THE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ' EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: ANALYSIS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND EXPECTATIONS I Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ARNOLD N. MUNDZ 1971 :nrHH-li-lf LIBRARY Michigan State University .hfiSl' This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT: ANALYSIS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND EXPECTATIONS presented by ARNOLD NOE MUNOZ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Educational Administration K“ m /_\_>,\1~va 4% MI— : Mfimmmfiuun Date April 10, 1972 0-7639 B BY 1 SMS I Itnv me. 'I moans I: .mcmslu} ‘; I“ ABSTRACT THE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: ANALYSIS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND EXPECTATIONS BY Arnold N. Munoz The Centers for Community Education development were established in various colleges and universities to help school districts interested in implementing com- munity education. Each of the eleven centers now in operation has a full—time director who devotes his time to the development and administration of the center. The director also has faculty status in the participating institution. The centers offer free services to school districts and communities to (1) help them understand and initiate community education; (2) train personnel for the community school; (3) assist in funding community edu- cation; (4) evaluate community resources and needs; and (5) provide research information and assistance. The Purpose The author's purpose in this study was to identify and analyze the role expectations held for the position of Arnold N. Munoz Center Director by various relevant reference groups. Applying the tenets of role theory it was assumed that these reference groups (1) define the Center Director's role differently, (2) that the position incumbent (i.e., Center Director) may or may not perceive the expectations of others accurately, and (3) that different groups place different emphases on a particular role segment or function thus creating situations wherein role conflict could occur. Methodology Following a general look at the activities of the various centers and the role of the Center Director a questionnaire was designed. The questionnaire was subsequently mailed to the following reference groups: (1) the eleven Center Directors, (2) the eleven Deans of the colleges where the centers are located, (3) the eleven Chairmen of the departments to which the centers are attached within each college, (4) to fifty-five Superin- tendents of school districts served by these centers, and (5) to fifty-five community school directors receiving direct services from these centers. The thrust of the questionnaire and its subsequent analysis was to determine whether conflict existed amgng_the groups, and if so, where and between which groups. One major null hypothesis was formululated and tested by use of a one-way analysis of variance. The Scheffé post-hoc comparisons technique was employed Arnold N. Munoz (after the major null hypothesis was rejected) to test ten null-hypotheses formulated for post-hoc comparison. at .05, Findings of the Study With a level of significance of differences set the following findings were revealed: Differences among the groups exist on sixteen of the ninety-six items or questions. Differences between these groups do not exist when analyzed by the Scheffé post-hoc comparisons technique and when an arbitrary criterion of 50 per cent or eight statistically significant confidence intervals for the sixteen items is set. Model group responses indicated that the conflict may be more in degree of consensus than actual conflict. THE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: ANALYSIS OF ROLE CONFLICT AND EXPECTATIONS BY Arnold NT Munoz A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 S «if. . a] ‘6’; .m— ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My deepest and sincerest thanks to Dr. Samuel A. Moore, chairman of the dissertation committee, for so ably guiding this document to fruition. An equal thanks to Dr. Clyde Campbell, Dr. Howard Hickey, and Dr. Keith Groty, members of the committee for their unwavering support. To all the Center Directors without whose help I could not have got along and to all those people who willingly took of their time to answer my survey. To my fellow Michigan State Mott Interns, James M. Coleman, Larry E. Decker, Homer H. Kearns, Douglas B. Lund, Gene McFadden, Jeffrey A. Moss, Phillip H. Sheridan, and George WOons, who offered me comradeship and inspi- ration. A very special and heartfelt thank you to my wife, Lupe, who bore the brunt of the tribulations of the past two years, and to my daughter, Marisol, who although she did not know what was going on, helped tremendously as a source of morale. I would like to include here a special dedication to my parents, Jose and Herminia Munoz, who although they ii did not understand why I would undertake such a task, supported me spiritually and without question. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I 0 THE PROBLEM O I O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . Purpose of the Study . . Definition of Terms. . Significance of the Problem Hypothesis. . . . . . Overview . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . Conceptual and Theoretical . Development of Role Analysis Getzels-Guba Theory . . . Theory for Role Conflict Resolution. Concepts of Role Conflict, Role Consensus, and Role Expectations . . . Role Conflict . . . . . Role Consensus. . . . . Role Expectations. . . . Research Studies of Role Theory in Education . . . . . . . Related Research in Consensus. Related Research on Expectations. Related Research on Role Conflict Summary. . . . . . . . III. DESIGN OF STUDY. . . . . . Introduction . . Design of the Study. iv Page H ooooqmoer—I 10 IO 10 14 20 23 23 29 31 34 34 36 42 47 49 49 50 Chapter Page IV. V. POPUlation O O O O O O O O O O O 50 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Subsample Analysis of Demographic Data . . 52 Center Directors . . . . . . . . . 52 College Deans . . . . . . . . . . 52 Department Chairmen . . . . . . . . 53 Superintendents . . . . . . . . . 54 Community School Directors. . . . . . 54 Total Sample Analysis of Demographic Data . 55 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Testable Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . 58 Hypotheses for Scheffé Post-Hoc Comparisons. 58 Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . 59 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 61 Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Scheffé Post-Hoc Comparisons. . . . . . 62 Discussion of Open-Ended Questions. . . . 76 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 80 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 83 General . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Specific. . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Recommendations . . . . . . . . 100 Implications and Reflections. . . . . . 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 107 APPENDICES Appendix A. Summary of Analysis of Responses to Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . 111 B. Letters and Questionnaire. . . . . . . . 122 C. List of Directors, and Universities; Map of Regions and Locations of Centers . . . 136 Table 3.1. 4.3. 4.7. 4.9. LIST OF TABLES A Graphic Representation of the Per Group Averages and of the Total Overall Averages . . . . . . . Summary of Results of One-Way Analysis of Variance Among all Groups for all Sixteen Significant Items . . . . Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Between Center Directors (1) Comparisons and College Deans (2) for all Sixteen Items . . . . Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Comparisons Between Center Directors (1) and Department Chairmen (3) for all Sixteen Items 0 O O O O O O 0 Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Between Center Directors (1) tendents (4) for all Sixteen Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Between Center Directors (1) School Directors (5) for all Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Comparisons and Superin— Items . . . Comparisons and Community Sixteen Items. Comparisons Between College Deans (2) and Department Chairmen (3) for all Sixteen Items . . . Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Comparisons Between College Deans (2) and Superin- tendents (4) for all Sixteen Items . . . Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Comparisons Between College Deans (2) and Community School Directors (5) for all Sixteen Items. Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Comparisons Between Department Chairmen (3) and Superintendents (4) for all Sixteen Items . vi Page 57 63 65 66 67 69 7O 71 73 74 Table Page 4.10. Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Comparisons Between Department Chairmen (3) and Community School Directors (5) for all Sixteen Items . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.11. Summary of Results of Post-Hoc Comparisons . Between Superintendents (4) and Community School Directors (5) for all Sixteen Items. . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 A.1. Summary of Analysis of Responses to Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 111 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1. Getzels-Guba Nomothetic Idiographic Model . . 16 5.1. Graphic Representation of Mean Group Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.2. Summary of Modal Group Responses for Directors' Role Performance on All Non-Significant Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.3. Summary of Modal Group Responses for Directors' Role Attributes on All Non-Significant Items 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O 97 viii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation was founded in Flint, Michigan in 1936 " . . . for the purpose of supporting religious, educational, health and recreational activities for the public benefit."1 The foundation today ranks among the five or six largest in the United States.2 The Mott Foundation Projects Division of Training and Dissemination was established to " . . . develop programs to train Community School Directors and school administrators imbued with the philosophy of Community Education and the Community School . . . and . . . [to] help outstanding colleges and universities, located near concentrations of school populations, develop programs of 1Clarence H. Young and William A. Quinn, Foun- dation for Living (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963), p. 245. 