director of Institutional Research 1. Anticipated time to complete. 2. Are directions clear? 3. How does the Inventory strike you in general? Do you get the feeling of meaningfulness? triviality? 4. Comment on the meaningfulness and/or triviality of individual questions. 5. Do all questions have sufficient and appropriate options for answers? 6. Do you think of other areas which might be meaningfully surveyed which would have value and offer some advantage in launching a program of institutional research? 7. Other comments. (Thank you for your help. ) 185 ." ' .— ‘. _,- - a!” w. fr .g. ..-.m M sw- .n IR lll'x,l‘|l.l|l‘{ ..... APPENDIX K 186 err J. all}. .w 4&1! {V 37 .mLcoUBm u 63m ”533m u .omm ”whosmbmfififiose n 45. ”302 mw ©N NN SH 0 HH O¢H wa mu Nb Om NHV HHH—0.H. o o o o o o o o o o o o onsodnon oz 0 O O O o O N O N H O H ON Amt/O m 0 m N O N HH 0 HH m. 0 m ON I HH N. O b H O H OH O OH m 0 0 OH I m N O N O O O m H b m H N n v m H o O O NH m w m H N He He N N m H N mN ©H m ON HH m m N. m m m 0 m mH m b m m m N w HV N m m N mN NH OH m m m H mH NH N m N H NN NH ©H ©H HH 9 O . .omm . .onm . .omm . .omm Han—0.H. Unum \.U< H.309. 9.5m \.U< H.309 63m \.U< H.309 63m \ 2D< omooammm oz o>flmoo2 Readoz ofifimom 333800 SUE o>EmmoZuo>§monH 989W .6 93852 mmZOflmmm m>HEHBHmOQ MO NMQZH .mHmmrH. FEB WBHWMmSHZD ZEEHEWHOZ CEO EH3 mam/Sammy. .mEZmQZOQmmm .mO ZOmHmfimoo2 H.582 o>3Hmom Nova o>fimoo2uo>HHHmofl .850 Ho .8852 MmZOnHmmHm m>HHHHHwOQ nHO NmQZH 2ng 2925 mEZmQZOnHmmHm m0 mmOZmHmmnHNm mUmAHOO EEO HHO .mmmSHDZ m0 ZOmH.mHOU N mHquHH. 188 Appendix K TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' RANK WITH THEIR POSITIVE-NEGATIVE RESPONSE Positive-Negative Index 4 u I .’ gm. 1‘. M an” . . '_~ . ~ Y _ f ‘ Rank Positive Neutral Negative No Response Ad. /Fac. Ad./Fac. Ad./Fac. Ad. /Fac. Professor 11 17 3 2 Associate Professor 8 26 1 6 Assistant Professor 8 20 4 8 Instructor 7 10 3 5 Lecturer, etc. 3 0 0 0 No response 4 4 0 1 Total 41 77 11 22 Note: Ad. = Administrators; Fac. = Faculty. 189 Appendix K TABLE 4 RELATIONSHIP OF THE POSITIVE-NEGATIVE INDEX TO THE SOURCE AND DEGREE OF UNDERSTANDING OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH FOR ALL SUB-GROUPS Positive-Negative Index No ‘- A“... Item Positive Neutral Negative Response ‘T‘A Ian—tr. .- 1 No. P No. P No. P No. P Degree of Understanding Complete 5 . 02 7 . 03 0 . 00 1 . 00 Sufficient 35 . 13 59 .21 7 .03 21 . 08 Meager 28 . 10 70 .25 7 . 03 18 . 07 Nonexistent 2 . 01 5 . 02 3 . 01 7 . 03 No response 1 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 l . 00 Source of Understanding Presentation by OIR director 28 . 10 63 . 23 6 . 02 16 . 06 Readings on the subject 4 . 01 13 . 05 1 . 00 5 . 02 Conversations/ discussions 13 . 05 16 . 06 2 . 01 2 . 01 Introductory note to Inventory 25 . 09 48 . 17 8 . 03 23 . 08 No response 1 .00 1 .00 0 .00 2 .01 Note: P = proportion. Appendix K 190 “a. .mHHHoHoBm u 63m ”33on n .omm ”2oz NH. ON 8 NH m 0H H.HH so N... No ON NN H38. 0 o o o o o N N H N H H 3822 oz N H H. o o o s r. N 0 H N Unseen Ho 3.58 a o a o o o N m. N m N H 33 Ho oeoHHoo N H N N H N NH S m N o N sanoonHoem Ho oeoHHoo Home 5: HNHV a: He HNV HHNV 3.3 NS Hi 2.: HH.NV see. anooHH HsoH. N H H. N H H ON NH H. HHH H. H. soHHnosom Hosanna. @ n H N N 0 N N NH N H A $838 Bees/HESS H N N o N H. S NH a HH m. o 3828 aHoom H. H. N N o N NH HS o N N o noHHHsNEam m N N H o H NH H. m. m. N N an... 3E Baa. EH85 Ho oooHHoo HsorH. .oBm .oerH HsoH. new one HSorH. .osm one 38. .osm .onm 3:8QO 02 oHfimmoz H.382 oHfiHmonH omoHHoO\HHonH>HQ SUE o>flmmm2to>§mom WBHmmmH/HZD zm ENHOZ OHmO E< mEZmQDBm OZ< WBADOHFH nHO QHmmZOHHHHmem mUmHQOO\HHHHmOQ EH. rHO QEmZOHEHHiH mm m mqmafib 191 TABLE 6 Appendix K COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' YEARS WITH OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY WITH THEIR OPINIONS OF THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Potential Value of Institutional Research Number of Years Yes No Unable to No Completed Answer Response No. P No. P No. P No. P Administration/ Faculty 0 12 . 