A SOCIAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY NELSON H. GOUD 1967 will! LIB R 4.. R Y Mld‘ligaq Dian University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A SOCIAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS . presented by Nelson H. Goud has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Student Personnel Administration \ / _, 26L— ajor professor Date July 14, 1967 0-169 ABSTRACT A SOCIAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS by Nelson H. Goud The provision of adequate student personnel services is a commonly reported goal in the junior college. Several studies since World War II, however, have shown that this goal is not being achieved in the majority of junior colleges. One of the main obstacles in developing sound student personnel programs is the lack of research which treats these services as a whale. Recent writings in the theory of organ- izations have produced some models which appear to be helpful in understanding student personnel programs as an organiza- tional entity. Especially relevent are the concepts in social systems theory as formulated by Charles Loomis, Talcott Parsons, George Homans, and Roland Warren. In a study directed by Max B. Raines entitled--Junior College Student Personnel Programs: Appraisal and Develop- ment (A Report to the Carnegie Corporation), a nationally representative sample of 49 student personnel programs were evaluated by 'outside eXperts.' Their appraisals were recorded on the Inventory of Selected College Functions. This inven- tory contained 35 non-instructional functions of which g; were defined as constituting the basic student personnel functions for any junior college. The outside eXperts judged the scope and quality of implementation of these 21 basic functions in each of the 49 student personnel programs. Nelson H. Goud These eXperts also judged the impact of sixteen institutional variables (e.g., facilities, support from administration) on the development of the programs. Background information on the student personnel staff members and their junior colleges was also collected. It was the purpose of this investigation to determine the extent to Which social systems analysis could contribute to an increased understanding of the structure and functions of junior college student personnel programs. The above report served as the empirical basis for the study. The first portions of the study were concerned with the concepts, elements, and processes of social systems theory. Among the topics discussed were the following: communication networks, boundary maintenance, systemic linkage, socialization, decision-making, value structure, input-output exchanges. Every social system may be charac- terized as having an external and internal pattern. The external pattern is primarily focused on task functions; the internal pattern on maintenance functions. After the various social systems concepts were intro- duced, they were applied and operationalized to student per- sonnel programs (and the Carnegie Report elements). A sys- temic analysis of the findings of the Carnegie Report was then presented. Among the more significant findings were the following: (1) A large proportion of student personnel programs are deficient in the boundary maintenance process. Many Nelson H. Goud programs have difficulty establishing a positive iden- tity and clear "boundaries" of operation within the junior college. Clarity of staff roles and professional identity of student personnel staff members received favorable ratings only in the most effective programs. (2) Many student personnel programs have a problem of inade- quate linkages with other subsystems. Less effective programs had significantly less support from the admin- istration and student subsystems. Non-student personnel administrators played a much larger role in the weaker programs (indicating an overextended linkage relation— ship). (3) Chief administrators in strong student personnel programs perceive themselves more as 'direct supervisors' than as 'active participants' in the 21 basic functions (the reverse situation for weaker programs). (4) Those student personnel functions most important for the pppgl junior college system were given the most attention. The last chapter of the study was devoted to major conclusions and recommendations for the develOpment of more effective student personnel programs. They covered the fol- lowing areas: types of desirable boundary maintenance and linkages; recommended type of student personnel administrator and ppggfg increasing the effectiveness of the internal pat- tern: Specialization of the student personnel subsystem; research areas and suggestions for further studies. A SOCIAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS By i \ ) Nelson H. Goud A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The determination of the persons who should be included in such a section is most difficult indeed. There are several persons who have made my efforts possible, through tangible and/or intangible contributions. The writer owes a special indebtedness to the members of his doctoral guidance committee: Dr. Max B. Raines (Chairman), Dr. Walter Johnson, Dr. Arthur Vener, Dr. Max Smith for their helpful and intelligent guidance throughout the whole doctoral program (also a note of gratitude is in order for Dr. Kenneth Summerer who generously gave his time and assistance in the final stages of the thesis). Throughout the writer's doctoral studies, the role of Dr. Max Raines has been incalculable. He not only provided a sound guiding hand in the various obstacles encountered, but always took time to talk with me about almost any and every topic. His genuine and sincere concern for my progress is greatly appreciated. A note of thanks is also in store for Shirley Randall, who typed the manuscript under rather strict time limitations and did so in a patient. understanding manner. To my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Goud, I cannot eXpress the depth of my gratitude for their unwavering sup- port throughout my college years. They were eSpecially help- ful in providing sound judgment during several decision- 11 points of my college career. Their continuous urging to "do your best" in my chosen pursuit served as a basic moti- vating force that has had inestimable value. Finally, any task that I have undertaken in the past two years has been either directly or indirectly aided by my wife, Nancy. Besides "putting her hubby through" gradu- ate studies, she has patiently listened to the rantings and ravings of her husband throughout various phases of the doctoral program. In no small way has she made it possible for me to complete my doctoral studies. Nelson H. Goud iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . o . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . c o . . . . 0 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumption . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . II. THEORY.AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Social System . . Components of Social Systems . Decision-Making . . . . . . . . External and Internal Patterns Organizational Models . . . . . Example of a Social System . . RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . General Overview . . . . . . . Review of Evaluation Efforts . Research in Junior College Student Personnel Programs . . . . . iv viii xi \0 O\O\-{:'\.0\I>HH H- h‘ ox to NH H\O 21A 25 25 29 32 Chapter ngg Relationship of Social Systems Theory to Stlldent Personnel 0 o o o o o c o o o o 38 Social System Concepts and the Carnegie Report 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 45 III. DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 LIMITATIONS 0F DESIGN . o o . . . . . . . o . 64 PROCEDURE.................. 67 DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 IV. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 7O ANALYSIS OF TAXONOMIES . . . o . . o . . . . . 77 Taxonomy A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Taxonomy B o o o o o o o o c o o o o o o o o 78 Discussion of Taxonomy Analysis . . . . . . 78 SOCIAL SYSTEM PROCESSES . . . . o . o . . . o 82 Boundary Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Boundary Maintenance Functions . . . . . . . 83 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Boundary Maintenance Developmental Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Identity . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . .'. 88 Boundary Maintenance Summary . . . . . . . . 89 Systemic Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Linkage Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Linkage Developmental Variables . . . . . . 96 V Chapter V. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conditions of Size and Age . . . . . . . . Adaptation (Procurement of Resources) . . . Staff Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . ORGANIZATION MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survival vs. Effectiveness Models . . . . . Historical Look . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization Model Hypotheses . . . . . . . BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEMIC LINKAGE . . General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . Two General Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Type of Administrator . . . . . . . . . . . Type of Desirable Linkage . . . . . . . . . Interrelationship of Boundary Maintenance and Systemic Linkage . . . . . . . . . . Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal Pattern Suggestions . . . . . . . Role Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Internal Suggestions . . . . . . IMPLICATIONS OF PRECEDING DISCUSSIONS . . . . Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 100 102 103 107 110 111 111 113 11A 115 115 116 118 118 118 120 121 122 123 127 128 129 129 132 SOCIAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AS AN INVESTIGATORY TOOLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO133 Recommendations for Further Studies . . . . 135 Communication Networks . . . . . . . . . . 135 Socialization Process . . . . . . . . . . 137 Time Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . 139 TWO RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 145 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 BIBLIOGWHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 149 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 52 711 Table 4-A 4-B 4-D 4-L LIST OF TABLES Analysis Categories and Types of Data . . . Effectiveness of Implementation of the Twenty-One Basic Functions Across 49 Student Personnel Programs . . . . . . . Distribution of Taxonomy A Units According to Top, Middle, and Bottom Thirds of EffeCtiveneSS Ratings 0 o o o o o o o 0 Distribution of Taxonomy B Units According to Top, Middle, and Bottom Thirds of Effectiveness Ratings . . . . . . . . . Average Ratings of Strong and Weak Programs on Four Boundary Maintenance Functions . A Comparison of Estimated Impact of Five Boundary Maintenance Developmental Vari- ables Among the Strongest and Weakest Programsococoooooocooooo Self-Judged Professional Identity of Staff Members in Strong and Weak Student Personnel Programs . . . . . . . . . . . Average Ratings of Seven Linkage Functions in Strong and Weak Programs . . . . . . A Comparison of Estimated Impact of Four Linkage Developmental Variables Among the Strongest and Weakest Programs . . . A Comparison of Estimated Impact of Five Adaptation Developmental Variables Among the Strongest and Weakest Programsooo'oooocooococoo Types of Involvement of Chief Student Personnel Administrators in Strong and WeakProgramS.o.........oo Types of Involvement of Chief Student Personnel Administrators in Strong and Weak Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii 79 80 85 87 89 93 97 101 104 105 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Table Page 4-M Types of Involvement of Chief Student Personnel Administrators in Strong and Weak Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4-N Types of Involvement of Chief Student Personnel Administrators in Strong and weak Programs 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 105 5-A Some Indicators of Under and Overspeciali- zation in Student Personnel Programs . . 134 ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figpre 2-A Diagram of the Input—Output Exchange for a Social System . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-B Carnegie Report Elements . . . . . . . . . 2-C The Junior College as a Social System . . 2-D The Student Personnel Program as a Social Systemooooooooooooccoo '1 hi I: ‘0 LIST OF APPENDICES Comparisons of the Sampled Population with the Total Population (as reflected in the 1964 Junior College Directory) for Colleges Having Enrollments in Excegs of 1000 Students 0 c e o o o o o o o c o o 0 Inventory of Staff Resources and Inventory of Selected College Functions . . . . . . Twenty-One Basic Functions . . . . . . . . . T3x0n0m103.A and B e o c o o o o o o o e o 0 Scale for Interviewer Appraisals . . . . . . Factor Analysis of the Twenty-One Basic Functions 0 o o o o o o e e o e o o o o 0 IA Comparison (by Factor Analysis of 36 "Institutional Characteristics) of Colleges Having the Strongest and Weak- est Student Personnel Programs . . . . . xi 152 153 162 163 164 165 168 Ans up. «\u r“ J CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The provision of adequate student personnel services is a commonly reported goal in the junior college. As one writer states it: "No claim of the junior cbllege is dis- cussed more often than its student personnel program . ."1 Several studies since World War II, however, have shown that this goal is not being achieved in the majority of junior colleges. In some instances the student personnel program of a junior college has received little support from other groups in the college. In other cases, the lack of knowledge of what constitutes an adequate student personnel program is the main difficulty. Evaluative studies of total junior col- lege student personnel programs have been extremely scarce. Especially lacking is a general framework from which descrip- tions, eXplanations, and predictions of the structure and functions of the student personnel programs can be made. This leads to the next topic of consideration. Since 1950, there has been a vital resurge in the theory of organizations and administration. In the field of 1 Medsker, Leland L., The Junior Colle e: Pro ress and Prospect, New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1960, p. 15%. 2 education alone, at least three major associations have developed which focus on administrative theory, a number of texts on administrative and organizational theory have appeared, and a research journal on the science of adminis- tration was originated.2 Social scientists, such as G. Homans, C. Loomis, T. Parsons, and R. Warren have devised and revised notions on organizational theory. One of the most promising and mentioned models in this area is that of social systems theory. Although there have been some empirical studies on the implications of social systems theory, they are rather limited in the field of education. There is a great need to validate many of the propositions and hypotheses derived from this theory. The merger of the two concerns briefly covered above constitutes the subject matter of this investigation. One of the main problems in junior college student personnel services is the lack of studies which treat these services as a ppplp, Also, little attention is being given to the relationships with other components within or outside the student personnel program. Social systems theory attempts to deal with these problems in any type of human organiza- tion. The present study will attempt to combine the needs of insufficient abstraction (the formulation of a general framework) in junior college student personnel services, and too little empirical investigation of social systems theory in education. 2Griffiths, Daniel E., Administrative Theory, New York: Appleton-Century-Crafts, Incorporated, 1959, pp. 1-7. Purpose It is the purpose of this investigation to eXplore the feasibility of employing social system concepts and formula- tions in analyzing junior college student personnel programs. The social systems approach is one of several posited by theorists of organizations. In a study directed by Max R. Raines (supported by the Carnegie Corporation) entitled "Junior College Student Personnel Programs: Appraisal and Development," 49 student personnel programs were observed and evaluated by ioutside eXperts.'3 Their appraisals were recorded on an evaluation inventory (devised eSpecially for this study). Background information on the student personnel staff members of the 49 colleges. and on the junior colleges themselves, was also collected. The data from the Carnegie Report will be analyzed and organized according to social systems concepts. Such an analysis may lead to findings that will be useful in establishing effective student personnel programs in addi- tion to guides for further investigation of this nature. Assumption It is assumed for.this study that social systems 3gunior Colle e Student Personnel Pro rams: A raisal and Develo ment (A Report to the Carnegie Corporationl, NaEionaI Committee for Appraisal and Development of Junior College Student Personnel Programs (T. R. McConnell, Chairman), Max R. Raines--Staff Director, November, 1965. Hereafter this study will be called the Carnegie Report. 4 analysis is an appropriate one for student personnel programs. In other words, junior college student personnel programs exhibit the characteristics of a social system and therefore, may be examined from the social systems approach to an organ- ization. Overview VThe following represents the general outline of what is to be accomplished in each of the subsequent chapters. In Chapter Two there are two major sections, a presen- tation of social systems theory, and a review of related literature in student personnel services. Under the theory section, several concepts of social systems theory are given which represent the works of several theorists. The review of student personnel services literature focuses on the organizational aspects of these programs and studies which encompass total student personnel programs. Special emphasis is given to the Carnegie Report (directed by Max B. Raines) on junior college student personnel programs. The chapter is concluded with a paradigm which relates the social systems theory to the Specific functions and variables included in the Carnegie Report. In Chapter Three the design of the study is presented. The population, sample, instrumentation, and methodology are all described and explained. A section entitled 'definition of terms' is included in which meanings are given to the most important words and phrases used throughout the study. Limitations of the design are also discussed. 5 In Chapter Four the results of a number of analyses are given. The findings of the Carnegie Report are organized in reference to social system concepts and processes. In Chapter Five a brief summary of the aims of the investigation are first discussed. Major conclusions and implications of the findings presented in Chapter Four are then presented. Special emphasis is given systemic aSpects of student personnel programs which enhance their effective- ness. The study concludes on a section dealing with impli- cations for further research using the social systems approach. Since a major portion of the investigation revolves around social systems theory, it is necessary to have an understanding of the concepts included in this model. After this is accomplished then there can be an application of these concepts to the structure and functions of student personnel services. The following pages of Chapter Two will be focused on social systems theory. Also, pertinent studies in the field of student personnel services will be reviewed. CHAPTER II THEORY AND BACKGROUND THEORY This section of Chapter two will be focused on social systems theory. There is an extensive literature on this topic. The formulations and concepts discussed are neces- sarily selective and will include those most relevant to the present investigation. The general format will be to intro— duce a social system concept and discuss it from the view- points of several theorists. Summaries of these concepts will be presented at various points throughout the chapter. It may be helpful to give a brief summary of the characteristics of a social system before reviewing Specific concepts. In this way, the subsequent discussions may be placed in the general framework presented here. Roland Warren lists the major aSpects of a social system in the following manner: A social system is a structural organization of the interaction of units which endures through time. It has both external and internal aSpects relating the system to its environment and its units to each other. It can be distinguished from its surround- ing environment, performing a function called boundary maintenance. It tends to maintain an equilibrium in the sense that it adapts to changes from outside the system in such a way as to minimize the impact of the change on 7 the organizational structure and to regular- ize the subsequent relationships. Within this system the processes of communication, decision- making, task performance, informal interaction, and the input-output exchanges with other systems take place. The diagram presented on page eight is an attempt to show the components within and outside of a social system and the processes that function in its operation. It is seen from the diagram that a 'value structure' encompasses all the operations and functions that a social system engages in. This value structure legitimizes the goals and functions of the social system and places limiting conditions on its operation. The norms and values of the culture and society, for example, would be included here. This value structure would also include those norms and values of any supra-system of which a particular social sys- tem is a part (every social system is at the same time, a part of a more inclusive social system). Every social system receives inputs in the form of human, man-made, and/or natural resources. These inputs are transmitted and allocated to the social system (organization) in a structured manner. The organization processes the inputs by delegating pgpkp to members of the organization (division of labor). The informal patterns of interaction among members of the organization takes place here and also affects the processing of the resources. The outcome of the 1Warren, Roland L., The Communit in America, Chicago: Rank McNally and Company, 1963, p. 136. oufim Amv oommm ANV made AHV unmodpaoaoo moofibaom posmohm emwpmSmm I..v .MpSQSa ommmoooaa mo A no soapsoaupmdo K . omexsaq VI A, Amaopmmm chpo.mwv Romano Hoapnoo Amv Coapmuaamaoom Amv monocopmama mamoQSom ASV Ampsasa mo :odpowdaap: one coapmooaaw hasv :oHpom lacuna HmanomzH oocmahomaom xmma Honda Co soamdbao Hmahom \v Afloapmwanmwhov zmemwm A4Hoom massedq Ame Soapmodszaaoo Amy madxmalaoamdoom AHV ”mommoooam mzoapaonoo osm mommooonIwGHom>Hom \ \ I Momflmmom mpsaaH A 90 noammdmmnmha owmmaaq aopmmm Hmaoom c How owcmsowm unannoupsasH oz» mo scammdn «IN amhwmaa / \ mpcmaao soapmahomnH monmmdm pmcaaaswo Hmoawhsm Hosnomaom A, Amaopmhm nonpo aoamv mBDQZH 9 organization's processing is a product or service to some other system(s). Generally there is a linkage function per- formed between the inputs to the organization, and from the organization to the system(s) receiving the output. The linkage function serves to facilitate and articulate the input-output exchanges. There is a constant feedback (eval- uation) occuring between the organization and its input sources, and the system(s) receiving the output. The pro- cesses of decision-makgpg, communication, and the conditions of Eggs, ppgpp, and pig; are present at all times in the input-output exchanges. The following pages will be focused on a more detailed discussion of the concepts and processes presented up to this time. The discussion will revolve around the contributions of several social system theorists on the most significant social system concepts. It is hoped that by the end of the presentations there will be at least a general understanding of social system concepts and how they may be applied to junior college student personnel programs. Definition of Social System The first concern in discussing social system theory is, What exactly is a social system? According to Charles Loomis, a social system "is composed of the patterned inter- action of members. It is constituted of the interaction of a plurality of individual actors whose relations to each other are mutually oriented through the definition and mediation of a pattern of structured and shared symbols and 10 eXpectations."2 In Loomis' theory, interaction is the cen- tral aSpect of social systems. Indeed, uniformities in interaction over a period of time, and which are orderly and systematic, constitute the origin of a social system. Talcott Parsons defines a social system as "two or more units, X1, X . . Xn’ related such that a change in 2 state of any X1, will be followed by a change in the state in the remaining X . Xn, which is in turn followed by j’ . a change in the state of Xi' etc." In a somewhat differ- ent manner, he states that "two or more units in interac- tion with each other form a System."3 One of the most common social systems is the formal organization. To Parsons, a formal organization is "a social system which is organized for the attainment of a particular type of goal: the attainment of that goal is at the same time the performance of a type of function on behalf of a more inclusive system. . ."l‘L George Homans, one of the earlier social system theorists who applied his concepts to small groups, also defines a social system. He states, "The activities, inter- actions, and sentiments of the group members, together with the mutual relations of these elements with one another 2Loomis, Charles P., Social Systems: Essays on Their Persistence and Chan e, Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Incorporated, 1960, p. 4. 