2Peter L. Clancy, Associate Superintendent, Mott Program, private interview held in Flint, Michigan, March, 1971. training in Community Education."1 Funds under this program are granted to selected colleges and universities 1. assist in the establishment of training programs in Community Education at the college or uni- versity; 2. help school districts, within the service area of the college or university, develop Community Education. The Division of Training and Dissemination had established by 1969 nine Centers for Community Education Development in various colleges and universities throughout the United States. Concurrent to phasing out of the Center at Olivet College in 1970, three new Centers were opened. The Centers total eleven, one each at: Alma College, Hugh Rohrer, Director; Arizona State University, Tom Mayhew, Director; Ball State University, Curtis Van Voorhees, Director; Brigham Young University, Israel C. Heaton, Director; Eastern Connecticut State College, Ron Frank, Director; Eastern Michigan University, Jack Minzey, Director; Florida Atlantic University, V. M. Kerensky, Director; Nortern Michigan University, Ben Martin, Director; San Jose State College, Tony Carrillo, Director; University of Oregon, Larry Horyna, Director; and Western Michigan University, Gerald Martin, Director. 1Dissemination Program Manual, Division of Training and Dissemination, Mott Foundation Projects, p. 4. 21bid. Future plans include the establishment of three to five new Centers in 1971-72 and the eventual establishment of one hundred Centers throughout the United States.1 Regarding the Center Director, the Dissemination Program Manual further states that the: Center Director . . . must be . . . [a] person devoting full-time to the Center's development and adminis- tration. The director plans, directs, and evaluates the program and services of the Center . . . is required to be Flint trained . . . and . . . must hold faculty status at the participating institution. The institution to be granted funds must, "offer under- graduate and/or graduate course sequences."3 The Centers offer free services in five basic areas: 1. Consultative--to help communities understand and initiate Community Education, 2. Training for community school personnel, 3. Funding assistance, 4. Evaluation of community resources, needs, and existing programs, and 5. Research information and assistance.4 The Center Director then must fulfill many roles in the execution of his duties. He must interact with several reference groups as he works in the five areas mentioned above. Gross states that, " . . . single as well as multiple position incumbency may result in 1Douglas Procunier, Director, Division of Training and Dissemination, private interview held in Flint, Michigan, 1971. 2Dissemination Program Manual, op. cit., p. 8. 31bid. 41bid., pp. 9-10. 1 and further that exposure to conflicting expectations," his behavior may be affected by, " . . . the degree of consensus among significant role definers as perceived by the actor himself."2 In personal interviews with Center Directors: Curtis Van Voorhees, Tom Mayhew, Tony Carrillo, and Jack Minzey; and the administration of the Division of Training and Dissemination, it was determined that there was a definite need for the proposed study. Need for the Study The study was aimed at the identification and subsequent analysis of the role expectations held for the Directors of the University Centers for Community Education Development, by the Director and specific reference groups in eleven university settings. Neal Gross has stated that, "People do not behave in a random manner; their behavior is influenced to some extent by their own expectations and those of others in the group or society in which they are participants."3 The effectiveness of the Center Director's leadership in implementing the Center's program will be determined to a large extent by the Center Director's 1Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis: Study of the School Superintendency Role (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1938). P. 6: 2 3 Ibid., p. 5. Ibid., p. 17. level of comprehension of the expectations held for him by reference groups and the directors understanding of areas of agreement and disagreement. Brookover and Gottlieb state: "Understanding of the expectations held for teachers, administrators and other positions in the school is an essential foun- dation for education of school personnel (and the effective functioning of a school system)."1 If one extends this to include the university or college and also the Center itself, the need for determin— ing expectations for the Center Director is clearly evident. Assuming that Solby's hypothesis is true, from his study of role, that, " . . . role conflict decreases role value . . ."2 the identification of diverse role expec- tations for the Center Director's position is surely needed. This could lead to the resolution of imagined, real, or even potential conflict. The necessity for understanding the interdependency of not only related roles but also the significant ex- pectancy of reference groups for that role, cannot be 1Wilbur B. Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Soci- ology of Education (New York: American Book Company, I964), p. 353. 2Bruno Solby, "The Role Concept and Job Adjustment," Sociometgy, VII (May, 1944), 227. overstated. Newcomb observes: "Roles, like language, are dependent upon shared understandings."l Purpose of the Study The author's major purpose in this study was to identify and analyze the role expectations held for the position of Center Director by: (1) Center Directors; (2) Deans of Colleges (where Center Directors are located); (3) Chairmen of the Department (to whom Center Directors are responsible); (4) Superintendents of school districts, in direct contact with Center's services; and (5) Community School Directors being directly served by Centers. Definition of Terms2 Center Director--Administrative head of University Center for Community Education Development. Community Education--Educational programs for all people of a community to fulfill the educational, recre- ational, social, intellectual, and health needs regardless of age, race, or other limiting factors. Community School--A school which makes maximum use of all physical and human resources of a community. 1Theodore Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York: Dryden Press, 1950), p. 283. 2Dissemination Program Manual, op. cit., p. 5. Community School Director--One person in the school specifically assigned the task of giving direction to all activities that are community centered. Center or Regional Center-~College or university charged with responsibility for promoting Community Edu- cation and training personnel for service in Community Education. Expectations--An evaluative standard applied to an incumbent of a position. Role--A set of expectations (or in terms of above definition) a set of evaluative standards applied to an incumbent of a particular position. Significance of the Problem This study could make an important contribution to the Center Director and his staff in the operation of the Center and to the Division of Training and Dissemination staff as they move into an expansion of the Center program. The identification of areas of role conflict could promote the effectiveness of the Center Director and consequently the dissemination of the "Community Education Philosophy" as seen by administrators of the Division of Training and Dissemination, Mott Foundation Projects. There may be other centers and/or institutes at colleges and universities which could benefit by examination of the role expectations for Center Directors. Data gained by this study will be available to all Centers for further analysis. Hypothesis For the purposes of this study, the following was asked: Hypothesis: There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director among the Center Directors, College Deans, Department Chairmen, Super- intendents, and Community School Directors. After analysis of the above question the appropri- ate post-hoc comparisons were conducted to determine whether differences existed between the respondent groups. Overview This study of the role expectations of Center Directors is presented in five chapters. Chapter I: The Problem—-Introduction, Need for the Study, Purpose of the Study, Definition of Terms, Significance of the Problem, Hypothesis, and Overview. Chapter II: Review of Literature-~The major areas covered in this review are: (1) Theoretical and Conceptual Development of Role Theory; (2) Concepts of Role Conflict, Role Consensus, and Role Expectations; (3) Research Studies of Role Analysis in Education. Chapter III: Design of Study--Research Population, Respondent Sample, Description of Measures or Questionnaire, Design, Testable Hypothesis, Analysis, and Summary. Chapter IV: Analysis of Results--Restatement of Hypothesis, Interpretation of Results, Significance of Results, and Summary. Chapter V: Summary and Conclusions--Summary, Conclusions, Discussion and Implications for Future Research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The literature reviewed is concerned with the (1) Conceptual and Theoretical Development of Role Theory; (2) Concepts of Role Conflict, Role Consensus, and Role Expectations; and (3) Research studies of Role Analysis in Education. Conceptual and Theoretical Development of Role Theory The concept role has been employed to a large extent by students of the social sciences and "has assumed a key position in the fields of sociology, social psychology, and cultural anthropology."14 Linton, an anthropologist, for example, used role concept to link culture and social structure. In defining the central problems of social psychology, Newcomb and Sarbin employ role concept as a crucial element. In formulating a theoretical framework for the analysis of social systems, Parsons considered role concept as pivotal. Similarly, Mead employed role 1Gross, op. cit., p. 3. 10 11 concept as an essential element in the development of a theory of the self. Role Concept has even been used stratigically by Cameron for analysis of pathological behavior.l Because Linton, Parsons, and Newcomb have con- tributed heavily from their respective disciplines to the formulation of role theory it seems appropriate to include their definitions of three fundamental terms used in role theory: (1) Status or position, (2) Role, and (3) Role expectations or prescriptions. Status or Position.-—Linton--"The place in a particular system which a certain individual occupies at a particular time . . ."2 Parsons--" . . . place in the relationship system considered as a structure, that is a patterned system of parts."3 Newcomb--" . . . every position is a part of an inclusive system of positions, no one position has any meaning apart from the other positions to which it is related."4 lIbid. 2Ralph Linton, The Cultural Background of Person— ality (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1945), p. 76. 3Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951), p. 25. 4Newcomb, op. cit., p. 277. 