OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. "‘ ‘ lav ling-gin,- ._ I ' Mia» 93553;? (MN 1 6 1995 W DEC 2 3 .2008 uG 3 y E A STUDY OF WOMEN’S CENTERS IN SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION: THE RELATIONSHIP OF INSTITUTIONAL AND NON—INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING SOURCES TO THE CENTER'S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, OPERATIONAL BUDGET, AND PROGRAMATIC THRUST By Joanne Horn Rettke A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1979 ABSTRACT A STUDY_OF WOMEN‘S CENTERS IN SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION: THE RELATIONSHIP OF INSTITUTIONAL AND NON—INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING SOURCES TO THE CENTER’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, OPERATIONAL BUDGET, AND PROGRAMATIC THRUST 35' Joanne Horn Rettke The Problem The purpose of this study was to develop some know— ledge about present day operations of women’s centers in higher education. The study was defined as descriptive research based on information collected with a survey instrument. The specific problem investigated was the existence of a relationship between women's centers major funding sources and the women's centers internal organizational structure, budget operation and programatic thrust. Methodology A questionnaire was developed and a pilot study completed. The revised instrument was sent to ninety-seven coeducational, state supported post-secondary institutions with 15,000 or more students on a single campus, within the United States. Forty—six useable responses were received from women's centers meeting the criteria of: 1) within the formal institutional structure, 2) an identifiable group of . people who organized and conducted activities, and 3) had a Joanne Horn Rettke defined physical space. These useable responses were coded and analyzed using the SPSS system. Summary of Finding§ Based upon examination of major and minor funding sources as well as 1978-79 fiscal budget amounts, the women’s centers were categorized into the following three groups for further analysis of data: 1. Institutional Funded - twenty—two centers Major funding source limited to regular institutional funds. Budget range was $2,400 to $300,000. Centers were established between 1960 and 1978 and occupied from 1 — 17 rooms. 2. Multi-Funded — thirteen centers Major funding was a budgetary combination including regular institutional funds. Budget range was $30,000 to $123,000. Centers were established between 1960 and 1978 and occupied l - 12 rooms. 3. Non-Institutional Funded — eleven centers Major funding source included no regular institutional funds. Budget range was $300 to $10,000. Centers were established between 1970 and 1978 and occupied from 1 - 4 rooms. Statistically significant differences between funded groups were found concerning the three areas under investigation: 1) organizational structure; 2) budget operation; and 3) programatic thrust. Therefore all three Joanne Horn Rettke Null Hypotheses were partially rejected. Major funding source did have some relationship to all three areas. The greatest differences seemed to be between the Noannstitutional Funded group and the other two groups. These differences seemed to be related to low budget and lack of power and status. The Multi—Funded group also showed some slight differences from the other two groups. It is reasonable to assume that this group may have slightly more freedom due to funding external to the institution and receipt of a higher fiscal operating budget, which give them greater status and power as perceived by the institution. Similarities among funded groups reflect involvement in: 1) basic programatic purpose of women's centers, and 2) a struggle for status, power and legitimization within academia. Services, referral, and client preference were similar among groups and were developed around the following purposes of women's centers: 1) collecting and diffusing information to and about women, 2) providing supplemental services to women, and 3) increasing awareness and under- standing about women's equality. Organizational structure was similar and seemed to be modeled after present day structure operating in academia, including: 1) a formalized hierarchy, 2) exercise of authority, and 3) participatory internal decision making. Joanne Horn Rettke Most centers were required to be highly accountable to their institution. This is also similar to procedures generally used in academia. Further, the patterns of avoiding restrictions placed by institutions upon the women's center services and clients also are in keeping with accepted traditions espoused via academic freedom. © Copyright by JOANNE HORN " RETTKE 1979 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The support system I have found to exist in the East Lansing community has been very large and very important to the growth which has culminated in the writing of this dissertation. It is an impossible task to mention everyone who formed the supportive atmosphere from which I was able to draw strength and inspiration. There are some individuals, however, that I would like to mention. I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Beverly Belson who served as the chair of my dissertation committee as well as being my employer for five years. Dr. Belson supported and encouraged me constantly throughout my Ph.D. work, as well as offering a visible and accessible role model as an administrator in post-secondary education. I also have deep appreciation for my other committee members. To Dr. Vandel Johnson and Dr. Richard Featherstone for their time and effort; to Dr. Mildred Erickson for her help and support in both my return to college and in the years of work that were to follow; and to Dr. Barrie Thorne for her constant inspiration and challenge to attempt scholarly work. Special thanks also to a number of individuals at Michigan State University. To; Dr. Imogen Bowers for her strength when it was needed and for the prodding which enabled me to grow; Dr. Martha Aldenbrand for the sharing she did as we struggled together to put feminism into action; Dr. Marilyn Frye for her patience and understanding while teaching me to write clearly and succinctly; and Drs. Elaine Donelson, Ellen Stromen, Mary Lee Nitschke, and Rhoda Kotzin for being warm, supportive and understanding friends. Special thanks to Beth Handrick for her attentive typing as well as her valued friendship; to Henrietta Harris for proof reading and for many shared insights which have expanded my understanding of feminism beyond my cultural boundaries; and to Nancy Maihoff for her efforts in leading me through the maze of statistics and computers. Also, I would like to thank Judy Bertelsen for her generosity in sharing with me the materials from her earlier study. ii Special thanks to Win Frederick and Mary Sutherland, two very special friends who never lost faith. A very great expression of gratitude to Marjorie Ives, who offered friendship, love, nurturance and toughness when it mattered most. Lastly, I would like to thank my daughter Debbie, for her constant belief in me. iii VITA Joanne Horn Rettke EDUCATION: B.S. (1955) Michigan State University Major: Home Economics Minor: Social Science M.A. (1975) Michigan State University Major: Communication Utilization Cognate: Women's Studies Ph.D. (1979) Oral Defense, July 27, 1979 Michigan State University Administration and Higher Education Cognate: Women's Studies EMPLOYMENT: 1955—56 Classroom teacher, Junior High School Home Economics and English, McDonald, PA 1956-59 Classroom teacher, Junior High School Home Economics, Flint, MI 1972—74 Writer/Editor, Agriculture and Natural Resources Education Institute, Michigan State University 1974- Coordinator, Women's Resource Center, Michigan State University PROFESSIONAL/HONORARY'AFFILIATIONS: Alpha Xi Delta Phi Delta Kappa National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors National Women’s Studies Association National Organization for Women Women’s Equity Action League iv PUBLICATIONS: MSU Woman, editor, a bi—weekly campus newsletter. 1974 to 1979. Women's ResOurce Guide, co-author, booklet containing specific MSU and community services. 1978. Financial Aids for Graduate Students, author, a selected bibliography on non—institutional resources. 1978. Women's Resource center, co-author, brochure describing services of the MSU Women's Resource Center. 1976. PROGRAM PRESENTATIONS: 1975 "Applied Behavioral Theory: Increasing Adoption of Concepts of the Women's Movement", paper presented at Michigan Women's Studies Conference. Class Presentation: The Women's Movement. Moderated an All-University open meeting on "Sexism in the Classroom". 1976 "Affirmative Action in Recessionary Times: Student Issues" workshop for the Michigan Affirmative Action Conference. "Returning to School", workshop for MSU Business Women's Association Conference. Class Presentations: "Sexism in Society", "Dual Roles for Women". 1977 Class Presentation: "Psychology of Divorce". 1978 "Mothers and Daughters", workshop for MSU Women's Conference. "Mothers and Daughters”, "Sexual Harrassment of Women", and "It's a Girl", workshops for Women's Weekend sponsored by Traverse City, MI, Women's Resource Center. 1979 "Women as Friends" and "I've Got a Fury", development and presentation of slide/tape discussion programs, Michigan State University. m.“" "Changing Images of Men and Women”, development and presentation of a series of discussion programs for classroom teachers, Lansing, MI. "Women's Centers", workshop at the National Women's Studies Association Conference, Lawrence, KS. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . CHAPTER I. II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . Introduction . . . . . . Women in Higher Education . . . Historical Background . . . Institutional Barriers Summary . . . . . Rationale for the Study . . . Introduction . . . Mission of Higher Education Historical . . . . . . . . . Present . . . . . Campus Based Women' 5 Centers Introduction . . . History — CEW Movement . . . History — Since 1970 . . . . Lack of Shared Knowledge Summary . . . . . Review of the Literature Introduction . . . . . . . . . CEW Material . . . . . . . . . Individual Center Reports . National and Regional Surveys Conference Participation . . Interviews and Discussions . . Summary . . . . . . . Statement of Hypothesis . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . Limitations of Study . . . . . Organization of the Study . . . . ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AND BUDGETING PROCESSES Introduction . . . . . . . . Organizational Structure Introduction . . . . . History . . . . Scientific-Classical Theory . . Human Relations Theory . . . . Structuralist Theory . . Feminist Theory . . . . . . . vii O Feminist Organizations . , . , , . , , , , , , 77 smary . v \ Q q t t i 1 . Q 1 u t e u a c c 1 83 Budget Operations . . . , . . . . , . . , . . , 87 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 The Budget Process .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Types of Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Incremental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Formula Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems . . 97 Zero-Base Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Multiple Budgeting . . . . . . . 99 Less Formal Approaches to Budgeting . . . . 100 Political Aspects of the Budgeting Process . . 101 Summary of Budgeting Operations . . . . . . . . 104 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 III. METHODOLOGY' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . 110 Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . 112 Administration of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 113 Coding of Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Introduction . . . . . . . 119 Groupings of the Centers by Funding Source . . . . 119 Major Funding Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Minor Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . 120 Implications for Grouping Women's Centers . . . 120 Null Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Null Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Null Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 V. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Null Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Differences Related to Employment of Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Differences Related to Internal Decision Making . . . . . . . . , . . 138 Differences Related to Institutional Structure . . . . . . . 138 Similarities Related to Employment of Personnel . . . . . . . 139 Similarities Related to Internal Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Organizational Structure Within Academia . . . 141 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Null Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . 147 Differences Between Funded Groups . . . . . . . 147 viii Similarities Between Funded Groups . . . . . . .147 Summary 1 0 Q 7 Q 1 Q C I t ‘ Q 1 Q \ t '. '. O 148 Null Hypothesis 3 . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Services Frequently Offered . . . . . . . . . . 152 Services Seldom Offered . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Services Sometimes Offered‘ . . . . . . . . . . 155 Referral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Restrictions on Services . . . . . . . . . 160 Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Restrictions on Clients . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Implications of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . 168 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Women's Centers: Questionnaire Response by Geographical Region . . . . . . . . . 115 2. Analysis of Responses to Question 18A: "Does Your Women' s Center Have Clerical Staff?" . . 122 3. Analysis of Responses to Question 123: "Does the Person(s) in Charge of Your Women's Center Have an Academic Title?" . . . . . . 123 4. Oneway Analysis of Variance of Total Fiscal Budget Expenditure of Women's Centers in the Study . . . . . . . 124 5. Services Offered and Not Offered by Women's Centers . . . . . 126 6. Self— -ratings of Services Offered by Women' 3 Centers . . . . . . . . 128 7. Referrals Made to Service by Women' s Centers . . 129 8. Analysis of Responses to the Question, "To What Degree Do You Feel There Has Been Success Within Your Women's Center in Bridging Lesbian/Non-Lesbian Differences?" . . . . . . 130 9. Year of Founding and Physical Space of Responding Women's Centers . . . . . 134 10. Organizational Structure as Related to the Employment of Women' 8 Center Personnel by Funded Group . . . 182 11. Organizational Structure as Related to Women' s Center Decision Making Processes by Funded Group . . 184 12. Organizational Structure as Directly Related to Institutional Structure by Women's Center Funded Group . . 186 13. Internal Budget Processes of Respondent Women' 5 Centers by Funded Group . . . 187 14. Services Offered by Responding Women' s Centers . 188 15. Referrals to Other Services Made by Responding Women's Centers . . . 191 16. Restrictions on Responding Women' 8 Centers by Funded Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 CHAPTER ONE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Women's participation in American higher education has not been similar to that of male counterparts. Institu- tional barriers operate today, as they have operated in the past, preventing women from sharing equally with men as students as well as in the professional ranks of faculty and the administrative arena. Historically the pattern of women's formal partici- pation has been cyclical in nature. The numbers of women participating in higher education gradually grew from the middle 1800's, when they were first admitted to institutions of higher education, until about 1930 when the proportions of women dropped dramatically. Now, in the late 1960's and 1970's, women's participation has again begun to reach proportions similar to those of the 1920's. The question is, will the cyclical pattern of history repeat itself and will the number of women once again decline; or will the 1970's continue, leading to eventual increase of sexual equity in higher education? If this is the beginning of an evolution- ary pattern for the strengthening and growth of a societal value system of equality for women, then changes in 2 institutions of higher education will have to take place. Some change was begun with federal legislation including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Executive Order 11357 in 1965 and Title IX of the Educational Amend- ments of 1972. These laws, while requiring change in the actions of people within institutions of higher education, do not necessarily change the values held by these people, attitudes which help perpetuate subtle institutional barriers to the full and equal participation of women in higher education. Institutional barriers within the areas of admissions, financial aids, college/university services, curriculum, counseling, as well as faculty and staff attitudes, are present in higher education today. Societal concepts about women are presently in a state of flux and higher education as a part of the total societal system is being, or will be affected by these changes. The age-old criteria of basing our expectations of a person's actions on her or his gender is in the process of change and the belief in equality for women in the areas of employment and education is growing in strength. Campus based women's centers are one type of innova- tion in higher education, tied to the movement for more sexual equality. Women's centers have been established generally for the purposes of collection and diffusion of information to, and about women and to provide supplemental educational services to women as well as to increase aware- ness and understanding about women's equality among all 3 people within their educational institution. Women's centers in higher education are a part of institutional change toward sensitivity to equity for women. The appearance of women's centers on campuses has been very recent. The first began to appear in the 1960's as a part of a renewed interest in women's re-entry to education through the continuing education movement. Since the 1970's, women's centers began to develop around the concerns and needs of younger undergraduate and graduate women. Today women's centers seem to have several character- istics in common. They provide direct services to women to supplement institutional services which are present but biased, or to meet needs where services are non-existent. They also work toward bringing about institutional change by actions of advocacy on behalf of women. Presently there is a lack of general information about women's centers. Reports and newsletters from individual centers or personal interviews with center staff members are about the only way to gather knowledge about the operation of a women's center. Each center tends to operate with very little knowledge of what others are doing and often individuals or groups of individuals who wish to start a center feel like they are "reinventing the wheel". This lack of knowledge is a limitation to future development of women's centers on campuses as well as a limitation on the potential effectiveness and growth of existing women's centers. 4 Women's centers may make evern greater impact on educational equity for women in higher education if individuals and center staff members share more information. Operational aspects such as funding, budgeting processes and organizational structure could be useful information in this sharing process among centers. Presently, there is no collection of this type of information from a national sample of women's centers. It is the purpose of this dissertation to develop some knowledge about present day operations of campus based women's centers. The study is defined as descriptive research based on information collected with a survey instrument. Information was sought concerning current organizational structure, budget operation and programatic thrust of women's centers as well as institutional and non-institutional funding sources. A national sample was used so results could be generalized and possible be useful to other institutions of higher education. Women in Higher Education Historical Background Women and men have had different rates and patterns of participation in American higher education. While formal opportunities in higher education for American men emerged in 1636 with the founding of Harvard,1 similar 1Saul Feldman, Escape from the Doll's House (New York: McGraw—Hill, 1974), p. 21. education was not available for women until 1837 when Oberlin admitted four women students.2 The history of women's participation in higher education has been aptly described by Jessie Bernard as divided into four parts: 1. On trial in the eyes of the world (late nineteenth century), 2. reform in the elitist colleges--service in the land grant colleges (1900-1920), 3. surging flood of disillusign (1920-1930), and 4. the great withdrawal (1930-1960). Bernard's first period, ”on trial in the eyes of the world" included the seminary and the common school movements. In 1821 Emma Willard established a seminary in Troy, New York and in 1824 Catherine Beecher established one in Hartford, Connecticut. Seminaries were modeled after English finishing schools with the purpose of teaching young women religious, moral, literary, domestic and ornamental education.4 At the same time the "common school movement” was gaining strength under the leadership of Horace mann and Calvin Stone. The common school move toward free compulsory education for all young Americans was also creating a new labor market. The need for teachers in the common schools provided a great impetus in the growth of higher education for women. 2Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University (New York: Vintage Books, 1962), p. 311. 3Jessie Bernard, Academic Women (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1964), pp. 30—37. 4Patricia Sexton, Women in Education (Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa, 1976), p. 45. 6 Patricia Sexton states: In 1837 Catherine Beecher left the schools she had founded to become a full-time advocate of both normal schools for women (to train them for teaching) and public schools for both sexes. With the help of Horace Mann and others, she campaigned to open the profession of teaching to women. The National Board of Popular Education, established by Catherina Beecher, placed more than 400 Eastern women in teaching positions in the new Western schools. Teaching became thg legitimation for women's entry into higher education. The early 1900's, "reform in the elitest colleges—- service in the land grant colleges", was a period of increased involvement of women in higher education. By 1910 women constituted 40% of the undergraduate population in American higher education and by 1920 this had increased to 47%.6 Growth must also be examined from general historical perspective. This was an era of involvement and reform as well as greater access to education. It was a period of growing philosophical orientation of progressivism which also drew higher education into a closer connection with society.7 Patricia Graham makes an interesting observation about increasing percents of female undergraduates. She states thus: By virtue of the smallness of the original undergraduate body, this group of men and women became an elite in the classical sense of that term, a group set apart from the 51bid., p. 46. 