3Parsons, Talcott, and Bales, Robert F., Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, Glencoe: The Free Press, 195 . uote taken from article by Morris Zelditch, Jr., "A Note on the Analysis of Equilibrium Systems," p. 402. YParsons, Talcott, Structure and Process in Modern Societies, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1960, p. 56. 0.. n o, kl“ A ,. fl 1‘ 11 during the time the group is active, constitute what we shall call the social system."5 To Homans, anything that is not part of a social system is in the environment, the context in which the social system functions. The concept of interaction appears to be the central factor in all the definitions encountered. Structured interaction between units or members is the core of a social system (it does not include all social system characteris- tics, but all are derived from the interaction process). It is also seen that the definitions allow for a wide range of types of social systems. Two people involved in direct, face-to-face interaction may constitute a social system as well as the complex, impersonal interaction among the mem- bers of a society. Furthermore, the above theorists contend that any social system is at the same time, a sub-system of a larger,gmore inglppgve system. The larger system legiti- mizes the existence of a sub-system and defines its function. The interrelations between a particular social system and its sub-systems and supra-systems is constantly stressed by these theorists. A technical note of clarification may be necessary at this point. The 'unit' of a social system is pgp the person pgp.§p, but instead, his pplg in the system. As Parsons states the matter, "An actor cannot be treated as the unit of the social system. The unit in this 5Homans, George C., The Human Grou , New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1950, p. 87. “a 'v ‘c ‘. 12 case is customarily referred to as a pplp."6 Warren also makes this point clear, It is more precise to say that the system or subsystem is made up of the yplgg ‘which indi- viduals enact within an enduring pattern of interaction, for not all aspects of the indi- vidual human being are part of any particular social system, but rathep only those asPects appropriate to his role. Components of Socia;_Systems Up to this point, the main concern has been on the definitions of a social system in which there has been striking similarities. The following remarks will be centered on the characteristics, elements, and processes of social systems. Again, because of the extensive amount of writing on social system theory, only the most relevant concepts (for this investigation) will be discussed. Loomis posits nine elements, six comprehensive processes, and three conditions for any social system. Although the nine elements comprise a major portion of Loomis' theory, they are not as pertinent for the present investigation as the comprehensive pmocesses and conditions. The nine elements, therefore, will only be listed here and this should provide at least a brief glimpse at their con- tent. These elements (each of which is articulated as a process) are the following: belief (knowledge); sentiment; end, goal, or objective; norm; status-role (position); rank; 6Parsons, FamilyI Socialization4_and Interaction Process, p. 402. 7Warren, loc. cit., p. 137. 13 power; sanction; facility. An important component of Loomis' theory in reference to the present study, is subsumed under the term comprehen- sive or master processes. There are six of these processes and they permeate every social system. They are: (1) Communication--"the process by which information, deci- sions, and directives are transmitted among actors and the ways in which knowledge, opinions, and attitudes are formed or modified by interaction"; (2) Boundary_maintenance--"the process whereby the identity of the social system is preserved and the characteristic interaction pattern maintained"; (3) S stemic linkage--"the process whereby one or more of the e ementg of at least two social systems in some ways and on some occasions may be viewed as single unit": (4) Socialization--"the process through which the social and cultural heritage is transmitted"; (5) Social control--"the process by which deviancy is either eIIminated or somehow made compatible with the function- ing of the social groups"; (6) Institutionalization--"the process through which organi- zations are given structure and social action and inter- action are made predictable." These processes will be considered further in later sections of the study. Loomis also discusses three conditions of social action which exert an influence on a social system. These are: territoriality (space), time, and size. These condi- tions are not completely controlled by the members of a social system. They function mainly as limiting conditions 8Loomis, loc. cit., pp. 11-27. 91big.. pp. 30-36. 14 on the system and determine patterns of interaction as they fluctuate in influence on the system. Of the most import for the present study is the condition of size. This con- cludes, for the moment, Loomis' concepts on what constitutes a social system. Talcott Parsons contends all social systems can be characterized by four dimensions. These are: (1) Goal-attainment--"the gratification of the units of the system"; (2) Adap§ation--"the manipulation of the environment in the interests of goals-attainment"; (3) Integration-~"the attachment of member-units to each other in their distinction from that which is non-system"; (4) Tension-~"the malintfgration of member-units seen as themselves systems." In other sources these dimensions are treated from a somewhat different vieWpoint and one which is more adaptable to the study. 923;:attainment is characterized as a mechan- ism of implementation in the social system. It involves the procedures and processes by which resources (land, labor, capital, organization) are used to attain the goals of the system. Adaptation is characterized as a mechanism of mobil— ization. It involves the procedures and processes used in the procurement of resources in order that the system's tasks can be performed. Integration processes focus on the cooper- . ation among_the members of the system and motivational prob- lems. The tension (or tension-management function) of a 10Parsons, FamilyI Socialization,and Interaction Process, p. 404. 15 social system is also linked with what Parsons terms 'pattern- maintenance'. Both of these latter functions have relevance to the internal operations of the system. In general, they are primarily focused on the internal organization of the members in the system.11 Parsons stresses the importance of the 'value struc- ture' in which a social system functions and gives the most complete description of this topic than any other theorist. The following quotation summarizes his basic position on the value structure of a social system: The main point of reference for analyzing the structure of any social system is its value pattern. This defines the basic orientation of the system (in the present case, the organ- ization) to the situation in which it oper- ates: hence it guides the activities of participant individuals. In the case of an organization . . this value system must by definition be a subvalue system of a higher- order one, since the organization is always defined as a subsystem of a more comprehen- sive social system. Two conclusions follow: First, the value system of the organization must imply basic acceptance of the more gen- eralized values of the superordinate system-- unless it is a deviant organization not integrated into the superordinate system. Secondly, on the requisite level of general- ity, the most essential feature of the value system of an organization is the evaluative legitimation of its place or "role" in the superordinate system. Since it has been assumed that an organization is defined by the primacy of a type of goal, the focus of its value system must be the legitimation of this goal in terms of the functional signifi- cance of its attainment for the superordinate system, and secondly the legitimation of the 11Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies, pp. 16-58. 16 primacy of this goal over other possible interests and valpes of the organization and its members. Closely related to the value structure of a social system is its relationship to the more inclusive system of which it is a part. Parsons comments on an important aSpect of this relationship: This is the fact that, for any given lower- level system in a system-subsystem hierarchy, the next higher order system is the most important part of the situation in Which $3 must function. Since, as will be noted presently, the lower order system is in certain reSpects "controlled" by the higher order system, the elements which are in closest touch with the sources of control tend to be placed higher in a scale of what in some sense is supgriority, power, pres- tige, and the like. , It is seen that the value structure of a social system serves both general and Specific functions: It legitimizes the existence of the system; it legitimizes the Specific func- tional patterns of the system (organization) that are neces- sary to implement these values. This concept of value struc- ture demonstrates more than any other, the interrelatedness of a social system to its sub-systems and supra-systems. The implications of this concept will assume importance again in later sections of the study. Decision-Making One of the more crucial aSpects in social system theory 12Ibid.. pp. 20-21. 13Parsons, Talcott, "General Theory in Sociology," as written in Sociology Today: Problems and ProSpects (by Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr.), New York: Harper and Row, 1959, Vol. 1. pp. 5-6. 17 and administrative theory revolves around decision-making. The following pages will be a discussion of the notions on the decision-making process as proposed by two theorists, T. Parsons, and Daniel Griffiths. In discussing the dimensions of a social system, Parsons states: "There is an important sense in which the focus of all these functions is the process ordinarily called 'decision-making'." In any organization, according to Parsons, there are three sets of decisions: policy, allocative, and integration. Policy decisions are those which "directly commit the organization as a whole and which stand in relatively direct connection to its primary func- tions."ll+ Such decisions have several levels of generality (e.g., from those decisions which determine the origin or termination of an organization, to those concerned with day- to-day operations). Policy decision-making is carried out by all levels of an organization (e.g.. from the Board of Trustees to the instructors) with the differences being in the implications of these decisions for the organization. Allocative decisions concern two areas: the allocation of. authority and responsibility among personnel: and the allo- cation of resources. The first area has to do with the delegation of authority in the sub-organizations and person- nel of the organization. The second area concerns the allo- cation of manpower, financial, and physical facilities to 1“Parsons, es in Modern Societies, PP. 29'300 18 those sub-organizations and personnel with delegated reSpon- sibilities. Integpapypp decisions focus on the coordination and cooperation among the members of an organization. Policy and allocative decisions do not deal with the motivational aspects of an organization, which are necessary to achieve adequate performance. Integration decisions are directed at such problems. Parsons lists three measures for aligning the members of the organization with the organizational require— ments: coercion, inducement, and 'therapy' (in the broadest sense).15 Among those writers concerned with organizational- administrative theory, several see decision-making as a cen- tral aSpect of administration. This view is propounded by Herbert Simon in Administrative Behav;9£,16 Chester Barnard in The Functions of the Executive,17 and Daniel Griffiths in Agministrative Theory.18 Griffiths appears to have the most relevant notions for the present study. In stating a theory of administration, Griffiths states as one of his assumptions: "The Specific function of administration is to develop and regulate the decision-making process in the most effective manner possible."19 To Griffiths, 151bid., pp. 34-35. 16Simon, Herbert A., Administrative Behavior, New York: MacMillan Company, 1950. 17Barnard, Chester 1., The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. 18Griff1ths, Daniel E., ggministrative Theopy, New York: Appleton-Century-Crafts, Incorporated, 1959. 19Ibid.. p. 73. 19 the decision-making process is the central one in administra- tion because all other administrative functions are best interpreted in reference to this process. Griffiths presents his own definition of a decision: "The term decision is to be applied to all judgments whgch affect a course of action." By this definition the decision-making process includes both the decision itself and the acts necessary to put the deci- sion into operation. Finally, almost every decision is one of a sequence of decisions. This sequential nature of the decision-making process demonstrates the interrelatedness of decisions. As Griffiths states, "Each decision made appears to tie into another decision reached previously . . a deci- sion rarely terminates or settles a controversy; it alters, changes its direction, or sometimes prolongs it."20 Griffiths has posited a number of propositions which are derived from his theory of administration. Two of these are: (1) The effectiveness of a chief executive is inversely pro- portional to the number of decisions which he must per- sonally make concerning the affairs of the organization. (2) If the administrator perceives himself as the controller of the decision-making process, rather than the maker of the organigption's decisions, the decisions will be more effective. Extern§;;and Internal Patterns One of the most comprehensive ways of viewing a social system is in reference to its external and internal patterns. Zolbid., p. 76. 21____Ib1d09 PPO 899 91- 20 All characteristics, elements, and processes can be placed in either or both of these patterns. Homans, Parsons, Loomis, and Warren make extensive use of external and internal pat- terns in their formulations. In general, there are four major functions that are discussed by these authors regarding these patterns. These include: (1) the pgocurement of resources (inputs) needed to accomplish the goals of the sys- tem (these resources may be human, man-made, and/or natural), (2) the allocation of these resources in reference to the organization's division of labor and distribution of materials within the system, (3) the processing or utilization of the resources necessary to produce the outputs (goal-attainment activities), (4) the informal interaction among system mem- bers. The above authors differ somewhat on the placement of these functions in the external or the internal patterns. However, they essentially agree on the nature and meaning of each of these functions. The following diagram demonstrates the placement of the four major social system functions to be followed in the present investigation: Major Components of External and Internal Patterns Functions for Producing Outputs- (Human, Man-made, Goal-Attainment Activ- External Natural) ities (Tasks, Work Activities) Procurement of Resources Utilization of Resources! 21 .Allocation of Resources Integration of System Members ___ Internal (Division of labor, allo- cation of man-made and (Informal interactions, natural resources to expressions of personal system members) nature, informal groups and leaders) Parsons summarizes external and internal functions in the fol- lowing manner: The first set of functions (external) tends to specialize with reference to the mediation of relations between the system and the situ- ation external to it; the second (internal), as seen in these terms, is concerned with the maintenance of the stability of the pattern of the units and of the integrativg adjust- ments of the units to one another. 2 External pattern functions are often referred to as the task activities of a social system. They are more directly involved in the actual outputs of a system. The internal pattern functions are usually referred to as main- tenance activities of a social system. These activities generally support the task activities and therefore, are indirectly involved in the production of outputs. Both are necessary to the effective functioning of a system over a period of time. Organizational Mgdels In general, there are two types of organization models which underlie most of the writings of organizational theory. These are the survival and effectiveness models. Amitai Etzioni comments on the distinguishing characteris- tics of these approaches: 22Parsons, Sociology Today: Problems and ProSpects, Po 5. 21A Briefly, the two models differ as follows: A survival model Specifies a set of require- ments which, if fulfilled, allow a system to "exist." All conditions specified are neces- sary prerequisites for the functioning of the system: remove one of them, and the system will disintegrate. The effectiveness model defines a pattern of interreLations among the elements of the system which make it most effective in the service of a given goal. The difference between the two models is considerable. Sets of functional alternatives which are equally satisfactory from the view- point of the first model have a different value from the vieWpoint of the second. The survival model gives a yes or no answer to the question: Is a Specific relationship functional? The effectiveness model tells us that although several functional alter- natives satisfy a requirement (or a "need") some erg gore effective in doing so than others. 2 Throughout Chapter Four, the reader is encouraged to keep in mind these two organizational models. The basic question concerning these models is, Is the type of organi- zational model underlying a student personnel program related to the effectiveness of implementation of student personnel functions? In Chapter Five, there will be a general discus- sion focusing on this area. Two hypotheses will be posited relating student personnel program effectiveness and the types of organizational models which underlie these programs. Example of a Social System The factory is often used to clarify how a social sys- tem functions. The following section will use the factory as the medium for summarizing some of the major social system concepts and processes. The hypothetical factory under 22AEtzioni, Amitai, A Com arative Anal sis of Complex Organizations, New York: The Free Press, 1961, p. 78. 22 consideration, the Middleton Radiator Company, produces radi- ators for National Motors Corporation (an automobile manufac- turer). It is located on the outskirts of a medium-sized city. Middleton Radiator Company employs 200 workers through- out its three connected buildings. The diagram of the social system components on page eight should be consulted while reading the following passage. The first concept to be discussed is that of the YEARS structure. As mentioned previously, this includes the norms and standards that permeate an organization. These norms legitimize the goals of the organization and act as general guides for its operations. In general, these norms originate from the more inclusive systems of which an organization is a part. For Middleton Radiation Company, some of the more important inclusive systems which prescribe these norms and standards are: (1) the industrial system (sets legal norms, labor-management standards, safety standards, etc.), (2) National Motors Corp. (sets production standards, general company policies on community relations, etc.). (3) the sur- rounding community (which transmits certain eXpectations for community projects, participation in other community institu- tions like schools, adherence to pollution laws, etc.). There are other systems, of course, which influence the operations of Middleton Radiator Company, but the above should suffice to demonstrate the meaning of the value structure. In order to produce radiators, there are a number of resources required in the form of inputs. These would 23 include managerial, technical, and general workers (human resources), buildings, machines, and supplies (man-made resources), and certain ores and metals (natural resources). The procurement of resources is part of the external pat- .3222 of Middleton Radiator Company and is an important PEEK. function. The company must form numerous linkages with other systems to obtain these resources. For example, the human resources may be recruited from the community, educa- tional institutions, employment service; the man-made resources may be obtained through building contractors, machines from other factories, and supplies from a host of other companies; the natural resources obtained from mining industries, and so on. Middleton Radiator Company, like any other enterprise, operates under a limited budget. In order to produce radia- tors in the most efficient and effective manner, it is neces- sary to divide the tasks necessary to produce this product among Specialized personnel. Certain positions and tasks are created within the company as well as the allocation of resources to these positions. This division of labor and allocation of resources within the company is part of the internal_pattern of Middleton Radiator Company, and consti- tutes an essential maintenance function. Interpersonal interactions constantly occur among the workers and supervisors of Middleton Radiator Company. They may be either supportive of the organization's goals or act as a negative influence. Such informal interactions comprise 24 the integration function of this company. Also, all motiva- tional features of Middleton Radiator Company (such as pay incentives) are part of this function. The integration func- tion is also an internal, maintenance function. The actual tasks and activities involved in producing radiators comprise the goal-attainment or output function. Here the resources are processed and utilized until the final product is produced. This function includes the supervisory activities and secondary services such as writing reports and keeping records. Linkages to other systems also takes place in this output function as they did in the input function. Here, however, linkages are formed with those systems that handle the radiators. The most important output linkages would be with National Motors Corporation and with tranSpor- tation companies who distribute the radiators to this cor- poration. There are several processes working at all times which affect Middleton Radiator Company. One is boundary maintenance. Boundary maintenance includes those activities which preserve the identity and interaction patterns of an organization. Middleton Radiator Company has the following boundary mainte- nance aspects: it is physically located in one geographical location; it has an easily recognizable name: its goals and tasks are clearly defined and visible (i.e., it produces radiators); each worker and supervisor generally knows what his role is in the company (this preserves the interaction patterns); its image to outsiders distinguishes it from 25 cyther institutions in the community. The role of linkages has already been discussed. It ins seen that the most important input and output linkages were formed with systems outside of the community (this fits :111 with Roland Warren's thesis on the importance of vertical relationships of community institutions, rather than hori- zontal relationships with other community institutions).23 The remainder of the social system processes such as Cleacision-making, communication, control, and socialization Stare self-eXplanatory and will not be covered here. These Ipnrocesses will be further discussed at the end of this (zlaapter in reference to the student personnel program. It 3.:3 hoped that this brief example has helped in providing a cBlearer working knowledge of the functions of a social sys- 1seam. The reader is encouraged to consult the theorists' PV<>rks cited in this chapter for a further elaboration of Eldditional concepts as well as those covered. RELATED LITERATURE £3 eneral Overview Although there has not been any studies of junior c><:bllege student personnel programs as social systems, there Slice a number of writings which touch upon certain aspects of 131‘11s topic. These studies and articles primarily involve €3‘raluation of student personnel programs, and the organiza- ‘31om.and administration of the programs. Some of the more \ 23Warren, op. cit., Chapters 8 and 9. 