12 Rplg,--Linton--" . . . the sum total of the cultural patterns associated with a particular status. It thus includes the attitudes, values, and behavior ascribed by the society to any and all persons occupying this status."1 Parsons--" . . . is a sector of the total ori- entation system of an individual actor which is recognized about expectations in relation to a particular interaction context, that is integrated with a particular set of value-standards which govern interaction with one or more alters in the appropriate complementary roles."2 Newcomb--"the ways of behaving which are expected of any individual who occupies a certain position constitute the role . . . associated with that position."3 Role Expectations or Prescriptions.--Linton-- . . . the legitimate expectations . . . with respect to the behavior toward them of persons in other statuses within the same system."4 Parsons--" . . . expectations . . . concern and in part set standards for the behavior of the actor . . ."5 1Linton, 0p. cit., p. 77. 2Parsons, op. cit., pp. 38-39. 3Newcomb, op. cit., p. 280. 4Linton, op. cit., p. 77. 5Parsons, op. cit., p. 38. 13 Newcomb--"all the approved ways of carrying out the necessary functions required of the occupant of a position."1 In most conceptualizations of Role Analysis three fundamental ideas occur and reoccur. These three ideas are that persons " . . . (1) in social locations, (2) behave, (3) with reference to expectations."2 Many role analysis concepts are rooted in the language and/or various definitions for terms such as role, position, status, and expectations.3 Rushing states that the concept of role carries with it at least two assumptions. These assumptions being the: l. Orientation Assumption-- . . . the assumption that the course of social behavior is influenced by social rules of conduct, referred to as culture, values, tradition, customs, and norms. . . . human action is . . . affected by the normative order. 2. Prescriptive Assumption--one role always implies existence of at least one other role (i.e., doctor-patient). Role partners agree on respective activities. In order to bring a sharper focus to the above mentioned descriptions, definitions, and assumptions 1Newcomb, op. cit., p. 281. 2Gross, op. cit., p. 17. 3Ibid., pp. 21-47. 4William A. Rushing, "The Role Concept: Assumptions and Their Methodological Implications," Sociology and Social Research (October, 1964), 47-48. 14 related to role theory, three theories of role are described. The three theories include: (1) the Getzels- Guba, Nomothetic-Idiographic theory, (2) Shutz' F. I. R. O. theory, and (3) Gross, Mason, and McEachern's Role Conflict Resolution Theory. Getzels-Guba Theory This theory is also referred to as the "Nomothetic- Idiographic theory" and conceives of any organization or sub-organization, as a social system with two simultaneously independent and interactive classes of phenomena. Institutions which are specifically made up of roles and expectations that are in keeping with and aimed at meeting the goals of the system constitute the first class. The sociological analysis reflected in this first class is aimed at the understanding of group behavior through the dimension of activity. This dimension is referred to by Getzels and Guba as the nomothetic dimension. Its elements are institution, role, and expectation. In the second class are individuals. Each individual possesses a certain personality and certain need dispositions which: when they interact, make up group behavior. This class reflects a psychological analysis of the personal dimension of activity that leads to the understanding of group behavior. Getzels and Guba call this the idiographic 15 dimension. The elements here are individual, personality, and need—dispositions.l The institution as well as the individual are seen as open systems which operate within and interact with an environment larger than themselves. This larger or outside environment with which the institution and the individual interacts has three elements: ethos, mores, and values.2 A model of the theory (Figure 2.1) shows that the effects between each of the elements for each of the dimensions is in the primary direction of left to right. Each element in the two dimensions serves as the unit of analysis for the element that comes before it. The social system, for example, is defined by that system's insti- tutions. Each institution is defined by the constituent roles and each role is defined by the expectation that is attached to it. The point at which it is most appropriate to study each of the dimensions is on the far right or at the expectations, need-dispositions, and values point. Only by knowing both the role expectations and need- dispositions of a specific role-incumbent can the behavior 1Robert E. Sweitzer, Role Expectations and Per- ception of School Principals TOklahoma State University Press, 1963), pp. 17-18. ' 21bid. l6 Nomothetic Dimension Ethos > Mores > Values INSTITUTION > ROLE > EXPECTATIONS A THE SOCIAL OBSERVED SYSTEM BEHAVIOR V/ NEED- INDIVIDUAL———> PERSONALITY -—9 DISPOSITIONS Ethos > Mores e Values Idiographic Dimension2 Figure 2.1 Getzels-Guba Nomothetic Idiographic Model. and interaction of this same role incumbent in a given institution be understood.1 The tasks of the institution are organized into roles, which then serve as norms for the role incumbent's behavior. The element that defines for an actor what he should or should not do as an incumbent of a specific role is role expectations. Each role incumbent's reaction to the environment and to role expectations is governed by his need-dispositions. As a result of the role incumbents attempts to cope with an environment that is made up of expectations for his behavior, which are consistent with 1 Ibid. Ibid. 17 his own needs, we have the behavior of a specific indi- vidual. Although institutional expectations may be maxi- mized to a high degree, individual behavior tends to retain some personal aspect. No role is defined so as to elimi- nate individual latitude. In a similar manner social be- havior is not free from role prescription when personality is maximized. An individual's behavior may be described as falling along a continuum. The range of this continuum runs from a primary emphasis on the nomothetic dimension or on performance that is role-relevant to primary emphasis on the ideographic or personality-relevant performance.1 The Getzels-Guba theory according to Sweitzer clarifies "the dimensions of the role expectation (nomothetic) dimension . . . but provides little clari- fication of pertinent dimensions of the needs-disposition (idiographic) dimension."2 The second theory by William C. Shutz was selected for treatment to accommodate the void in explanation. Shutz's theory is referred to as the FIRO (Funda- mental Interpersonal Relations Orientation) theory. Shutz has also developed an instrument to measure inter— personal needs and calls it the FIRO-B instrument. Shutz's theory identifies three basic inter- personal needs. A person must be able to satisfy these needs, while at the same time avoiding threat to himself: l 2 Ibid., pp. 19-20. Ibid., p. 260 18 1. Need for inclusion--the need to maintain a satis- factory relation between self and other people with respect to interaction or belongingness. This need may range from (a) wanting to be with other people all of the time, to belong to organizations, and to interact and mingle, to (b) preferring to be alone, to stay out of groups, and to interact minimally in order to maintain privacy. 2. Need for control--the need to maintain a satis- factory relaEion with others in regard to power and influence so the individual can control his situation to some degree in order that his environment can be predictable for him. This need may range from wanting to control everything and everyone to not wanting to control anything in any situation. It may range from wanting to be controlled to not wanting to be controlled. 3. Need for affection--the need to maintain a satis- factory relation with others in regard to love and affection. It may range from wanting to be very close and have a personal relationship with others to wanting to be quite impersonal and distant with others. It may range from wanting others to make overtures to him in a way that indicates closeness to wanting others to maintain their distance and not attempt to be intimate.l Each of the dimensions has two aspects. The "need for inclusion" dimension aspects are the (1) expressed behavior of the individual (expressed inclusion), and (2) the behavior that he desires others to initiate towards him (wanted inclusion). The "need for control" dimension has the aspect of the (1) control the individual actually exerts on others (expressed control) as well as (2) the control that he prefers others to exert on him (wanted control). Similarly, the "need for affection" dimension is divided into (1) the affection that the individual displays for others (expressed affection), and (2) the lIbid., p. 27. l9 affection that the actor would prefer others to display towards him (wanted affection).l Shutz's theory further identifies the dimensions of interpersonal compatibility between incumbents that may hold a similar or even different position. Reciprocal compatibilipy is concerned with whether the individual needs of one person are satisfied by another person or whether the individual is not able to let another person or group know what his preferred behavior is. Origination compatibility is concerned with the complementarity of two persons or a group and a person as to which will be the originator and which will be the receiver. Persons who prefer to initiate group activity should work together with those who would like to participate in the activity but do not care to lead. Similarly persons who prefer or have a desire to control need to work with persons who feel the need to be controlled. Conflict arises when both want either to originate or to simply participate. Shutz refers to the last dimension as the Interchange Compati- bility dimension. The concern here is with expressing mutually the commodity for a given need area (i.e., inclusion, control, affection). If there exists a high affection interchange, the participants are more than likely to exchange a great amount of affectional behavior. 11bid., p. 28. 20 The same would hold for the two other dimensions of control and inclusion.1 Although the two above mentioned theories can, if applied correctly, help resolve or forestall conflict only one theory was found which addressed itself particularly to the resolution of role conflict. This theory was developed after a study conducted by Gross, gppgl, on a group of school superintendents in Massachusetts. Theory for Role Conflict ResdIution In their formulation of a theory for role conflict resolution, Gross, Mason, and McEachern limit role conflict to an actors occupancy of a single position (intrarole conflict). There are four alternative behaviors to which an actor may resort when confronted by a role conflict or a situation in which there are two incompatible expectations. The actor may: (1) conform to expectation A: (2) conform to expectation B: (3) perform some compromise behavior which represents an attempt to conform in part to both expectations, or (4) attempt to avoid conforming to either of the expectations. Because the theory's starting point is determined by a particular actor's definition of the specific role conflict in accordance with the elements of legitimacy in lIbid., pp. 28-30. 