6Lee Deighton, ed., The Encyclopedia of Education, (Crowley-Collier Educational Corp., 1971), vol. 9: Women, Education of: History, by Kathryn Sklar, p. 561. 7Frederick Rudolph, American College and University, p., 358. 7 mass of society and potentially exempt from its stric— tures. As Rose Coser and others have noted, 'Where the position of women is securely subordinate, a few excep- tional achievers do not threaten the system and their achievements gain salience over their womanhood.’ This was the case for undergraduate women until the base of undergraduates began t8 broaden in the middle years of the twentieth century. After 1920 the proportion of women undergraduate students dropped dramatically, In 1940 undergraduate women students were 40 percent of the undergraduate population and by 1950 they had dropped to 31 percent.9 Chafe credits this decline to a societal return to a general traditional, conservative philosophical orientation.10 During this time period both the Great Depression and the Second World War had an effect on the higher education of women. During the Great Depression higher education found itself working hard to maintain the status quo and hoping to attract students. People had little money and jobs were scarce. If money could be spared, it was generally used to educate the prospective breadwinner, the boy. Page Smith states: Every significant movement of women into professional areas has taken place in periods of prosperity. The prolonged depression destroyed the ”economic margin" and every important extension of their rights which was so essential to women's entry into masculine fields.11 8Patricia Graham, "Expansion and Exclusion: A History of Women in American Higher Education," Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 3(4, 1978), p. 767. 9 Ibid., p. 766. lOWilliam Chafe, The American Woman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 105. 11Page Smith, Daughter of the Promised Land (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970), p. 305i Women entered the economic sphere in large numbers during World War II. Women, including married women, were encouraged to go to work for the "war effort." After the war there was a massive national push for these working women to return home, and many did. But two years after the war ended women had regained many of the losses of the immediate post-war period and by 1946 there were approxi— mately one million more women working in the nation's factories than there had been in 1940. Work for women, married and single, had been legitimatized by the World War II effort and women would never fully return to the home. After World War II higher education experienced an increased student population, but this was due to returning male veterans, not women. The post-war period was one of great expansion for higher education, but when the veteran influx was over and enrollments began to drop, universities and colleges began to search elsewhere for students. Also the era of the returning veteran benefited women in another way. It brought about some changes which would eventually aid in an increased acceptance of women students. Shinto lists these changes as: 1) Greater acceptance of public higher education for all Americans, not just the elite, 2) federal aid to help the poor and deprived, 3) expansion of colleges into state systems and community colleges, 4) the married student on campus and 5) permanently altering the age of the student.1 12Daniel Statello and William Shinto, Nuts and Bolts for Ministry in Higher Education (New York: UMHE Office of ‘ Communication, 1976), p. 13: 9 Since the 1960's the percentage of women under- graduate students has increased. Women undergraduates were 36 percent of the student population in 1960 and by 1970 that figure had risen to 42 percent.13 Further by 1976 women were 45 percent of the undergraduate student population, a figure similar to the percentage of women undergraduates in the 1920's.14 Again examining the broader societal context, the 1960's was a period of renewed social activism, of protest and of reform. The civil rights, student and anti-war move- ments all expressed concern about societal injustice and inequality. Another important social movement, which in part grew out of these earlier movements, was the new feminist movement which gained strength in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Origins of this new feminist movement are to be found in earlier historical efforts on behalf of both women's rights and feminism. Barbara Berg states the significant distinction between these two historical ancestors of the modern feminist movement: Feminism is used to describe a broad movement embracing numerous phases of womans' emancipation. It is the freedom to decide her own destiny; freedom from sex-determined roles; freedom from society's oppressive restrictions; freedom to express her thoughts fully and to convert them freely to actions . . . It postulates that woman's essential worth stems from her common 13Esther Manning Westervelt, The American WOman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 105. 14Patricia Graham, "History of Women in Education," Signs, 3(4, 1978), p. 766. 10 humanity and does not depend on the other relationships of her life . . . Woman's rights, however, implies a demand for particular privileges, at different times in the history of this country, the rights for which women struggled have included the right to vote, the right to equal education and employment opportunities . . .15 The new feminist movement included efforts which are first directed inward, "seeking to free woman herself from society's pressures to conform to externally social standards'.‘16 as well as those efforts directed outward, toward changing legal, economic, political and educational conditions which reinforce unequal treatment of women and men. Voices of the new feminist movement emerged in numerous ways. Betty Friedan's, The Feminine Mystique (1966) and Carolyn Bird's, Born Female (1968) were among the earliest published, widely circulated writings. Jo Freeman arguing that early phases of the movement had two branches with different origins, activities and structure. She defines these as: "the older branch whose activities tended to be concentrated on legal and economic problems and the younger branch consisting of many small groups engaged in a variety of activities, whose contact with one another 17 is at best tenuous. Increased concern about societal injustice was also expressed within the Federal government. 15Barbara Berg, The Remembered Gate: Origingvof American Feminism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 5. 16Ibid. 17Jo Freeman, The Politics of Women's Liberation (New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1975), pp. 49-50. 11 President Kennedy established the President's Commission on the Status of Women in 1961. This committee documented the denial of rights and opportunities to women.. Legislative support for equity for women emerged within Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Executive Order 11357 in 1965, and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. This legislation, required change in the actions of some employers and educational institutions, but does not necessarily change the personal value systems held by individuals. Subtle institutional barriers to the full and equal participation of women in higher education can, and do remain within the system. Institutional Barriers Institutional barriers as defined in Academic Women on the Move, are those "policies and practices in higher education which hinder women in their efforts to obtain advanced education."18 These policies and practices, both formal and informal, established and enforced by individuals within institutions of higher education, consciously or unconsciously discriminate against the full development of a woman's individual potential. In discussing institutional barriers, K. Patricia Cross states: 18A. Rossi and A. Calderwood, eds., Academic Women on the Move (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973), p. 38. 11 President Kennedy established the President's Commission on the Status of Women in 1961. This committee documented the denial of rights and opportunities to women.. Legislative support for equity for women emerged within Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Executive Order 11357 in 1965, and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. This legislation, required change in the actions of some employers and educational institutions, but does not necessarily change the personal value systems held by individuals. Subtle institutional barriers to the full and equal participation of women in higher education can, and do remain within the system. Institutional Barriers Institutional barriers as defined in Academic Women on the Move, are those "policies and practices in higher education which hinder women in their efforts to obtain advanced education."18 These policies and practices, both formal and informal, established and enforced by individuals within institutions of higher education, consciously or unconsciously discriminate against the full development of a woman's individual potential. In discussing institutional barriers, K. Patricia Cross states: 18A. Rossi and A. Calderwood, eds., Academic Women on the Move (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973), p. 38. 12 The negative attitudes seem to stem from biases of knOWh ledge and sensitivity. A few educators deny that dis- crimination against women exists. Some know it exists, but believe women have distinctively female talents and roles and that educational opportunities may be differentially presented to men and women. Others maintain that higher education is less important or less useful for women. And still others have adopted a style of crisis administration that calls for attention and change only when the old way becomes more uncomfortable than a new alternative.19 Policies and practices forming these barriers exist in many areas including those of admissions, financial aids, institutional services, curriculum, counseling, faculty and staff attitudes, as well as in positive role modeling for women students. In the area of admissions, discrimination is continued through such practices as "age ceilings, limitations on part-time study, transfer of credit, and the association of eligibility for admission with punitive eligibility for job placement after graduation."20 K. Patricia Cross examines enrollment in 1970 in "male- dominated universities" and "open door institutions" and finds that, "women constitute 47 percent of the enrollment in state colleges, whereas they represent only 40 percent of the student body in private universities." She concludes, 19W. Furness and P. Graham, eds. , Women in H_gher Education (Washington, D. C.; American Council on Education, 1974) p.21. 20Esther Westervelt, Barriers to Women's Participation in Postsecondary Education (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1975), p. 5. 13 "The fact that advantaged men and women are equally likely to enter college does not necessarily mean freedom of choice."21 Inequality also exists in policies and practices concerning financial aid to students. Fitzpatrick states two reasons for less financial aid available for women: Those women admitted to the prestigious institutions with greater financial resources do not receive an equal share with young men of available scholarship funds; women denied admission to these institutions are diverted to smaller institutions, or to women's colleges which have fewer funds to distribute . . . For example, while 42 percent of the men entering Harvard class of 1974 received financial aid, only 27 percent of the much smaller Radcliffe group were so aided.22 The National Merit Scholarship program favors men over women. In the 20 years of its operation, about twice as many boys as girls have been "discovered". In 1970 approximately 2,000 boys and 1,000 girls were Merit Scholars.23 There is also almost a complete absence of athletic scholarships for women, while such scholarships often permit men from lower-income families to attend top— ranked undergraduate institutions. Federal tax funds also support discriminatory financial aid policies. Direct government scholarships such as those available through ROTC or veteran's benefits are rarely available to women.24 21Furness and Graham, Women in Higher Education, p. 33. 22Blanche Fitzpatrick, Women's Inferior Education (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976) pp. 38-39. 231bid., pp. 39-40. 24Ibid. 14 The absence of institutional services such as child care and gynecological services discriminates against women by a failure to recognize their needs. Numerous recommenda- tions have been made as to the importance of developing child care facilities at educational institutions as well as in the work-world, but these facilities designed to facilitate a woman's pursuit of education and work have been slow to develop. Westervelt comments in her report of 1973-74: "Of the 454 colleges and universities surveyed by the AAUW only 5 percent had some kind of day care services for students with small children."25 Gynecological services as well as birth control information are often ignored and thus not included in campus health services. Westervelt quotes a 1971 AAUW survey: ”Birth control information or counseling is provided by the health service in 43 percent of the schools surveyed." She goes on to say, "Aside from the AAUW data there is no clear picture of national trends in the provision of birth control information and gynecological services to women students."26 Institutional barriers observed within curriculum are those involving course content which tends to place a heavy emphasis on the culture and achievements of white males. This dampens the motivation of women and minorities 25Westervelt, Barriers to Women's Participation in Post— Secondary Education, p. 29. zalbid. 15 who hear the implicit message, "you do not belong among those who make important decisions for or significant contributions to society."27 Since 1970 there has been a growth of women's studies courses on college and university campuses. Florence Howe in a 1978 survey states that since 1970, "more than 270 programs have been organized . . . and some 15,000 courses developed by 8,500 teachers at 1,500 28 This curricular innovation is different inStitutions." one route to achieving educational equity for women by establishing the presence of women in the curriculum, allowing women to aspire and men to understand those aspirations. But while women's studies courses do exist on some campuses, it is by no means universal nor accepted as an integral and basic part of the curriculum of American higher education. Counseling received by women students can present another barrier. Westervelt states that, "the relationship between counseling and educational development of girls and women has been discussed and explored for at least a decade" and that, "Counselor bias against women has been 29 documented." Counselor bias is also discussed by Broverman (1970), Ginzberg (1971), Gardner (1971) and 27Rossi and Calderwood, Academic Women on the MoVe, p. 54. 28Florence Howe, Seven Years Later: Women's Studies Programs in_1976 (Washington, D.C.: National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs, 1977) p. 15. 29Westervelt, Barriers to Women's Participation in Post- Secondary Education, p. 26. 16 Schlossberg and Goodman (1972). Counselor bias is an opinion held by the counselor, either unfavorable or favorable, formed without adequate reasons, and based upon what the counselor assumes to be appropriate for the group in question. Further Schlossberg and Pietrofesa state that, "Since people in general hold strong beliefs about sex-appropriate behavior, we can assume that counselors also hold these notions."30 Sex based expectations, conveyed by counselors, can potentially affect both the personal and the professional aspirations of women. Roby states: College advisors have been known to counsel women students away from rigorous traditionally male courses of study or away from advanced work of any kind. A woman psychologist reported a member of her department who feels strongly that "women should not be profession- al" and shows no hesitation in making his views known to his women students.31 Another institutional barrier is that of faculty and staff attitudes toward women. Westervelt addresses this problem in a statement. She lists the following as types of negative attitudes which can present barriers to women: 1) Lack of active encouragement and support, 2) sex discrimination on job placement before and after graduation, 3) overt and covert expressions of sex stereotypes and masculine expectations for women's 30Lenore Harmon, Janice Birk, Laurine Fitzgerald and Mary Tanney, eds., Counsgling Women (Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing, Co., 1978), p. 61. 31Rossi and Calderword, Academic Women on the Move, pp., 50-51. 32Westervelt, Barriers to Women's Participation in Post-Secondary Education, p. 31. 17 roles and behavior, 4) absence of female role models. among faculty and administrators, and 5) effects of antinepotism rules on sex distribution of faculty and on expectations of women students.32 Barriers to full participation by women in higher education do exist. Overt and covert institutional policies within admissions, financial aids, institutional services, curriculum, counseling as well as faculty and staff attitudes and role modeling opportunities, all continue to hinder educational equity for women. While educational equity seems to be closer to reality than it did ten or twenty years ago, will it continue in an increasing growth pattern? Charlotte Conable observes an historical pattern of women's participation in higher education. She states: The study of women's history reveals a pattern of development which is cyclical in nature rather than evolutionary. Relative to the developmental patterns of men, the proportion of women who sought a college degree, graduate training, and ultimately non-traditional social roles increased from the late nineteenth century until the 1930's, then declined until 1950, and recently has again increased. Summary In looking back on Bernard's four periods of women in higher education: "on trial (late 19th century), reform in elitist colleges—-service in land—grant colleges (1900 — 1920), surging flood of disillusion (1920 - 1930), and the 32Westervelt, Barriers to Women's Participation in Post-Secondary Education, p. 31. 33Charlotte Conable, Women at Cornell (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977), p. 11. 18 great withdrawal (1930 - 1960)", a period of resuring interest in educational opportunity (1960 - 1980) might be added. The next question then becomes, will this resurging interest again be followed by a "flood of disillusionment" and a "great withdrawal?" Rationale for the Study Introduction Concepts about women are presently in a state of flux, and as a part of the society, higher education is being affected by these changes. Freeman identifies recent changes in attitudes towards women: 1. women's rights are now viewed as a legitimate public concern, 2. a reconditioning toward acceptance of sexual equality as the norm of social and personal behavior and a questioning of the role of the female in American society, 3. presence of a climate of expectation that something should be done about educational and employment equality, 4. presence of information, data and testimony regarding actual discrimination, and 5. establishment of social service projects and small autonomous groups emphasizing particular concerns and problems faced by women.34 Discrimination against women presently exists in higher education. The Newman Task Force, Report on Higher Education 1971 reports, "discrimination against women, in contrast to that against minorities, is still overt and 34Jo Freeman, Politics of Women's Liberation, pp. 234-243. 19 socially acceptable within the academic community."35 Feldman in his study, Escape from the Doll's House, states: At no stage in its history has higher education for women been without controversy and opposition. Each step to eliminate sex-based inequality has met with resistance --a resistance which continues today. . . . The history of women's education indicates that the problems of women in higher education are not new—~they have simply suffered from a lack of publicity. It is only recently that more people have shogg their concern over the status of academic women. Mission of Higher Education Historical Higher education came to the United States via the people who established and settled the early colonies. As Rudolph states: Approximately a hundred Cambridge men and a third as many Oxford men emigrated to New England before 1646; among them were the founders of Harvard, the fathers of the first generation of Harvard students. Their purposes were complex, but among other things, they intended to re-create a little bit of Old England in America. From the Colonial period to the present time, those individ— uals involved, have struggled to define the mission of higher education. During the era before the American Revolution, higher education was modeled after the English university and its mission was to train and produce, "a 35Report on Higher Education, by Frank Newman, Chairman (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 80. 36Saul Feldman, Escape from the Doll's House (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), p. 36. 37 p. 4. Frederick Rudolph, American College and University, 20 learned clergy and a lettered people,"38 those who would establish and rule the colonies with knowledge. While influence was effected upon those civil and religious leaders trained via higher education; "the Colonial College failed to establish itself as a popular institution intimately affecting the lives of the people."39 After the Civil War there was a proliferation of new institutions of higher education, with a diversity of approaches. This was the beginning of a liberation from class-bound, classical-bound traditions which had previously defined the American collegiate experience. American political, social, and economic institutions began to reflect a growing democratic tradition after the Civil War. James B. Angell noted in his inaugural address at the University of Michigan in 1871: "The public mind is not in a plastic, impressionable state, and every vigorous college, nay, every capable worker may help to shape its decisions upon education.”40 Higher education was becoming more closely associated with society and the needs of all people. The years follow- ing the Civil War would produce a trend for educational institutions to be involved with a broadening spectrum of societal needs, institutions less isolated from real life than those of earlier times. Curriculum moved from its early "381bid., p. 6. 