26 pertinent writings will be reviewed in this section. The first portion will be concerned with selected notions on the organization and administration of student personnel programs. Wrenn emphasizes the importance of coordination in the organization of a student personnel program. Accord- ing to Wrenn, "Coordination does not mean centralization of all student personnel functions . . . The principle of coordination applies less to structure than to function." Wrenn then discusses different types of formal structure in reference to the coordination principle (eSpecially the l ine -staff , and Council-plan) . 2” E. G. Williamson devotes almost one-half of his bOOk , Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Univer- to various aspects of administration. His second SiégEiaggg. chapter is a review of the literature on administration. He 8I-Il.so discusses six conditions or features of administra- tion : unity of command, delegation of responsibility, span or control, unifunctional alternative structure, democratic coIl‘bzrol versus technical competence, and coordination. Four types of formal organization of the personnel services are also identified: scalar (hierarchy of authority); staff and line ; centralization versus decentralization: and the radical plan. Williamson, like Wrenn, contends that the type of f ormal structure employed depends on the functions. He \ 2“Wrenn, C. Gilbert, Student Personnel Work in Colleges a __: \ng Universities, New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1951. 27 states that "any type of structure adopted must be apprOpri- ate to the type of function performed."25 He concludes this section by stating that the day-to-day operation of any edu- cational organization (including student personnel programs) involves modifications and combinations of the four types of formal structure listed above. In the third chapter, Williamson discusses more Speci- fic concepts on the structure and organization of services. Of Special interest are three criteria for the grouping of personnel services: homogeneity or functional relatedness Of Services and functions; the principle of decentralization in functioning departments (with an emphasis on coordination); and the extent to which personnel programs should be organ- 1286. on an institution-wide or a Specialized-department basis (Size of the institution is an important element here). W1 lliamson contends that student personnel services should have one professional person designated as administrative head of all the services. However, every student personnel Staff member should be involved in the administration of the program. Finally, Williamson stresses the importance of f a'C3‘L:1:I.ty and student groups in the administration of the s ttlclent personnel program. Kate Mueller also briefly discusses the formal aSpects or Student personnel organization. She, however, talks about 8. ome topics not covered in most texts. These are the reasons \ . 25Williamson,.E. G., Student Personnel Services in Nges and Universities, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, hcorporated, 1961, p. 63. 28 fcxr a formal structure of personnel services. They include the following: an individual needs a work structure for his ego—integration processes (source of identity, determines relationships with superiors and other college members); a sizznucture is important for carrying out the student personnel (113v11sion's professional functions; structure aids in motiva- 1314311 (provides basis for incentives, praise, criticism); Structure aids in in-service training.26 Blocker, Plummer, and Richardson in their intriguing 13C><>1<, The Two-Year College: A Social Synthesis, give an inliportant role to the student personnel program. In discuss- 5111£§ typical line-staff charts of a two-year college (where 'tllsa Dean of Student Personnel in their book is placed on an ‘Bqlllsal level to that of the Academic Dean), they state: The success of the organization depends as much upon horizontal coordination and cooperation as it does upon vertical imple- mentation of authority and reSponsibility. The primary functions of the college are implemented by the academic dean and the dean of student personnel . . . The administration of the college would be improved if the conventional line-staff organizational plan were modified to place more direct emphasis upon the educational 27 and personnel functions of the college . . :Er1_ ‘bheir chapter on the student personnel program they pro- I>c>53€3 a functional organization of student personnel services. \ 1361 26Mueller, Kate H., Student Personnel Work in H1 her -~1943ation, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961, p. 134. 27Blocker, Clyde E., Plummer, Robert H., Richardson, RIShardo Jr.» We: A Social Synthesis. h£§1ewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Incorporated, 1965: PP. 176-177. 29 In this structure the authors contend that "all nonacademic and nonbusiness functions should be included within the sphere of student-personnel services, because these func- tions are designed for the direct benefit of students."28 Although the works cited above and others in the field discuss concepts relating to the input-output exchange W1 th other systems in the college, the bulk of the writing on the organization and administration of student personnel programs is centered on the for11n_a;_structu;_r_'a of the program. Certain aSpects of how the formal structure is related to the internal-external patterns of the student personnel Program are too often just briefly mentioned. The current c><>rlcern of grouping student personnel services by their _function, however, indicates that a step is being taken t(Dward the concept of the student personnel program as a fIIantioning subsystem in the college. Mew of Evaluation Efforts The following pages will be a brief review of some or the research conducted on student personnel services. It 1 8 intended to present a general overview of the status of re search in the field, eSpecially in the evaluation of 323a; s‘l-‘dident personnel programs. Such studies come the closest t0 treating the student personnel program as a social sys- tem. Of Special importance in this section is the study conducted by Max B. Raines on junior college student person- r191 programs. This study provided the basic design and data 1LTor the present investigation. It will be necessary to \ 28Ibid., p. 245. 30 become familiar with the terminology and variables included in this study in order to operationalize social system con- cepts to junior college student personnel programs. The literature on the evaluation of student personnel services in four and two-year colleges may be characterized as being very critical. The nature of the ensuing discus- sion will be on the kinds of criticism of the studies, not the studies themselves. Probably the most prevalent weakness of student personnel evaluation studies is the narrow range of services evaluated. Most studies concentrate on one aSpect of student personnel services (e.g., counseling, admissions, student activities) with little consideration to its rela- tionship with the other services or functions outside of the student personnel program. This has been a long standing problem in student personnel research. R. Strang, in 1950, stated that a major limitation in college student personnel evaluation studies was "A too narrow approach instead of a 29 comprehensive study." Feder and Sillers, in reviewing studies on college student personnel programs, concluded that "little research on student personnel services as of 1960 amounted to~more than surveying the most common or 'best' 30 practices." In a similar review three years later, 29Strang, Ruth, "Major Limitations in Current Evalua— tion Studies," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10 (1950). PP- 531-53 . 30Feders, D. D. and Sillers, D. J., "Noninstructional Services," Review of Educational Research, 30 (October, 1960), PP. 365'3660 31 Lloyd-Jones and Smith cited one study in which 77 projects were summarized from thirteen different agencies and centers. It was found that there were no investigations which studied student personnel programs as a ppala.31 Several reasons are given for the lack of studies on total student personnel programs: too little time, limited finances, lack of ade- quate criteria, limited research skills. It may also be posited that the lack of a general framework from which to conduct analyses of total student personnel programs is a great deterrent to such studies. Although the research on student personnel programs has been limited, there are some existing instruments which can be used for the evaluation of a program. Raokham, in his doctoral dissertation, developed the Student Personna; 32 This is a self-rating instrument which Services Inventory. covers fifteen areas in student personnel work. Kamm and Wrenn devised an evaluation instrument which includes twelve areas of student personnel services.33 Raines has developed a comprehensive evaluation instrument, the Inventory of Selected College Functions, which was used in a national 31Lloyd-Jones, Esther, and Smith, M. 3., "Higher Educational Programs," Review of_§ducationa1 Research, 33 (April, 1963), pp. 162-1700 32Raokham, Eric N., "The Need for Adequate Criteria When Evaluating College Student Personnel Programs," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1 (1951). PP. 691- 99. 33Wrenn, C. Gilbert, and Kamm, Robert B., "A Proce- dure for Evaluating a Student Personnel Program," School and Society, 67 (1948), pp. 266-269. 32 study of junior college student personnel programs.34 This device can be used either as a self-rating inventory or as a basis for 'outside eXpert' appraisal. Since Raines' inven- tory is the one on which the data for the present study was gathered, a complete description is given in Chapter Three and Appendix B. Research in Junior Cgllege Student Personneerrograms Studies of junior college student personnel programs have been limited due to the relatively recent development of these programs. Humphreys summarized the conclusions of the 1946 Commission on Student Personnel Services of the American Association of Junior Colleges: (1) relatively few junior colleges have adequate personnel service programs, (2) student personnel services is not recognized enough as a major function, (3) testing and counseling of students is not satisfactorily deveIOped or pursued, (4) professionally qualified personnel workers are not used in sufficient numbers, (5) adequate in-service training for staff members doing personnel work is lacking, and (6) the chief administrator of the institution or his assistant tends to carry too much responsibility in student personnel programs.35 Brumbaugh36 BURaines, Max R., Carnegie Report, Appendix B. 35Humphreys, J. Anthony, "Toward Improved Programs of Student Personnel Services," Junior College Journal, 22 (1951-1952). pp. 382-392. 36Brumbaugh, A. J., "Better Student Personnel Services in Junifir Colleges," Junior College Journal, 21 (1950-1951), PD. 37‘ 10 33 and Mitchell,37 in the early 1950's, made similar conclusions. Medsker, in 1956-1957, analyzed 73 student personnel programs in junior colleges from 15 different states. He found a great variety in the type of person reSponsible for the coordination of the student personnel programs. Sixteen (22%) had a Special student personnel administrator. Twenty- four (33%) had an assistant general administrator (vice- president, academic dean) in charge of the personnel program. Thirty-three (45%) of the junior colleges reported that the chief administrator of the college was directly reSponsible for the student personnel program. Medsker found that the alga of the junior college was related to the type of person responsible for the student personnel program. In general, for colleges under a 500 enrollment, the chief administrator (President) of the college was the person who coordinated the program (24 out of 37 cases). As the enrollment size increased over the 500 figure, there was a tendency to have a Special administrator of stu- dent personnel services. Medsker concludes his analysis of student personnel services in the junior colleges with a summary of strengths and weaknesses of the programs he sur- veyed: Strengths: (1) Administrators recognize the responsibility of a two-year college for an effective student personnel program. 37Mitchell, Guy, "Guidance in Higher Education," Junior College Journal, 22 (1951-1952), pp. 207-215. 34 (2) Some type and level of counseling exists in every college. (3) Most colleges have a well-deveIOped student activity pro- gram. (4) A good system of academic records is maintained in all colleges. Weaknesses: (1) Many institutions lack policy formulation, planning, and professional direction of the program. (2) The counseling program in many institutions is inadequate. (3) Little research is conducted which enables the two-year colleges to obtain facts about their students. (4) Two-year colleges make 8nly limited effort to evaluate the personnel program.3 Raines, in 1963-1964, conducted a study entitled "Junior College Student Personnel Programs: Appraisal and Development." It is this study that the present investiga- tion is based upon. The major aspects and findings of this study are summarized below. The sample of the study consisted of 49 junior col- leges with enrollments over 1000 students (a nationally representative sample). Each junior college was visited by an 'outside eXpert' (eXperienced junior college student personnel workers who also were trained in an extensive five-day workshop designed Specifically for this study). These outside eXperts evaluated the student personnel program 38Medsker, op. cit., Chapter I, pp. 146-165. 35 of each junior college primarily by means of interviews with student personnel staff members. Their observations and appraisals were recorded on the Inventory of Selected College Functions (see Chapter three and Appendix B for a complete description of this instrument). In short, 35 college func- tions were judged according to the scope and quality of their implementation in each junior college. Twenty-one of these functions were defined as constituting the basic student personnel program for any junior college (Appendix C). Also, the outside experts judged the impact of l6 developmental variables on the total student personnel program. Student personnel staff members of each junior col- lege were asked to fill out the Inventory of Staff Resources (see Appendix B). This inventory requested information per- taining to the previous training and education of the staff members. The chief student personnel administrator was asked to classify each function listed in the Inventory of Selected College Functions according to the categories listed on the front page of this inventory (see Appendix B). Each staff member also indicated his assignment to each function in this inventory. The following represent some of the major findings of Raines' study: (1) Three-fourths of the junior colleges have inadequate student personnel programs. (2) Adequate guidance and counseling is provided in less than one-half of the colleges. (3) Coordination, evaluative, and up-grading functions are the least effectively provided of all functions. 36 (4) Student personnel programs lack the professional leader- ship that would enhance development. (5) Management needs to take precedence over student needs in implementation. (6) Classification patterns (of functions) reveal limited relationships to effectiveness. (7) Several developmental variables appear strongly related to effective implementation to individual functions. (8) Staff qualifications reflect a limited relationship to the implementation of Specific functions. In another analysis, Raines divided the student person— nel programs into the top 12, middle 25, and the bottom 12 according to total effectiveness ratings. Here a number of variables differentiated the top from the bottom student per- sonnel programs. These include: (1) Larger junior colleges tend to have stronger student per- sonnel programs. (2) General administrators are more active in weaker programs. (3) Professional identity as a student personnel worker is greater in strong student personnel programs. (4) Student personnel staff members in strong programs had a significantly greater number of student personnel gradu- ate credits. (5) A number of developmental variables differentiated the strong from the weak programs (especially equipment, in-service training, workable ideas and concepts, iden-3 tification of supportive data, clarity of staff roles). 9 The data from this investigation provides the empirical information for the present study (the investigator was given permission by Dr. Max B. Raines, associate professor of higher education and administration at Michigan State University, to use the data from his report). This data will be organized 39Raines, Carnegie Report. 37 according to social system concepts and propositions. Also, some of the findings reported by Raines in his study will be incorporated into the study and discussed in reference to social system theory. In summary, it is seen that although there have been numerous writings and studies on student personnel services, few have incorporated their observations and findings into a general scheme or theory. Most of the writings on the lppap- pal aspects of the student personnel social system focus on the formal structure. Most of the studies on the external aSpects only incorporate Specific functions in their analysis. There have been studies which included both external and internal patterns, but the analyses were not carried out to the next step of applying them to a theory. Raines' study appears to be eSpecially adaptable to a social system analy- sis. The 21 functions which constitute the basic student personnel program, and the 16 developmental variables include aspects of both the external and internal patterns of a social system. Furthermore, there is an evaluation of effec- tiveness for each of the functions and developmental variables which makes it possible to test social system hypotheses and propositions. The wealth of data about the junior college and the student personnel staff members makes it possible to analyze intra-organizational and extra-organizational vari- ables of the personnel program. Finally, a nationally repre- sentative sample adds to the value of any generalizations that may be found. 38 Relationship of Social Systems Theory to Student Personnel In order to present a comprehensive view of the con- tent of the type of data in the Carnegie Report, the para- digm on the following pages is offered. A brief review of Appendices B and C may be helpful in interpreting the para- digm. The structure of this paradigm is borrowed from a similar one developed by Andrew Halpin for conducting research on administrative behavior.LIO Following the paradigm are two diagrams which are attempts to depict the junior college and the student per- sonnel program as social systems. It must be stated that these diagrams are only summary type views of these social systems, however they may be helpful in visualizing and understanding the concepts previously discussed. In Diagram 2-C, the basic systems within and external to the junior college are shown. It is seen that the junior college is distinguished from other systems external to it (large circle). This is part of its boundary mainte- pappa.function. Within the junior college there are four major subsystems, faculty-students-administration-student personnel. Each of these subsystems may also be distin- guished from each other by its boundary maintenance activ- ities. Furthermore, each subsystem is comprised of 'sub- sub-systems' (e.g., the faculty sub-system is further divided uoHalpin, Andrew W., "A Paradigm for Research on Admin- istrative Behavior," as written in Admlplstrative Behavior in Education by Roald Campbell and Russell T. Gregg, New York: Harper and Row, 1957, p. 190. 39 Diagram.24B Carnegie Report Elements PANEL I Task Functions Maintenance Functions (External pattern) IInternal pattern) Organizational Pre-College Informational Administrative- Tasks Educational Testing Organizational Applicant Appraisal Applicant Counsulting Student Inductive Student Registration Personnel Records Student Personnel I I In-Service Educa— I Group Orienting ' Evaluative I I I I I I tion Student Advisory Student Counseling Occupational Information Academic Regulatory Social Regulatory Student Self-Governing Co-Curricular Activity Financial Assisting Graduate Placement Program Articulation PANEL II ReSpondent's Assignment Behavior of Staff (Internal pattern) 40 Dia ram 2- Continued PANEL III Group A Title of Position Professional Identity Variables Staff Characteristics Previous Work Experience Associated (Internal Pattern) Previous Education with Distribution of Graduate Tasks and Credits Behavior Practicums and Workshops Professional Associations Group B DEVELOPMENTAL Operational VARIABLES Classification Intra-organizational Physical of task Variables Facilities and main— (Internal Pattern) Equipment tenance Clerical functions) Assistance Size of Staff Holding’Power for Staff Clarity of Staff Roles In-Service Training Workable Ideas and Concepts Professional Competency of Staff Staff Cohesiveness and Cooperation Identification of Supportive Data __. .__ ___ .__ __. __. __. ___ __v ___. ___ Group C DEVELOPMENTAL Age of __Variables College Extra-organizational Clarity of insti- Variables tutional goals (External Pattern) and Policies Size of Faculty Concur— College rence with Goals Support from Administration Support from Faculty Response of Students PANEL IV Interviewer's appraisal of the Criteria of Effectiveness effectiveness of implementation of task and maintenance functions, estimated impact of developmental variables Community Subsystems The Junior College as a Social System Diagram 2-C High Schools / .Administra- tion .41, m-«tl Student Personnel ,3, m----n Faculty MCI. «4:3 /\ \v State Gov't and Agencies I ‘Profes- sional Associ- ations Ln \ Colleges and Universi- ties Students .xD. Elma Federal Gov't and Agencies .maopmmm Hmcaopwo dam .maopmamndm .aod uncooSmempHSOSm. spas SoapmHSoapa< maaono .cnsao as soap :sasodpasm Sassoon 42 “whom ooaHOMHom maoapozsm monocopcamz e Moose AmQOn ”manooSpm Heap Inopoao hpdcaaaoo .: : ::--— maoHomcdoo Homebod .mHmnHomom mo oohsomo hpadomm AmEoHDOHm ”mooozv mpnoofipm Amoaoooh ».Hm£o pSCUSpm no nommomoav SoapmahoaaH . . i 7 u H in Raopmmm " u . . anomabom apHSommv. . _ - _ -. mpaowmm obdpmnoaooo _ moapabdpod . . uncoupm :::::: Hmhpmamom H pace “ . . 