2Gross, op. cit., p. 284. 21 sanctions, the authors made two assumptions. First, in the legitimacy dimension, it was assumed that the actor(s) were willing to conform to expectations which were perceived to be legitimate and would be equally unwilling to conform to illegitimate expectations or pressures. Secondly, in the sanctions dimension it was assumed an actor would be predisposed to conform to a negative sanction if the same actor were to perceive that failure to conform would in fact result in the application of said sanction. The theory then is used to predict the behavior of an actor, given the above assumption.1 The Legitimacy Dimension.--Using only the criterion of legitimacy and the fact that an actor perceives himself exposed to two incompatible expectations the situation confronting him can fall into four possible types. These being (1) that both A and B are perceived as legitimate; (2) only A is perceived as legitimate and B is perceived as illegitimate; (3) only B is perceived as legitimate; or (4) both A and B are perceived as illegitimate. The actor's behavior then can be predicted as follows: In type (1) he compromises; in type (2) he conforms to expectation A; in type (3) he conforms to expectation B; and in type (4) he avoids conforming to either of the expectations.2 1 Ibid., pp. 285-86. Ibido 22 The Sanctions Dimension.--Keeping in mind the stated assumptions, an actor is again exposed to two incompatible expectations A and B. The negative sanctions are catagorized into strong and weak, thus again presenting four types or situations. In situation (1) both expec- tations A and B would carry strong negative sanction, in situation (2) expectation A would carry a weak negative sanction and expectation B would carry a strong negative sanction; situation (3) would be reversed in that expec- tation B would carry the strong negative sanction and expectation A would carry the weak negative sanction; in situation (4) both expectations A and B would carry weak negative sanctions. The consequent predicted behavior would be that in situation (1) the actor would compromise, in situation (2) he would conform to expectation B, in situation (3) he would conform to expectation A, because situation (4) has two weak negative sanctions no prediction is possible.1 The theory can be extended to include other assumptions and to test predictions about the behavior of an actor when confronted with two incompatible expectations. In summary, the author's claim two advantages for the theory: "(1) it is concerned with and takes account of incompatible expectations stemming 11bid.' pp. 286-87. 23 from an individual's incumbency of one or more positions, and (2) takes account of and allows predictions about . . . expectations whether legitimate or illegitimate."l Concepts of Role Conflict, Role Consensus, and Role Expectations Role Conflict The conflict that occurs when a particular role is attributed varying definitions and expectations can cause dysfunction in an organization. Neal Gross stated that the functioning of a social system is significantly affected by the extent to which there is conflict in role definition.2 Conflict when used in the realm of role expec- tations and the broader area of Role Analysis falls between two extremes. One is where there is maximum disagreement (dissensus) and the other is where there exists unanimous agreement (concensus). Role conflict then can be said to be a degree of the concept consensus. Seeman proposes four dimensions of Role Conflict. The first he calls status dimension. The conflict comes about as a result of two distinct ideologies, that of success and that of equality. One must then honor success achieved individually and at the same time deny that there exists any significant differences in status or position. The second dimension is that of Authority, where the 1Ibid., p. 316. 21bid., p. 5. 24 values of dependence and independence come into conflict with each other. The third is What Seeman calls the Institutional dimension. One must choose between the two criteria for social action; that of the "universalist" as opposed to the "particularist." Lastly comes the dimension called the Means-End dimension. Here conflict results when one must decide whether the emphasis is put on getting the job done, which is the practical emphasis, or whether one will accentuate the proCess of achievement.1 Seeman goes further into the aspects of Role Conflict and proposes that there are three types of role conflict: 1. Agreement within criterion group on behaviors which are mutually difficult to achieve under the given institutional conditions. 2. Disagreement within criterion group regarding role. 3. Disagreement between criterion groups regarding the nature of a given role.2 Getzels and Guba hold a similar view of role conflict as evidenced by their definition. Role conflict arises when: "[An] actor is required to fill simultane- ously two or more roles that present inconsistent, contradictory or even mutually exclusive expectations."3 lMelvin Seeman, "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership," American Sociological Review, XVIII (August, 1953), 373-80. 21bid. I pp. 376-77. 3J. w. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role, Role Con- flict, and Effectiveness: An Empirical Study." American Sociological Review, XIX (April, 1954), 164-75. 25 The resulting behavior on the part of an actor may take one of three forms. The actor may choose to abandon a particular role and assume another. The actor may choose to attempt to compromise, or thirdly, he may decide to withdraw either physically or psychologically, or both.1 The Getzels-Guba Nomothetic-idiographic framework identifies conflict in an organization as consisting of four major types. 1. Conflict between the cultural values of the larger environment and institutional expectations and/or individual need-disposition; 2. Conflict between the patterns of expectations attached to a given role and the patterns of need- dispositions of the particular incumbent of that role; 3. Role conflict; and Personality conflict.2 .b . Role conflict according to Getzels and Guba has levels of severity. The severity is dependent on two factors: (1) the Relative Incompatibility that may exist between two roles, and (2) the Rigp£_with which a given expectation is defined (i.e., how flexible or how rigid are the limits set by a group of definers). An added dimension or element not mentioned by Seeman and intro- duced by Getzels and Guba is that of personality. Roles lIbid., p. 165. 2Sweitzer, op. cit., p. 21 26 are not defined for a single actor but "are a function of the interaction between different personalities and the role expectation."1 An approach to the area of role conflict is proposed by Andrew G. Frank. Frank dealt with role as defined through organizational administration. Three types of organization roles are defined: 1. Those roles that are under-defined and that permit individuals to actively take the determination of their own and other's destinies into their own hands. 2. Roles that are well-defined and yield a coherent and internally consistent set of roles but pro- hibit individual initiative and make ritual role performance easy . . . [and] . . . lack provision for individual and institutional adaptation to changes in administration environment. 3. Over-defined roles impose role expectations [that] cannot be satisfied by role incumbents. Frank argues that it is the well-defined role that produces the greatest likelihood of conflict. Well-defined administrative organizations "failing to ride with the punches effectively resist pressure from outside until that pressure either subsides or builds up enough to topple the institution by revolution rather than evolution." Para- doxically, Frank continues, "[the] under-defined and [the] over-defined roles . . . resemble each other more than lGetzels and Guba, op. cit., p. 165. 2Andrew Gunder Frank, "Administration, Role Definition and Social Change," Human Organizations, XXII (Winter, 1963-64), 238-42. 27 either resembles . . . the well-defined role . . . both under and over—definition of roles impose a much wider range of discretion on individual decision makers than do well-defined roles."1 Role conflict does not occur in a vacuum but comes about as a result of the expectations of various role definers. According to Cain, those who define a particular role are those persons who are affected by the role behavior engaged in and by those persons'who have power over an actor in the relevant area of action. Two types of role definers are proposed: (1) effective role definers, and (2) ineffective role definers. The effective role definers have the "ability to persuade or encourage focal persons to accept their definition or sets of expec- tations;" while the ineffective role definers are those persons or groups to whom the actor is indifferent.2 Cain further subdivides those definers who are considered effective into reference groups. Four types of reference groups are considered. 1. Identification groups . . . [they are the] source of values for the focal person and whose acceptance he seeks. 2. Interaction groups . . . taken into account in order to accomplish purposes, . . . behavior toward them may or may not require role taking. lIbid., pp. 240-41. 2Maureen E. Cain, "Some Suggested Developments for Role and Reference Group Analysis," British Journal of Sociology, XIX (June, 1968), 191-205. 28 3. Valuation groups . . . acquire value to focal person because the identification group designates them as points of reference, and 4. Audience groups . . . those which are seen to be evaluating and to be observing behavior.1 The most powerful of the four is the identification group inasmuch as it is the group that selects and maintains those groups that will either be normative or which will be comparative; as well as specifying the degree of potency each group will have. The group that is most central to the focal persons total value system and self conception will be effective in a wide range of situations. Yet another dimension of power that groups have over an individual actor is that of legitimacy of the group and the kinds of sanctions it can bring to bear.2 Stogdill states that "role conflict occurs when a subgroup member discovers that he has acquired a role that differs somewhat from his role as defined by the larger institutional group, or when he defines his role in terms of personal values and preconceptions that have little reference to purposes or norm structure of the group."3 Stogdill seems to disagree with Frank when he further states that role conflict tends to be created when "roles are not clearly defined [and that role conflict] is an attribute of individuals . . . their perception of discrepancies and lIbid., p. 197. 