391bid., p. 19. 4oIbid., p. 243. 21 emphasis on the classics, to an emphasizing of the past, to an emphasis on the present and future. American higher education had evolved in two major areas, 1) it had become a process available to many people, rather than to just a few Americans, and 2) there was more curriculum emphasis placed on the present and future, producing an orientation of change, rather than of status- quo. Present Two recent writings describing the mission of higher education are stated thus: Miller states that, "education reflects the changing material needs and desires of the people education serves both as a leader and as a follower 41 and Evans describes the mission as: of society"; Higher education has become everybody's business. . the population looks to the university to provide solutions to a myriad of practical problems . . . Without a doubt, this new role in which our society perceives institutions of higher learning, particularly the large urban or state universities, has brought about drastic changes in some of the universities' activities. The univzgsity and the community have been forced to inter- act. If the mission of higher education has expanded to include the role of leadership on social change as previously stated and if societal concepts about women and men are presently in a state of flux, what is the role of institutions 41Richard Miller, ed., Perspectives on Educational Change (New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts, 1967), p. 5. 42R. Evans, Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1967), p. 5. 22 in order to provide equity education to women? Equality in educational opportunities for women should include: enroll- ment in institutions and curriculum and services to promote the growth of women as well as men. Claire Rose comments: Evidence from the Carnegie Commission (1973) indicates that greater proportions of women are attending institutions of higher education than ever before. But the significance of higher education does not lie in the number of women attending colleges and universities. It is significant only when it raises the intellectual and cultural level of the whole society; when it endorses and rigorously pursues the fullest development of the intellectual, artistic, and professional aspirations of its male and female students.4 Andrea Burgurad also addressed this need for expanded curriculum and services, pointing out the differing need of women, when she stated: A woman today thus had different problems than those of a man, and therefore, needs different kinds of informa- tion to solve them. Much of the information needed by women exists, but is scattered in hundreds of agencies and bureaus and difficult to an average citizen to find.44 Campus Based Women's Centers Introduction One type of change occurring on campuses of institutions of higher education which is reflective of changing concern for women's needs and obstacles to her 43Clare Rose, Meeting Women's New Educational Needs (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1975), p. 23. 44Andrea Burgard, The Women's Information Center Project (Bethesda, MD: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 081 459, 1973), Appendix A. 23 progress, is the campus—based women's center. Women's centers are innovations designed specifically to collect and diffuse information about change as it affects women. They augment and supplement services both to women and to the institutions where they are in existence. Women's centers affect both individual and institutional change within higher education. Centers usually share three character- istics in common. They 1) provide direct services to supplant existing biased services or to meet needs where services are non-existent, 2) reach a population more diverse than that served by traditional college/university services, and 3) bring about institutional change by taking responsi— bility for advocacy actions on behalf of women. History CEW Movement Women's centers are a very recent addition to institutions of higher education. Centers began as a part of the 1960's re—emphasis on women's education. Jean Campbell states that, "the major innovations concerned with women's education are usually (and loosely) thought of as continuing education programs or the continuing education movement."45 No single overall pattern exists for these 45Jean W. Campbell, ”Women Drop Back In: Educational Innovation in the Sixties," in Academic Women on the Move, eds. Rossi and A. Calderwood, p. 95. 24 programs but their general focus was on "adjusting the educational system to the demands of women's dual role, taking for granted interruptions in their formal education and providing as a matter of course their re—entry into the system."46 Some continuing education programs were organized as a women's center, and as such included "center" in the title. Therefore literature about continuing education programs for women include both programs, 1) operated as a women's center, and 2) as a program within another institutional department, usually either an academic department or adult education. The first continuing education programs were the Minnesota Plan at the University of Minnesota in 1960, the Radcliffe Institute of Independent Study in 1960, and the Center for Continuing Education of Women at Sarah Lawrence College in 1962. Other pioneers in continuing education for women in this period were the University of Wisconsin which created a Department of Education of Women in 1963, Michigan State University-Oakland Extension Service establishment of the Oakland Continuum Center in 1963, and the University of Michigan's Center for Continuing Education of Women established in 1964.48 46Ibid., p. 96. 47Center for Continuing Education for Women, Opportunities for Women through Education, Proceedings of the Conference Workshop (Ann Arbor, MI: n.p., 1965), p. x. 48Jean Campbell, "Women Drop Back In", p. 98. 25 Several studies of these programs point out the general type of services offered (Mayhew 1970, Addis 1967). These include classes or programs directed at women's educational and career needs, counseling services, moti- vational programs, tutorial assistance or training in study skills, newsletters, a library with emphasis on vocational materials, placement services, and financial aids. The early centers (usually designated as Continuing Education for Women, CEW Centers) focused primarily on returning women students. Since 1970 Since the 1970's another type of women's center has begun to develop on campuses. Judy Bertelsen describes these centers as: Developed around the needs of younger women and/or a combination of age group. These centers are often explicitly feminist in ideology, combining some of the traditional services of CEW centers with newer functions such as organizing rap groups, or teaching practical skills (for example, self-defense, auto mechanics). Further, many CEW's have expanded their services to include a larger group of women and to bring returnees and traditional-aged undergraduates together. Thus the boundary between 'CEW' and 'women's center' is not clear. Expansion of the CEW centers is noted in a 1970 speech by Jean Campbell, Director of the University of Michigan CEW Center. She said: 49Judy Bertelsen, Two Studies of Women in Higher Education (Oakland, CA: Mills College, 1974), p. 28. 26 Today the Center efforts of the 60's are joined and strengthened by the newer activist groups, similarly concerned for equality of opportunity but impatient with the pace of change and the apparent low prioritg of attention to problems of great salience to women. 0 In 1969 at the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Planning and Counseling Center for Women was opened in addition to the already established office of Continuing Education for Women. "The Planner", the newsletter of this newly created center, states that the center is ”abl new-- new offices, new staff, new attitudes geared to the woman of the 1970's."51 The newsletter further states, "this center has become a focal point for women to discuss and explore the many educational avenues open to them. Counsel— ing, help with planning a curriculum tailored to meet the needs of women, scholarship assistance, aid in the exploration of job opportunities and help with job placement, and child care services."52 During the 1970's the new type of center described by Bertelsen as those ”developed around the needs of younger women, often explicitly feminist in ideology" began to appear on campuses. Everywoman's Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, opened in 1972. This center's goals were to serve all women and to develop an active 50Center for Continuing Education of Women, Women on Campus: 1970 a Symposium (Ann Arbor, MI: n.p., 1970), p. 59. 51Minnesota Planning and Counseling Center for Women, "The Planner", Minneapolis, 1, No. 1. (October 1969). (Mimeographed) 52 Ibid. 27 advocacy program on behalf of women's issues. These stated goals were: To carry on the work of identifying and serving the unanswered needs of every woman . . . a chance to learn about ourselves, both what it means to be a woman in today's world and what it can mean . . . We need to find ways to change the social Ifistitutions that have been harmful to us in so many ways. We need to advocate change, change which will begin to remove the limits placed on women at birth simply because we were born female.53 The "newer" centers of the 1970's are described by Ann Marie Cunningham: The New Haven (Connecticut) Women's Liberation Center's founding was typical. In December 1970, in a city with a classically vituperative town-gown split, a couple of enterprising undergraduate feminists persuaded Yale to provide two rooms and a carpet for a center Traditionally progressive places, college towns were hospitable to women's centers. And since centers provide missing services for women, they are often popular with affirmative action-conscious adminise trators.54 Present day women's centers of the 1970's can generally be described as "comfortable places where women can meet in projects or support groups, . . . borrow books and magazines, consult files about women, receive counseling or referrals for problems with school, work or private life."55 The proposal for a women's center at San Diego State College states its philosophical orientation as: 53Everywoman's Center, "Everywoman's Center Newsletter", Amherst, MA: II, No, 6., September 1973. (Mimeographed) 54A. Cunningham, "Women's Centers", Mademoiselle, April 1975, p. 144. 55 Ibid. 28 Designed to provide a complete program of services to the individual and to the community . . . Women students will receive special benefit from the Centers since their needs are special. A woman is different. She has many doubts about herself, her identity, and her relationships in modern society. She needs a program that interrates her life and her education.56 The 1977-78 report from the Women's Center at the University of Missouri—Columbia states a philosophy which is similar to that of many women's centers. The report states: The Women's Center prescribes to a feminist philosophy. We believe in the social, political and personal equality of the sexes, and that we cannot make change toward equality until we understand the inequalities and the mechanisms used to maintain these inequalities . We believe that women have the right to choose what they will become, the right to self—determination. Since intelligent choices cannot be made until we understand our options, the Women's Center provides educational avenues for women to discover their options and learn skills for effective decisionmaking and implementation.57 Lack of Shared Knowledge Beyond reading isolated reports and newsletters of individual women's centers, there is presently a lack of knowledge about women's centers in higher education. Kathryn Girard, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, expressed concern over this problem: While women's centers have the potential to address the needs of a wide range of women and could thus make a valuable contribution in the struggle for educational 56San Diego State College, "Proposal for a Center for Women", San Diego, CA, 1970. (Mimeographed) 57The Women's Center, "Here We Are", Columbia, Missouri, 1978 (Mimeographed) 29 equity generally and the creation of women's studies program specifically, three on—going problems seem to inhibit their effectiveness: (1) the lack of information on the resources, experiences, accomplishments and strategies of successful centers; (2) a lack of epxerience in program and organizational development; and (3) insufficient funding to conduct programs. Other recent statements speak to the problems of inadequate knowledge about organizational structure, budget, and program thrust regarding women's centers in higher education. These have been expressed by Ann Truax, Director of the University of Minnesota Women's Center, by Dr. Bernice Sandler, Director of the Association of American Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women,59 and by 'Jean Campbell, Director of the University of Michigan Center 60 Dr. Sandler wrote for Continuing Education of Women. recently, "I suspect it will be difficult to track down the centers. Little has been written about them as you already know . . . When you finish the dissertation, do send us an abstract as we'd like to know what you found out."61 People working within women's centers receiver numerous requests from other institutions in higher education 58Kathryn Girard, "Campus Based Women's Centers", paper presented for the National Women's Studies Conference, January, 1977, p. 8. 59Personal correspondence from Dr. Sandler and Anne Traux. 60Interview with Jean Campbell, Center for Continuing Education of Women, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 28 September 1978. 61Personal correspondence, July 7, 1978. 30 for detailed information on how the center was originated and presently is being operated. The University of Massachusetts reports in a two year period, 109 college or university-based women's centers have written requesting information on EWC's organizational structure, funding, accomplishments and failures, as well as an additional 191 requests on specific programs or projects.62 The Women's Resource Center at Michigan State University has also received this type of request and has developed a form letter to reduce the time consuming job of answering each request individually.63 Summary Discrimination against women in higher education does exist and if institutions of higher education are attempting to be sensitive to the present day social system, then institutions should also be sensitive to the changes in the roles of women. Women's centers are funded to provide supplemental services to women and to the institutions of higher education. Women's centers reflect and have helped effect institutional change for more equity for women._ Women's centers on campuses are a very recent entry in the history of higher education and as such there is a lack of information about this type of educational 62Kathryn Girard, "Campus Based Women's Centers," pp. 7-8. 63Personal experience as Coordinator of the Michigan State University, Women's Resource Center from 1974 to present (1978). 31 innovation. The largest body of information exists concerning the CEW center, the first form of women's center which began operating in the early 1960's. Women's centers operating since the 1970's seem to be somewhat different from the early CEW center but outside of reading individual, isolated reports from specific centers, there is very little in the way of a general body of information about present day centers. Statements have been made about this lack of know— ledge (Truax, Sandler, Campbell) and about the problem created limiting the potential effectiveness of the women's center in making contributions to educational equity in higher education (Girard). Women's centers need to be the subject of study in order to create a general body of information. Therefore this dissertation project is one of descriptive research, handled via a survey designed to gather some information about the current organizational structure, budget operations, program thrust and funding sources of women's centers in higher education using a national sample so the results can be generalized and possibly be useful to other institutions of higher education. 32 Review of the Literature Introduction A literature search in the area of women's centers in higher education was begun by initiating the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) computer search.64 Additional references have been gleaned from the Women's Studies Abstracts, 1971-1978, the file and document section of the Michigan State University Women's Resource Center, the file and document section of the Center for Continuing Education of Women at the University of Michigan, and a Dissertation Abstracts and Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national computer search.65 Included also in the literature search are interviews with directors and staff of various women's centers as well as conferences pertinent to women's centers. The ERIC search produced titles with abstracts for 54 items. Of these items, seventeen were related in some manner to women's centers. The Dissertation Abstract search produced sixteen titles with abstracts. One of these items was related to women's centers. The literature on women's centers seems to fall into four general categories: 1. continuing education for women (CEW) materials, 2. reports issued by individual centers, 64Initiated by the researcher in July 1978 at the Michigan State University Main Library, East Lansing, Michigan. 65Initiated by the researcher in August 1978 at the Michigan State University Main Library, East Lansing, Michigan. 33 3. national or regional survey, and 4. interviews, dis— cussions, and conference participation with directors and staff of women's centers. CEW Material The largest body of literature about women's centers was contained within the continuing education for women (CEW) materials. These centers also have the oldest history of operation on campuses of institutions of higher education. The CEW material contains one study published as a book, Some Action of Her Own by Helen Astin. Astin's book is a study of fifteen CEW programs. The following describes the study: Designed to give an analytic account of the development of programs of continuing education for women (CEW), of the impact of these programs on the lives of the women they serve, and their influence on the institutions which house them and on higher education in general. The study was originally designed to deal with five major areas of inquiry: 1. Demographic and background characteristics . . . 2. Program structure and components . 3. Impact of programs on women themselves . . . 4. Impact of the program on the parent institution . . . 5. Impact on the family... . . Other specific questions that arose as we began the study and continued through its various phases were: . . . have the programs been worth it? What have we learned about the needs, life styles and development of adults . . . ? How have the basic differences and conflicts between program directors (who are client oriented) and institutional administrators (who are institution oriented) have been handled or resolved? What are the roles of men . . . in the lives of these women? . . . What are the structural and administrative strains in the program? . . . But the books is about more than programs and institutions we turn our attention to the women themselves and to their families . . . their husbands and children.66 66Helen Astin, ed., Some Action of Her Own (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1976), pp. vii-x. 34 The study is not an exclusive study of women's centers. Only seven of the fifteen respondents were actual centers, the other eight were programs.67 Also, the major part of the study, chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6, dealt with participants in the programs and program development in relation to these participants. A minor part of the study, chapter 2, discussed organizational aspects of the programs, and chapter 1 concentrates on the history of CEW. Relative to funding sources for the programs, the study states that most programs depended on general institutional funds or specific allocations from a dean's or vice president's office. It further stated that six programs must "pay their own way" via tuition and fees-~"long a requirement in extension and adult education", and that federal, state, and private grants contributed little to program budgets and these usually were used to "sustain only special projects of limited duration."68 The study reported several items related to organizational structure. The programs themselves were found within various institutional areas, including Extension, Continuing Education, General Studies, Academic Affairs, Student Services and Community Relations. The Director of a program reported either to a Dean, Assistant Dean, Director, Vice President or Provost or a President. These CEW directors felt: 6711616., p. ix. 681bid., p. 33, 35 That their programs enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and that they operated informally, perhaps most spontaneous and creative than systematic, and although final decisions most often rest with a Program Director, she invites and encourages input from other staff members, administrative colleagues, and in a few instances, adult women students. About half the programs use some form of advisory committee to provide ideas, reactions, and general planning directions.69 Budget operation was found to "almost always involve central administrators plus formal procedures and reviews consonant with other departments or programs."70 Also it was reported that due to limited budgets the formal, systematic evaluation by the program itself was curtailed. Additional material about CEW is found in Academic Women on the Move by Rossi and Calderwood, in the chapter "Women Drop Back In: Educational Innovation in the Sixties" by Jean Campbell. The chapter's focus is on the historical Hdevelopment of CEW including present day program development. The Development and Administration of Continuing Education for Women by Osborne and Strauss is primarily a description of the development of the CEW program at George Washington University. Another source of CEW information can also be found in various published and unpublished conference proceedings. Examples of these proceedings are: Opportunities for Women through Education (1965), Women on Campus (1970), and Women in Action (1969) all published by the University of Michigan CEW Center, Notes: Midwest Conference on Women's 69Ibid., p, 31. 