1.. :oomam now e cocoa. . H n H Imdmm¢ Hedonmsdm . . . A V -I . . . Tllv owmmaaq mead HedonmsHm . . owomzaq AwaaaomQSooo e . . cosmoasu e pQmeSH. acoaoomam : s...II_ msoammaaod _ o mpaapao Amoapamaobanb one Hoosom swamv madam sossssmaaaasa Hcssomscm assessm assho— “soap usssmssaasav seas :sHsosm one scream aopmhmpsm Hoqsomhom pSoUSPm 2L+W (mi/C aopmhm Hmaoom m on amnwoam Honaomaom unooSpm one mum amawmdm 9 mpsmaH 43 into academic departments; the students are further divided according to social clubs, academic majors; and so on). The systems external to the junior college, although identifi- able, are of lesser visibility to the junior college system members (when compared to the'four junior college sub-sys- tems). The four sub-systems of the junior college coordinate their activities and articulate their needs through various linkages with each other (the two-way heavy lines). Similarly, the sub-sub-systems also have linkages between them for coor- dinative and articulative purposes (the broken lines). The junior college sub-systems also form linkages with external systems (e.g., professional associations) in the various ’input-output exchanges with these systems. The above diagram only depicts the structural dimen- sion of the junior college as a social system. The functional dimension (i.e., the dynamic aSpects, such as the communica- tion processes) is not given. The main purpose of this diagram is to show the relationship of the student personnel sub-system to systems external to it. In Diagram 2-Il the student personnel sub-system is depicted as a social system (this diagram is a Specific mani- festation of the more general one on page eight). Here the basic input-output process of the student personnel sub-sys- tem is briefly sketched. Under the inputs section, the type of input and its source (in parentheses) is presented. It is seen that the student personnel sub-system is dependent 44 on several external (within and outside of the junior col- lege) systems for its inputs. Several forms of linkages are formed with these external systems in order to achieve effec- tive cooperation (e.g., committees, brochures, written and verbal communication, and so on). Once the inputs enter the student personnel sub-system they are allocated. Here the staff is assigned specific duties (e.g., counseling) and the appropriate materials allocated among the staff. In the- hypothetical organization of student personnel services offered in Diagram 24), two types of communication networks are presented. The heavy, two-way lines between the chief student personnel administrator and the five personnel ser- vices is the vertical network. The dotted lines represent the horizontal network (the informal communication network does not follow such a neat scheme, and cannot be sketched without information on the informal interaction patterns). It is within the student personnel sub-system that the paag_and maintenance functions are actually performed. The outputs of these activities are summarized in the dia- gram. In the case of the student personnel sub-system, the systems which receive the outputs are essentially the same ones which comprise the input systems (this was not the case, for example, for Middleton Radiator Company, see pp. 22-25). Again, the ZJDIDiagram mainly depicts the structural aspects of the student personnel sub-system. The functional dimension will be further discussed in the following pages. It is in this subsequent section that the social system con- 45 cepts will be Specifically related to the elements in the Carnegie Report. It is essential that this relationship be perceived in order to-understand the analysis of results presented in Chapter Four. A close examination of Chapter Three should also facilitate this understanding. Social System Concepts and the Cagnegie Report In reference to Diagrams 2-B, 2-C, 2-D, and the dia- gram on page 8, the following remarks will be an attempt to operationalize the social system theory to elements in Raines' study. The value structure for the student personnel social system is composed of several types of influence from sever- al other systems. The most immediate influences which legitimate and control the student personnel program are the other social systems of the junior college. These would be the faculty, student, and central-administration groups. These three other sub-systems of the junior college are the primary groups in which the student personnel sub-system engages in the input-output exchange. It is readily seen that the EAESE of inputs and outputs for the student person- nel sub-system vary with the particular other sub-system engaged in the exchange process. The student sub-system, for example, provides a different kind of input and receives an output that differs from the inputs and outputs trans- mitted and received by the administration sub-system (there are some overlapping inputs and outputs among the sub-systems, 'but in general, the input-output exchanges can be identified £18 being of a distinct type between any two sub-systems). 46 There are also a number of influences exerted on the student personnel sub-system that lie outside of the junior college system. One of the more significant ones in this. category is the glala of pallege studentgpersonnel work. Here a whole complex of values and norms impinge on any junior college student personnel program. These are trans- mitted by a variety of other systems--professional organiza- tions, publications, departments and faculty of college student personnel in a university, conventions, and so on. The phrase (and implied philosophy), "Student personnel point of view" best epitomizes the value structure of student per- sonnel work. Williamson discusses five aspects of the 'student personnel point of view': (1) Our central concern with all aspects of the development of human individuality (physical, moral, social aSpects as well as scholastic). (2) Concern with the unigue indlviduality of each student. (3) Teaching in the classroom is not enough, or sufficient, in the education of some students. (4) The use of methods and relationships of an educative rather than an authoritarian or chain-of-command type. (5) The incorporation into services 03 new knowledge of human nature and its development. 1 Other outside influences on the student personnel sub- system include the lagal aspects (e.8.. professional compe- tence in personal counseling, la_l9co parentis policies); junior college education and philosophy; community needs; and general cultural forces. UIWilliamson, loc cit., pp. 13-19. 47 It must be stated that this totality of which is termed 'value structure' is not generally verbalized as such in the activities of the student personnel sub-system. Instead, the values and norms are normally assumed and although always present, they operate in what may be called a "subconscious" manner. Only when such values and norms are violated do they become highly visible (when, for example, a non-professionally qualified person performs personal coun- seling duties when a qualified person is available). These values and norms are not necessarily transmitted to the stu- dent personnel sub-system on a one-to-one basis from the out- side systems. Many are filtered through other intermediary systems in which the values and norms from the source of origin may be altered, or remain the same. For example, a Specific junior college (intermediary system) may interpret the function of its student personnel sub-system in a differ- ent manner than advocated by the American Personnel and Guid- ance Association, the.American Association of Junior Colleges (original sources). As was reviewed in the social system theories of Homans, Loomis, Parsons, and Warren, every social system exhibits both external and internal patterns. The internal pattern for this study consists of the informal, motivational interaction patterns; and the formal structure of the system (division of labor). The external pattern consists of the functions involved in the procurement of resources (adapta- tion) and the utilization of these resources (goal-attainment). 48 In the present study, the external and internal pat- terns will be partially comprised of the paag.and palppag papaa functions. The task (external pattern) functions con- sist of 18 functions (see paradigm and Appendix C). As is seen from this list, the task functions are primarily of a goal-attainment nature (there was no data on adaptation func- tions, only the results of these functions which are dis- cussed below). The maintenance functions (internal pattern) consist of three functions in this study (see paradigm and Appendix C). Here it is seen that the functions are primarily ones that define the boundaries and structure of the student per- sonnel subsystem (Administrative-Organizational, In-Service Education) and provide a basis for the evaluation of the entire program (Student Personnel Evaluative). There was no direct information in the Carnegie Report on the nature of the informal interaction among student personnel staff mem- bers. The 21 functions included under the task and mainte- nance categories constitute the paalc studentppersonnel pro- ggaa. These are the functions that should be performed bypa student personnel sub-system in any junior college. More will be said on this topic in Chapter Three. The 16 developmental variables of the Carnegie Report may be classified as intra-organizational and extra-organiza- tional variables related to the performance of task and main- tenance functions. As seen from the Diagram 2-B, 11 develop- mental variables are categorized as intra-organizational and 49 5 as extra-organizational. Although 'physical facilities,‘ 'equipment,' 'size of staff,‘ and 'clerical assistance,‘ 'Staff competencies' are results of the adaptation functions of the student personnel subsystem, the activities involved in procuring these resources were not observed or evaluated in the Carnegie study. Therefore, they could not be classi- fied under the task functions as ordinarily would be done. It is best to interpret these four developmental variables as intra-organizational variables related to the performance of both task and maintenance functions (they are lappa- organizational because they had already been procured at the time of the evaluation). The aga,and alga 0f the junior colleges are aspects that must be considered in a social system analysis. They constitute what Loomis calls 'conditions of social action.' They are classified in this study as extra-organizational variables which may affect the performance of task and main- tenance functions. Staff characteristics, operational classification, and reSpondent's assignment are all intra-organizational variables. Staff characterisplaa_pertain to the previous background training and education as well as the professional identity of aapprarticipating student personnel staff mem- ber in the study. Operational classification refers to the category in which the aplag'student personnel administrator placed each of the 21 basic functions (see Appendix B for the nine categories). Reppondent's assignment refers to the type 50 of activity performed by aaap_student personnel staff member to papa of the 21 basic functions (see Appendix B for the types of activity). The student personnel subsystem of a junior college, as any social system, engages in several dynamic processes. One of the most significant is that of boundary maintenance. Loomis describes this as "the process whereby the identity of the social system is preserved and the characteristic U2 In another manner it interaction pattern maintained." could be said that boundary maintenance is the process that distinguishes a social system from its environment. It is this process which distinguishes the student personnel sub- system from the faculty, student, and administration sub- systems. In the present study, the maintenance functions and the 'program articulating' function (task) are included in the boundary maintenance process. The student personnel subsystem engages in the boun- dary maintenance process when it defines its_ppla in the junior college system. Certain functions are allocated to student personnel which are unique to its subsystem, and a formal structure is organized in order to implement these functions. Without the boundary maintenance process there would be no social system as there would be no way to detect its existence or identity. This phenomenon will be dis- cussed further in Chapters Four and Five. Conflicts often ”ZLoomis, loc cit., p. 31. 51 arise when one social system attempts to eXpand its boundaries to include activities incorporated in another social system. This leads to the next process, systemic linkage, which is closely related to boundary maintenance. Systemic linkage serves as one of the most crucial processes in a social system. As was discussed in the theory portion of this chapter, all social systems engage in an input-output exchange with other social systems. In the present case, the primary input-output exchanges occur between the student personnel subsystem and the faculty, student, administration subsystems. Those functions and roles which articulate the needs of one social system to another are ones of systemic linkage. This linkage process is involved in several important activities for a social system. These include: the communication of the needs of one social system to another (for inputs); the reception and distribution of the output needs to another social sys- tem; and evaluative feedback 29 the systems providing the input and gpap those systems receiving the output. Systemic linkage functions are closely tied to boun- dary maintenance activities as well as task activities. One linkage function, for example, is to make clear the boundaries of the two systems that are interacting with one another so as to facilitate the input-output exchange and to avoid the conflicts mentioned previously. The most important role of the linkage function, however, is the articulation of needs between interacting social systems. 52 In the present study, several variables may be seen as linkage functions. The most salient one is 'program articulating.‘ Others include the 'pre—college informational,‘ 'administrative-organizational,' 'student inductive,‘ 'stu- dent-advisory,’ 'occupational information,‘ and 'graduate placement' functions. It is seen that the latter five func- tions classified as linkage functions are also classified as task or maintenance functions. The dual-role of these func- tions is not a contradictory one for purposes of this study. It can be said that these five functions are linkage ones because of their emphasis on the articulation of needs between the various systems involved. The performance of these linkage functions, however, constitute paag_and REAR? tenance activities for the student personnel sub-system. The 'administrative-organizational' function is not entirely a linkage one as many of the activities here are concentrated on internal concerns; however there is a significant role for the chief student personnel administrator to articulate the needs of the student personnel subsystem for resources and to provide feedback to his subordinates on the eXpectations of the program from other subsystems--a linkage role. The classification of task and maintenance functions is based on the criterion of, What activities does the stu- dent personnel sub-system have to perform to fulfill its role in the junior college? These same functions may be categor- ized into other social system processes because of their consequences (performing the 'pre—college informational' 53 function, for example, has the consequence of linking the junior college to the people in its environment). In short, a single function may be classified in a number of ways, depending on the criteria of classification. If the cri- terion is that of performance, then the function will be classified as being a task or maintenance function. If the criterion is that of consequences because of the perform- ance of a function, the function will be classified into one of the social system processes. This practice will be followed throughout the study, with the appropriate criterion of classification being given before any discussion. Excepting the 'administrative-organizational' func- tion, all of the linkage functions discussed above have con- sequences for the junior college system as a whole, and not just for the student personnel sub-system. Indeed, the con- sequences may be said to encompass more of the non-student personnel activities of the junior college than student per- sonnel activities. The performance of these linkage func- tions, however, is the reSponsibility of the student person- nel program. There are also four developmental variables which are related to the systemic linkage process. These include: support from administration, support from faculty, response of students, and identification of supportive data. In a very intriguing sense. the entire student per- sonnel sub-system may be viewed as a linkage system for the junior college. The student personnel program is the focal 54 point of the junior college for the articulation of community, college, and student needs. Blocker, Plummer, and Richardson contend that: . . . the student personnel program can be viewed as a way of mediating between the needs or perceptions of the students and the pres- sures of the institution. It should be borne in mind that these pressures are simply a reflection, however distorted, of the demands It???iishieiziiefimxfiie$2335“1°n t" 3“" One of the main problems of a sub-system in a linkage role (as student personnel) is the "blurring" of boundaries for that sub-system. In a later section of the study, this linkage role and its effect on boundary maintenance will be further discussed. The remaining social system processes will only be briefly discussed as they either have been discussed pre- viously or there is little information on them in the pres- ent study. The decision-making process was previously covered on pages 16-19. Here ParsonS' notions on policy, allocative, and integration decisions and Griffiths' propositions were described. The best index of decision-making in the present study is the 'respondent's assignment' to each function (Appendix B). To test one of Griffiths' propositions, the type of assignment (which range from 'broad supervision' to 'active participation' to 'not involved') in which the chief student personnel administrator places himself for each of the functions, will be the criterion for the kind of decisions UBBlocker, loa.cit., p. 242. 55 made. This information will then be related to the evalua- tion of effectiveness of the total student personnel program as appraised by the outside eXperts. The communication process in any social system con- sists of two main types: external and internal. External communication refers to the information exchange between a social system to external systems (e.g., from student per- sonnel to administration). It is closely related to, and a part of the social system's input-output exchange, goal- attainment and adaptation functions, and the systemic linkage process. Internal communication is comprised of three net- works: vertical, horizontal, and informal. Internal com- munication takes place only within a social system (e.g., student personnel sub-system). Vertical communication refers to the two-way network between superordinates and subordinates. It is essentially concerned with the paaa functions of the system. Horizontal communication refers to the exchange of information between system members occupying similar status levels in the organization. The informal communication network refers to the various inter- personal interactions among system members (these may or may not be related to the tasks of the members). Both external and internal communication networks may be characterized by the following process: (1) a message to be communicated, (2) a sender of the message, (3) a channel or media through which the message is sent (e.g.. verbal 56 reports, written reports, conferences), (4) a receiver who decodes the message. The authors of the Carnegie Report did not examine the communication networks. More will be said of this process in Chapter Five. The socialization process as defined by Loomis is "the process through which the social and cultural heritage is transmitted."uu This concept revolves around the gala expectations, papaa, and values in a social system. These are transmitted through the encompassing value structure of a social system. Every member is eXpected to adhere to these eXpectations. These values and norms may be trans— mitted formally and informally in a social system. In the present study, 'in-service education' (function) and 'in- service training' (developmental variable) represent the formal aSpects of socialization. There is no measure of the informal aSpectS of socialization in the present investiga- tion. 'Clarity of staff roles' is an index of the effective— ness of the socialization process in this study, both formally and informally. Social control is defined as "the process by which deviancy is either eliminated or somehow made compatible with the functioning of the social groups."45 In the study there is no data on the control measures used by student personnel programs on their staff members ('in-service edu- cation' is more appropriately classified as a maintenance, UULoomis, loc. cit., pp. 30-36. ”51bid. 57 communication, and socialization function than as a control one although it contributes to the latter process). However, there are two functions which operate as control measures for the junior college as a appla. These are the 'social regulatory' and 'academic regulatory' functions. The con- trol, of course, is focused on the student sub-system, but it is necessary for the functioning of the junior college as a social system. Here again is a case of a function being performed by the student personnel sub-system, but the consequences are seen in one of the pervasive processes of a social system. Institutionalizatlaa is defined as "the process through which organizations are given structure and social action and interaction are made predictable."46 This process is almost identical to that of boundary maintenance. It was asserted earlier that the boundary maintenance process was concerned with the identity of a social system and becomes involved with other systems through systemic linkage and boundary con— flicts. Institutionalization, however, is focused almost entirely on the internal structure of the social system. This structure makes possible the assignment of roles and the eXpectations of behavior that follow from these roles. Interaction patterns become orderly and systematic and there- fore, predictable. The 'administrative-organizational' func- tion of the present study is the counterpart to the insti- tutionalization process. It is more properly interpreted as being the result of this process, instead of a measure of the U6Ibid. 58 process itself. The 'in-service education' function also contributes to this process. This concludes the summary of the relationship between the social system theory and the elements of the present study. It is seen that some elements can be classified as belonging to more than one process depending upon the criter— ion used. These processes and their counterparts in the study will be discussed further in Chapters Four and Five. At that time, there will be some objective results derived from the Carnegie Report findings which will provide the basis for the discussion. In the next chapter, the concern will be on the design and procedures used in the study, and the limitations of the design. CHAPTER III DESIGN The population, sample, instrumentation, and data for the study are taken for the Carnegie Report entitled--Junior College Student Personnel Progyams: Appraisaland Develop- ment (directed by Max B. Raines). Sample A major concern of the authors of the Carnegie Report was to select a nationally representative=sample of colleges. The sample also had to include those types of Junior Colleges that presently, and in the future, will bear the major respon- sibility for the greatly eXpanding junior college enrollments. Two central factors were chosen to provide bases for this sample selection: size and location §laaf~At the time of the sample selection (1964), the Junior College Directory listed 709 junior colleges for the United States. Of these, 501 had enrollments ppaap 1000 students, and 208 had pyap 1000 students. The latter 208 junior colleges, however, enrolled approximately 3/4 of all the junior college students. It was decided to separate the 501 aaall junior colleges (under 1000 enrollment) from the 208 lapga junior colleges (over 1000 enrollment) before the sample selection was carried out. 59 60 Location (region)--After it was decided to study small and large junior colleges separately, some basis was needed from which to select a nationally representative sample. Pure random selection was thought to be inadequate because of the imbalances it could produce in such a selection. Some type of proportionate-stratification was posited as being the most likely technique to produce a balanced, representative sample. The continental United States was accordingly divided into seven regions. The proportions of large and small junior colleges were tabulated for each region. The number of junior colleges to be studied from each region was derived from these proportions. The ppecific junior colleges within each region were chosen at random (after the proportions were determined, one out of every four junior colleges in each region was asked to participate). A total of 50 large junior colleges and lpp_ aaall junior colleges were selected by this technique. Of these, 74 of the small junior colleges and 49 of the large junior colleges agreed to participate in the study. The authors of the Carnegie Report made the decision to study intensively the sample of the 49 large junior col- leges. In their words, "It seems likely that the junior college of over 1000 enrollment will increasingly play a dominant role in the total junior college effort. Thus the decision was made to study intensively a sample of junior colleges which enrolled over 1000 students."1 1Raines, Max 3.. and Hoyt, Donald, "An Introduction to the Research on Junior College Student Personnel Program," Carnegie Report, p. 3. 