21bid., p. 244. 3Sweitzer, op. cit., p. 23. 29 their reaction to it . . . not of the stimulus situation."l Role conflict then, can and is dysfunctional. Its analysis is vital in role theory as is its opposite, Role Consensus. Role Consensus Role consensus is a problem whose investigation is essential to role analysis but is largely precluded from investigation because of the many definitions of role.2 Newcomb defines role consensus as a list of expected behaviors with accompanying information as to whether each behavior is demanded or merely permitted to occur.3 Biddle, on the other hand, simply defines role consensus as the "sameness of commonly held norms, conceptions; [and the] sameness of behavior in general."4 In order to empirically investigate the problem of role consensus it is necessary to employ the following methodology: 1. Specify the object and subject pOpulations, 2. obtain data on the expectations held for the incumbent, and 3. obtain measures of the degree of consensus on their role definitions.5 1Ibid., p. 24. 2Cross, op. cit., p. 18. 3Newcomb, op. cit., p. 282. 4Bruce J. Biddle and Edwin J. Thomas, Role Theory: Concepts and Research (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966), p. 11. SGross, op. cit., p. 101. 30 Data for the previous investigation can be secured by one or both of the two procedures. 1. Focus on the degree of agreement among role definers, on which range of alternatives, . . . the incumbent of a position should adopt in a particular situation, or 2. Focus on their [degrees of] consensus on a single evaluation standard that might be applied to him. The resulting consensus can be defined either as (1) Intraposition Consensus where the consensus in among all of the incumbents or among one group of role definers, or (2) Interposition Consensus where the consensus is between various samples or groups of role definers. Gross stipulates that a criterion of 50 per cent might be set to determine which behavior is demanded and consequently a measure of consensus is also set.2 Analysis of role consensus can either be micro- scopic or macroscopic. Microscopic analysis is concerned with the variable of role consensus in relation to the functioning of small social systems. If one is studying the superintendency for example, one would analyze one school system; if the principalship, one particular school and its principal. Macroscopic analysis on the other hand is concerned with the superintendency on a more global scale. Inferences are sought for the role of all super- intendents. In microscopic analysis the determinants of role consensus are also investigated. Two major questions are considered: (1) What amount of interaction among 2 11bid., pp. 101—02. Ibid., pp. 35—103. 31 groups is related to consensus, and (2) Is homogeneity of group members on certain characteristics related to 1 consensus? Gross, for example, chose to examine the corre- lations among the following in his investigations in microscopic role consensus: . Educational and political attitudes and consensus Religion and Consensus Motivations of school board members and consensus Proportion of women on the board and consensus Social status characteristics and consensus Relationship of community characteristics to consensus. O‘U‘IbWNH 0 Role consensus can and does yield considerable information when used in role consensus analysis. Both role conflict and role consensus are dependent on what expectations are held for a particular role by the various respondent groups. Role Expectations Role expectations are sometimes referred to as role prescriptions and have as many definitions as there are definers. Linton's, Parson's, and Newcomb's defi- nitions were cited above. Sarbin states that " . . . a position in a social structure [is] a set of expec- tations or acquired anticipatory reactions. That is to say, the person learns (a) to expect or anticipate lIbid., pp. 95-97. 21bid., pp. 193-211. 32 certain actions from other persons, and (b) that others have expectations of him.“1 Expectations can be, according to Gross, an evaluative standard which can be applied to a position incumbent and can either be predictive (will) or it can be normative (should). A single expectation has two dimensions. One being that the expectation has direction and the other that the expectation has intensipy. Before the direction of an expectation can be specified an operational or empirical reference must first be introduced. There is a continuum on which any expectation can be placed. The continuum ranges from the completely per- missive (may or may not), through the preferential (preferably should), to the mandatory (absolutely must).2 Gross further states that expectations can be categorized into three areas. 1. Role Sectors--a set of expectations applied to the relationship of a focal position to [that of] a single counter position. (i.e., Is there more consensus among a set of role definers on one role sector than another?) 2. Rights and Obligations--rights of an incumbent of a focal position are defined as expectations which are applied to an incumbent of a counter position. (i.e., Will the incumbents of a position have more consensus on their rights in one role sector than on their rights in another role sector?) 3. Obligations of the incumbent of a focal position are defined as expectations which are applied to the incumbent of that position. (i.e., Behavior = should d2, Attribute = should p3,)3 lIbid., p. 58. 21bid., pp. 58-60. 31bid., pp. 62-64. 33 Two sub-categories can be derived from the larger category for behavior and attribute expectations. These being the sub-categories of: 1. Role Behavior Sector-~[which] is a set of actual behavior which can be referred to a set of expec- tations for behaviors applied to the relationships of a focal to a single counter position. 2. Role Attribute Sector--[which] is a set of actual attributes which can be referred to a set of expec- tations for attributes applied to the relationship of a focal position to a single counter position. Stogdill, in following the same general concept of role that Parson's employees, brought forth the major dimensions of role expectations. Expectations according to Stogdill are a function of (a) drive (or motivation and intention); (b) the possibility of an outcome and its estimated level of desirability; and (c) the outcome and its estimated probability.2 Role Conflict, Role Consensus, and Role Expectations are concepts in the general area of Role Theory. Role Theory has been used empirically in education and the following are four of those studies. lIbid., p. 64. 2Sweitzer, op. cit., p. 16. 34 Research Studies of Role Theory in Education Related Research in Consensus In a study conducted by Foskett on the concept of role consensus as it pertains to the role of elementary school 1. 2. teachers the following questions were asked: To what extent do elementary school teachers agree among themselves regarding their role? To what extent do the members of relevant popu- lations of others (principals, school board members, citizens, etc.) agree among themselves regarding appropriate behavior for teachers? To what extent does each of the subject populations agree with each of the other populations regarding the role of teachers? To what extent does each of the subject pOpulations think each of the other populations has views re- garding the role of the teacher the same as their own? To what extent is each of the populations able to perceive accurately the views of each of the other populations?l Data for the study were gathered in three communi- ties on the Pacific Coast, designated as community "A" (population 28,000), community "B" (population 70,000), and community "C" (population 400,000). Subject populations from each community included: mUluwal-J All elementary school teachers (grades 1-6); All full-time elementary school principals; All school board members; The superintendent of the Unified district; The central office staff; And a three stage area probability sample of adult citizens.2 1John M. Foskett, Role Consensus: The Case of the Elementary School Teacher TEugene, Oregon: University of Press, 1969), p. 7. 21bid., p. 9. 35 Interviews were held with each of the 2,967 respondent either individually or in groups. The questionnaire was divided into four main role sectors: (1) Acting Toward Pupils; (2) Acting Toward Colleagues: (3) Acting Toward Parents; and (4) Acting Toward Community. Five responses were provided for each role statement: (1) definitely should; (2) preferably should; (3) may or may not; (4) preferably should not; and (5) definitely should not. The teachers were each given five copies of the questionnaire. One of the copies stated "I think that an elementary school teacher . . ." and the other four, asked the teacher to give her opinion as to how each of the other groups would expect a teacher to behave. Community "B's" respondents were administered still another c0py carrying the lead phrase, "I think that most elementary school teachers . . ." while communities "A" and "C's" respondents lead phrase was "I think that most elementary school teachers would say that an elementary school teacher . . ."1 An analysis of the data broadly indicates that: (l) the range of levels of agreement were from no agreement to full agreement, both from each populations view and from each population's perceptions of the other populations views; (2) instead of a relatively constant level of agreement there appears to be infinite levels of agreement, 1Ibid., pp. 10-12. 36 with the scores distributed on a continuum from low to high for each of the populations in each of the communi- ties; (3) the means of the scores on agreement tended to center around 50 per cent; (4) when each population is considered from population to population the levels of agreement tend to be constant; (5) from school to school the levels of agreement differed to a greater degree than from one school district to another; and (6) the size of the community had no positive relation on the level of agreement.1 Related Research on Expectations A study of the role expectations and perceptions of school principals was conducted by Sweitzer et a1., under the Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education. A major assumption of the study was that a principal's relationship with others is influenced by the people who perceive the principal.2 The authors used selected features from theories by Getzels and Guba (Nomothetic-Idiographic theory), Ralph M. Stogdill, and Bruce J. Biddle, instruments developed by Schutz and Osgood were also used. Twenty—one different school districts in Oklahoma were selected on the basis of size, kind of community, and economy of area 1Ibid., pp. 14-15. 