7OIhid. 36 Studies (1971) by Alverno College in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Roles of Women: Update (1972) by Miami-Dade Junior~ College, Miami, Florida. All of the CEW material tends to focus more on the needs of returning women students and on the programs and services developed to meet these needs, rather than on operational aspects such as funding sources, organizational structure, and budget practices. Individual Center Reports Another body of information is material contained in the numerous published and unpublished reports of individual centers. Examples of the published reports are: Women's Resource Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1976); The Center for Continuing Education, Duke University (1972); Continuum Center, Oakland University (1968-69); The University of Michigan Center for Continuing Education of Women (1964-1977); 'The Women's Resource Center, University of British Columbia, Canada (1976); Providing Community Services for a Valencia Community College Downtown Center (1973); The Women's Information Center Project, University of Maryland, College Park (1973); and The Women's Center, Barnard College (1971). Unpublished reports from individual centers include those from Michigan State University, Women's Resource Center; University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Everywoman's Center; San Diego State College, proposal for a women's center; University of Missour-Columbia, The Women's Center; and the 37 Long Beach City College, Continuing Education Center for Women. Several of these reports were for centers not in operation at the time of the report. Considering that the 1975 list of women's center compiled by the Association of American Colleges contains over 200 entries, these thirteen reports seem inadequate as a sample from which to make any inference about women's centers in general. Also many of the individual reports either did not deal at all with organi- zational structure and budget practices or dealt with these issues to only a limited degree. The reports tended to focus on program development and the rationale used for the specific program focus. The booklet How to Organize a Multi—Service Women's Center, published by the Women's Action Alliance, Inc., does discuss organizational structure. It is one of the very few which addresses the collective type of organizational structure as an alternative to a more hierarchial structure. Funding sources and program are also discussed but budget procedures are not mentioned. The limitations of this publication are that its focus is on community oriented centers and that it addresses centers within higher education in a very small section.71 Another publication, An Appraisal of the New York State Guidance Center for Women, by Raines is also of limited 71Women's Action Alliance, How to Organize a Multi-Service Women's Center (New York: Women's Action Alliance, Inci, 1976), pp. 19—20. 38 relevance to this study because of a focus on the specialized function of career and educational counseling and testing. The report is more oriented toward a discussion of client needs and the subsequent development of a counseling program to meet these needs than to organizational and funding issues. A search of Dissertation Abstracts showed only "A Clinical Assessment of A Community College Affiliated Guidance Center for Women" by Jerry G. Solloway in 1970 at Michigan State University, as possibly relevant to this dissertation study on women's centers. Further investigation revealed it was not useful to this study as its focus is on counseling program content. A paper "Organizational Development and Goals: A Consultant's View of Women's Centers" presented by David Borland at the American Personnel and Guidance Association/ American College Personnel Association, 1976 discusses the application of some general concepts to the operation of the North Texas State University Women's Center. These concepts include; 1. the establishment of goals including goals relating to the services of the center and to the maintenance of the system as well as both long term and short term goals, with the establishment of priorities and time- tables, and 2. and evaluation process for an internal system of measuring progress or lack of progress in meeting these goals.' ”For a new subsystem, such as a Women's Center, an institution will require more vigorous evaluation, even 39 though the resources they allocate often are minimal,"72 and 3. organizational authority, the need for some identifiable authority structure within a center to reduce confusion within people from the parent institution when they deal with the center. Very few studies have been done on women's centers from which generalizations can be drawn. One study was done in 1974 by Donald Nichols titled, Women's Programs at Public Colleges. The report is a survey of all public community colleges in the United States to discover what kinds of programs and services were being provided for female students and members of the colleges surrounding community. A few of the findings do relate to women's centers. The respondents included 577 institutions; seventy-three of these institutions (12.7%) reported having women's resource centers presently in operation. The survey further stated that, "almost all centers employ paid staff while utilizing volunteers for assistance.73 Programs and services reported were: comprehensive day care (one half of the centers); babysitting for students (one third of the centers); special counseling for women (almost all of the centers); and special financial assistance to women (one fifth of the centers). 72David Borland, Organizational Development and Goals: A Consultant's View of Women's Centers (Bethesda, MD: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 130 572, 1976), p. 4. 73Donald Nichols, Womeg's Programs at Public Community Colleges (Bethesda, MD: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 113 999, 1975), p. 3. 40 National and Regional Surveys TenElshof and Searle published the article Developing a Women's Center in 1974. The authors state that the study is based on a national sample. In the discussion of funding for women's centers, the author points out: "The majority of women's centers are supported by university funds but some have been initiated with self-raised funds and student fee allocations."74 The discussion of organization structure is especially useful. It discusses the cooperative model, something which the earlier literature does not mention, as a form of organizational structure presently being used in many women's centers. The authors discuss the coOperative model thus: However many women's centers are exploring options within a cooperative model. In such centers, a coordinating committee or board works collectively with members on administration. The purpose of using a cooperative design is to help women learn the process of decision-making. The more women involved in the process, the more who learn what kinds of information, discussion and options are considered before a decision is made. To facilitate the operation of the center, a director is often hired to work with the committee or board.75 The TenElshof article also discusses the following aspects of a women's center: objectives of the center, space needs and programs including counseling, resource library, topical 74Annette TenElshof and Elizabeth Searle, "Developing a Women's Center," Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 37(4)1974: p. 174. 75 Ibid., pp. 174-75. 41 and skills programs, seminars, conferences, speakers bureau, newsletter and acting as an advocate for women students. The national study of women's centers done by Judy Bertelsen and published in limited numbers in 1974,76 is the most useful study found in the literature search. This study is based on data received from eighty-six responses to a questionnaire sent to all known women's centers on United States campuses of higher education. Her results are discussed in terms of demographic data, amounts and sources of funding, services provided, and target populations for these services. Bertelsen used the following categories to examine funding source: regular items in the college budget, temporary item in the college budget, private grant, government grant, small donations and fees, women's center projects, student government funds, and other. She found that: "most of the centers (52 = 60%) obtain their funds primarily from the budget of the host college or university either as a regular budget item (31 = 36%) or as a temporary grant (21 = 24%) . . . a few centers mention more than one . 77 primary source." 76Phone conversation with Judy Bertelsen, September 1978. Three hundred copies were printed and distribution was limited. 77Judy Bertelsen, Two Studies of Women in Higher Education, pp. 32—33. 42 Program thrust was discussed in terms of: 1) services frequently offered by women's centers: library (75 = 85%), speaker programs (69 = 80%) and rap groups (61 = 71%); 2) services seldom offered by centers: psychological/ psychiatric (11 = 13%), child care (15 = 17%), part-time job placement (l6 — 19%), career level job placement (20 = 23%) and tutoring (6 = 7%); and 3) other services offered by centers: academic and non-credit instruation (37 = 43%), abortion counseling/contraception information (27 a 31%), full-time paid staff (31 = 36%) and part-time paid staff (52 = 60%).78 Services were also discussed in terms of target group focus. Bertelsen states: The majority of women's centers tend to focus their services toward the undergraduate student; most centers who claim to offer a service, however, say that they offer it to a wide range of women in the campus area (some centers are restricted by the terms of their financial grants. Indeed, some continuing education programs are prevented from serving traditional under- graduates.)79 Bertelsen's discussion of organizational structure is especially useful. Acknowledging that women's centers are experimenting with new forms of organization, "the questionnaire included items intended to measure the tendency of a center to adopt non-hierarchial methods of leader— ship."80 To establish degree of counter—culture 78Ibid., p. 33-40. 79Ibid., p. 30. 80 Ibid., p. 43. 43 organizational style used as a predicator of service or source of budget, Bertelsen used Guttman scale criteria. The cluser used to approximate unidimensionality was: 1. Organization of policy (whether or not the centers operate as a "collective"), 2. elitism of decision- making body (whether participation is restricted or open to "drop-in” participants) and 3. method of decision-making (whether by consensus or majority vote.) The Guttman scale scores were then compared with services offered, self-identification of the center, size of budget, and respondent's evaluation of the center's success in dealing with devisive problems. Findings related to degree of counter-culture were: While the number of centers scoring high or low on the counter-culture scale was not sufficiently large to allow firm conclusions, it does appear that this group is some what less "establishment" in its concerns and in its resources (both monetary and personnel) than the group of women's centers as a whole. While most women's centers can be assumed to be concerned with social change and improving the lot of women, at least some of the persons associated with centers that focus on continuing education, research, and women's studies, feel strong pressures to prove that they meet conventional expectations of academic culture The counter—culture scale was clearly significantly related to only one of the items were investigated: the question of whether or not the center had bridged lesbian/non-lesbian differences . . . this issue was the most divisive question facing the centers as a group. While the numbers are so small as to be less than reliable for any firm generalizations, we may note that those who refuse to answer the question become fewer as counter-culture scores increase. 81Ibid., p. 46. 44 Bertelsen further states: The more general finding is that college women's centers are £93 polarized into ”radical" and "conservative" or "establishment" and "counter-culture"; while women's centers serve a wide variety of purposes and adapt to a wide variety of institutional arrangements, they display a striking similarity in terms of services offered--and in terms of low budgets. They are relatively young institutigns and are presently in a fluid state, on many campuses. 2 A paper prepared by Kathryn Girard for the National Women's Studies Association Convention, 1977, explores the "potential of women's centers and of women's centers working together with women's studies programs to bring about meaningful change in the form and content of women's higher education.” She also states that the secondary purpose of the paper is to "examine the factors that inhibit the realization Of this potential." The following criteria for defining a women's center are set forth in the paper: They call themselves a women's center. They have their own space. There is an identifiable group of people who organize and conduct activities through the center. The group has an identity separate from other campus programs and separate from specific individuals. The organization has the willingness (if not the current capacitg) to respond to a wide variety of women's needs.8 01 #5 0010.4 Girard uses the Bertelsen study as her source of information and then illustrates many of the points made with examples from the Everywoman's Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. In addressing how a women's center 82Ibid., pp. 48-51. 83Kathryn Girard, ”Campus Based Women's Centers", p. 1. 45 can benefit a women's studies program, Girard makes the following observations based on Everywoman's Center, "the two operate as separate but cooperating offices, allowing each organization its own forces, priorities, staff, University contacts, and perhaps most importantly, distinct visibility. . . . It is assumed each organization benefits from the work of the other."84 Conference Participation Another area of information included in the review of the literature is that of conference participation. Two conferences personally attended by this researcher have included a focus specifically on women's centers. The "Conference on Equal Opportunity in Higher Education: A Collective Assessment" sponsored by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 1976, included subsection F, ”Directors of Women and Minority Centers" with chairperson Anne T. Truax, Director, Minnesota Women's Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. A stated purpose of this conference was ”To provide a forum for exchange of information on problems, concerns, and programs dealing with Affirmative Action, academic programs, and supportive 85 services.” The statewide conference, "Women's Resource 84Ibid., pp. 5-6. 85Committee on Institutional Cooperation, Confergnce on Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (Bloomington, IN: n.p. 1976). 46 Networking Conference" in 1978, sponsored by the Everywoman's Center, Flint, Michigan included in its goals statement, "This workshop is designed for staff (and volunteer staff) of womenéserving agencies to create a communications network and to extend their knowledge of resource materials for 8 women." 6 Interviews and Discussions During the last four years the author has had the opportunity to make on-site visits and personal interviews with center directors and staff including: The Women's Resource Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Lansing Community College's Women's Resource Center, Lansing, Michigan; The Women's Resource Center at Traverse City, Michigan; The Center for Continuing Education of Women, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and The Women's Center, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan. Workshop sessions and interviews all tended to reemphasize a lack of knowledge about other centers and their operations. Participants used the sessions to gather ideas and compare operational expertise with one another. A primary focus was usually about practices and services which have been successful and details on how this was accom- plished, as well as discussions of problem areas of operation. 86Preconference brochure, Everywoman's Center, Flint, Michigan, October, 1978. 47 On site visits with directors and staff of women's centers brought into focus additional expression of a lack of knowledge and confusion regarding organizational operation of women's centers in general. Each of these women's centers visited was quite new, initiated in the middle of the 1960's or early 1970's, and their directors and staff generally felt they were developing their services and organizational structure with very little benefit of shared knowledge from other centers. There also seemed to be confusion over what other centers offer and how structurally they are organized within their institutions as well as their internal organization. Recent visits (fall 1978) with the Ann Arbor and Traverse City Centers included dicussions which empha- sized the need for a greater body of knowledge of up—to—date material about organizational functioning of women's centers. Summary The review of the literature on women's centers includes materials about the following categories: CEW, individual reports of centers, regional or national surveys, and interviews and discussions with directors and staff of individual centers. The CEW material contains information about the history of CEW programs, general discussions regarding policy and philosophy of CEW and research studies done within CEW. The material is primarily focused on the needs of the adult woman student and the program development to deal with these needs. 48 Individual center reports, some published, some unpublished, represent a very small sample and as Such are not useful in developing generalizations for application to other women's centers. The Borland paper introduces the concept of goals and the prioritizing of these goals as well as an evaluation process useful in examining organizational structure. The most useful survey report is the Bertelsen national study of women's centers within higher education. This study discusses funding sources and program thrust as well as examining of organizational structure in terms of alternatives to a hierarchial form of structure. The author also did some interesting Guttman scaling in an attempt to establish degree of counter-culture organizational style. Conference participation and discussions with women's centers directors and staff tended to reinforce the need for generalized information applicable to their individual women's centers. It also revealed a somewhat confused state as to how women's centers other than their own are organizationally structure, and handle the preparation of budgets. 49 Statement of Hypothesis NULL HYPOTHESIS 1: No relationship will exist between women's centers funding sources and their organizational structure. NULL HYPOTHESIS 2: No relationship will exist between women's centers funding sources and their budget operation. NULL HYPOTHESIS 3: No relationship will exist between women's centers funding sources and their program/programatic thrust. The independent variable will be funding sources while administrative organization, budget operation and program thrust will be the dependent variables. Statistical tests will be carried out to determine if the null hypotheses can be rejected. Definition of Terms Major Funding_Source The source(s) of funding providing the majority of the women's center fiscal budget. Minor Funding Source The source(s) of funding providing a relatively small proportion of the women's center budget. The center could probably operate without this source, or obtain similar amounts from another source. Institutional Funded Women's Centers Women's centers who receive as a major source of funding only regular institutional funds. 50 Multi-Funded Women's Centers Women's centers who receive as a major source of funding, a combination of funds, including regular institutional funding. Non-Institutional Funded Women's Centers Women's centers who receive as a major source of funding, no regular institutional funds. Limitations of the Study The purpose of this study is to describe current organizational structure, budget operations, program thrust and funding sources of women's centers in higher education. This study of women's centers is limited to institutions of higher education with a total enrollment of 15,000 or more students on one campus. Institutions are state supported, co-educational, and within the United States. Additional limitations on the women's centers studied are: l.) the words "women” and "center” will appear in the title of the center, 2.) the women's center will be within the formal university or college organizational structure, 3.) the institution will be on one campus, 4.) it will have an identifiable group of people who organize and conduct activities through the center, and 5.) the women's center will have its own physical space. As noted, the results are limited by the number of centers included in the study, as well as by the actual responses of these centers. A further limitation derives from the relatively short history of women's centers on 51 college/university campuses. Since centers have only been in existence since the 1960's, the findings will be tempered by a lack of historical precedence. Qgganization of the Study Chapter II will include a discussion of organiza- tional structure and budgetary practices. Chapter III will be the procedures and methodology of this study. Chapter IV will be the presentation and analysis of data. Chapter V will be the summary, conclusions, recommendations and implications for further study. CHAPTER II ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AND BUDGETING PROCESSES Introduction This chapter presents some analytic background concerning organizational structure and operational budget within women's centers in institutions of higher education. This includes examining historical roots of modern day organizational theory as well as discussing the three main schools of thought: the scientific—classical, the human relations and the structuralist. Feminist theories of organizational structure will also be examined including their historical evolution and the problems they pose to the effectiveness of feminist organizations, including women's centers and women's studies within institutions of higher education. The last section of the chapter will deal with general concepts of budget operations within higher education including: the recent trend toward greater usage of formalized budgetary systems, actual processes and systems commonly in use and the political aspects of the budget process. 