61 These 49 large junior colleges, then, constitute the sample for the present study. A description of this sample as compared to the total population of large junior colleges is presented in Appendix A. The following is an excerpt from the Carnegie Report summarizing the method of data collection. A discussion of the instruments used will follow this section. A questionnaire approach was used to obtain some of the data but was not used as the prime data collection device. Since much of the critical data was judgmental in nature, prob- lems related to idiosyncratic frames of refer- ence and to potential defensiveness engendered by the 'threat' of evaluation could not be overcome with confidence through questionnaire survey. Accordingly, it was decided that judgmental data should be collected by 'outside' eXperts who could be trained to employ a similar frame of reference and whose judgments could be made more objectively without the distortion pro- duced by personal involvement. A total of 12 professionally qualified and eXperienced junior college student personnel workers were appointed as evaluation experts. They participated in a five-day training workshop in which a stand- ard interview guide was developed and field- tested. Special efforts were made to ensure that each eXpert adopted a comparable frame of reference in making his judgments. These interviewers visited each of the 49 large colleges (each college was interviewed by a single eXpert) participating in the study. Prior to the visit, they reviewed a consider- able body of information which had been col- lected about each college. They Spent a full day talking with an average of seven staff members at each college. On the basis of these interviews, a series of objective ratings were made (to be described later) and a pomprehen- sive narrative report was prepared. 2Ibid., p. 4-5. 62 Instrumentation The data gathered for the study was recorded on two instruments, the Inventory of Selected College Functions and the Inventory of Staff Resources. They were devised to provide a basis for evaluating non-instructional func- tions in a junior college, to gain information on student personnel staff members, and to assess the impact of cer- tain variables on the development of student personnel pro- grams. lnventory of Selected Collage Functions (l§§§l. The ISCF consists of two main parts: (1) a rating scale and description of 35 non-instructional functions, (2) a rating scale and listing of i6 developmental vari- ables (see Appendix B). Functions-~In line with the present study, for aaap function the following information was obtained: (a) judgments by outside eXperts of §2222 and Quality according to a five-point scale (if the function was not implemented, a judgment was requested from the chief student personnel administrator on the papa.for implementation according to another five-point scale), (b) the chief student personnel administrator's operational classification of the function according to nine categories, (c) the respondent's assign- ment to each function, there were seven categories provided. TwentyeOne Baalc Functions Of the 35 non-instructional functions, twenty-one were chosen (by consensus of the 12 interviewers) as con- 63 stituting a basic core of student personnel functions for aay junior college. These 21 functions, hereafter called the gl_basic functions, are listed in Appendix C. The Carnegie Report focused only on these basic 21 functions, and this investigation also will only include these functions in the analyses. The remaining fourteen functions were felt to not meet the criteria for being a necessary function in apy junior college (the 'Campus Housing' function, for example, is a basic function to only a minority of the junior col- leges). Developmental Variables The carnegie Report researchers explained the nature of the 16 developmental variables in the following manner: From a review of pertinent literature and with the advice of consultants, a list of institu- tional characteristics which presumably could affect the development of programs of Student services was drawn up. A total of 16 such characteristics were identified, ranging from such concrete matters as 'size of staff' and 'clerical assistance' to such nebulous vari- ables as ‘workable ideas and concepts' and 'faculty concurrence with institutional goals and policies.‘ Interviewers who visited the 49 large schools were asked to judge the impact of each variable on a five-point scale ranging from 'very positive' (5) to 'very restrictive' (1).3 The developmental variables are presented at the end of the Inventory of Selected College Functions, Appendix B. The ISCF was pre-tested at Flint Community Junior Col- lege by means of conferences with student personnel staff 3Ibid., p. 7. 64 members on the content validity of the items. The outside eXperts also reviewed the ISCF for the same reason and for obtaining a common framework from which to evaluate. Inventory of Staff Resources (ISR) This inventory was devised to obtain information on the work and educational background of staff members on the participating colleges who devoted at least one-half of their time in the functions described in the ISCF. See Appendix B for a description of the ISR. The following areas comprise the content of the ISR: length and type of previous work eXperience; professional identity: number of undergraduate credits in education, psychology, and sociology; graduate courses in areas most relevant to junior college student personnel services. If a staff member indicated he had taken 30 or more graduate credits (reasonably distributed among the relevant areas to student personnel work), he was considered to have at least a minimal level of training. LIMITATIONS OF DESIGN There are several aSpects of the design of this study that may be seen as limitations for the study. The most sig- nificant ones will be discussed at this time along with the adjustments, if any, to these shortcomings. The criteria of effectiveness of implementation for each function, and the impact of each developmental variable was the judgment of an "appalde expert." This technique definitely has well-known shortcomings. Each eXpert perceives 65 the goals and meanings of a student personnel function in reference to his own training and background eXperiences. These perceptions may, and most likely do, vary with each expert. The net effect of this situation is that without some way of providing a basic, common framework for evalu- ating the junior college-student personnel programs, the eXperts would not be appraising the programs in a reliable consistent manner. The Carnegie Report researchers tried to overcome this problem by selecting eXperienced and well- trained junior college student personnel practitioners, providing an intensive five-day workshop focusing on the evaluation of the student personnel programs, and using a common interview guide. These measures, then, reduced as much as possible, the individual differences among the experts in evaluating the student personnel programs. As for the absence of empirical criteria in judging the effec- tiveness of implementation, the Carnegie Report researchers commented on the value of 'conventional wisdom' as the criteria: "Their narrative description of the nature of implementation supported the writers faith in the validity of the appraisals."U The medium for obtaining the information for evalua— tive appraisals, the one-day interview, also has its weak- nesses. Although it is desirable to evaluate a student personnel program over a period of time by observing the behavior of the student personnel staff and its consequences Ll'Ibid., p. 9. 66 for the student personnel functions, such a method was not possible in the Carnegie study. The second most favorable alternative was to interview the student personnel staff members of the participating junior colleges and to talk with other members of the junior college (administration, faculty, students). This method is also a measure of behavior of the student personnel staff and its conse- quences for the student personnel program. However, it is readily seen that this is more indirect than the first method (direct observation over a period of time). This indirectness may lead to distorted perceptions (in either direction) of the effectiveness of implementation of the student personnel functions. Again, the selection of eXperienced student personnel experts was the counteract- ing force to this problem of indirect observation (through their own eXperienceS, these experts were generally able to "separate the wheat from the chaff" in their interviews with student personnel staff members). Also, by interview- ing more than one student personnel staff member (average of 7) and non-student personnel persons there was extensive "cross-checkingV of the scope and quality of the student personnel functions. Another limitation that is more directly related to this study is that there are 49 social systems. Normally a social system analysis is focused on a single organization. This has its obvious advantages in that more social system processes and functions can be observed and in greater depth. 67 The present study, for example, will not include any analy- ses on the allocation activities (of resources) and informal interaction among members. (This is due to the main reason that such activities were not included in the interviews or the inventories.) However, since the 49 student personnel programs serve similar functions in the junior colleges (the 21 basic functions), they may be treated by the same social systems analysis. The only difference being that the findings will apply to more than one organization of social system. Finally, since the data for the Carnegie Report was gathered in 1964, it represents the state of affairs in that year more accurately than in 1967. The nature of organiza- tions, however, is generally not one of rapid Change. Since 49 student personnel programs were evaluated, chances are relatively high that an increase in effectiveness of one student personnel program will be offset by a decrease in another. It is contended, therefore, that the trends and findings of the student personnel programs in 1964 apply also to the present time (it must be remembered also that the sample consisted only of junior colleges of over 1000 enroll- ments). PROCEDURE The data, findings, and conclusions of the Carnegie Report will be organized and analyzed in reference to social systems theory. The procedure will be to introduce a social 68 systems concept or process and see how it was implemented in the sample of 49 junior college student personnel programs. While the data and findings of the Carnegie Report constitute the empirical basis for the analyses in Chapter Four, the organization of the data will be modified for purposes of this study. In the latter sections of Chapter Two the elements of the Carnegie Report were reformulated according to a social systems model of student personnel. The Carnegie Report data will be accordingly rearranged in the application of this data to the social systems model presented in Chapter Two. Some social systems concepts will be emphasized more than others for one or both of the following reasons: the concept under discussion has more implications and consequences for student personnel programs; there is more data on some con- cepts and processes than others. In some instances, variables that are related to social systems processes, but are not processes themselves, will be analyzed (e.g., staff back- grounds). It must be inserted here that although the social system processes will be analyzed separately, they are all interrelated in the total functioning of the social system (in this case, the student personnel program). In Chapter Five the major implications, conclusions, and recommendations will be presented. These statements will be offered within the context of social systems theory with special attention devoted to the development of effective student personnel programs in the junior college. (1) (1a) (1b) (2) 69 DEFINITION OF TERMS Twenty-One Basic Functions--Functions selected by a panel of eXperts and which are designated as being fundamental to any junior college student personnel program. In the Inventory of Selected College Func- tions, the twenty-one basic functions are numbers: 1-11, 14-17, 24, 29, 33-35. See also Appendix C. Task Functions-~Those functions concerned with goal- attainment in the student personnel sub-system. These are the activities which directly produce the outputs of this sub-system. See Diagram 2-B for a listing of the task functions. Maintenance Functions--Those functions primarily con- cerned with maintaining the internal structure and operations of the student personnel sub-system. They are indirecply involved in producing the outputs of the sub-system. See Diagram 2-B for a listing of the maintenance functions. Developmental Variablaa--Sixteen variables derived from a review of the literature and advice from out- side consultants. The variables were formulated for the purpose of providing institutional elements which could have significant impact on the development on student personnel programs. The developmental vari- ables are listed in the back of the Inventory of Selected College Functions (Appendix B). CHAPTER FOUR INTRODUCTION It is the aim of this chapter to present some empirical findings of the Carnegie Report in reference to selected social system concepts. As mentioned in Chapter Three, cer- tain concepts will be stressed more than others due to data limitations. Brief discussions will follow each section. These are attempts to point out the relationships between the data and the particular concept under consideration. In general, the findings will be reported under either or both of the following two categories: (1) in relation to aaap_of the twenty-one basic functions as they were rated (satisfactory, inbetween, unsatisfactory) in the total sample of the 49 student personnel programs (Appendix E). Here the emphasis is on the twenty-one basic functions. This category will be referred to as the function category. (2) The second category focuses on individual student personnel programs. Here the emphasis is on programs, not individual functions. Analyses under this category will be centered on "strong" vs. "weak" student personnel programs (each of the student per- sonnel programs in the Carnegie Report was assigned a 'total effectiveness score' on the basis of the twenty-one basic functions and ranked in relation to the other student person- nel programs; from this ranking the strongest and weakest 7O 71 programs were selected for comparison analyses). This cate- gory will be referred to as the program category. The data reported will be of the following types: (1) Selected or all of the Twenty-One Basic Functions, (2) Developmental Variables, (3) aga and alga of the junior colleges, (4) Staff Characterisplaa, (5) Respondent's Assign- 2222 (for the chief student personnel administrator). The chart below shows to which categories the above types of data will be applied: TABLE 4-A Analysis Categories and Types of Data Function Program Category Category (Strong vs. Weak) Twenty-One X X Basic Functions Developmental X Variables Age and Size of X Junior College Staff X Characteristics Respondent's X Assignment In using the Function Category, the general purpose is to present the effectiveness of implementation of the twenty- one basic functions across the total sample. These 21 basic 72 functions are ranked according to their total effectiveness score (i.e., how many colleges were rated 'satisfactory,‘ 'inbetween,' and 'unsatisfactory' on each function). Table 4-B includes this information (the dotted lines mark off the 21 functions into the top, middle, and bottom thirds). The second category of analysis, strong vs. weak student personnel programs, has a somewhat different ration- ale. Basically, such a comparative analysis was used to determine if the pypes of data were differentially imple- mented in 'good' and 'poor' student personnel programs. This approach has important implications for social systems analysis as it tends to show which factors "really make a difference" in sound programs. It also makes possible the examination of several social system concepts as they are implemented in high and low quality student personnel pro- grams. The latter feature allows one to see if the kind of implementation of social system processes makes a difference in the effectiveness of a social system, an important Ques- tion for this investigation.* *Technical Note--Theoretica11y, those student person- nel programs which effectively implement the basic social system processes should be the 'strong' programs. The 'weak' programs Shouldihave low effectiveness ratings in these processes. It should be pointed out, however, that there is some bias in favor of the strong programs due to the nature of the data. The basis for "strongness" and "weakness" is the total effectiveness score on the twenty-one basic func- tions. The effectiveness of implementation of the social system processes is also based on these 21 functions. There— fore, a 'strong' student personnel prOgram will tend to have higher scores, generally, on the effectiveness ratings of the social system processes. However, this is a general bias in that it is difficult to predict which particular social system processes will be higher rated in the strong 73 Referring again to Table 4-B, it is seen that the task and maintenance functions are broken down into two types of taxonomies (A and B). Each taxonomy consists of groups of palated functlppa. The<3arnegie Report authors devised these taxonomies in order to make analyses of the twenty-one basic functions more meaningful. The groupings within each taxonomy were made on a rational basis (i.e., according to the experis ences of the Carnegie Report eXpertS). Taxonomy A is organ- ized according to five administrative units (structural aSpect) (see Appendix D). Taxonomy B is comprised of seven categories which are focused on the dynamic aspects of the functions (see Appendix D). programs. Also, the factor of size is controlled in most instances in comparing strong vs. weak programs (as will be shown in a subsequent section, size significantly differen- tiates strong from weak programs). This "criterion contam- ination" factor (of undetermined strength) only enters in when strong and weak programs are compared on some or all of the Twenty—One Basic Functions. It does pap apply to com- parisons based on developmental variables, age and size, staff characteristics, and reSpondent's assignment. In summary, both the 'strongness' and the social sys- tem effectiveness ratings are based on the effectiveness of implementation of the Twenty-One Basic Functions. Treating these two dimensions as independent, therefore, is not pos- sible. The effect of their interrelatedness is that one cannot say (without reservation) that strong student person- nel programs are 'strong' because they have high effective- ness ratings on the social system processes (in reference to the twenty-one functions). If variables in addition to the twenty-one basic functions point to higher effective imple- mentation of social system processes, then the contention regarding 'strongness' and the social system processes is further supported. In examining the following results, then, if the 'strong' student personnel programs have superior ratings on social system processes in relation to weak pro- grams, check to see if they also differ on variables other than the twenty-one basic functions (e.g., developmental variables). TABLE 4-3% 74 Effectiveness of Implementation of the Twenty-One Basic Functions Across 49 Student Personnel Programs epegend for Table 4-B on next page. 9‘ 5' 2? Ifiv A 9 FUNCTIONS at El . (pg 3 g 3 (Rank Order) {I +- 31 gt; 5 7’% W‘a ' I" F U)" 43"? o 0 A’ n é o 2 9/ “I: 3 .2 “&r* E: w Pre-College Informational 37 11 1 85 I I Student Registering 35 11 3 81 I III Student Self-Govern. 35 10 4 80 III IV Academic Regulatory 35 10 u so I III Co-Curricular 33 12 .4 78 III IV Applicant Appraisal 29 16 4 74 I II Educational Testing 29 15 5 73 I II ' Student Advisory 3o 10 9 70 IV v Social Regulatory 25 19 5 69 III III Financial Assisting 26 13 10 65 II VI Appliéant Consulting 26 11 12 63 IV V Personnel Records 22 18 9 62 II Program.Articulation 23 15 11 61 V' VII Student Counseling 23 i4 12 60 V Admin.