2Sweitzer, op. cit., p. 386. 37 for the study. One elementary and one secondary principal from each principal's immediate superior (superintendent) and all teachers of the respective principal's schools were included as subjects. An instrument derived from the design of the research was administered to all subjects.1 The dimensions that the instrument covered were: (1) role expectations, (2) role perceptions, (3) the role expectations and role perceptions that the principal attributed to others (i.e., teachers, superintendents), (4) the expectations that the principal felt others should hold for his role, (5) the interpersonal need-disposition of all subjects, (6) the general social values, (7) the morale, (8) the consistency of the decisions preferred, (9) the importance of the principal's various tasks, and (10) the principal's perception of his total work situ- ation.2 An analysis of the principals' responses showed that secondary principals viewed their role quite differ— ently than the elementary principal in terms of general social values. Elementary principals displayed a greater need to include others. Both elementary and secondary principals had similar perceptions of expectations of their respective teachers while they differed in the expec- tations each attributed to his respective superintendent. Both groups of principals felt that teachers and 2 Ibid. Ibid., pp. 386-87. 38 superintendents should hold similar expectations as to their role of school principal. Secondary principals held a much wider View of community than did the elementary principals who tended to view only as community the area which their particular school served. In defining their role, the principals tended to be consistent with both groups correctly identifying those expectations they attributed to teachers. Elementary principals perceived themselves as being "superior and subordinate oriented" while secondary principals saw themselves only "sub- ordinate oriented."l Superintendents and teachers held similar roles for both principals' groups in the areas of Nomothetic and Idiographic behavior and task performance. All three respondent groups (i.e., principals, superintendents, and teachers) tended to agree in the way they thought a principal should behave. Teacher morale was found to be prOportionate to the size of the school, the larger the school the higher the morale. The expectations of super- intendents operated as sanctions on both principals' groups, but the teachers' expectations only operated as sanctions on the secondary principals. Principals and teachers seemed to desire an unstructured and dependent relationship, shying away from exercising positive lIbid., pp. 387-90. 39 leadership or from exerting control while at the same time wanting to be controlled. 1 The authors state that the study points to the following conclusions: 1. . . . the importance of the "middle management" dimension of the principal's position in that what is appropriate behavior for a principal as a sub- ordinate . . . may not always be appropriate behavior for a principal as the administrative superior of his teachers. School principals need to recognize that what they think others expect of them may not be what others really expect. Principals have some responsibility for discovering the nature of the expectations of perceptions others have for their role since these conditions vary somewhat from school to school. . . . a need to clarify the patterns of decision making in a school system in terms of appropriate allocations of authority and control. Both superintendents and teachers need to maintain communication with school principals in order that all may arrive at some general con- sensus as to one another's interdependent roles. Decisions regarding the selection and assignment of a school principal should take into consider— ation the specific nature of the expectations others hold for that specific principal. Preparation and inservice education programs for school administrators should consider the behavioral dimensions of the job as well as the substantive elements of given administrative tasks.2 The above study was conducted as a pilot study by Sweitzer and a research staff from Oklahoma State Uni- versity under the auspices of the Cooperative Research Branch, United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and welfare. The following study was Ibid. 21bid., pp. 390-91. 40 conducted under the same auspices and also as part of the National Principalship Study. The study was sponsored by Harvard University and performed under contract with the Cooperative Research Branch, United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and welfare by Neal Gross, Robert Dreeben, and a staff of research associates. The study "focused on the effects and determinants of three aspects of the principal's role behavior: Closeness of super- vision, support of innovations, and involvement of parents in school affairs."1 In order to exclude principals who might have teaching responsibilities the population for the study included only principals in cities of over 50,000 or more during the 1960-61 school year. Five hundred and eight principals were finally selected through random sampling procedures.2 The respondent groups consisted of the principals, teachers under the principal's supervision, and the principal's own immediate administrative supervisor. Five research instruments were used and included: the Principal's Background Questionnaire, the Principal's lNeal Gross, Robert Dreeben, et al., The Role Behavior of School Principals (Harvard Un1vers1ty Press, 1965). 2Ibid., Chapter 3, p. 4. 41 Role Questionnaire, the Higher Administrator's Question- naire, the Teacher's Questionnaire, and open-ended Personal Interview. Each questionnaire had five response cate- gories: (a) Absolutely must, (b) Preferably should, (c) May or may not, (d) Preferably should not, and (e) Absolutely must not.1 Coupled with the above mentioned focus on the effects and determinants of the principal's role behavior the study also was concerned with the possible impact of school level (i.e., elementary, junior high, and senior high). Empirically, the three aspects of the study were handled in two parts. Part one was an effort to find the relationship (positive or negative) between the principal's closeness of supervision, support of innovation, involvement in school affairs, and the effects of the principal's role behavior on the overall operations of schools, in par- ticular, teacher morale, teacher effort, and pupil academic achievement. A positive relationship was found in all areas at all levels but for the exception of no relationship at the elementary level between teacher morale and closeness of supervision. Additionally, no relationship was found in the area of pupil academic achievement and its relation to principal's support of lIbid., Chapter 3, pp. 7-8. 42 innovation and involvement of parents in school affairs both at the elementary and senior high school levels.1 Part two was an effort to establish relationships between the same variables of closeness of supervision, support of innovation and involvement of parents in school affairs but in relation to the determinants of role behavior patterns, specifically, whether variations in social and psychological conditions are related to the extent to which the principal's role behavior patterns conform to the expectations that principals hold for themselves. Positive relationships were found in the teachers' expectations, higher administrators expec- tations and in the principal's self-expectations in all three areas of closeness of supervision, support of innovation, and involvement of parents in school affairs at most of the school levels.2 Related Research on Role Conflict A sizeable portion of the study conducted by Neal Gross, et a1., on a sample of superintendents in New England was devoted to role conflict. The authors determined that there are three bases for differentiating the problems of role conflict. One is the incompatible expectations that an observer may perceive, as opposed to lIbid.' Chapter 9' pp. 1-9. ZIbid. 43 expectations that are incompatible as they may be per- ceived by an incumbent of a particular position. The actor or incumbent may or may not be aware or even perceive the supposed incompatibilities while the observer may note "what appears to be" conflicts in expectations. A second basis for differentiation, is that an actor or incumbent must occupy simultaneously two or more positions for conflict to occur, while the opposite of this is that an actor does not necessarily have to occupy two or more positions in order for conflict to occur. The third differentiation is similar to the second in that it is between those who specify that a particular expectation must be legitimate and those who do not make this type of specification.1 For purposes of their study the authors hold that under the first differentiation only those incompatible expectations that are perceived by the actor are valid, inasmuch as if the actor is unaware of the expectations the situation is minimized or residual. In reference to the second differentiation the authors do not consider that there is any considerable difference as to whether or not the conflict arises from the actor occupying multiple positions or if by his occupying a single position. The important thing being that there are incompatible expec- tations. For the third differentiation, the authors lGross, op. cit., pp. 244-46. 44 similarly contend that there is no difference as to whether or not the expectations are legitimate or illegitimate.l The authors then experimented with various techniques for eliciting the kinds of role conflicts that might be faced by a superintendent. The technique finally settled upon centered around four situations involving the problems with which all superintendents must eventually deal. The problems concerned "(1) the hiring and promotions of teachers, (2) the superintendents allocation of his after-office hours, (3) salary increases for teachers, and (4) the priority the superintendent gives to financial or educational needs in drawing up the 2 school budget." Three alternative expectations were offered for each of the above mentioned situations. The following is an example of the expectations used for the first situation, that of Hiring and Promotion of Teachers. A. Expect me to recommend the hiring and promotion of teachers and other school employees on the basis of merit only. B. Expect me to give Special consideration to their preferences in recommending the hiring and promotion of teachers and other school employees. C. Have no expectations either way regarding whom I should recommend for hiring and promotion. The superintendents then were to consider eighteen groups or individuals (i.e., politicians, parents, teachers, the press) for each of the situations and 1 2 3 Ibid., p. 252. Ibid. Ibid. 45 indicate which of the expectations, A and/or B, or C, each of the groups or individuals expected in each situation of the superintendent. The authors found that in the area of hiring and promotion of personnel, 71 per cent of the superintendents perceived role conflict while 29 per cent perceived congruency or no conflict. In the allocation of time situation 53 per cent perceived role conflict and 47 per cent did not. Recommendation of teachers' salaries found 88 per cent perceiving role conflict and 12 per cent perceived role conguency. In the last situation, that of budget recommendations, 91 per cent felt there was role conflict and 9 per cent did not.1 The authors also tested the following hypothesis: Position incumbents who perceive that they are exposed to role conflict will derive less gratification from the occupancy of their position than position in- cumbents who do not perceive they are exposed to role conflict.2 From the hypothesis they were able to specify three predictions for each of the four situations (i.e., Personnel Hiring and Promotion, Time Allocation, Teacher Salary Recommendations, and Budget Recommendations). 