52 53 Qgganizational Structure Introduction Women's centers in institutions of higher education operate either totally, or in part, from a feminist orienta- tion. The feminist approach to organizational structure is based on a non-hierarchial cooperative model, and is stated thus: "Freedom to control one's own live and realize one's 87 Yet some feminist self as an actualizing human being." organizations work within institutions organized largely on- the hierarchial model. In order to more fully understand how these two models might be able to work concurrently within the same institution it is necessary to examine organizational structure, history and theory from the scientific—classical, the human relations, the structuralist, as well as the feminist perspective. A Parsonian definition of the concept "organizations" is stated by Amitai Etzioni: "Organizations are social units (or human groupings) deliberately constructed and recon— 88 Etzioni further states: structed to seek specific goals." Corporations, armies, schools, hospitals, churches and prisons are included; tribes, classes, ethnic groups, friendship groups, and families are excluded. Organi- zations are characterized by: (1) divisions of labor, power and communication responsibilities, but deliber- ately planned to enhance the realization of specific goals; (2) the presence of one or more power centers 87Joan Rothschild, ”Taking Our Future Seriously," Quest, II(3)1976: p. 24. 88Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1960), p. 17. 54 which control the concerted efforts of the organization and direct them toward its goals; these power centers also must review continuously the performance and re-pattern its structure, where necessary, to increase its efficiency; (3) substitution of personnel, i.e., unsatisfactory persons can be removed and others assigned their tasks. The organization can also recombine its personnel through transfer and promotion.89 Farace, Monge and Russell in Communicating and Organizing abstract five key elements of human organizations and state them as follows: two or more individuals who recognize that some of their goals can be more readily achieved through interdependent (cooperative) actions, even though diagreement (conflict) may be present; who take in materials, energy and information from the environment in which they exist; who develop coordinative and control relationships to capitalize on their interdependence while operating on these inputs and who return the modified inputs to the environment, in an attempt to accomplish the goals that inter- dependence was meant to make possible.90 This set of five elements views the concept of organization as an active in a process change orientation, including the "sequential, time varying nature of the behavior of members."91 This concept of constant change focuses on the the predictable activity to be found in an organization as the structure. This structure is viewed from the dynamic 89Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organization (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 3. 90R. Farace, P. Monge, and H. Russell, Communicatingand Organizing (Reading, MA: Addison-Wessley, 1977), p.16. 91 Ibid., p. 19. 55 framework of changing over time, changing its input— thoughout-output activities. Monahan also discusses organizational structure from this dynamic viewpoint. He states the following definition: "both a set of positions that prescirbe broad functions and specific duties to incumbents, and a system of norms that regulate the relationship between incumbents of different 91 positions." Further he proposed that organizations vary as to the amount of structure they incorporate and that both "change and instability must be recognized as inherent."92 History There has been interest in organization of humans into groups probably as long as people have lived together in any form of communal relationship. Monahan suggests that "specific concern with the structure and function of organizations probably grew up most notably with early military systems and with increasing stabilization and bureaucratization of religion institutions."93 Early evidence of scholarly interest in organizations can be found about the time of the French Revolution. Gouldner states: 91W. Monahan, Theoretical Dimensions of Educational Administration (New York: Macmillan, 1975), p. 96. 92 Ibid., p. 97. 93Ibid., p. 15. 56 Both sociology and organizational analysis were early formulated in the work of Henri Saint-Simon. Saint— Simon was probably the first to note the rise of modern organizational patterns, identify some of their distinctive features and insist upon their primary significance for emerging society.94 Monahan noted that Saint-Simon's protege, Auguste Comte, took an opposite view. Monahan states: Comte was much more an advocate of organizational growth in terms of natural, spontaneous evolution. . . . He did not totally reject the processes of rational organization, but preferred that such processes only be instituted in the face of truly serious threats to the natural social order.95 Monahan also examines the naturalistic and the rationalistic approaches to the study of organizations. He proposes that these two approaches are, "particular examples of cognitive and affective orientation to interpersonal relationShips in organizational life." He continues: If by cognitive we accept (admittedly oversimplified) the idea of reason, and by affective, the idea of feeling, or emotion, then Ferdinand Tonnies' monumental work, Geminschaft und Gesellschaft (Community and Society), is, in essence, an analysis of the fundamental concept of community in the contexts of the affective and cognitive orientation. For Tonnies, Gemeinschaft was characterized by highly personal, familiar, almost intuitive conditions (feelings?) of solidarity, whereas Gesellschaft is characterized by increasing impersonality, rationalism and bureaucracy. Monahan further proposes that this approach formed a "transition from medievalism to modernism"; which in a sense was a transition from emphasis on the affective to the 94Ibid., p. 16. 95Ibid. 96Ibid., p. 19. 57 cognitive. As people became less isolated and were involved in multiple types of social relationships, organizational theory evolved. The Industrial Revolution, and growth of the military brought about changes as organizational structure evolved toward the complex, multiple form present in today's society. Moving in time to the twentieth century, the period between 1890—1910 brought the emergence of the large corpor— ation. Daniel Bell refers to this period as, "the break-up of family capitalism--the beginnings of corporate mergers and finance capitalism (through bank intervention), which increasingly took control out of the hands of owners and put it in the domain of professional managers of large corporations."97 Kanter points out that it is a source of debate as to whether or not capital owners actually lost control of their enterprises, but it is agreed that it was during this era that modern administrative practices were invented, first in the banking industry and then spreading to other organizations.98 This new nad growing "spirit of manager- ialism" was infused with a definite "masculine ethic." As Kanter states: 97M. Millman and R. Kanter (edS.), Another Voice (New York: Anchor Books, 1975), p. 42. 98Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1977), p. 19. 58 The new career managers lacked class position buttressed by tradition that would provide ground for legitimation of their authority. . . . Managers had to seek legitimation instead in the increasing professionaliza- tion of management, in the development of a "spirit of manageralist" that gave ideological coherence to the control of a relatively small and exclusive group of men over a large group of workers and that also differentiated the view point of managers from that of owner-entrepreneaurs. . . . Without the power of property to back them, the new managers created and relied, instead on a claim of "efficienCy". . . . Control by managers was held to Brovide the most "rational" way to run an enterprise. 9 A new social science of management and of organizations came into being during the early 1900's. Kanter states that this early organizational theory also aided legitimation of managerialism: First by accepting, more or less uncritically, manage- ments definition of itself, its tasks, and its importance; second, by providing both concepts (through research and writing) and an academic base (through schools of administration) that confirmed the power and perquisites of managers as well as educating them to managerial theory.1 0 The early image of managers evolving from the theories of the early 1900's was clearly identified with the "masculine ethic” of rationality and reason. The character- istics assumed to belong to management in these early models of organizations were those of: "A tough minded approach to problems; analytical abilities to abstract and plan; a capacity to set aside personal, emotional considerations in the interests of accomplishment; and a cognitive superiority 99Ibid., p. 14. 100Milman, Another Voice, pp. 42-43. 59 in problem-solving and decision-making."101 The basic tone therefore set as the ideal base for organization structure was that of "rationality and reason". Scientific-Classical Theory Early turn-of—the-century organizational theory emphasized this rational, non-emotional approach. Probably one of the best known theorists of this time was-Frederick I. Taylor, who introduced "scientific management". Taylor viewed humans as driven by the fear of hunger and the search for profit. His work encompassed time and motion studies of the physical capabilities of a worker. While Taylor is viewed as the prime creator of the scientific— classical school of thought, other theorists who contributed to the concepts of this school were Henry Fayol, Luther Bulich and Lyndall Urwick. Scientific-classical theory proposes that workers are motivated by economic rewards; the organization is characterized by a clearly defined division of labor with highly specialized personnel and by a distinct formal organization with a hierarchy of authority. There is according to this model a definitive pyramid of control emanating from one center of authority, with no recognition of any conflict between people and organization as being a positive factor to organizational growth. Hard efficient 101Ibid. 6O labor was thought to pay off for both groups by increasing effectiveness of the organization: "Higher productivity leads to higher profits which in turn leads to higher pay and greater worker satisfaction."102 Some of the vocabulary popularized by this type of management and still used today includes, cost accounting, span of control, unity of command, line and staff, 'incentive pay, time and motion study, traffic structure, and expenditure per unit or production. Warren Bennis observed that in a sense, scientific-classical management could be characterized as a period of organizations without people, and that by the time of World War I, this "cult of efficiency" was being applied to almost every aspect of societal life; to churches, families, and of course--to schools.103 Human Relations Theory During the 1930's and 40's the human relations approach to organizations was developed. There is some speculation that human relations was a reactive consequence to the lack of focus on people taken by the scientific- classical theorists. Etzioni describes human relations theory as: 102Etzioni, Modern Organization, pp. 20-21. 103Monahan, Educational Administration, p. 34. 61 emphasizing the emotional, the significance of friend- ship and social groupinings of workers for the organization. It also pointed out the importance of leadership in the organization and of emotional communication and participation.104 Elton Mayo, who conducted the Hawthorne studies, is often referred to as father of this school of theory. From 1927 to 1932 a series of studies were carried out at the Western Electric Company's Hawthorne Works in Chicago. The major findings and conclusions of these studies were: 1. The level of production is set by social norms, not physiological capacities, . . . 2. Non—economic rewards and sanctions significantly affect the behavior of the workers and largely limit the effect of economic incentive plans. . . . 3. Often workers do not act or react as individuals, but as members of groups. Individual behavior is anchored in the group. A person who will resist pressures to change his behavior as an individual will often change it quite readily if the group of which he is a member changes its behavior. 4. The importance of leadership for setting and enforcing group norms and the difference between informal and formal leadership. . . . 5. The importance of communica— tion between the ranks, of explaining to lower partici- pants the reason why a particular course of action is taken; the importance of participation in decision-making in which lower ranks share in the decisions made by higher ranks, in particular in matters that affects them directly; and the virtures of democractic leadership which not only is highly communicative and encourages partici- pation but also is just, non-arbitrary and concerned with the problems of workers, not just those of work.105 Rosabeth Kanter makes an interesting point in her recent examination of human relations theory: Early human relations analysts supported the concept of managerial authority and managerial rationality. . . Writers on management practice and organization theory 104Etzioni, Modern Organizations, p. 20. 105Ibid., pp. 34-38. 62 distinguish between the manager's logic of efficiency and workers logic of sentiment.106 Therefore, human relations theory focused on the human side of organizations, but it did so mainly with reference to workers; it did not challenge the image of the "rational manager". Human relations remained in essence, a hierarchial model of organization. Human relations and scientific-classical theories have produced two related concepts which continue to be important in the study of organiZations, the concepts of the formal and informal organization. Formal organization is defined as, "the organizational pattern designed by manage- ment; the blueprint of division of labor and power of control, the rules and regulations." Conversely, the definition of informal organzation is: "the social relations that develop among the staff or workers above and beyond the formal one determined by the organization, or to the actual organizational relations as they evolved as a consequence of the interaction between the organizational design and the pressures of the interpersonal relations among participants."107 Power and authority while more clearly observed and dealt with in the formal organization, does exist and must also be dealt with in the informal organization. 106Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation, pp. 23-24. 107Etzioni, Modern Organizations, p. 40. 63 Another contribution made by human relations theory is cited by Monahan: The introduction of skepticism about traditional .idefinitions and meanings attached to authority, power, influence, social system, interpersonal expectations, morals, and group cohesion.108 Structuralist Theory The structuralist approach to organization is much broader than either the scientific-classical or the human relations approach, producing a more complete and integrated picture of the processes involved. It is a synthesis of the two earlier theoretical schools of thought, and most institutions of higher education today tend to operate with an organizational structure based heavily on structuralist theory. The structuralist thoery is defined by Etzioni as follows: The Structuralist see the organization as a large, complex social unit in which many social groups interact. While these groups share some interests (e.g., in the economic viability of the corporation) they have other, incompatible interests (e.g., in how the gross profits of the organization are to be distributed). . . . The various groups might cooperate in some spheres and compete in others, but they hardly are or can become one big happy family. . . . The Structuralists, however, point to the many important social functions of conflict, including its positive contributions for the organi- zational system itself, and object to any artificial smothering of conflict. The expression of conflict allows genuine differences of interest to and beliefs to emerge, whose confrontation may lead to a test of power and adjustment of the organizational system to the real situation. . . . If glossed over, conflict and its concomitant alienation will seek other outlets as 108Monahan, Educational Administration, p. 43. 64 withdrawal or increase in accidents which in the end are disadvantageous to both worker and organization.109 Max Weber is generally cited as being most influen- tial in the early formulation, definition and explanation of theories which laid the foundations for today's structuralist concepts. Weber's work established five basic elements of a bureaucracy which constitute the formal structure of an organization. While he stated that a specific organization did not have to include all five of these characteristics, the more of them it did include, the more complete in "form" it would be. Monahan states Weber's five elements as: 1. Hierarchical Structure. Each official in a higher office has control and supervision of an official in a lower office. 2. Functional Specialization. Individual office holders are selected on the basis of their ability to perform particular tasks. ' 3. Prescribed Competence. This is derived from number 2; it stipulates that each position in the hierarchy has particular and known rights and obligations attached to it (certification of such "status and ability" is a logical consequence). 4. Files and Records. Pertinent acts, decisions, and so on should be recorded and retrievable to provide bases for the establishment of policy guides. This is essential for reducing alternatives and promoting predictability. 5. Rules of Behavior. Unless there is a codified apparatus, the problem of unpredictability is omni— present. Codes of behavior established through policies represent an essential process in the rational structure. 10 109Etzioni, Modern Organizations, pp. 41-44. 110Monahan, Educational Administration, p. 149; also Etzioni, Modern Organizations, pp. 53-54. 65 During the twentieht century, modern theoreticians such as Merton, Selznick, Gouldner, Coser, Parsons, Likert, and Agris, to mention a few, have continued to build upon and enlarge the foundations established by Weber. These recent theoretical views have tended to focus heavily upon the person/organization interface. Douglas McGregor developed the widely known set of assumptions, Theory X and Y. Theory X stated that a human is a means, an instrument to getting a job done, he is rebellious and has to be forced to cooperate; while Theory Y proposed that a human is an end, he chooses his own purposes and cooperates willingly in getting a job done, and thus can be a part of participative management. His position was one asserting the need for integration of individual and organization, the creation of conditions such that members of the organi- zation can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts toward the success of the enterprise.111 McGregor had been an early advocate of human relations theory. He began revising his theories toward the structuralist model eventually arriving at Theory X and Theory Y after a number of years experience as a college president. His change in attitude about organizational structure can be observed in his final note to alumni and faculty. He stated: 111Monahan, Educational AdminiStration, p. 327. 66 I believed for example, that a leader could operate successfully as a kind of advisor to his organization. I thought I could avoid being a "boss". Unconsciously, I suspect, I hoped to duck the unpleasant necessity of making difficult decisions, of taking the responsibility for one course of action, among many uncertain alter- natives, of making mistabkes and taking the consequences. I thought that maybe I could operate so that everyone would like me--that "good human relations" would eliminate all discord and disagreement. I couldn't have been more wrong. It took a couple of years, but I finally began to realize that a leader cannot avoid the exercise of authority any more than he can avoid respigsibility for what ahppens to his organization. Another well known, often quoted, theorist of the structuralist school was Chris Argyris. He proposed that the individual's needs and the formal organization's demands are basically incompatible. He further felt that the "organizational behemoth slowly but surely grinds down the individual's need for growth and actualization."113 He suggested as possibilities which would ”enhance work in the organization in the greater human potentiality: (1) job enlargement, (2) employee-centered leadership, and (3) reality leadership."114 Rosabeth Kanter in her recent analysis of organiza— tional structure sets forth today's structuralist views: 1. The organization is a large complex social unit in which many groups interact. 2. The groups are defined by both their formal and informal connections and differentiations. 3. The nature of the organization is shaped by the relative members and power of the organizational groupings (both formal and informal), their tasks and the ways in which they come into contact. 113Ibid., p. 324. 114Ibid. 67 4. Groups may comprise different strata with interests and values potentially in conflict, and integration between them limited by the potential for conflicts of interest. 5. People with power can wield it both in the interests of their own group as well as in the interest of the system as a whole. 6. Self—interest, including material self—interest, is considered as potentially important as social needs. 7. The formation of relationships is seen both as political advantage to the individual as well as in the human-relations sense of social satisfaction. 8. People are viewed as members of groups outside as well as inside the organization, which both help to place them within the organization, give them status, define their involvement with it, and may or may not articulate with the organization's interest. 