-Organizationa1 20 i4 15 54 V VII ‘Btudent Inductive 18 12 i9 48 III I Group Orienting 17 11 21 45 IV I Graduate Placement 12 ii 26 35 II VI In-Service Education 6 17 26 29 V VII Occupational Info. 8 13 28 29 IV I Student Personnel- Evaluative 3 12 34 18 V VII (1) (2) (3) 75 TABLE 4-B (Continued) Legend See Appendix E for method of determining ratings of "Satisfactory," "Inbetween," and "Unsatisfactory." The numbers in the columns beneath these categories indicate the number of student personnel programs receiving "Satisfactory," "Inbetween," and "Unsat- isfactory" ratings for each of the twenty-one func- tionSo Total score derived by multiplying number of "Sat- isfactory" scores by 2, "Inbetween" scores by 1, and "Unsatisfactory" scores by 0. Dotted lines - - - indicate breakoff points for top, middle, and bottom thirds of total effectiveness scores for the twenty-one basic functions. The first seven functions comprise the top third, the middle seven functions comprise the middle third, and the last seven functions comprise the bottom third. (4) Taxonomy A symbols--(I) Admissions-Records-Registra- (5) tion units, (II) Placement and Financial-Aids unit, (III) Student Activities unit, (IV) Guidance and Counseling unit, (V) Central Administration unit. See also Appendix D. Taxonom B symbols-~(I) Orientation unit, (II) Appraisal unit, III) Regulation unit, (IV) Participation unit, (V) Consultation unit, (VI) Services unit, (VII) Organ- ization unit. See also Appendix D. 76 This investigator attempted to cluster the twenty-one functions on a different basis. Appendix F gives the results of a factor analysis of the twenty-one basic functions based on the evaluations of the outside eXperts. As is seen, this technique produces a somewhat different clustering of the 21 functions. This is due to the basis for the clustering (i.e., they were clustered according to their relationships to 'common factors' found in the evaluations of the twenty- one basic functions). In short, the following summarizes how these clusters should be interpreted. For each cluster, whenever a function within a cluster was evaluated as 'sat- isfactory,‘ 'inbetween,‘ or 'unsatisfactory,‘ all the other functions within that cluster were evaluated similarly. For example, in the 'occupational information-graduate placement' cluster there was a high tendency in the 49 colleges that these two functions were papa rated as either satisfactory, inbetween, or unsatisfactory. Both of these latter functions appear to have a 'common factor' between them which is closely related to their effectiveness of implementation in the 49 student personnel programs. The same interpretation holds for the other clusters. In this investigation Taxonomies A and B will be stressed more than the clusters developed from the factor analysis. This is due primarily to the organization of the findings of the Carnegie Report which are oriented toward Taxonomies A and B (the factor analysis was not available at the time of Carnegie study). The factor analysis, however, does have value in reference to social systems analysis and 77 for junior college student personnel programs. It is a tech- nique that may uncover some unperceived relationships in a social system. For example, why should the 'student-counsel- ing' and 'academic regulatory' functions form a cluster? Is this a "chance" occurrence, or merely the perception of the interviewers, or is there some real basis for these two func- tions to be related to each other? It would appear that clusters like the above example would cause student person- nel workers to examine their program to see why this relation- ship is formed, and if it is a desirable one. The factor analytic technique should pap.be used with the intent of finding "the answer" to patterns in systems such as student personnel programs (a tempting approach because of its statistical sophistication). Instead, it should be utilized with other techniques and with the purpose of using it as an eXploratory tool in analyzing an organization. ANALYSIS OF TAXONOMIES In Table 4-B it is seen that the maintenance functions of 'administrative-organizational,' 'in-service education,’ and 'student personnel evaluative' are all in the bottom third category. Taxonomy A In Taxonomy A, the Admissions-Registration-Records unit is heavily represented in the top third of total effec- tiveness scores for the 49 student personnel programs. The Central Administration unit, on the other hand, is heavily 78 represented in the bottom third category. Table 4-C shows the rank order of the five units in Taxonomy A in reference to the number of functions in the top, middle and bottom categories. Taxonoay B In Taxonomy B, the Participation, Regulatory, and Appraisal units were the most effectively implemented among the 49 programs. The Service, Orientation, and Organizational units were the least effectively implemented. Table 4-D shows the rank order of the seven units according to the number of functions in the top, middle, and bottom categories. nggussion of TaxonopypAnalyses There are several interpretations that can be made of the findings presented above in reference to social systems theory. The following represent some of the more significant ones: I (1) In reference to the internal-external patterns of the student personnel subsystem, the results point to a sharp and general weakness of the internal pattern (the maintenance functions). As was seen, all of the mainte- nance functions fall in the bottom third category of effectiveness. Some paaa functions were also poorly implemented. However, the finding that all of the main- tenance functions are in the bottom category is of major significance 'ha several processes that operate in the student personnel subsystem. Boundary paintenance, app- munication,,£uui socialization processes are especially 79 TABLE 4-C* Distribution of Taxonomy A Units According to Top, Middle, and Bottom Thirds of Effectiveness Ratings Top Middle Bottom Units Third Third Third Totals Admissions-Records- Registration Unit 5 1 O 6 Student Activities Unit 2 1 1 4 Guidance and Counseling Unit 0 3 2 5 Placement and Financial Aids Unit 0 1 1 2 Central Administration Unit 0 1 3 4 Totals 7 7 7 21 A *See Table 4-B for Specific rankings of the twenty-one basic functions included in the Taxonomy A units. Appendix D contains a concise listing of Taxonomy A units and the functions which are included in the units. Rank Order of Effectiveness Ratings of Taxonomy A Units: 1 - Admissions-Records-Registration unit 2 3 L, 5 Student Activities unit - Guidance and Counseling unit Placement and Financial unit Central Administration unit 80 TABLE 4-D* Distribution of Taxonomy B Units According to Top, Middle, and Bottom Thirds of Effectiveness Ratings —_‘ Top Middle Bottom Units Third Third Third Totals Participation Unit 2 O 0 2 Regulatory Unit 2 1 O 3 Appraisal Unit I 2 1 O 3 Consultation Unit 0 3 O 3 Service Unit 0 1 1 2 Orientation Unit 1 O 3 4 Organizational Unit 0 1 3 4 Totals 7 7 7 21 *See Table 4-B for Specific rankings of the twenty-one basic functions included in the Taxonomy B units. Appendix D contains a concise listing of Taxonomy B units and the functions which are included in the units. Rank Order 0; Effecplveness Ratlngs of Taxonomy B Units: 1 - Participation Unit 2 - Regulatory Unit 3 - Appraisal Unit (this unit and 'Regulatory' tied for the second rank) 4 - Consultation Unit 5 — Service Unit 6 - Orientation Unit 7 - Organizational Unit (2) 81 focused on these internal functions. Of the paaa_functions, it is readily apparent that cer- tain types of functions are more effectively implemented than others. Tables 4-C and 4-D show the wide range of the quality of implementation of units classified as task functions. Earlier it was noted that Parsons contended that those functions of a social system which are closest and most important to the next higher system (in this case, the junior college system) will be given most atten- tion. It could be contended that the functions in the Admissions-Registration-Records units, for example, have a high priority to the total junior college system in relation to the other units. They papa to be performed in every junior college. Other units, to be sure, are important to the junior college. However, they may not have the priority of the Admissions-Registration-Records unit for the papal junior college system. This is not to say that members of the student personnel subsystem necessarily place this priority also on this unit (they may, for example, wish to place the highest priority on the Guidance and Counseling unit). In any case, it appears that the Admissions-Registration-Records unit has top priority in the 49 colleges, and Parsons' conten- tion may exPlain this finding. Hoyt and Raines commented on this finding in the following manner: If one examines the types of functions which are predominant among those most favorable implemented, he will note that they are largely concerned with institutional manage- ment. In short, these are the kinds of 82 functions the college must provide to exist (e.g., Pre-College Informational, Student Registering, Academic Regulatory, Social Regulatory, etc.). The absence of functions related to guidance and counseling among the most favorably implemented is regrettable in an institutional setting which frequently cites guidance as one of its major attri- butes. In this context, one cannot help but note that the upgrading functions of In- Service Education and Student Personnel Evaluative afe among the least favorably implemented. SOCIAL SYSTEM PROCESSES Raines, in the Carnegie Report, counted a student personnel program 'satisfactory' if at least two-thirds of the twenty-one basic functions had been rated satisfactory by the outside eXperts. Only 25% of the 49 junior colleges received a satisfactory rating according to this criterion. The following analyses may point to some reasons why some student personnel programs were more effective than others in implementing the twenty-one basic functions. Boundary Maintenance The process that distinguishes a social system from its environment is called boundary maintenance. This is the "identity" mechanism of a system. If student personnel in a junior college is to be recognized as a subsystem, it must perform boundary maintenance 'duties.‘ These include: defining a role in the junior college system; allocating specialized staff and tasks to student personnel; maintaining 1Hoyt, Donald, and Raines, Max E., "An Appraisal of Basic Student Personnel Functions Within Junior Colleges," Carnegie Report, pp. 5-6. 83 and defending its role and functions in the junior college; creating and maintaining internal solidarity among its mem- bers; structuring the roles and tasks among staff members so as to produce patterned interactions. The boundaries of a system may be of many forms-- physical, social, political, legal, and so on. Without such boundaries the system as such, ceases to exist. As H. Warren comments on boundary maintenance: "Obviously, if the system cannot retain this relationship, it dissolves, no longer being an identifiable organization of interacting units."2 It would seem logical that a system would neither apaap.nor overemphasize boundary maintenance activities. The former leads to disintegration or lack of identity as a subsystem. Linkages that are too strong, for example, may make it difficult to perceive where one system begins and the other ends. On the other hand, too much concern with boundary maintenance functions leads to an overemphasis on the internal operations of a system. This is called HERA? displacement by theorists of organizations. Goal-displace- ment is where an organization diverts its energy toward strengthening the system, rather than the functions which the system was created to accomplish (goal-displacement tends to "isolate" a system and creates difficulties in the input-output exchanges with other systems). Boundary Maintenance Functions The present study includes several boundary mainte- 2Warren, loc. cit., p. 143. 84 nance factors. Of the twenty-one basic functions, the fol- lowing contribute to the boundary maintenance process: administrative-organizational, in-service education, student personnel evaluative, program articulation (where the student personnel program is defined to other units within and exter- nal to the junior college). Those developmental variables which are related to boundary maintenance are: clarity of staff roles, in-service training, staff cohesiveness and cooperation, holding power for qualified staff, physical facilities. Another indicator of the boundary maintenance process is "professional identity" as registered by the student personnel staff members in filling out the Inventory of Staff Resources. In Table 4-B, it is seen that of the four boundary maintenance functions, all but 'program articulation' fall in the bottom one-third category. The 49 junior college student personnel programs, as a whole, perform their bound- ary maintenance functions rather poorly. As mentioned in the earlier sections of this chapter, the Carnegie Report authors ranked the 49 programs according to their total effiectiveness score on the twenty-one basic functions. From this ranking 14 strong and 14 weak student personnel programs were selected. These 14 matched pairs were controlled on the variable of §$£2.0f the junior col- lege. Table 4-E presents the average ratings of four bound- ary maintenance functions in the 14 strong and 14 weak pro- grams 0 85 TABLE 4-E* Average Ratings of Strong and Weak Programs on Four Boundary Maintenance Functions Strong Weak Program Articulation 5.4 3.9 Student Pers. Evaluative 3.6 1.6. In-Service Education 4.2 2.4 Administrative- Organizational 5.5 3.4 *The scores for each function were tabulated according to the scale presented in Appendix E. Although it may be eXpected that strong personnel pro- grams would score higher than weak programs (according to the bias noted in the earlier section of this chapter), the dif- ference is still striking. Whereas the 49 student personnel programs as a whole did poorly in implementing these functions, the strong programs perform very well. The most important boundary maintenance functions (of the twenty-one basic func- tions), program articulation and administrative-organizational, received a 'satisfactory' rating in 11 of the 14 strong pro- grams. In contrast, on the same functions in the weak programs, only 5 were rated 'satisfactory' in program articulation and 2 in administrative organizational. The 'student personnel eval- uative' and 'in-service education' functions were among the most poorly implemented in both strong and weak student 86 personnel programs. Of the 14 strong programs, only 2 received a satisfactory rating in 'student personnel evalua- tive' and 4 in 'in-service education.‘ Of the 14 weak pro- grams, papa received satisfactory scores in either of these functions. The average ratings between strong and weak pro- grams on the latter two functions as shown in Table 4-E are quite divergent, however. Summary In summary, it is seen that in comparison to the rest of the twenty-one basic functions, the four boundary mainte- nance functions were among the least effectively implemented. (Table 4-B). Strong student personnel programs performed at a much higher level in the same four functions than weak pro? grams (Table 4-E). In the latter comparison it was found that the 'program articulation' and 'administrative-organiza— tional' functions were more effectively implemented than 'student personnel evaluative' and 'in-service education' functions. Boundary Maintenance Developmental Variables Table 4-F shows a comparison of the estimated impact (positive, mediocre, restrictive) of five developmental vari- ables among the strongest and weakest (not controlled for size) programs. These five variables are closely related to the boundary maintenance process in the student personnel subsystem. The greater the contingency coefficient, the greater the difference between the strongest and weakest 87 programs (and in all cases, the strongest programs have a higher 'positive impact' rating than the weakest programs). TABLE 4-F A Comparison of Estimated Impact of Five Boundary Maintenance Developmental Variables Among the Strongest and Weakest Programs Developmental Contingency Variable Coefficient Clarity of Staff Holes .50** In-Service Training .54** Staff Cohesiveness and Cooperation .24 Holding Power for Qualified Staff .36 Physical Facilities .43* * Five percent level of confidence. **One percent level of confidence. This table is an adaptation of a similar one in the Carnegie Report, see "Significance of Selected Variables in Differen— tiating Strong and Weak Programs," by Max B. Raines, p. 2. 'Staff holding power' and 'staff cohesiveness' did not significantly differentiate strong from weak programs. It is clearly demonstrated, however, that 'in-service training,‘ 'cLarity of staff roles,'zmmi'physical facilities' were cru- cial variables. The in-service training and clarity of staff roles variables are complementary ones in the sense that in- service training of staff members leads to (or supports) 88 clearer definitions of their roles in the student personnel subsystem. Clarity of staff roles most nearly represents the boundary maintenance process among the developmental variables. It is one of the more crucial aspects of 'maintaining bound- aries' of an organization. Members who know their roles in a subsystem tend to identify more with it and communicate their roles more clearly to those outside of the subsystem. The physical facilities of an organization are also related to the identity features of an organization. The geographical location of a system is one of the stronger distinguishing aspects of its boundaries. Adequate physical facilities is also related to several processes in a system (e.g., communi- cation, patterned interactions among system members). Summary In summary, it is not too surprising that the strong- est student personnel programs received significantly higher positive impacts on 'clarity of staff roles,‘ 'in-service training,‘ and 'physical facilities.' Although the strongest programs also received higher positive impact ratings on 'staff cohesiveness' and 'holding power for staff,' they did not reach the significance level (these two variables are not as precise as the former three: and because they are also affected by more external factors, it is also not too surpris- ing that they did not significantly differentiate the strong- est from the weakest programs). Identity Organizational identity constitutes one of the more 89 important and recognizable forms of boundary maintenance. Table 4-G shows the self-judged professional identity of student personnel staff members in strong and weak programs (size of Junior college is controlled for this analysis). TABLE 4-G* Self-Judged Professional Identity of Staff Members in Strong and Weak Student Personnel Programs Strong Weak N z N %— Student Personnel 70 83.3 49 69.0 Non-Student Personnel 7 8.3 16 22.5 Not Sure 7 8.3 6 8.4 Total 84 99.9 71 99.9 *Chi-square value of 6.4 (significant at.05 level). This table was taken from Appendix M, Table III of the Carnegie Report. It is seen again that the strong student personnel programs are significantly higher also on this boundary main— tenance factor. Boundary Maintenance Summary To summarize the boundary maintenance findings; the implementation of functions, developmental variables, and the listing of one's professional identity were shown to be significantly different in strong and weak programs. The 90 strong programs were rated higher in all areas, indicating a finding that will be discussed in Chapter Five. It was previously mentioned that an under or overemphasis on bound- ary maintenance leads to a decline in organizational effec- tiveness. At first glance, it appears that the major problem for many student personnel programs is that of too little emphasis on the boundary maintenance process. §y§temic Linkage Every social system is involved in systemic linkages with other systems. Linkages with other systems form the focus of the input-output exchanges for a particular social system. An automobile manufacturing company, e.g., must form linkages with several firms for raw materials (inputs) and with customers (output exchange). The student personnel sub- system must form input linkages with subsystems within the Junior and systems external to the junior college for staff, materials, budget, and clients. Output linkages for student personnel, as was mentioned in Chapter Two, are essentially with the same systems that comprise the input units (in exchange for clients, for example, the student personnel sys- tem offers services such as counseling, financial-aids). The linkage function of social systems is reSponsible for the articulation of needs between the interacting systems. The authors of the Carnegie Report did not investigate the various linkages of the student personnel programs directly. Because of the unique position of the student personnel sub- system in the Junior college, it is itself a linkage organiza- 91 tion (see pages 53-54, Chapter Two). One indication of this are the names 'student personnel services' and/or 'student services.‘ The emphasis is on the service dimension, which is a linkage system characteristic. This means that most of the Eggk functions of student personnel are, therefore, linked to other systems. For purposes of this investigation, however, certain functions and developmental variables are mgyg directly concerned with the articulation of needs with other systems than others. Linkage Functions These would include from the twenty-one basic functions, the following: 'pre-college informational,‘ 'student-induc- tive,‘ 'student advisory,' 'occupational information,‘ 'grad- uate placement,‘ 'program articulation,‘ and 'administrative- organizational.' It is noticed that the last two functions are also included as boundary maintenance functions. Due to the wide range of activities included in these functions, both boundary maintenance and linkage elements are exhibited. In 'program articulation' the role of student personnel is defined to outside members (boundary maintenance) and the articulation of needs to systems both within and external to the Junior college are communicated (systemic linkage). The same argument applies to the 'administrative-organizational' function (the only difference being that this function is primarily centered with subsystems within the junior college, especially to the administration subsystem). It must also be remembered that boundary maintenance and linkage processes 92 are closely interrelated in a social system (see pp. 50-54, Chapter Two). Of the 16 developmental variables, four are measures of the linkage process in the student personnel subsystem. Three of these develOpmental variables are indicators of the linkage effectiveness between student personnel and other subsystems within the junior college; these are: support from administration, support from faculty, and reSponse of students. The fourth developmental variable,_ identification of supportive data, is an input linkage for needed information on the student subsystem. Table 4-B shows the ranking of the linkage functions for all 49 student personnel programs. 'Pre-College informa- tional' is ranked number one, 'student advisory' is number eight, 'program.articulation' is thirteenth, 'administrative- organizational' is fifteenth, 'student-inductive' is sixteenth, 'graduate placement' is eighteenth, and 'occupational informa- tion' is twentieth. For the linkage functions across pl; student personnel programs, then, one is in the top third, two in the middle third, and four in the bottom third of the effectiveness ratings (a rather poor showing in this important area). Table 4-H presents the findings of another analysis of these linkage functions. Here the average ratings of the seven functions are given for 14 strong and 14 weak programs (con- trolled for size). 93 TABLE 4-H Average Ratings of Seven Linkage Functions in Strong and Weak Programs Strong Weak Pre-College Informational 5.9 4.6 Administrative-Organizational 5.5 3.4 Program Articulation 5.4 3.9 Student Inductive 5.2 3.0 Student Advisory 5.5 3.4 Occupational Information 3.9 2.1 Graduate Placement 4.1 2.6 As in the case of the boundary maintenance functions, the strong programs perform decidedly higher than the weak programs. Since 'program articulation' and 'administrative- organizational' were discussed in the previous section, specific data on the number of strong and weak programs receiving 'satisfactory' ratings will not be given here. Of the 14 strong programs, 13 received satisfactory ratings on the 'pre-college informational' function, and 5 on the 'graduate placement' function. Of the 14 weak pro- grams, 6 received satisfactory ratings on the pre-college informational function and 3 on the graduate placement func- tion. 94 The high ratings on the Pre-College informational func- tion stands out in both strong and weak programs. Besides being ranked as the most effectively implemented linkage func- tion, it has the highest ranking of all the twenty-one basic functions. There are several reasons for such a high perfor- mance, however one should suffice here. This function is performed well by most student personnel programs because it is one of the most important links between the junior college as a whole and external systems. Its activities are focused on the communication of the offerings of the junior college to proSpective "inputs" (mainly future students). It is one of the most necessary functions in the junior college and the student personnel subsystem has a heavy responsibility in implementing its activities. This latter statement would appear to lend further support to the previously mentioned contention of Parsons where he contends that those functions most important to the next higher system will be given the most attention. The Graduate Placement function is one of the lowest rated linkage functions and among the lowest in the twenty- one basic functions. It would seem that this 'output' linkage would be as important as the 'input' linkage of Pre-College informational. However, two reasons generally account for this low rating. One, most Junior college graduates in the transfer curricula do not enter immediate employment (most transfer to four-year colleges). Therefore they do not need the services of graduate placement. Second, the graduate 95 placement function in many junior colleges is decentralized and not strongly coordinated by the student personnel program. This means that if a student wishes to obtain assistance in seeking employment contacts, he does so through his academic department, not through student personnel (these students are generally from the technical-vocational curricula). The lack of support (both within and external to the student personnel subsystem) for a centralized placement office coordinated by the student personnel program generally accounts for its low rating. Of the 14 strong programs, 8 received satisfactory ratings on the 'student inductive' function, and 11 on the 'student advisory' function. Of the 14 weak programs, 2 received satisfactory ratings on 'student inductive' and 3 did on the 'student advisory' function. These figures, along with the averages for these functions in Table 4-H, points to a large discrepancy in these important linkages to the student subsystem. Apparently the strong programs make better use of two other subsystems, faculty and students, to assist in the 'student advisory' and 'student inductive' functions, respec- tively. Although the strong programs performed much higher than the weak programs on the 'occupational information' function (according to average scores), neither group did very well at all. Of the 14 strong programs, only 3 received satisfactory scores. Of the 14 weak programs, 1 received a satisfactory rating. 