1. Superintendents who perceive that they are exposed to role conflict will feel less satisfied with their jobs, 2. They will feel less satisfied with their careers, and 3. They will worry more than superintendents who do not perceive their exposure to incompatible expectations. l 2 Ibid., p. 259. Ibid., p. 275. 3 Ibid. 46 The following are results from tests on each of the predictions and for each of the above-mentioned situations. Job Satisfaction—-The mean scores of those super- intendents who perceived role conflict were lower than those who perceived no role conflict. In all but the time allocation situation the differences were significant and tended to support the hypothesis and prediction number one . Career Satisfaction--Although the difference in the mean scores tended to support the hypothesis and prediction number two, the differences were not significant in any of the situations. Anxiety or Worryr—The mean scores here were significant only for the time allocation and Budget Recommendations situations. Superintendents perceiving role conflict did worry and were more anxious than those who did not. The hypothesis and prediction number three were upheld except in the situation of Personnel Hiring and Promotion and Teacher Salary Recommendations. 47 Summary The purpose of this chapter was to review the literature in the (1) Theoretical and Conceptual Development of Role Theory; (2) Concepts of Role Conflict, Role Consensus, and Role Expectations; and (3) the Research Studies of Role Analysis in Education. Role analysis has been employed extensively by students of the social sciences and continues to hold a key position in sociology, social psychology, and cultural anthropology. Role carries the two assumptions of orientation and prescription. The theories of role presented were (1) the Nomothetic-Idiographic theory by Getzels and Guba; (2) the FIRO theory by Shutz, and (3) the Role Conflict Resolution Theory by Gross, Mason, and McEachern. The concepts of role conflict, role consensus, and role expectations, and how they related to one another were presented. Varying definitions and expectations of a particular role can result in role conflict. Role conflict can be said to be maximum disagreement dissensus while consensus can be termed to be maximum or unanimous agreement. Four research studies of Role Theory in Education were presented: (1) Foskett's study on the concept of role consensus as it pertains to the role of elementary school teachers. (2) Sweitzer's study on the 48 expectations and perceptions of the role of the school principal. (3) Gross's study focused on the effects and determinants of closeness of supervision, support of innovation, and involvement of parents on the role behavior of principals. (4) Gross's study of the role of the school superintendency in New England. The next chapter is a presentation of the procedures and methods applied in this study. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF STUDY Introduction The author's purpose in this study was to identify and analyze the role expectations held for the position of Director of the eleven Centers for Community Education Development by certain specific reference groups. It was assumed, based on constructions of role analysis, that the role of Center Director would be perceived differently by various reference groups, and, as a result there would be some actual or perceived role conflict. The study centered around the position of Center Director because of the often made statement that this position is pivotal to the further implementation and future success of Community Education. In order to accomplish the analysis, the major duties, functions, and responsibilities associated with the position of director were identified. A questionnaire was subsequently devised and mailed to a sampling of 49 50 respondent groups. The questionnaire was collected and the expectations of each of the respondent groups were recorded. Perceived conflict scores were computed and tested for significance with reference to differences among each of the respondent groups in both the areas of performance and attributes. Design of the Study Population The population consists of all present Centers for Community Education Development which at the time of this investigation numbered eleven and were located on the campuses of the following colleges and universities: 1. Alma College, Alma, Michigan 2. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 3. Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana 4. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 5. Eastern Connecticut University, Willimantic, Connecticut 6. Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan 7. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida 8. Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan 9. San Jose State College, San Jose, California 10. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 11. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 51 Sample The following respondent groups constitute the sample surveyed: 1. Eleven Center Directors, one each at the above mentioned locations. 2. Eleven deans of the colleges or administrative equivalent where each of the Centers is located. 3. Ten department chairmen or administrative equiva- lent in each of the colleges where each Center is located (only ten were surveyed because Eastern Connecticut State College does not have a department chairman or administrative equivalent). 4. A random sampling of five local superintendents offered services by each of the eleven Centers or a total of fifty-five superintendents of which forty-three responded. 5. A random sampling of five local community school directors offered services by each of the eleven Centers or a total of fifty-five community school directors, of which forty-seven responded. The reference groups were selected after several personal interviews with Center Directors and subsequent to a survey done with all eleven directors participating (see Appendix B). The survey asked the directors to specify on a scale from 1 to 5 their choice from a list of those people who would have the most contact and would provide the greatest in-put as to the role of the director. 52 Subsample Analysis of Demographic Data Center Directors Eleven or 100 per cent of the Center Directors surveyed responded and an examination of the demographic data yielded the following: The average age of the directors was forty-six The average number of years in their present position was three years. The average number of years that they had been familiar with the activities of the Center was Three had completed a master's degree, seven had doctorates, and one had an Education Specialist Nine of the eleven received their respective degrees in Educational Administration, one in Recreation Education, and one in Communications. 1. years. 2. 3. four. 4. degree. 5. College Deans All eleven or 100 per cent of the College Deans surveyed similarly responded. The following is a result of an examination of the demographic data gathered: 1. The average age or the College Deans of Adminis- trative equivalence was fifty-two years. The average number of years at their present position was five years. 53 The average number of years they had been familiar with the activities of the Center was three. All eleven had doctorates. Seven of eleven received their degrees in Edu- cational Administration and Higher Education; one in Professional Education; one in English; one in Special Education, Educational Psychology, and Music Education; and one in Counseling and Guidance. Department Chairmen Nine of ten or 90 per cent of the department chairmen surveyed responded and an examination of the gathered demographic data yielded the following: 1. 2. The average age was fifty-nine years. The average number of years they were at their present position was eight. The average number of years they had been familiar with the activities of the Center was two and one half. All nine responding held doctorate degrees. Four of the nine had their degrees in Educational Administration and Higher Education; one in Teacher Education; one in Recreation Education; one in Sociology; one in Secondary Education and Math; and one in the Administration of Special Education. 54 Superintendents Forty-three of the fifty—five or 78 per cent of the superintendents surveyed answered and returned the questionnaire. An examination of the demographic data yielded the following: 1. The average age of the responding superintendents was forty-five years. They had been at their respective positions an average of four and one half years. They had been familiar with activities of their respective Centers for an average of two and one half years. Twenty-six of the 43 held master's degrees; 10 held doctorates, and 7 held educational specialist's degrees. The greatest number tended to hold degrees in -Educational Administration with general repre- sentation in such diverse areas as Business Education, English Guidance, and Counseling, and Elementary Education. Community School Directors Forty-seven out of the fifty—five or 85 per cent of the community school directors surveyed returned the questionnaire yielded the following: 55 The average age for the Community School Director responding was thirty-six years. The average number of years that the group had been at their present positions was two years. Similarly the average number of years they had been familiar with the activities of the Centers was two years. Nine of the 47 respondents held Bachelor's degrees, 36 held Master's degrees, 1 held a doctorate, and 1 held an Educational Specialist degree. Elementary Education and Administration were the two areas of major study most cited with twenty- three. Recreation and Physical Education were next with eight. The others were in areas such as Music, Social Studies, Industrial Education, Science, and Curriculum. Total Sample Analysis of Demographic Data As a group, 121 out of 142, or 85 per cent responded to the questionnaire. A survey of the overall averages yielded the following: 1. 