9. The tasks of the organization and the tasks of those within are important because they define the number of interests, and relative arrangements of organi- zational classes as well as how informal relations may articulate with formal ones.115 Within the structuralist framework which prevails in current analysis of organizations there are some additional theories relevent to the understanding of women's centers within institutions of higher education. The first of the additional theories is Open Systems Theory. Open systems theory is a consideration of the organization as a part of, and in interaction with, the entire environmental system. This leads to a study of the organization's functioning within external as well as internal systems. Katz and Kahn set forth this approach: "living systems, whether biological organisms or social organizations, are acutely dependent upon their external environments and so must be conceived as open systems." They further propose the following common 115Milman, Another Voice, pp. 49-50. 68 characteristics of open systems: 1. Importation of energy from the external environment 2. Transformation of the available energy via the throughput which entails some reorganization of the input energy. 3. Exportation of an output into the environment in the form of a new product, processed materials, training of people, or the provision of a new service. 4. Systems as cycles of events. The output exported into the environment furnished the sources of energy for the repetition of the cycle of activities. 5. To survive, open systems must acquire negative entropy. This is accomplished by importing more energy from the environment than is expended, thus the storage of energy which provides a better chance of survival during periods of energy crisis. 6. Information input, negative feedback, and the coding processes. Signals are furnsihed to the structure about the environment and its own functioning in relationship to the environment. 7. The steady state due to maintenance of the ratio of energy exchanges and relations between the parts. Dynamic homeostasis, an adjustment in one direction is countered by a movement in the opposite direction providing an equilibrium for the preservation of the system. 8. Movement in the direction of differentiation and elaboration. 9. Equifinality, reaching the same final state from differing initial conditions and by a variety of paths of development.116 Weick's "enacted environment" is also related to the characteristics listed as those for open system theory. Weick proposes that: "the human actor does not Egggg to an environment, he enacts it. It is this enacted environment, and nothing else, that is worked upon by the process of organizing." Further, he states the properties of an enacted environment as: 116Daniel Kutz and Robert Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizing (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966), pp. 19-20. 69 . Creation of meaning is an attentional process . . . directed backward from a specific point in time. . Whatever is occurring at the moment will influence what the person discovers when he glances backward. . Memory processes influence meaning. . An action can become an abject of attention only after it has occurred.11 tbOJNH Morse and Lorsch discuss "Contingency Theory” as a theory: "emphasizing that the appropriate pattern of organization is contingent on the nature of the work to be done and on the particular needs of the people involved."118 Further they propose that people have strong needs to master the world around them, including the task they face as members of an organization, and that feelings of satisfaction come from successfully mastering one's environment. They refer to these feelings of mastery as a "sense of competence". The set of assumption derived from their studies on contingency theory include: 1. Human beings bring varying patterns of needs and motives into the work organization, but one central need is to achieve a sense of competence. 2. The sense of competence motive, while it exists in all human beings, may be fulfilled in different ways by different people depending on how this need interacts with the strengths of the individuals' other needs--such as those for power, independence, structure, achievement and affiliation. 3. Competence motivation is most likely to be fulfilled when there is a fit between task and organization. 4. Sense of competence continues to motivate when a 117Karl Weick, The Social psychology of Organ121ng (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969), pp. 64-65. 118John Morse and Jay Lorsch, "Beyond Theory Y," Harvard Business Review, May—June 1970, p. 62. 7O competence goal is achieved; once a goal is reached, a new higher one is set.119 Rosabeth Kanter in her recent book, Men and Women of the Corporation, proposes a model which seems to be related to the contingency theory of Morse and Lorsch. Kanter's model includes the following five aesumptions: 1. Work is not an isolated relationship between actor and activity. What happens to people in the course of their work is determined by the larger setting in which it takes place. The nature of the total system is important in determining the relationship of any individual worker to his or her work. 2. Behavior in organizations is, when all is said and done, adaptive. What people do, how they come to feel and behave, reflects what they can make of their situation and still gather material rewards and preserve a modicum of human dignity. Dignity requires a sense of value . . . and a sense of mastery or autonomy. 3. Behavior is the result of sense-making processes involving present experimenting and future projecting. 4. Behavior is also directly connected to the formal tasks set forth in a job's location in the division of organizational behavior. 5. Sheer competence often plays the most important part in distributing people over positions, but competence is not equally measured in all functions. Social factors (such as sex or background or conformity to similar values) have a direct relationship to the difficulty and uncertainty of evaluating competence. Furthermore, the opportunity to demonstrate . 120 competence is not distributed equally over all jobs. From these assumptions she further summarizes: Organizational behavior is produced in the interaction of individuals, seeking to meet their own needs and manage their situation, with their positions, which constrain their options for the way they can act. The total interaction is a dynamic: certain responses touch off others and provide the moving force behind cycles and chains of events.121 119Ibid., p. 67. 120Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation, pp. 250-253- 121Ibid. 71 Present organizational theory today favors the models and theories of the structuralists. The practices underlying most organizations today emphasize conflict as growth producing, interactions of/between both the formal and informal structures, and the dynamics of change—over-time. Feminist Theory Webster's Third International Unabridggd Dictionary defines feminism as: "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes, organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests, the 19th and 20th century movement seeking to remove restrictions that discriminate against women."122 Feminist writers of the 1970's have broadened the definition beyond Webster's focus on women's rights. Karen Kollias states in Quest: ”there are still important questions about whether 'feminism' is an ideology, lifestyle, or process; apparently, in some ways it is all these."123 Further Joan Rothschild states: Feminists agree that we oppose sexism, a system of institutional beliefs and practices which decree that "male" is superior and "female" is inferior. . . A sexist society, in perpetuating the belief that we are inferior creatures and in keeping us powerless, denies us our full humanity and control over our lives In order to be able to control our own lives and to realize ourselves as human beings, a feminist position necessarily requires ending exploitation, dominance, and anti-humanism endemic in a sexist world. . . . Feminism seeks: freedom from domination and oppression, and 122Websters Third New International Dictionary, 1961. 123 p. 4. Karen Kollias, "Feminism in Action", Quest, II(3)1976: 72 freedom to control our lives and realize ourselves as human beings.124 Feminist concepts of freedom to control one's life and realize one's self as equal to men are also expressed in discussions of feminist organizational structure. Joan Rothchild states: Bureaucracy is a key determinant in shaping and perpet- uating the nature of personal and power relationships-- and the power structure of the entire society. Bureaucracy must no longer serve as our organizational model. . . . What feminists learn from examining the bureaucratic structure is that form cannot be divorced from content, and that what we call form must be as important to our future society goals as the control of our program. . . . When women's groups strive to be participatory, cooperative, and non-hierarchic, they are "microcosims" of a feminist vision of relationships in a non-sexist society. . . . If women's groups are to separate at the political level, if they are to be models embodying and working toward a vision of society in which values and power relationships shall be trans- formed along feminist lines, the women's structures must have a conscious political vision.125 The issue of feminist organizational structure is also addressed by Nancy Hartsock: We cannot create political change until we structure our own organizations to deal with power as domination in the institutions of society. . . . We should be able to experiment more with different forms of organization and to understand how changes in organizational structure increase our ability to control the structures which now control us. . . . The organizations we build are an integral part of the process of creating political changes, and in the long term can perhaps serve as the groundwork for new societal institutions. PP- p. 124Rothschild, "Taking Our Future 59'10“51y"’ QEEEE' 22-24. 125Ibid.. pp. 28-29. 126Nancy Hartsock, ”Political Change," Quest, 1(1)1974i 16. 73 The reemerging new feminist movement in the mid 1960's seems to have come from several directions. Jo Freeman proposes that there were four elements which contributed to this reemergence. These elements were: "(1) the growth of a preexisting communications network which was, (2) cooptable to the ideas of the new movement; (3) a series of crises that galvanized into action people involved in this network; and/or (4) subsequent organizing effort to weld the spontane- ous groups together into a movement."127 Further, she identifies the various groups participating in the reemergence of the 1960's as: the National Organization of Women and the Women's Equity Action League which encompassed the older, more traditional-oriented women, primarily seeking legislative reform, and, numerous small, more radically oriented groups whose members usually were younger women. These small groups were characterized by their small size, from five to thirty members; a conscious lack of formal structure, an emphasis on participation by everyone; the sharing of tasks; and the exclusion of men.128 They tended to be linked only by numerous publications, personal correspondence, and cross country travelers. Further Freeman states: "They form and dissolve at such a rate that no one can keep track of them."129 127Freeman, Politics of the Women's Movement, Po 52- 128 Ibid., p. 103. 129Ibid., p. 104. 74 In examining the early period (1960's) of the Women's Movement, Hole and Levine discuss the anti-leadership ethic which was considered an important part of feminist organizational structure. The leaderless, totally coopera- tive group was considered valuable for women because it helped them to, (1) learn to share common ground despite differences, (2) achieve personal growth in new directions and to develop new or unused skill, and (3) experience and to understand the avoidance of power-based relationships, and to seek new forms of organization.130 Many groups during the 1960's period were structured in this type, non-hierarchial form. About 1970 internal dissention within the movement began to surface centered around dissatisfaction with leader- less group format and a lack of organizational structure. Hole and Levine report: Some groups and individuals began to realize that what was needed was a redefinition, not abandonment of the idea of leadership;-—that it was necessary to make a distinction between "strong" women and "power-seeking" individuals; that unless there was a recognition of the strengths, talents, and skills of individuals the move— ment could well head in the direction of a glorification of weaknesses.131 Carden also discussed this growing interest in changing the organizational structure to that of a participatory democracy including more structure than had 130Judith Hole and Ellen Levine, Rebirth of Feminism (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1971), p. 159. 13llbid., p. 161. 75 been present in the 1960's. She states: Most Women's Liberation groups have made a basic com- promise in accepting a certain amount of leadership. They insist that authority lies in the group as a whole and view their leaders as people who help the group make its own decisions rather than as people to whom they delegate responsibility-—and authority. The leaders themselves encourage a great deal of individual participation. Ideas are discussed at leangth with the serious objective of reaching group concensus.132 Jo Freeman's article, "The Tyranny of Structureless— ness" is probably the most widely quoted work addressing this changing theory of feminist organizational structure. In this 1972 article Freeman discusses the early use of "structurelessness" in the formation of groups of the 60's which were largely consciousness raising rap groups. She claims that as a method of providing a supportive atmosphere for personal growth, the lack of structure, of formally designated leaders, worked very well. But, it was when the task of the group changed to something other than conscious- ness raising, that structure was needed. She states: Unstructured groups may be very effective in getting' women to talk about their lives; but they aren't very good for getting things done. . . . Once the Movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of "structurelessness", it is free to develop those forms of organization best suited to its healthy functioning. . Some of the traditional techniques will prove useful, albeit not perfect; some will give us insights into what we should and should not do to obtain certain ends with minimal costs to the individuals in the Move- ment. Mostly we will have to experiment with different kinds of structuring and develop a variety of techniques to use for different situations.133 132Ibid., p. 93. 133Jo Freeman, ”The Tyranny of Structurelessness," Ms., (July 1973). 76 Garden also writes in favor of a more structured form of feminist organization as proving to be: "more stable and able to become seriously involved in social action."134 She further comments: "many of the most radical groups are among those which have moved toward institutionalism having adopted radical ideas and (relatively speaking) isolated themselves from the outside society, they find that organi- zational problems are best resolved by adopting more conventional procedures."135 In 1977, Rosabeth Kanter proposes a number of elements of structural change for present day hierarchial organizations to modify the system to provide more opportunities and power to a braoder spectrum of worker. Some of Kanter's proposed structural changes are: 1. Develop new jobs to bridge the gap between higher— status and lower status functions via a series of skilled jobs which could eventually make the lower- status persons eligible for the higher-status positions. 2. Job rotation; creation of and/or increase to provide a wider variety of skills and knowledge to individual workers. 3. Decentralization via flattening the hierarchy, reversing the bureaucratic tendency to put more and more people under the control of fewer and fewer. Increasing the decision-making rights and professional responsibilities of individuals is a better utiliza- tion of otherwise unrealized, un-used talent. 4. Openingcommunication channels to make systems know— ledge, (such as budgets, salaries, or minutes of certain meetings) more available to everyone. This is a step toward empowerment which can result in greater effectiveness of the individual in the organization. 135Ibid., p. 98. 136Kanter, Men and Women of the Organization. PP. 257“268- 77 Feminist Organizations Feminist organizations presently operating within higher education include women's centers, women's studies programs and programs for returning women. At the present time, these enterprises seem to be attempting to operate on a type of cooperative model with some identifiable authority structure. TenElshof writes: Many women's centers are exploring options within a cooperative model. . . . The purpose of using a coopera- tive design is to help women learn the process of decision-making. The more women involved in the process, the more who learn what kinds of information, discussion, and options are considered before a decision is made. Also this process employs an openness in which all members have access to information and knowledge. Sharing in the process of governance may make it easier for women to make decisions related to their own lives and will make women feel a part of the group.137 The Women's Action Alliance in their publication, How to Organize a Multi-Service Women's Center focuses on volunteer, community-based centers which tend to run on "collective energy." The publication expresses concern over feminist theory and the development of a workable organiza- tion. The authors state: ”Though the idea of no 'bosses' seems ideal to many of us, we must recognize that establish— ing a workable organizational structure is crucial to the "138 success of a center. Two national surveys prior to 1975 portray women's centers within academia as tending to have an organizational 137TenElshof, "Developing a Women's Center," PP. 174-175. 138Women's Action Alliance, Organize a Women's Center. P- 78 structure similar to, or compatible with that of their parent institution. In her study of continuing education programs for women, Astin found: They (the programs) operate informally, perhaps more spontaneous and creative than systematic, and although final decisions most often rest with a program director, she invites and encourages input from other staff members, administrative colleagues, and in a few instances, adult women students. About half the programs use some form of advisory committee to provide ideas, reactions, and general planning directions. . Essentially they (the advisory committees) provide a sounding board and, in the director's View, "protection" within a large bureaucratic institution.139 In her 1974 study of women's centers, Bertelsen found similar perceptions: Thus, while women in continuing education, research, and women's studies centers do want to change the status of women, they often are convinced that they must meet and exceed the conventional standards of academia with respect to personal appearance and presentation of self --somehow operating as a collective and not having a secretary is likely to strike the university president or board of trustees as ”unprofessional." . . . Many centers are attempting to devise new methods of operation . . . Nonetheless, women working in the center of the academic world, do appear to feel more acutely the pressures of that world's culture.140 In discussing the problems of organizational structures of feminist oriented organizations within academia it may be helpful to examine the history and present functioning of women's studies in institutions of higher education. Women's studies' courses and programs within higher education have been in existence since about 1970 and represent "a new direction for education of men and women 139Astin, Some Action of Her Own, p. 31. 140Bertelsen, Women in Higher Education, pp. 48-49. 79 via curriculum." Broadly defined, the mission of women's studies is stated as: "a major route to establishing educational equity for women."141 Howe states that actual goals as: To transform disciplines (through a consideration of women), with regard to curriculum, research focus, and methodology; to develop interdisciplinary curricula focused on women (or on the issues of sex and gender), along with a pedagogy that is suitable, and research that is supportive; to open additional career options.for students through the development of coherent academic programs; to effect the educational community off campus through the efforts to change the greservice and inservice education of teachers.14 By 1977, some 1,500 different institutions had women's studies courses or programs. Approximately 8,500 teachers were involved with some 15,000 courses.143 Gail Graham Yates, coordinator of women's studies at the University of Minnesota, calls this 1977 period of growth, "phase two”, and characterizes it in the following way: "a more formal relationship with an institution including, (1) a line budget; (2) a paid administrator; and (3) curriculum which moves through committees into an official catalogue."144 In addition there is also usually either an organized major, minor, or other certificate-granting program. Phase two 141Florence Howe, Seven Years Later: Women's Studies Programs in'1976 (Washington, DC: National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs, 1979), p. 16. 142Ibid. 143Ibid., p. 15. 144Ibid., p. 21. 80 seems to represent a growing closeness to the institution with respect to outward observable structure. In a study of fifteen campus women's studies programs, Florence Howe states the following conclusions regarding the structural concerns of administration and governance: In each of the fifteen programs visited, a women's studies administrator reports to a dean or to a provost. With few exceptions, women's studies programs are administered internally in a manner quite different from the governance of other academic departments.145 She continues by discussing the internal structure observed in the study. Most of the programs have a committee-type structure composed of students, faculty from various disciplines, administrators, university or program staff and women representing the community. Responsibilities of these committees or boards often includes: setting policy, establishing curriculum, supervising majors, hiring faculty, and budget preparation. Regular established meetings are held where business tends to be conducted formally but the atmosphere, "is more comparable to a community meeting than a department meeting if only because of the diverse constituencies represented." This type of structure, Howe contends: "allows the programs to function in a relatively non-hierarchial and democratic fashion."146 145Ibid., p. 26. 146Ibid., p. 27. 