96 The junior college posits adequate guidance services as one of its goals. Many students are undecided about occu- pations in this type of institution. The fact that this important information linkage is neglected in most junior colleges point to a great inadequacy in the student person- nel subsystems. An improvement in this function may allevi- ate certain other problems for student personnel, such as heavy educational-occupational counseling loads. It is interesting to note on the factor analysis pre- sented in Appendix F that 'occupational information' and 'graduate placement' form a cluster. This means that when a student personnel program performs one of these functions well, then the other is performed in the same manner (the same would hold true if one is performed poorly). It would appear, then, that if staff members wished to improve one of these functions they would also include the other as they seem to go "hand-in-hand." Linkage Devglgpmental Variablgp Table 4-I presents acomparison of the estimated impact of the four linkage developmental variables among the strong- est and weakest programs (not controlled for size). Again, the greater the contingency coefficient, the greater the dif- ference between the strongest and weakest programs (and, in all instances, the strongest programs have a higher 'positive impact' rating than the weakest programs). 97 TABLE 4-I A Comparison of Estimated Impact of Four Linkage Developmental Variables Among the Strongest and Weakest Programs Developmental Contingency Variable Coefficient Support from.Administration .41* Support from Faculty n .24 ReSponse of Students .42* Identification of Supportive Data .52** * Five percent level of confidence. **One percent level of confidence. This table is an adaptation of a similar one finFthe Carnegie Report, see reference in Table This table is to be interpreted as meaning that 'sup- port from administration,‘ 'reSponse of students,‘ and 'iden- tification of supportive data! differentiated the strong from the weak student personnel programs. The strong programs received a much higher positive support from administration and student subsystems than weak programs; 'faculty support' also had a tendency in this direction but it was not statis- tically significant. These findings confirm the crucial role of linkages with other systems if an effective student per- sonnel program is desired. Since the administration and student subsystems (and to a lesser extent, the faculty sub- system) comprise the main sources of inputs and receivers of 98 outputs for student personnel, effective linkages must be built between them. Summary Like boundary maintenance, linkages cannot be 399 strong or weak. A weak linkage system leads to problems of securing adequate resources and possibly to communication difficulties with those systems receiving the outputs. An overemphasized linkage with another system, on the other hand, hampers the boundary maintenance process as it becomes difficult to discern the boundaries of one subsystem from another. An overemphasized linkage with the administration subsystem, for example, may lead to too much supervision and participation by general junior college administrators in the student personnel program. Raines found some evidence of this problem. In comparing the 14 strong and 14 weak student personnel programs (controlled for size) Raines dis- covered that "Twelve of the respondents in weaker programs were classified by title as administrative (in non-student personnel areas) while only one respondent was so classified in stronger programs." Raines comments on this finding in the following manner: Considering the earlier finding that a lack of clarity of staff roles was more characteristic of weak programs than strong programs, it would suggest that general administrators who insist on classifying themselves as student personnel workers may unintentionally impair the development of the program through failure to delegate the responsibility adequately. 3Raines, Max R., "Significance of Selected Variables in Differentiating Strong and Weak Programs," Carnggie Rgport, pp. 7-8. 99 An effective linkage system, then, facilitates the articulation of needs between systems but, at the same time, keeps the boundaries and tasks of the interacting systems clear and definable. Conditions of Size and Age Loomis lists three conditions of 'social action' for a social system: time, space, size. These conditions func- tion as limiting factors on any social system and influence the direction and nature of systemic processes. Loomis con— tends, for example, that the larger the system, the more emphasis on goal-attainment, adaptation, and formal structure. Smaller systems emphasize the informal interactions to a higher degree. In the Carnegie Report data was gathered on the pigp (enrollment) and Egg of the 49 junior colleges. Richards, Rand and Rand have develOped a factor analytic technique for analyzing 36 junior college characteristics. These 36 char- acteristics were reduced to the following six factors: cultural affluence, technological Specialization, plgp, Egg, transfer emphasis, and business orientation. The authors of the Carnegie Report asked the above researchers to analyze the top 12, middle 25, and bottom 12 student personnel pro- grams (the latter being based on their rank in the effective- ness of implementation of the twenty-one basic functions). Appendix G shows the results of this factor analysis. Of the six factors noted above, only plgg significantly differentiated the strong from the weak programs. Larger lOO junior colleges generally have stronger student personnel programs than smaller junior colleges. This finding some- what supports Loomis' contention noted above. Since the effectiveness ratings were primarily based on goal-attain- ment activities, and according to Loomis, the larger the system the more the emphasis on such activities (this is not the only reason for better effectiveness, of course, but it is a contributing factor). With the knowledge that size of the junior college makes a difference in the effectiveness of implementation of the twenty-one basic functions,'thisfactor is being controlled in those analyses where it is necessary to do so (especially those where variables other than size are being studied). Size is controlled in most of the compari- sons between strong and weak student personnel programs. Adaptation (Procurement of Resources) As was discussed in Chapter Two, a social system can be characterized by four main activities: adaptation, allo- cation of resources, goal-attainment, and integration (informal interactions). Up to this point, the main empha- sis has been on the goal-attainment activities. There is no data on the integration elements in the Carnegie Report, and measures of the allocative activities are limited. This section will focus on what information there is on the adaptation activities of the student personnel subsystems. Adaptation refers to the procurement of natural, man- make, and human resources which are necessary to achieve the 101 goals of a social system. In the case of student personnel, such resources include: staff, materials (such as tests), facilities, budget. These resources are part of the inputs for the student personnel subsystem. Generally they are obtained as the result of cooperative efforts with another system. This is one area where effective linkages are crucial. For student personnel, the linkage with the agpgpg istration subsystem is of primary importance for procuring the above resources. There are five developmental variables which are the results of adaptation activities of the student personnel subsystems (there was no data or measures on p93 these resources were obtained). These variables offer a guide to the effectiveness of the adaptation efforts of the student personnel subsystems. These variables are: physical facil— ities, equipment, clerical assistance, staff size, staff competencies. Table 4—J shows a comparison of the estimated impact of these five variables among the strongest and weakest programs. This table is to be interpreted the same as for Tables 4-F and 4-I. TABLE 4-J A Comparison of Estimated Impact of Five Adaptation Developmental Variables Among the Strongest and Weakest Programs Developmental Contingency Variable Coefficient Physical Facilities .43* 102 TABLE 4—J (CONTINUED) Developmental Contingency Variable Coefficient Equipment .61** Clerical Assistance .46* Staff Size .43* Staff Competencies .36* * Five percent level of confidence. **One percent level of confidence. This table derived from the same source as listed under Table 4-F. The statistically different impacts of these five dif- ferent variables mean that strong student personnel programs had more adequate resources to carry out their task and main- tenance functions. Staff Characteristics Two findings in the Carnegie Report further support the importance of adequate resources, especially in reference to staff resources. Raines compared the educational back- grounds of the staff members in both strong and weak student personnel programs. He found that a 30-hour minimum in student personnel credits differentiated the strong from the weak programs (with size controlled). 103 Sixty-three percent of the staff members from strong student personnel programs had more than 30 hours of such credits while only 51 percent from the weaker programs had achieved this level of professional training . . . Respondents from strong programs were more apt than reSpondents from weak programs to have had more course work in counseling, clini- cal testing, educational testing, gfioup guid- ance, and occupational information. Both of the above differences proved to be statistically sig- nificant. Decision-Making In Chapter Two (page 19) there was a brief discussion on the process of decision-making in a social system. The notions of Daniel Griffiths were presented. Two of Griffiths' propositions concerning decision-making were introduced, one of which is repeated here: The effectiveness of a chief executive is inversely proportional to the number of deci- sions which he must personally make concern- ing the affairs of the organization. On the first page of the Inventory of Selected College Functions, there is a section called "Respondent's Assign- ment." It is noticed that there are seven possible categories of types of activities that a staff member could be involved in for each of the twenty-one basic functions. The Carnegie Report authors also had the chief student personnel_adminis— trator indicate which type of activity he assigned himself to each of the twenty-one basic functions. In reference to Griffiths' proposition there appears to be several categories which measure the degree of personal involvement of the chief. student personnel administrator. Broad Supervision, Not ”Ibid.. pp. 8-9. 104 Involved, Occasional Contributor, and Assisting in Supervi- sion are categories which point to limited personal involve- ment. Direct Supervision and Active Participation, however, point to a rather high degree of personal involvement (in comparison to the other categories). the 'Combination' category is a "catch-all" one in which the degree of personal involvement cannot be determined before looking at the admin- istrator's responses. This investigator tallied the reSponses to each of the 21 basic functions of the chief student personnel administra- tors of the 14 strong and 14 weak programs (controlled for size) under the following classification: Active Participa- tion, Direct Supervision, Other (includes all the remaining categories). Tables 4-K, 4-L, 4-M and 4-N show the results of this analysis. Types of Involvement of Chief Student Personnel Administrators in Strong and Weak Programs TABLE 4-K Active Direct Participation Supervision Other WEAK 123 25 146 STRONG 77 55 141 Chi-square value of 21.20 (2 degrees of free- dom), significant at .01 level of confidence. 105 TABLE 4-L Active Participation and Direct Supervision Other WEAK 148 146 STRONG 132 141 Chi-square value of .22 (1 degree of freedom, not significant. TABLE 4-M Active Direct Supervision Participation and Other WEAK 123 171 STRONG 77 196 Chi-square value of 11.53 (1 degree of free- dom), significant at .01 level of confidence. TABLE 4-N Direct Active Participation Supervision and Other WEAK 25 269 STRONG 55 218 Chi-square value of 15.87 (1 degree of free- dom), significant at .01 level of confidence. Theoretically, the degree of personal involvement in decision-making is highest for the 'active participation' category, next highest for 'direct supervision,' and lowest for the 'other' categories. It is seen in Table 4-K that 106 the chief administrators from the strong programs have a significantly lower number of reSponses in the 'active par- ticipation' category, and a higher number in the 'direct supervision' category. Because there is a greater discrep- ancy in the 'active participation' category (which is also the category indicating the highest degree of involvement), it appears that chief student personnel administrators in the strong programs are less personally involved in decisions affecting Specific tasks. Table 4—M further supports this finding. Here the category of 'active participation' is compared to the categories of 'direct supervision' gpg 'other.‘ It appears that the category of 'direct supervision' has effects opposite to that eXpected. When it is paired with the 'active participation' category in Table 4-L, the differences between chief administrators in strong and weak programs disappear. When 'direct supervision' is compared to the categories of 'active participation' apg 'other,‘ significant differences result between chief administrators of strong and weak programs. In short, the most effective student personnel pro- grams have a lesser number of chief student personnel admin- istrators who perceive themselves as "active participants" in the program's functions, but a greater number who perceive themselves as "direct supervisors" (the 'other' categories contain an almost equal number of responses from the chief administrators of strong and weak programs). 107 In general, the above findings tend to support Griffiths' proposition. The 'direct supervision' category, however, does not conform to this rule. There may be several reasons for this latter finding (e.g., not enough categories to respond to; the formal structure of the strong programs may encourage this role moreso than in the weak program, where apparently the chief student personnel administrator is either highly involved or removed from Specific tasks). Since there is a criterion of effectiveness (i.e., strong vs. weak programs), the results obtained from this analysis may be well worth looking into. This is especially true for those chief student personnel administrators who are 'active participants' in a great number of functions. Also, it appears that1nug'direct supervisor' may be an alternative to too much active participation. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS It was the intent of this chapter to present some research data that had relationships to the social system processes exhibited in student personnel subsystems. The analyses given were attempts to show how a systemic approach could be applied to an educational organization or subsys- tem. Although the analyses were not exhaustive, they may have shown how to bridge the gap between social system theory and its application to an ongoing organization. In general, it was seen that the stronger student personnel programs performed more effectively in all of the 108 social system processes examined. Several indices of effec- tiveness were introduced to support this finding. One of the more salient and significant findings centered on the boundary maintenance and systemic linkage processes. Here it was found that weaker student personnel programs seemed to have difficulty establishing a recognizable identity and clear boundaries within the junior college. This was indi- cated by their poor performance in maintenance functions and several developmental variables (eSpecially 'clarity of staff roles'). The 'professional identity' of staff members in weak programs was also less oriented toward student per— sonnel work than those in strong programs. In the linkage areas of student personnel, the weaker programs exhibited several deficiencies. Most outstanding were their rela- tionships with other subsystems within the junior college. Weaker student personnel programs had significantly less support from the administration and student subsystems. It was also found that non-student personnel administrators had a much larger role in the weaker programs than in strong programs (this is closely related to the boundary maintenance problems of weak programs). Other findings include: (1) Larger junior colleges generally have more effective student personnel programs. (2) The adaptation (procurement of resources) activities greatly differentiated strong from weak programs (strong programs being more effective in this area). (3) (4) (5) 109 Staff members of strong student personnel programs had a significantly greater number of graduate student person— nel credits than those in weaker programs. Chief student personnel administrators are generally less personally involved in the Specific student personnel functions than their counterparts in weaker programs. These administrators in strong student personnel programs perceive themselves more as 'direct supervisors' than 'active participants' in the twenty-one basic functions. Over the pppal.sample of 49 junior college student per- sonnel programs certain pggk functions were implemented more effectively than others. Tables 4-B, 4-C, and 4—D show the rankings of the groups of functions within Taxonomies A and B in reference to their effectiveness of implementation. One of the conclusions of this sec- tion was that those functions which are most important (or necessary) to the junior college system as a whole are given the most attention. From the social system concepts described and examined in this investigation, what conclusions and.implications can be drawn in reference to the development of effective student personnel programs? What are some of the ramifications for further investigations in this area? The topics raised by these questions will be the subject matter of Chapter Five. CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The material presented in the previous chapters dealt with a discussion of social systems theory and how it could be applied to junior college student personnel programs. The main purpose was to introduce social system concepts and describe how they functioned in student personnel organ- izations. The aim of this chapter is to present some of the major conclusions and implications derived from this inves- tigation. A study such as this one attempts to achieve two objectives: (a) to describe a new approach to a particular area, and (b) to generate ideas and hypotheses that may flow from the study. The latter objective constitutes the focus of this chapter. The general tendency for investigators in writing chapters of this nature is to list implications that include not only their Specific study, but also those in almost any related area. This writer will attempt to resist this temp- tation by delineating only those conclusions and implications that have major significance to the topics covered in previous Chapters. Also, since the Carnegie Report discussed a number 0f conclusions, most of these will not be duplicated here. 110 111 If a conclusion was reached by the authors of the Carnegie Report which had a significant relevance to the social sys- tems theory as developed in this study, then it will be included in the discussions in the context of social sys- tems theory. The rationale for the presentation of tOpics in this chapter will be to begin with the most general concepts and then proceed to more Specific ones. Probably the best way to begin this section would be to briefly discuss the organization model that this writer has been guided by in this investigation. ORGANIZATION MODELS Survival vs. Effectiveness Mode;§ In Chapter Two the notion of organizational models was presented. Two models (the survival and effectiveness models) were briefly described. It is readily seen that the effectiveness model is the one followed in this inves- tigation. The focus of the study was primarily concerned with what social system dynamics make certain student personnel programs pgre effective than others. There are some implications, however, derived from the findings which have relevance concerning pppp the survival and effective- ness models. The factors related to differences in effec- 112 tiveness among the student personnel programs may be par- tially accounted for by differences in underlying organi- zational models. The following section is an attempt to offer some hypotheses concerning this area. It appears that too many student personnel programs, for many reasons, have been operating according to the survival model (intentionally or not). That is, as long as there is some semblance of student services in the junior college, then this should suffice (survival model). The Carnegie Report produced considerable evidence that the goal of "adequate student personnel services" was not being achieved in a significant proportion of junior colleges. This was ppp due to the fact that there were no existing student personnel programs (a survival model criterion) in many junior colleges. Instead, of those existing student personnel programs, some achieved the student personnel goals and functions more effectively than others (an effec- tiveness model criterion). Put in another fashion, of those various alternatives available in implementing student per- sonnel functions, many junior colleges choose those which allow a student personnel program to "exist." This is often accomplished without regard to the effectiveness criterion of the chosen alternatives. 