08 1 . 01 10 . 07 1 . 01 1 6 . 04 5 . 03 8 . 05 0 . 00 2 9 . 06 2 . 01 6 . 04 2 .01 3 10 . 07 3 . 02 8 . 05 1 . 01 4 1 . 01 1 . 01 5 . 03 0 . 00 5 5 . 03 0 . 00 6 . 04 0 . 00 6 - 10 10 .07 2 .01 15 .09 0 . 00 11 - 20 13 .09 3 .02 .01 1 .01 Over 20 1 . 01 1 . 01 . 01 0 . 00 Students 0 7 . 06 6 . 05 24 . 19 1 . 01 1 5 . 04 3 . 02 20 . 16 0 . 00 2 3 . 02 2 . 02 11 . 09 0 . 00 3 6 . 05 2 . 02 22 . 17 0 . 00 4 2 . 02 2 . 02 7 . 06 l . 01 5 0 . 00 1 . 01 1 . 01 0 . 00 6-10 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 11-20 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Over 20 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 Note: P = proportion. V 'IW.W( — .u' 1?; 192 Appendix K TABLE 7 COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF OTHER COLLEGE EXPERIENCES OF RESPONDENTS WITH THEIR OPINIONS OF THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Potential Value of Institutional Research Number of Other Yes No Unable to No Experiences Answer ReSponse No. P No. P No. P No. P Administration/ Faculty 0 35 . 23 9 . 06 I 31 . 21 3 . 02 1 11 . 07 6 . 04 l6 . ll 0 . 00 2 13 . 09 2 . 01 4 . 03 1 . 01 3 or more 7 . O5 1 .01 9 .06 1 .01 No response 0 . 00 O . 00 1 . 01 0 , 00 Students 0 17 .13 10 .08 A 60 .47 1 .01 1 5 .04 6 . 05 14 . 11 1 . 01 2 0 . 00 0 . 00 5 .04 0 . 00 3 or more 1 .01 0 . 00 3 .02 O .00 No response 1 .01 0 00 3 .02 0 00 Note: P = proportion. 193 Appendix K TABLE 8 COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS' RANK WITH THEIR OPINIONS OF THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Potential Value of Institutional Research Rank Yes No Unable to No Answer Response No. P No. P No. P No. P Professor 17 . 11 4 . 03 10 . 07 2 . 01 Associate Professor 21 . 14 5 . 03 15 . 09 0 . 00 Assistant Professor 14 . 09 4 . 03 19 . 13 3 . 02 Instructor 10 . 07 4 . 03 11 . 07 0 . 00 Lecturer, etc. 1 . 01 0 . 00 2 . 01 0 . 00 No response 4 . 03 1 . 01 4 .03 0 . 00 Note: P = proportion. 194 TABLE 9 Appendix K POTENTIAL VALUE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AS SEEN BY FACULTY AND STUDENTS BY DIVISION/COLLE GE RELATIONSHIP Potential Value of Institutional Research Rank Yes No Unable to NO Answer Response No. P No. P No. P No. P College of Liberal Arts Fine Arts 7 . 03 5 . 02 11 .05 0 . 00 Humanities 8 . 03 1 . 01 19 .08 2 . 01 Social Sciences 12 . 05 7 . 03 17 . 07 0 . 00 Math/Natural Sciences 14 .06 4 . 02 21 .09 0 .00 Teacher Education 8 . 03 4 . 02 33 . 14 0 . 00 Total Liberal Arts (49) (. 20) (21) (. 10) (101) . 43) (2) . 01) College of Engineering 5 , 02 6 , 03 18 , 05 2 . 01 College of Law 5 . 02 2 . 01 9 . 04 l .01 College of Pharmacy 6 . 03 3 . 01 11 . 05 1 . 01 Total 65 . 27 32 . 15 134 . 57 6 . 03 Note: P = proportion. Appendix K 195 .AHHHoHNEonHQQNV HoooHoQ 00H 8 HAHHNHHHoNHHoHH 00m moofiooopofl “$02 0 .m. H. Ho .m m 0 .3 0m S .04 mm 0 .mm HHH H0mHu2v choHoBm men. 0 0.0 0 m. .0 HH b .3 00 0.00 mm AOHHn20 EHHHomrH 0.0 0 0.0 0 HHHH .HV HTS 0H H .5 0H EmHZV mHoHNHHmHHHHSU< ea .02 Had .02 mm .02 ea .02 mm .02 @960me o2 oco2 HNSHSHSH oENHoUHmHHoO HHHHHSHNHNSH mmsoewuosm eoHHNHoQooO new HHanHHHm Ho 9308 @0me.3er QZ< $2.420.on .mtmOBéBmHZHHH/HDHQH Wm ZMMm m< meBHHmBmHZEH/HQHH Wm ZOHEOZDHH mom8 mm mi m 289% m.m H 0.0 o m.mm m m.m© mm v.2 w 330mm 0.0 o 0.0 o v.2 w TB 2 Hgm 2 2826383 w» .02 § .oz 05 .02 my .02 § .02 mmcoammm oz 982 HmEEQ/H mEmmemcoU Esfifixmz 3:80 unsm cofimpmaooo and 223de Mo @938 All \I .ZOHBUZE m0.m