81 The Women's Studies Newsletter, in 1974, published an article by Juanita Williams, Director of Women's Studies at Florida State University, titled "administering a Women's Studies Program." Williams compared the administration of a women's studies program with other department administra- tions in regard to budget, class scheduling, enrollment, and ”other time consuming details." While some women's studies programs are less hierachial than traditional departments, she feels that the structure at Florida State University is somewhat conservative due to the University requirement that, "the program director handles all administrative work and interfaces for the program with the University."147 Further she points out: At our school, a program must have a designated director who is the signatory for the program, responsible for budget, and other matters. There is nothing to prevent the director, however, from soliciting assistance, advise, and opinion from a wide range of students and other interested persons. Williams makes a very pertinent statement regarding the development of organizational structure where there is a philosophical difference from the parent institution. She states: "It seems to me that a programs form will evolve from the persons developing it and the institutional context."149 147Juanita Williams, ”Administering a Women's Studies Program," Women's Studies Newsletter, II(3)1974, p. 12. 148 Ibid., p. 12. 149Ibid. 82 Barrie Thorne, drawing on the experiences of the Michigan State University Women's Studies Program, wrote an essay analyzing "contraditions resulting from efforts by women's studies (as a social movement committed to social change, equality, collectivity, and valuing women) to make headway in a bureaucracy, the university, founded on hierarchy, competition, and the devaluation of women."150 Thorne discusses efforts of the program to operate as a non- hierarchial collective and the ensuing internal and external struggles. She states: "Old feminist dilemmas reappear: how to be collective and moderately efficient; how to be accountable and minimize covert power structures without creating a hierarchy; how to sustain participation over time."151 In discussing some of the external struggles with the University she comments: ”Success for a women's studies program--gaining a recognized niche in the university, acquiring tangible resources (budget, administrative control, perhaps the ability to hire new faculty)--comes about only when the program has proved itself in terms the university establishment understands."152 150Barrie Thorne, "Contradictions, and a Glimpse of Utiopia,” Women's Studies: International Quarterly, (in press), p. 1. 151 Ibid., p. 5. 152Ibid., p. 7. 83 Thorne further states: Many of the tensions, conflicts, and contradictions experienced by people trying to create and run women's studies programs are rooted in the coming together of the feminist movement and the university bureaucracy. . How does one find a balance between the quest for legitimacy, which is tied to resources and survival and maintaining strong ties to the feminist movement?153 Bertelsen reported finding this same dilemma during her 1974 Women's Center Survey. In talking with women involved in setting up of women's studies programs she reported: They described in detail the manuevers they employed to succeed in having the administration address and deal with the entire group rather than the faculty members alone. While the students and faculty, cooperating in setting up the women's studies, had worked as colleagues, their desire that the traditional hierarchial distinc- tions be abandoned was confusing and apparently somewhat offensive to at least some academicians. The women's studies group of necessity directed a good deal of energy toward this problem. Summary Patterns of organizational structure are found in institutions of higher education. Three theoretical approaches, the scientific-classical, the human relations, and the structuralist are applicable. Structuralist theories tend to combine the earlier theoretical models developed by the scientific-classical theorists and those developed by the human relations theorists into a more comprehensive framework. Presently, structuralist models are widely used 153Ibid., pp. 4-8. 154Bertelsen, Women in Higher Education, P- 49' 84 in developing organizational structure in educational institutions. Structuralist theories include interactions of individuals and groups within the formal as well as the informal organization. They view conflict as positive and as an important component in the change and growth process. A hierarchial structure as well as varying degrees of participative structure are also present. There is recognition of the influence of the individuals involved as well as on the organization, of both the internal organizational environment and of the external, outside of the organization, environment, and of an "enacted environ- ment" brought to the organization by each individual. Organizational structure to some extent is contingent upon both the work to be done as well as upon the needs of the employees. Further, in view of feminist theory, the theories relating to the need for individuals to develop a sense of competence, a mastery of their environment in order to achieve human dignity becomes very important. Women's centers within institutions of higher education are (1) operating within traditionally organized institutional structures, deeply embedded in the historical tradition of hierarchial bureaucracy, while at the same time, (2) encompassing a set of feminist theories and efforts to create non-hierarchial forms of organizational structure. These centers have very little historical tradition to use in translating their highly participatory, 85 non-hierarchial models into reality. The people organizing and operating women's centers face three basic problems in their struggle to develop organizational structure. (1) They have their own "enacted environments," the common perception of hierarchial structure as the way in which academic institutions are organized in order to get the job done, effectively and efficiently; (2) as feminists, they generally seek to structure their organizations so that the workers as well as the clients have the opportunity to gain a personal sense of competence and mastery of their environ- ment; and (3) they are acutely aware of the importance of a letitimized existence within the institution of which they are a part. The organizational interfacing processes between the institution and the women's center can be crucial to the future existence of the center. Thus, the creation of alternative structures of organization poses a very difficult problem to the operation of women's centers. During the beginnings of the new feminist movement in the 1960's the major model of feminist organizational structure was completely non-hierarchial (Rothschild 1976, Freeman 1975, Hole and Levine 1971). It was argued that women should learn how to develop structures not based on a hierarchy of power, thereby learning how to control their own lives rather than being controlled by others. During the 1970's this approach gave way to one incorporating more structure (Hole and Levine 1971, Freeman 1973, Garden 1974). The focus of the feminist movement was changing from one 86 with an emphasis on personal change and small group functions to one which emphasizes personal and political change as well as large group, institutional change. Feminists began to discuss the need to accept a degree of leadership while retaining as great a degree of cooperative structure as possible in order to (1) create a more stable organization, and (2) provide a mechanism for more effective interfacing and communication with institutional hierarchies. This change in feminist oriented organizations within institutions of higher education can be examined in the literature about CEW centers, women's centers and women's studies programs. The literature regarding CEW centers, women's centers and women's studies programs discusses methods used by the members of the feminist organizations to develop either actions; or some structural forms geared to creating a positive interface with their institution. The CEW literature also discusses various alternative non-hierarchial aspects established within the CEW centers and programs in order to provide a feminist model for the attainment of women's human dignity. Feminist organizations do not have a highly visible historical tradition or models of organizational structure which maximize goals of democracy, participation and non- elitism. Efforts to create structural forms have been difficult and confusing. 87 Budget Operations Introduction Another aspect which is important in understanding the interface between women's centers and the parent institution is the issue of institutional budget allocations. Central budgeting processes of a university or college involve the methods of distributing resources to individual units. These processes while providing resources can, and often do, function to provide differing degrees of legitimacy to the units. Thus, it is necessary to discuss some basic background about budgeting processes to further develop the complex organizational relationship of women's centers to the larger parent institution. The demand for accountability is increasing in higher education. During the 1950's and 1960's amounts of money willingly earmarked by state legislatures for higher education have increased greatly but this is no longer the case. Therefore planning and internal control procedures have become increasingly important as methods of justifying and controlling expenditures so they do not exceed available resources. As Bruce Fuller states, "Faced with increasingly complex pressures from governmental agencies and internal constituencies, campuses are expending more energy thinking about and Planning alternative futures."155 155Bruce Fuller, "Framework for Academic Planning," Journal of Higher Education, XLVII(1)1976, p. 66. 88 There are a number of changes within the environmental systems directly affecting the operation of institutions of higher education. Eugene Craven describes these changes as: (1) a relatively fixed resource base due to stabilizing or declining enrollments, couples with an inflationary economy and increased competition for financial resources; (2) changing patterns in student mix (undergraduate/graduate); (3) shifts in student preferences among degree program; (4) increases in part-time students; (5) changes in the actual composition of the student clientele, increase in minorities and women; (6) changing societal needs; (7) accelerated expansion of knowledge; and (8) increased public demand for additional accountability.156 Budget processes are an integral part of the internal financial management system. Borchet and Mickelson state: For most institutions the budget is the only connecting link between their financial concerns and their primary educational interest. The exigencies of cash management must somehow be related to the complex art of teaching and research and the lifetime commitments and interests of those who undertake it.157 Some form of budgeting processes have always been used in institutions of higher education but recent pressures for increased accountability and the shrinking of actual 156Eugene Craven, "Information Decision Systems in Higher Education,” Journal of Higher Education, XLVI(2)1975, p. 12b. 157F.R. Borchet and V.C. Mickelson, "Creating a Financial Management System," New Directions for Higher Education, Summer 1973, p. 5. 89 resources have increased institutional use of more formalized budget processes. A formal system is one in which the political process is identified, the power structure is clear, the decisions to be made are delineated, and the calendar events used in reaching commitment are announced.158 Cook states a general definition for a budget as: The expression, in financial terms, of a management plan for operating and financing a project during a specific time period. It is a predetermined detailed plan of action developed and distributed as a guide to current operations, and used as a partial standard for evaluating performance.159 In discussing budgets and their preparation, the authors of the manual developed for women administrators in higher education states the following definition of "operating budget." The operating budget is the practical, fiscal plan of operation for a college or university for a stated time period, generally one year. It identifies and describes all anticipated revenues by source and outlines the departmental, collegiate, and divisional projected expenditures. The operating budget should encompass all aspects of the financial operation, and it is also used as a primary instrument of fiscal control. The budgetary process allocates available resources to support educational priorities and decisions. . . . is a conven- ient reflection of an institution's activities.160 158National Association of College and University Business Officers and Committee for the Concerns of Women in New England Colleges and Universities, Conference for Women Administrators/Financial Management of Colleges and Univer- sities, (Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 1978), p. 1. 159Desmond Cook, Educational Project Management, (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1971), p. 144. 160 NACUBO, Women Administrators, p. 1. 90 The Budget Process The basic institutional process involved in budget- ing contains five component parts: (1) definition of budget strategy and guidelines; (2) information exchange and negotiation; (3) production of a detailed budget; (4) implementation of the approved budget; and (5) measurement of performance against budgeted and unbudgeted realities.161 The first component of the budget process, the definition of budget strategy and guidelines, begins with the creation of a planning calendar. This is usually done by the administrator designated by the institution's president as the "planning officer." The calendar provides: (1) the authority pattern, and (2) key events in the process. It is useful as a working tool for the planning team and as a communication device. The next step in defining strategy and guidelines, is the development of basic planning assumptions based on: (1) specific institutional mission, (2) pertinent college policies, (3) external environmental assumptions and (4) internal environmental assumptions. Sometimes these assumptions may exist at an institution in the form of long-range planning documents. Because conditions change, the basic planning assumptions will need to be reviewed and updated each year. Also included in the development of basic assumptions are estimation of available revenue. 161Borchet and Mickelson, "Financial Management," p. 11. 91 Again, environmental conditions are constantly changing and revenue estimates need to be as realistic and accurate as possible. Revenue estimation is generally accompliShed by using a set of assumptions about, "enrollments, tuition and fee rates, gift and grant potentials (both current funds and capital), money rates, investment performance and earnings, and legislative anticipations."162 Another part of the basic strategy and guidelines is the institutions time frame for the budgetary cycle. The budgetary cycle time frame is the actual framework used by the specific institution in designating the beginning and the ending of the year for budget expenditures. These budgetary cycles are usually based on the fiscal year; January 1 to June 30. Some institutions operate on the academic year, September 1 to August 30; and a few use the calendar year, January 1 to December 31. The preparation of budget guidelines includes a written statement for departmental use in developing planning and budget requests. Budget guidelines include: a summary statement of assumptions about available revenues, new program commitments, inflationary assumptions, shifts in fixed income costs over which there are no institutional controls, and general budget expectations. 162NACUBO, WOmen Administrators, p. 8. 92 The second component, information exchange and negotiations, includes the actual data collection. Data is collected from both academic programs and from support services. Generally this data is requested from departments in a line-item format and includes information about: "staffing tables; cost of instruction as related to each credit hour of teaching, for each student major; student aid by type of aid, class of student and by average per student per class; student enrollments by departments, by class, and the resulting faculty and department teaching loads; comparative balance sheet figures including five years of information; cash flow patterns; and space inventory and utilization figures."163 It is important to note at this point that generally a large portion of the actual budget is already committed to salaries due to prior contracts and tenure as well as the fixed costs such as heat, electricity and telephone service. Therefore in developing a budget request it is important to be aware of the fact that much of the money is not actually available. The production of a detailed institutional budget is the third component in the process. This is usually pre- pared by the chief business officer as a line—item compre- hensive budget displaying all anticipated revenues and 163Ibid., pp. 10—11. 93 approved expenditures for each department, reflecting any known changes in environmental assumptions. This pre— liminary budget then goes through a review process. The review process with its ensuing approval and/or re-negotiated change and subsequent approval usually brings forth the final budget. Actually, the budget review can be done at all levels. Girard states, "At each passing of the budget from one level to another, there tend to be adjustments, since the amount of the requests usually far exceeds the amounts that are available."164 The final institutional budget is then presented for approval to those responsible for final approval which often includes the president and the board of trustees. In public institutions there is also sometimes a further presentation to the state legislature. The fourth component, implementation of the approved final budget is put into operation, after the final budget has been approved. Copies of the approved budget are published and distributed as well as the establishment of accounts with the budgeted amounts becoming operative at the beginning of the budget cycle. With the beginning of the budget cycle time frame, the fifth component, measurement of performance against 164Everywoman's Center, Developing and Negotiating Budgets for Women's Programs (Newton, MA: Education Development Center, 1975), p. 36. 94 budgeted and unbudgeted realities, becomes a part of the process. Plans and formats for the production of monthly current fund operating statements become operative. This produces a monitoring throughout the year of the expenditure levels in relation to predetermined budgeted expenditure rates. Types of Budgets Most institutions have some form of a budgeting system which probably follows a recognizable formalized pattern. The advantages of utilizing a formal budgeting system are: (1) it describes the events which will occur in the development of the budget; (2) provides a communica- tion link between the process and campus constituent groups; (3) provides a specific format for the presentation of plans and budgets; and (4) generally demonstrates the manner in which authority will be used.165 There are a number of systems of budgeting. Institutions of higher education tend to develop "institution specific" budget systems. They follow a generally used system with enough deviations to meet specific institutional idiosyncracies, thereby tailoring it to their own needs. Some of the more widely used systems of budgeting are the incremental; formula; planning, programming budgeting systems (PPBS); zero-base; and multiple level; as well as 165NACUBO, Women Administrators, p. 3. 95 several other approaches labeled by Kathryn Girard as Every Tub on its Own Bottom (ETOB), King's Decree, and Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease (SWGG). Incremental Incremental budgeting, sometimes called escalation, involves the justification only of additional funds beyond the base, that are being requested. The base money is that amoung received in the preceding year. Further, if an increase is obtained, a new base is established for the next year. The decisions typically involved in this system relate to salary increments and supply and services amounts required to keep pace with inflation and peer institutions. This system depends functionally on, "the immediate past history of the institutional budget," and "an estimate of revenues available for the period immediately ahead,”166 and fixed costs percentage increase. The advantages of this system are stated as: (1) understandable and widely accepted; (2) gives a starting point; and (3) easy to prepare. The disadvantages are: (1) irrelevant programs and activities may peacefully continue unexamined because they are hidden below the base; (2) more vulnerable to politics because everyone is competing for an increase; and (3) not practical in times of decreasing revenues and forced budget cuts.167 166Ibid., p. 4. 167Everywomen's Center, Budgets for Women's Programs, p.2. 96 Formula Budgeting Formula budgeting is, ”the use of mathematical relationships or formulas to determine the dollars required to produce a given output."168 These formulas, which usually relate dollar needs to anticipated enrollment have had an increase in usage recently by states in allocation of funds to public institutions. Generally these state systems operate by assigning state funds to institutions for operation on the basis of predetermined activities such as "enrollment of in-state students, location (urban versus small town), educational level (junior college, graduate and professional, four-year), and type of program (general college versus engineering, etc.)."169 Boutwell agrees that formula budgeting is particu- larly harmful to an institution when enrollment declines because: Most formulas are based on the average cost per student and hence are linear in nature. Most of them have been adjusted downward because of the economies of scale associated with large institutions. Most are based upon the number of students at different levels of instruction and ignore differences among disciplines or programs.170 168W.K. Boutwell, "Formula Budgeting on the Down Side,” New Directions for Higher Education, 2(Summer 1973), p. 41. 169 NACUBO, Women Administrators, p. 5. 170Boutwell, "Formula Budgeting,” p. 42. 