113 Historical Look Historically, there may have been some justification for the practice of operating under the survival model. Many junior colleges were established before student person- nel work was organized as a separate field. Initially, then, faculty and general administratgyg staff had to per- form tasks that are now considered as student personnel services. The administrative head of these services in these early years of the junior college, was either the president, academic dean, or a general administrator. By the end of World War II, however, great strides were taken in the developing student personnel profession. Organized graduate programs were emerging. At the same time, the junior college movement was in a state of flux. New Junior colleges and additional curricula for existing col- leges were increasing at a rapid pace. The student popula- tion was becoming more heterogeneous in both social and aca- demic backgrounds. All these developments, along with some studies of the junior college offerings, pointed to a need for a separate student personnel program with professional staff and a wide range of services. Some junior colleges did change their student personnel program to a Specialized system; many new junior colleges started with a separate program. However, a significant number of junior colleges 114 failed to adjust from the old concept of faculty-administra- tion operated student services to a separate program with a professional staff. These latter junior colleges are the ones that most generally follow the survival model for student personnel services. Organization Model Hypotheses It must be stated that there are student personnel programs which appear to operate under the effectiveness model, but still do not have "satisfactory" programs. In this situation the programs are probably employing an unsatisfactory set of alternatives (and without knowledge or awareness of other sets of alternatives; if these were known then there would be efforts to change, this would not gener- ally be the case for programs functioning under the survival model). In classifying the weaker student personnel programs as identified in the Carnegie Report, this writer would hypothesize that they are functioning according to: (1) the survival model philosophy, or (2) an inappropriate set of alternatives under the effectiveness model. Efforts to change the weaker student personnel programs to more effec- tive ones, then, must take into account the underlying organ- ization model as there will be different attitudes exhibited toward suggestions for change.* *It should be noted that the survival model is not inherently 'good' or 'bad.‘ In reference to junior college student personnel programs, however, for those colleges which Operate under this model,it could be hypothesized that they are less adequate more often than not. 115 The application of social systems analysis to the Carnegie Report findings offers some information on "ade- quate alternatives"(effectiveness model). Using this infor- mation, several conclusions and recommendations can be pre- sented which may serve as guideposts toward more effective student personnel programs. BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEMIC LINKAGE Of those social system processes analyzed in this investigation, those which were the most fertile in gener- ating ideas on the internal and external Operations of student personnel programs were boundary maintenance and gystemic linkage. Almost any finding and/or conclusion of this study may be directly related to one or both of these processes; General Conclusions The following represent general conclusions on the boundary maintenance and linkage processes as derived from the investigation: (1) Of the two general problems in boundary maintenance, an over or underemphasis of this process, all but the 'Strong' student personnel programs appear to underempha~ gggp_boundary maintenance activities. The identity mech- anism (internally and externally) of many student person- nel programs is deficient. It is difficult to perceive, in many instances, which tasks are under the student per- sonnel subsystem. The clarity of staff roles is weak 116 among staff members, except in strong programs. Inter- nal staff variables such as in-service training and staff cohesiveness also were lacking in a large propor- tion of student personnel subsystems. The professional identity of members in weak programs was significantly less oriented toward student personnel work than those in strong programs. The presence of non-student per- sonnel administrators in the student personnel subsys- tem also tends to produce ambiguous boundaries. (2) In the process of systemic linkage the main difficulty is the opposite of that in boundary maintenance. There is a tendency for student personnel programs to develop linkages that are too overlapping.* An overemphasis on the linkage process precludes the development of a separate identity for a subsystem. Over extended link- ages to other systems, such as administration and faculty, without adequate boundary maintenance creates "engulfing" linkages (where the non-student personnel subsystems become too involved in the student personnel subsystem: a 'blurring' of the boundaries results). The findings noted in Chapter Four tend to support the problem of overextended linkages. 'Two General_Hypotheses Two developments in the junior college social system *Linkages are those relationships between subsystems 111 which there is an exchange of information, articulation (xf needs, and/or an input-output exchange of services. If system A dominates system B in their linkage relationship, 'then.system B overlaps too much with system.A (there is not an "equal" exchange of services). 117 are hypothesized as being primarily responsible for the boundary maintenance and linkage problems of student per- sonnel subsystems. The historical precursors of junior college student personnel programs is one. This issue was discussed earlier. It was seen that faculty and adminis- tration staff members were originally reSponsible for student personnel tasks. Many boundary maintenance and linkage difficulties are carry-overs from this history. A second area that encourages boundary maintenance and linkage problems is present even in rather well-estab- lished programs. This is the organizational 'position' of the student personnel subsystem in relation to the other junior college subsystems. The student personnel subsys- tem, as a whole, is best characterized as a linkage organ- ization within the junior college (see pages 53-54, Chapter Two for a fuller discussion of this topic). Its main tasks are almost entirely focused on meeting demands and solving problems for members from other subsystems. Organizational theorists contend that a major problem for linkage organizations is a "blurring of the boundaries." {The diSpersion of student personnel functions among numer- cnzs relationships with members of several other subsystems tends to make the programfls boundaries very permeable. On pages 50-53 of Chapter Four it was seen that those task functions which were most necessary to the junior college, as a whole, were among the most satisfactorily implemented. This iS a characteristic of almost every sub- systemyhowever it iS a more potent influence for linkage 118 subsystems, such as student personnel. Solving problems for the larger system of which it is a part, the linkage subsystem may overemphasize certain tasks over others. In the present study, it was seen that administration-records- registration functions were given more attention than any other group of functions. This indicates that there is a strong influence coming from the administration and faculty subsystems. Such forces make it difficult for student personnel to determine its own direction in the junior college. Summary To summarize, the boundaries of many student person- nel programs are very weakly defined and their identity has a low degree of visibility. Over-extended linkages to other Systems partially account for poor boundary mainte- nance performance. The findings of the Carnegie Report demonstrated rather conclusively that those student person- nel programs which performed "effectively" in the boundary maintenance and linkage processes also had higher ratings in task functions. This being the case, what are some pos- sible recommendations that could be made that would enhance the development of effective boundary maintenance and linkage processes where there are problems? The following section deals with this question in the form of brief suggestions. RECOMMENDATIONS we of Administrator Probably the first and one of the most important moves 119 that would enhance both the internal and external functions of student personnel programs would be the appointment of a professiongily trained student personnel administrator as the head of the program. While this may appear to be a 'too obvious' recommendation, it was found by Raines that "forty percent of the programs are headed by directors who do not have even minimal professional training (Master's degree in behavioral sciences or student personnel work)."2 Such a step should move both linkage and boundary maintenance processes in the right direction. The chief student person— nel administrator in any junior college functions as the main link and channel of communication to the administration subsystem, the main source for procuring personnel and financial resources. Internally, it is the chief student personnel administrator who allocates the staff to organiza- tional positions and resources to this staff. In addition, he plays a major part in defining the pplpg and expectations of student personnel staff members. Raines, in the Carnegie Report, recognized the cogency of having strong professional leadership. While noting that professional leadership is not the only answer to more effec- tive student personnel programs, he remarks: Variables closely related to leadership were the most significant ones in differentiating strong from weak programs. For example staff members frequently reflected confusion about the job assignments; in-service training pro- grams were ineffectual or did not exist; and 2Raines, Max R., "Report to the Carnegie Corporation on Appraisal and Development of Junior College Student Personnel Programs," Carnegie Report, November, 1965, p. 23. 120 there seemed to be little or no evidence of efforts to evaluate programs. Effective professional leadership is the major cgmpo- nent in each of these characteristics. Type of Desirable Linkage The pypp of linkage to other subsystems in the junior college (eSpecially faculty and administration) is of major significance if the student personnel program is to estab- lish and maintain a positive identity. The presence of non- student personnel administrators and extensive faculty par- ticipation in student personnel functions is a type of linkage that precludes a separate student personnel identity and hampers task achievement (this is the 'engulfing' linkage mentioned earlier). Student personnel programs should strive for a different kind of linkage pattern. Those student personnel programs with a professionally trained administrator who articulates the needs of the pro- gram 22 the administration subsystem is an example of a more desirable linkage (i.e., this type of linkage does not allow the administration subsystem to become overinvolved in student personnel tasks; it also facilitates a two-way cooperative effort instead of a one-way administration to student per- sonnel relationship). This type of linkage preserves the identity of the student personnel subsystem as there is a :representative from egpp subsystem. .At the same time it (Toes not isolate student personnel from other subsystems as 'there is a person(s) acting as a link to these other sub- 3Ibid., p. 24. 121 Systems. Similarly, limiting faculty participation (where possible) to faculty-student personnel committees and advis- ing (not personal counseling) would also achieve the same type of linkage. Interrelationship of Boundary Maintenance and Systemic Linkage In short, it is hypothesized that to prevent engulf- ing linkages the boundary maintenance activities of a student personnel program must be at an effective level of function- ing. It is similarly hypothesized that to enhance the boundary maintenance functioning, there cannot be extensive engulfing linkages. The student personnel subsystem must be entrusted to perform and have control over essential student personnel tasks (the task functions listed in the Inventory of Selected College Functions). This will partially increase its boundary maintenance level. On the other hand, Since student personnel is a linkage organization, it must form linkages that allows for two-way articulation between itself and.the other subsystems (this facilitates and maintains the .anut-output exchanges of student personnel). It must be :repeated, however, that there ppppld not be extensive over- lapping of student personnel with other subsystems in these Ilinkages (this is in reference to staff and organizational structure). Instead, the linkage should function as a 'flfunnel" between student personnel and the other subsystems (with the interacting systems being at the ends of these funnels, see diagram 2-C in Chapter Two). 122 Sam It was noted in Chapter Four that one of the distin- guishing characteristics of strong student personnel programs was that their staff members had Significantly more student personnel graduate credits than their counterparts in the weak programs. It is therefore recommended that in addition to a professional administrator, there Should be as many profes- sionally trained student personnel staff members as possible for implementing student personnel functions. This is a recommendation that has been in several other studies, but is so basic that it is also stated here. Raines, for example, estimated (on the basis of the sampled institutions in the Carnegie Report) that there were approximately 3000 junior college staff members engaged in student personnel work on at least a half-time basis (1964). Of these, about 1800 have at least a Master's degree in student personnel or behavioral science; about 1300 have titles in the 'Guidance and Counseling' area (with a full- time equivalency of about 1000 counselors). Raines comments on this staffing situation: . . . it is apparent that an additional 2,500 counselors should be employed if adequate counseling opportunities are to be provided. It should be noticed that the last estimate was based only on one segment of student personnel, the counseling service. W ”Ibid., p. 25. 123 The Carnegie Report pointed out that a professional staff performed student personnel task functions at a higher level than a non-student personnel staff. This, in itself, is a sufficient reason for procuring this resource. However, this writer would contend that a professional student per- sonnel staff also enhances other social system processes and functions. For example, such a staff is more likely: to establish identity with the student personnel subsystem (this is somewhat substantiated from the results listed in Table 4-G, Chapter Four); to hold clearer conceptions of their roles in the junior college and communicate them more effectively to members of other subsystems; to have a common frame of reference for informal interaction patterns which are supportive of the program (positive cohesiveness); to conduct evaluative studies and in-service training. All these factors tend to enhance and encourage boundary main- tenance activities of an organization, and as has been stated repeatedly, boundary maintenance sorely needs uplifting in junior college student personnel programs. The communication :networks within and external to the student personnel sub- system would also be more effectively implemented. Internal Pattern Suggestions The preceding recommendations have stressed the need :for more independence for the student personnel subsystem. 'rhis was posited in reference to staff, control over the program, leadership, and in performing student personnel 'uasks. In order to obtain the necessary physical and human JP 124 resources to become an effective subsystem, however, more than just communication of student personnel needs to the other junior college subsystems is necessary. To procure the needed leadership, professional staff, and physical resources (all which significantly differentiated strong from weak programs) other subsystems must be assured and/or convinced of their necessity in the student personnel sub- system. The latter becomes esPecially salient when there is a limited budgetary condition for the junior college. Because a student personnel program cannot eXpect to receive all the necessary physical and human resources at ppg time, a priority of needs must be established for each program. How, then, can the staff members and/or chief student per- sonnel administrator proceed to demonstrate the need for more and better human and physical resources? Improved boundary maintenance and linkage activities have already been discussed. Most of the attention on these processes has been on the external pattern of student per- sonnel in reference to 'funnel' linkages, two-way articula- tion, defining student personnel boundaries in task functions. Such activities are important in procuring resources. How- ever, there must be some Significant internal measures taken in order to communicate the student personnel needs to other subsystems. The following internal activities should be established and maintained at a high level of proficiency in every student personnel program: (1) Define the "student personnel point of view" (see page 46, Chapter Two) in reference to the Specific goals and JP 125 tasks of the particular student personnel program. Before the student personnelphilosophycan be exter- pgllygcommunicated it must be internally understood. (2) Conduct extensive research on the characteristics, needs, and problem areas of the current and incoming student population. Such research may point out difficulties which a trained student personnel worker is more apt to treat effectively (e.g., personal counseling needs, occupational counseling, aptitude-interest-personality testing and interpretation, organizing a student activ- ities program). In Table 4-I (Chapter Four) it was shown that "identification of supportive data" was one of the most significant differentiating variables between strong and weak student personnel programs. Related to the above types of research are follow-up studies of former students. These would include graduates (of both transfer and technical curricula) and dropouts. Some of the most valuable feedback information on the strong and weak aSpects of all junior college subsystems is gener- ated from well-executed follow-up studies. Such research, besides aiding the student personnel staff in their task functions, also provides some empirical ‘bases for articulating student personnel needs to members of other subsystems (which is often more effective than commun- ication of a general nature without supporting data). (3) Conduct thorough and regular self-studies (hopefully evaluative in nature) of the current student personnel 126 program. It was found in the Carnegie Report that eval- uative studies of student personnel programs was hardly existent, even among the strong programs. This internal activity is a difficult one to say the least. However, there are now adequate instruments (e.g., the Inventory of Selected College Functions) and student personnel consultants which make this task more feasible than ever before. As in the case of research on the student popu- lation, a student personnel program evaluation points out the proficiencies and deficiencies of the subsystem in a somewhat empirical manner (the only difference being that a different group is involved as the target of research). Such information is crucial if other sub— system members are to be "convinced" of the necessity for changes and additional resources for the student personnel program. (4) Establish in-service trainingsessions at regular (and reasonably frequent) intervals for student personnel staff members and those assisting in a part-time capacity in student personnel tasks (e.g., faculty advisors). Table 4-F (Chapter Four) points out that in-service training is a highly differentiating variable between strong and weak programs. In-service training is essential for effective task performance as well as facilitating coordinative efforts among members of the student personnel subsystem. One of the more important consequences of an effective in-service 127 training program is that of defining and clarifying the role dimensions for each student personnel staff member. AS has been shown in a number of previous sections, clarity of staff roles is one of the largest problems in student personnel programs (primarily due to boundary maintenance and linkage difficulties). Role Conflict Getzels, who has formulated a social system model of administration, deals with the issue of roles extensively. He has conducted a number of research studies which include the problem of role conflicts. He states that role conflicts occur: Whenever a role incumbent is required to con- form simultaneously to a number of eXpecta- tions which are mutually exclusive, contra- dictory, or inconsistent. . . Role conflicts in this sense are situational givens and independeng of the personality of the role incumbent. Several conditions may encourage these role conflicts accord- ing to Getzels, and among them are the following two: (a) from disagreement within the peferent group defining the role, (b) from disagreement among several referent groups, each having a right to define eXpectations for the same role. From the findings of the Carnegie Report as presented in.Chapter Four, it may be hypothesized that many student jpersonnel programs have conditions which, if not already —— 5Getzels, Jacob W., "Administration as a Social Process," in Andrew W. Halpin, ed., Administrative Theory in Imiucation, Chicago: Midwest AdministratIon Center, 1958} p. 10 dilf1s3 iii 128 producing role conflict, may be developing them. The lack of clarity of staff roles in a large proportion of student personnel programs is the best indicator of this situation. The lack of adequate in-service training causes inconsis- tencies in role—defining and possible disagreement within the student personnel subsystem (or 'referent group'). It was also seen that many student personnel subsystems were directed by non-student personnel administrators. This situation is what Getzels would categorize as possible grounds for role conflict as the result of more than one referent gropp having the right to define eXpectations. In-service training, then, is an essential element in the development of an effective student personnel subsystem. Summary of Internal Suggestions In summary, several internal measures have been posited which student personnel programs must implement if they are to effectively communicate their needs and obtain support from other junior college subsystems. These included: defining the "student personnel point of view" in reference to Specific tasks and roles within the student personnel Subsystem; conducting research on incoming, cur- rent, graduate, and dropout students; conducting evaluative studies of the student personnel program; establishing and maintaining a sound in-service training program for all members involved in student personnel tasks. Such steps should facilitate the cooperative efforts so necessary to a linkage organization as student personnel. These internal airsia 129 measures should greatly aid in the external relationships of student personnel to other subsystems. As seen from Table 4-I (Chapter Four) the variables of 'support from administration,' 'Support from faculty,‘ and 'identification of supportive data' are all Significantly related to 23:93- ‘pyyg student personnel programs. The internal actions dis- cussed in this section are important components in obtaining this support and information. IMPLICATIONS OF PRECEDING DISCUSSIONS Specialization From looking at the suggestions for improving the effectiveness of junior college student personnel programs, it is seen that they call for an increased Speciaiggation of the student personnel subsystem. The discussions of boundary maintenance and systemic linkage eSpecially emphasize this specialization aSpect. What are some of the implications of increased Specialization of a subsystem within an organiza- tion? If student personnel programs do move in this direction, there should be an awareness of some of its consequences. Briefly. the following effects generally occur with an increased specialization of a subsystem within an organiza- tion:* (a) Tasks are performed by more Specialized personnel: the division of labor is more extensive. *Many of the ideas presented in this section (a-e) are o .mnepmAmflnm noapenpmanaaoe one mpanoen npas memennda ebamnepwe oop one wnaaaeanebo no seaponm .wndnaenp eoabaemlna oepaaaa knob “whenaea mmepm Hennomnea pneonpm now moHoa wnapodannoo HO\one .pnepmamnoona .mnonwfiand .maennea mnepw soap Hennomaea pneonpm oneSOp hpdpneod cappaq .aepmmmnnm Honnomaen pneonpe Hon meonnomon aeaonenam one Heoamhna oepdadq amndmaboe no mam lenaae eaoa “wnaaemnnoo no mamenaao mappaq «mane» Hennoenea pneonpm wnaEHOMnea mnenama noapenpmanaaoe one mpasoen no nonpaonona owned ”mmepm no mnenhos Hennomnen pneospm Henoammenona Sea .aenwoaa Hennomnen pneonpm onp nanpds oepeOOH Mon ma encaponnm Hennomaea pnoonpm mo Honpnoo .onnoamnoen HO\one mnanaenp Honnomnea pnoonpm erpaH men Hopeapmdnaaoe Honnomaoa pnoonpm moano noapeNHHeHoeamlneonD maenwoam Hennomnem pneonpm na noapeudaeaoeamnebo one neon: mo whopeoaonH oaom dim MAM