97 Plannin iProgramming, Budgeting Systems (PPBS) PPBX is "a comprehensive planning process that includes a program budget as its major component.” Further, a program budget: "indicates the resources that are allocated to programs in order to achieve certain predeter- mined or desired outcomes."171 Nelson suggests the following characteristics which distinguish this system from others: "identification of goals; definition of objectives in quantitative terms over a given period of time; a program description; a program budget for a one-year period stating expected costs in relation to the proposed programs; and extended time-frame to show what demands the proposed program will generate over a period of years; an explicit consideration of alternatives; criteria and measures by which the program is to be measured with evaluation at the end of a specified period and; a replanning step."172 PPBS was originally developed by the RAND Corporation and later installed in the United States Department of Defense. It is a conceptual approach emphasizing outputs, cost-effectiveness methods, rational planning techniques, long-range objectives, and the use of analytical tools for 171Davis Clark and Robert Huff, Instructional Program Budgeting in Higher Education, (Training document prepared by National Center for Higher Education Management Systems at WICHE). 172Charles Nelson, ”Management Planning in Higher Education-~Concepts, Terminology, and Techniques", (New York: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., January 1971), p. 7. 98 decision-making. The main advantage is that it keeps a focus on programs and dollars in a systematic way. The disadvantages are: ”traditional departments and disciplines become sublimated and precise performance measurements cause 173 Girard adds other anxiety in academic institutions." disadvantages: ”(1) not easy to implement due to institu- tional lack of the necessary data base; (2) difficulty in reaching agreement on and quantifying the benefits of education; and (3) too thorough and time consuming."174 Zero—Base Budgeting Zero-base budgeting is a system where everything in the budget request is justified from zero. Every department is assumed to begin the new budget cycle with no budget in place and no pertinent past budget history. Each budget request is presented and justified as if it were the first time. Girard argues that this system has the advantages of: (1) providing a constant review of all programs in order to identify obsolete and meaningless programs which should be dropped; and (2) promoting participation of all staff 175 personal at all levels. Disadvantages of the system are: (1) it seems to threaten all the practices which are 173NACUBO, Women Administrators, p. 5. 174 p. 11. 175 Everywoman's Center, Budgets for Women's Programs, Ibid., p. 6. 99 generally accepted; (2) it may produce redoubled efforts to justify non-productive efforts; and (3) it increases the workload. Another disadvantage pointed out by Girard is: "a lot of people will simply copy the previous year's budget and just change the date."176 Girard further states that many institutions which now use zero-base budgeting, actually use a composite form, This utilizes a level from 70% to 90% of last year's expenditures, selected as a given, and everything above that level has to then be justified. "True" zero-base budgeting does not seem feasible in complex institutions on an annual basis, for all units, especially in academic institutions which have legal commitments to faculty through a tenure system or certain programs mandated by law. Multiple Budgeting Multiple budgeting is a system where budgets are prepared for at least two different levels of funding. This achieves an automatic fall-back position in the event funds received are short of the highest level budget. This system has been used recently by a number of institutions to be prepared for a worsening economic climate such as, "uncertain enrollment patterns or difficult-to-read state 177 legislature appropriation patterns." One advantage to 176 177NACUBO, Women Administrators, p. 4. Ibid., pp. 6-7; and NACUBO, Women Administrators, p. 6. 100 this system is that it does identify the items in each department having the lowest priorities. Less Formal Approaches to Budgeting Some additional approaches which are less formal than those already discussed are: ETOP, The King's Decree, and SWGG.178 ETOB (Every Tub on its Own Bottom) This approach requires that every department or organizational unit pay its own way from the generation of revenue. ETOB is used especially among private institutions. The King's Decree The central administrator determines the budget for each department with or without consultation from anyone concerned, and the allocation is final. Girard states: "But to counteract the disadvantages, you can only hope that you're under a 'benevolent' dictatorship."179 SWGG (Squeaky Wheet Gets the Grease) This approach is more often found at institutions that do not have any systematic budgeting procedures. There are no commonly understood goals, and every dean and depart- ment head goes after the most they can get, no matter what the true needs might be. SWGG involves a great deal of 178Everywoman's Center, Budgets for Women's programs, pp. 12-13. 179Ibid., p. 13. 101 politicking, infighting, a lot of misleading information, and a lot of squeaks. The bureaucrat with the most polished ability to persuade or coerce usually gets the bidggest chunk of the budget. Political Aspects of the Budgeting Process The budgeting process in institutions of higher education is highly political because it centers around the use of authority. Allocation of resources involves decisions made by individuals, therefore who makes these decisions and upon what criteria the actual decisions are based, is very important information. Knowledge becomes understanding and possibly leverage to gain resources. There are several aspects to be considered when examining the use of authority.in the budgeting process. The first aspect is the particular style of governance of the institution. Styles of governance differ from one institution to another, and the range is wide. Some institutions are relatively autocratic, and the actual authority is held by only a few people, while in recent times more and more institutions seem to be moving toward a more participatory form of governance; where authority is shared among many individuals.180 When participatory governance exists, the chances for a varied and broad-based input into the budgeting process is present, and smaller 180NACUBO, Women Administrators, p. 2. 102 units have more individuals within various parts of the structure with whom they can interface and attempt to influence for gains in resource allocation. Another aspect important in the budgeting process is the use of authority in both the informal organization as well as the formal organization. The formal organization can be observed via examination of a specific institution's organizational charts whiCh show who reports to whom. Etzioni describes the formal organization as: "the organizational pattern designed by management, the blue- print of division of labor and power of control, the rules and regulations." He further defines the informal organization as: "the social relations that develop among the staff or workers above and beyond the formal one determined by the organization . . . the actual organiza- tional relations as they evolved as a consequence of the interaction between the organizational design and the pressures of the interpersonal relations among partici- pants."181 While the organizational chart designates the formal line-staff arrangement of people responsible for budgetary decision—making, within each institution; an informal power structure probably also exists. This 180NACUBO, Women Administrators, p. 2. lglEtzioni, Modern Organizations, p. 40. 103 structure usually is composed of people, not necessarily included in the formal organizational chart but who actually have influence over budgetary decisions. Sometimes it appears that decisions are coming from the individual formally in charge, when it is actually a staff assistant, or others who have the primary responsibility for reviewing and adjusting budget requests. Another type of informal power is that held by an advisory committee. Here there would beta number of involved individuals participating in the budget reviewing and adjusting process prior to final review by the person or persons so designated on the formal organizational chart as having that responsibility. A third political dimension to the budget process is pressure from outside of the institution. These external pressures can be as important, and sometimes more important, than those internal to the institutional structure. External pressures exist generally in several forms; some come from state and federal legislation as well as individuals from both state and federal governments as they interface and influence budgetary decisions. Boards of Trustees which are generally a link between the external and internal environemtns produce sometimes quite noticeable pressures on resource allocations within institutions. Thirdly, external pressures come from individual donors and alumni bodies, who often through their support of the institution exert power over budgetary allocations. 104 Budgetary decision—making is somewhat difficult in institutions of higher education because a clear—cut easily measurable product is not the end result, as it often is in the business world. Most decisions involve a qualitative rather than a quantitative framework and therefore involve a high degree of subjective decision-making on the part of the individuals involved. Therefore, budget processes in higher education are highly political and often not easily understood by those within the institution attempting to get resources. Summary of Budgeting Operations Increasing demands for accountability coupled with decreasing resources have brought about widespread use of formalized procedures for planning and budget control within institutions of higher education. Processes of budgeting are utilized in order to gain fiscal control in both the allocation of resources and in the actual expenditures of the assigned resource. The process itself, is a combination of several steps including that of defining strategy and setting guidelines; the collection of data and negotiation; the production of a detailed budget; implementation of the detailed budget; and measurement of budgeted expenditures. The budgetary cycle has to be established, the events within the cycle have to be placed in a time table and then a general outline of what information is to be collected has to be established. Also guidelines relating to disbursement 105 of resources according to institutional mission and commitment as well as relative to the external environment have to be established. This information has to then be communicated to the many people involved in the preparation of data and in negotiating resources before reaching the final detailed budget preparation. Implementation is then done at the beginning of the fiscal year with control mechanisms utilized to achieve realistic expenditures of allocated resources. The types of budgets often found in institutions of higher education are; planning, programming, budgeting system, zero-base budgeting and multiple budgeting, incremental budgeting, and formula budgeting. Several additional approaches are also discussed. Those are: Every Tub on its Own Bottom, The King's Decree, and the Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease. Institutions tend to develop their own "institution specific" systems from one or more of these systems depending on the people involved and the institution's history. Budgeting is a political process due to its use of authority in the decision-making process. The decisions are not as clearcut as they are when a quantifiable product is involved, such as in business or industry. Therefore it is helpful to be aware of who is involved in the budget decision making process and on what criteria are the decisions actually being based, as well as what external and internal pressures are involved. Knowledge and 106 political astuteness, as well as experience over time is a definite asset for those involved in the struggle for a share of the budgetary resources. It is important for individual units, such as women's centers, to become aware and knowledgeable about the particular type of budgeting process in use at their institution. This may prove to be helpful in gaining both resources and greater legitimacy within the institutional framework. It could mean the difference between future growth or elimination for the center. Knowledge about budgeting processes and implications involved could provide women's centers with an advantage--or at least equal footing with other units in the activities of institutional fund seeking. Further, it would certainly tend to reduce naiveté and the appearance of non-legitimate outsiders. Summary The women's centers included in this study are in some degree a part of an institution. They all receive some form of resources: space, monetary funds, services, and/or staff, from a parent institution. They are in some way identified with a specific institution. This study is going to examine the type of institutional funding received by women's centers and the relationship of support to internal organizational structure, budget operations and programmatic thrust of the center. 107 This chapter has developed a basis for a general understanding of organizational structure and budgeting processes in order to aid in later development of a focus on the hierarchial and non-hierarchial aspects of women's centers and the attempt to determine if there is a relation— ship between organizational structure and institutional funding source. Do women's centers within higher education tend to have a similarity in structure to their parent institution, or are they constructed in a non—hierarchial form? CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY, Introduction The problem being investigated is the existence of a relationship between women's centers funding sources and the centers internal organizational structure, budget operation and programmatic thrust. The study is one of descriptive research utilizing a survey designed to gather appropriate information about the current organizational structure, budget operation, program thrust and funding sources of women's centers in higher education institutions. Sample Selection The first task accomplished prior to construction of the actual survey instrument, was to determine the criteria to identify the women's centers included in this survey. The following criteria was established: 1. Institution a. Post-Secondary Education b. Total enrollment of 15,000 or more full and/or part-time students on one physical campus c. State supported d. Coeducational e. Within the United States 108 109 2. Women's Center a. Words, women, woman or center will appear in the title b. Within the formal institutional structure 0. An identifiable group of people who organize and conduct activities through the center d. Have a defined physical space The most recent published list of women's centers in the United States is Women's Centers: Where Are They? (1975) by the American Association of Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women. Dr. Bernice Sandler, Director of this project writes: As for our Women's Center list, we have no plans to update it. It is very out of date, . . . One person who used our list last year reported that about half of her letters were returned.182 Further searching for an updated list of women's centers elicited the following comment from Gloria Ferguson, Linkage/Liaison Coordinator, Women's Educational Equity Communication Network: As you are probably discovering, there has been no Directory developed that has a complete listing of these centers.18 182 1978. 183Personal correspondence with G. Ferguson, Linkage/ Liaison Coordinator, Women's Educational Equity Communica- tions Network, 1855 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103, July 21, 1978. Personal correspondence with Dr. Sandler, July 1, 110 Therefore this investigator made the decision to compile a list of state supported institutions with a total enrollment Of 15,000 or more students, state supported, coeducational, located on one campus, within the United States as a basis for the sample selection. The £311 184 Enrollment in Higher Education, 1976 showed that ninety- seven institutions met the criteria for inclusion in the sample. Since information is not available to allow a determination as to which of these ninety-seven institutions did or did not have a women's center, all of the institutions were included in the sample.‘ Questionnaire Development The decision was made to collect the information in a written form for the survey. Therefore it was necessary to develop a questionnaire. The questionnaire used by Judith Bertelsen in her 1974 study was obtained from the author and examined.185 Since the Bertelsen questionnaire did not focus specifically on all aspects this investigator wanted to examine, the following actions were taken: (1) written permission was obtained from Judith Bertelsen to use 184National Center for Educational Statistics, Fall Enrollment in Higher Education 1976, Final Report (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1978), pp. 64—165. 185Personal correspondence with Judith Bertelsen, Charles A. Dana Cancer Institute, 44 Binney Street, Boston, MA 02115, November 22, 1978. Ms. Bertelsen reports she developed the questionnaire in cooperation with Margaret Dunkely and Bernice Sandler, American Association of Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women. 111 those parts of questionnaire applicable to this study, and (2) new questions were constructed to Obtain specific information sought in this study. A pilot study was conducted using the developed questionnaire. Four women's centers within institutions of higher education were chosen on the basis that they would not be included in the final study and because of their diversity. These four women's centers were: (1) located in a community college, (2) located in a four year, state university, (3) located in a four year, private college, and (4) student operated within a four year state university. Response to this pilot was received in the form of suggestions written on the questionnaire, in accompanying letters and via telephone conversations with the respondents. The questionnaire was subsequently revised including modification of questions and in some cases rewriting of the original questions. Also taken into consideration in the revision of the questionnaire was the length of time it would take a prospective respondent to complete the form. Each of the respondents in the pilot study reported taking not less than fifteen (15) minutes and not more than thirty (30) minutes for completion. 112 HypotheSis TeSting The original questionnaire was revised and the final form was developed to test all hypotheses. This study will be conducted to determine if the following null hypo— theses can be rejected: Null Hypothesis 1: No relationship will exist between women's centers funding and their organizational structure. Null Hypothesis 2: NO relationship will exist between women's centers funding and their budget operation. Null Hypothesis 3: No relationship will exist between women's centers funding and their programmatic thrust. Questions on the questionnaire applying to the hypothesis variables are as follows: Space Provided for the Center (1) Size of the Institution (2) Funding Sources of Women's Centers (10) Women's Centers Internal Budget Operation (10) (11)(17) (22) (25) Women's Centers Programatic Thrust (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) (23) (.24) Women's Centers Organizational Structure (12)(13)(14)(15) (16)(17)(18) (19)(20)(21) 113 Administration of QuestiOnnaire The name and addresses of state supported institu- tions of higher education with an enrollment of 15,000 or more students on one campus were compiled from The Fall Enrollment in Higher Education, 1976. The questionnaire along with a cover letter (see appendix A) was mailed to each of the ninety-seven institutions first class postage on January 5, 1979. The cut-off date for inclusion into the study was March 15, 1979. The questionnaire and cover letter were addressed to, "Women's Center, Director." There was no provision made for follow up procedures since it was not possible to determine a specific individual receiving the questionnaire. As of March 15, 1979, a seventy percent return on the questionnaire had been received. One administration made two zerox copies and another institution made one zerox copy and distributed these to additional women's centers within their institu— tions. This raised the total number of respondents from- ninety-seven to one-hundred. The total return rate was seventy of the one hundred mailed (70%) and of these seventy questionnaires which were returned, forty-six (66%) were useable under the criteria of the study. Twenty-four (34%) were not useable. Criteria for inclusion in the study of women's centers included the following: 114 1. Title of the center included either woman, women, or center. 2. Located in a state supported institution of 15,000 students or more. 3. Physical space for the center and some funding was provided by the institution of higher education. 4. Center presently in operation. One exception was made in accepting a respondent lacking criteria number (1). The questionnaire was read in its entirety, and while the center lacked women, woman, or center in its title, this investigator made the determina- tion that it did in fact function as a women's center. Of the twenty-three questionnaires returned but not useable in the study, three were returned by the U.S. Post Office as undeliverable. Nineteen were returned by an individual within the recipient institution. Of these nineteen returned, eighteen were returned with a notation or letter included. Although the responses would not be used as a part of the coded material they show a willingness on the part of individuals to respond with interest and information. Therefore examples of these letters have been included in appendix B. Table 1. shows the respondents by region of the United States; number of questionnaires sent to each region; and number of useable and non-useable questionnaires from each region. 115 .dpoxoo carom one apogee mphoz .sxmspnoz .mmmssa .«ssoumHE .nBoH .suomoccH: .sfimsoomaz .wfiocfiHHH .ofino .ncsfiocm .cnwfinoaz "pmozuofla .cOamofimmsz one .omnoH .ssmucos .msfieoms .dficp0ufiamo .dos>oz .mspa .oomsoHoo names .ssoufin< use oofixoz Boz .deoe .mEossto anneximpsom .hxospsoa one .oommoccoe .wsmssxem .msnfimfisoq .HoowmmflmMH: .sssnaa< .eofiaoflh .sfimnoow ls:AHonso spoon .scaaonso nanoz .decfimufi> unscamafi> who: ”endow .oadasaon one because: .momnou soz .dfics>ammccom .psoepooccoo .aooauo> .ocsHmH ooomm .mapomononmmd: .xno» soz .oufimmoEsm Roz .ocess "anew ”coamon coco ca ooooaosfi meadow em 3. V on on see 332. a o a o a 6mm” Mmmmwm m mm mm 5 mm HMOBIUHE H 3 . me o om and; O N b m CH Hmmglnpsom 3 m me m we spoon H v . m CH 0H Hmmm mammwmmmmwm .mmummmmm .mammmwm ..mmmmnwwm.wmw .aaaaeo..wwmw assume deuce Hepoe Hooch cofiwom Hsofinonpwooo an omcoomom osfiecooflumosc "mumpcoo m.:osozt|.H mam