2. The average overall age was forty-six years. The average overall number of years at present position was 4.5 years. 56 3. The average overall number of years familiar with activities of the Center was 2.8 years. 4. Overall 9 of the 121 held bachelor's degrees, 65 of the 121 held master's, 38 of the 121 held doctor's degrees, either Ph.D. or Ed.D., and 9 of the 121 held Educational Specialist's degrees. Measures The instrument was designed to elicit expressed expectations held for the Center Director's role by the above mentioned reference groups. The questions were divided into two major areas: 1. Expectations for Center Director's Performance with sixty-nine items. 2. Expectations for Center Director's Attributes with twenty-seven items. Included also were two Open-ended questions asking the most beneficial and least beneficial aspects of each Center. (See Appendix B, p. 126 for total questionnaire.) Those surveyed were asked to respond on a modified Likert scale (i.e., Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) by circling that response which most approximated how they felt about the Center Director's role in each particular case. The items for the instrument were taken in whole, or in part from an instrument used by Neal Gross, et a1. 57 m mm mm m.~ m.v ov mmmuw>4 a H mm N N wm muouomuflo Hoonom wpflcsEEoo b ca mm m.m m.v mv mucmpcmu Icaummsw . . m . m.~ m cm cmEuHmnu ucmEuHmmmo . . Ha . m m mm momma mmoaaou a n m e m we muouomuwo umucmu .oomm .o.cm .<.z Houcwo coauflmom 60¢ .om no mo moflufi>wuo¢ ucmmoum ommuo>¢ .o.om zufi3 umwaflemm um whom» «0 camm common Deadwood ummnmflm when» mo Hmnfisz ommuo>m Hmossz mmmuo>4 .mmmmum>¢ Hamuo>o Hence on» mo can mommum>¢ msouw mom on» no coaumuqmmwumom canmmnw «Il.a.m mummy 58 in their studies of the school superintendency and from . . . . 1 author dev1sed quest1ons u31ng various sources. The instrument was examined by a group of Mott Interns familiar with both the Community Education concept and the activities of at least one of the Centers in question. Testable Hypothesis There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director among the Center Directors, College Deans, Department Chairmen, Superintendents, and Community School Directors. Hypotheses for Scheffé Post-Hoc Comparisons There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director between the Center Directors and the Deans of Colleges. There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director between the Center Directors and Chairmen of Department. There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director between the Center Directors and Superintendent. There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director between the Center Directors and Community School Directors. There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director between the Deans of Colleges and Department Chairman. 1 Ibid., pp. 331-38. 59 H06: There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director between the Deans of Colleges and Superin- tendents. H07: There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director between the Deans of Colleges and Community School Directors. H 8: There are no significant differences in role ,expectations for the position of Center Director between the Department Chairmen and Superin- tendents. H 9: There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director between the Department Chairmen and Community School Directors. H010: There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director between the Superintendents and Community School Directors. Treatment of Data The data were analyzed in terms of macroscopic role consensus. Macroscopic analysis will refer to the total sample of role definers. Wherein all eleven Center Directors, College Deans, and Department Chairmen (or administrative equivalents), the total sample of superin- tendents, and Community School Directors will be described and investigated as to degree of consensus. A raw score of from 1 to 5 was entered on a Data Coding Form for each item on the questionnaire. Data were then entered on IBM data processing cards, which were, in turn, processed by MSU CDC 3600 Computer, using the UNEQI program, a one way analysis of variance technique for establishing significance of difference among means. 60 The level of significance was set at the .05 level. The Scheffé post-hoc comparisons technique was used on those items which were found to have significant differences. An alpha level of .05 was also set for the post-hoc com- parisons. Summary Eleven Center Directors, 11 College Deans, 10 Department Chairmen, 55 Superintendents, and 55 Community School Directors for a total of 142 were surveyed by questionnaire. One hundred and twenty-one of the 142 responded, forming the experimental sample. The instrument used was taken in part or in whole from a questionnaire by Neal Gross, et a1., and by author devised questions designed to elicit expectations for the role of Center Director. Hypotheses were formed and were tested by using the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory's UNEQI routine, a one-way analysis of variance technique with an alpha level of .05. Post-hoc comparisons employing the Scheffé technique were then run in order to determine significant differences between groups. An alpha level of .05 was also set for the post—hoc comparisons and hypotheses were tested. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Hypothesis An hypothesis was advanced in an attempt to determine the differences in role expectations among Center Directors, College Deans, Department Chairmen, Superintendents, and Community School Directors. An analysis of the differences among the groups on a per item basis was made. A per question One-Way Analysis of Variance, with the level of significance set at .05, was used to test the hypothesis. There are no significant differences in role expectations for the position of Center Director among the Center Directors, College Deans, Department Chairmen, Superintendents, and Community School Directors. On a per item basis it can be expected that about five of the ninety-six items analyzed would be statistically significant if each is tested at the .05 level, even if no differences existed among the groups. Analysis produced sixteen significant items at the .05 level giving evidence that there a£g_differences among the groups. The null hypothesis was subsequently rejected. 61 62 Further analysis of those items found to be significant was accomplished through use of the Scheffé post-hoc comparison technique. Scheffé post-hoc comparisons enabled the researcher to determine which group differ- ences were reSponsible for the significant F-tests and to estimate the magnitude of those differences. Table 4.1 summarizes the results for all sixteen items. Scheffé Post-Hoc Comparisons Scheffé post-hoc comparisons were used subsequent to the null hypothesis (HO) being rejected in order to establish where the differences existed and between which groups. Ten hypotheses, each involving the comparison of two groups, were formulated and tested for each of the sixteen items which were found to be significant in the prior rejection of the null hypothesis. For each group comparison, e.g., Center Director and College Deans, the Scheffé comparisons were tabulated for the sixteen items and analyzed to determine whether differences on the individual confidence intervals indicated overall differ- ences between the two groups. An arbitrary criterion of 50 per cent or eight statistically significant confidence intervals for the sixteen items was set, to indicate differences between the two groups.1 lGross, op. cit., pp. 35-103. 63 mooo.ov owA.AA o0A\v noo.n vom.n nun.“ who.A np~.n :10: on on o 0 AA 2 .oouooo o.uouooo 05.! .nm spo.A h~m.o woo.o vva.o voo.o .a.m mooomov can.» 0AA\v ono.~ om~.u hoo.~ Aoo.n ooo.v can: .ucAAu ocAquA> :A vouuouousA vv ov 9 AA AA 2 aquuuuAc A0020. ou ocean 06A>0fia .mn coo.o oov.o vmn.o nov.o mo~.A .o.m .coAuausvn huAcallou voo.o moo.v m0A\v nnw.A nos.A who.A cos.A onw.~ coo: u:IEOAalA 0» ocAAAA) oquuuuAv AaooA M. on o OA AA 2 o» nausea coon. ovA>oua ou hunch on .nn .coAu-cwldouAa ono.o mon.o coo.o ow~.A Aoo.A .o.m and oswnAaua no coAuA>Ao quOnoum moo.o vho.n ~0A\v voa.~ Aoo.n smo.n AAA.v «SA.n :40: coAunvcso~ ago: on» «o nouooqu 0:0 cu nv pm a o AA 2 aAcha cAnAuCOAuOn >A0>AuauqucAivo In .An vAa.o onc.o Amo.o oun.o ooo.A .a.m .cdoa u0\o:a Aoo.o aao.m «OAxv aao.n Avm.~ om~.~ omm.A sms.A can: :qauAanu uculuuaawo ecu 0» AAcAul no nn 5 a AA 2 oAnAocomnou onsAvauqucABua In .om ooo.o omn.o vmn.o oAm.o -m.o .o.m ovo.o vom.~ .OAA\v hmo.A mno.A who.A ooo.A mmv.A :10! .unoauou com: cannon ouunouou I v. on o oA AA 2 .- mucquAOum )oAA0u ou oAnoAAu>o on .o. .noacoa uo IIAu o>Aocouuo mAa.o omo.A oAA.A who.A ooA.A .o.m wcAvA>oun uncuon uuuAnuaAv A00:0u sno.o voo.~ FOA\v aAm.A mo~.~ msn.~ oov.~ aAm.A coo: «0 nude or» :0 :oAuousvu huAcslaou 0» vv on a oA AA 2 ucoEuAsEoo uA ouonu 0H5. aAouaAOnnu 0x1: .nv ooh.o hou.o nov.o oAm.o .o.m .uunu- :oAuavcaom ~oo.o ~nm.v AAA\v ovA.~ muA.~ om~.A oov.A mvm.A cue: uuox one .coluAnzu acnluucnuo 5 3 o 3 AA 2 o» 3.3.?» c338: .3253 Sign .3 ovo.o ann.o soo.o nmm.o noA.A .o.m vvo.o ovm.~ AAA\v Aoo.v «ws.n ons.m oom.v ooo.v coo: .xAco Ao>oA ouaavauouovcs 0:0 u- vv «v o OA AA 2 :oAuuusua auacdlflou :A noousoo nod-9 .on .noanoA coAuauouw AuAnSIlou oho.o omm.° hwm.o oAn.o mov.o .o.m anauu on: mono-Ac 0» cucunuu-Acqlvd vAo.o sm~.n ~AA\v mah.A omm.A 0mm.A 00A.A uaA.A can: uuAuuqu AoooA uOu ooAuAcaunoaao Qualoua co Av a 0A AA 2 can coAn cu quAAnAucomnou on» cadon< .An nnA.A mvo.o Aco.o ~¢~.A vna.o .o.m .acouAqu AaooA Iouu vno.o can.“ vAA\v w~..~ onh.A mnA.~ mn~.~ mmv.u coo: Iaoo >~I :oAn: nchloo oAnchaaouc: av «v a AA AA 3 an. uncAoon pecan ouAcAuou a .118 .mn «v0.0 mun.o oom.o num.o bov.o .o.m ooo.o uno.n mAA\v nvo.~ «no.A row.A mnv.A nn~.A can: .ucha av no a AA AA 2 cocoa ocoA uoacn :0 O>Ia can nvo>oa .o ovo.A vAo.o oov.A o~A.A nmo.A .o.m nco.o ms~.v AAA\v ohn.n omv.« mnn.n oom.n -~.n :10: .uuoa - coco unaOA ow «v a AA a z u. unsouu uA>Au uoflql AAc Du Adena .. .quAu can :A oovoAaocx noo.a ~w~.v oAAxv moo.A nop.A vvv.A nn~.A noA.A coo: con->00 0» ucAuolOuuc can on: pv nv 9 AA AA 2 uuonuulouou AUA) aAocAAAA: oucuonooo .0 moo.o ohm.o nno.o ovo.a aAa.o .o.m vmo.o ave.“ w0A\v Aho.o Aon.n -~.A oon.v coo.n snot .noaucAouonnn «A: «0 OuAA A. A. o oA oA z Anna-nun as» ea as. Asunouaa - mod: .n moo.A vno.o nnn.o mov.o pov.o .o.w .uouacAvMOASu uo Ado-Aldav Aao.o con.“ AAAxA -o.~ oom.A AAA.A ~¢A.A n-.A can: no .aoauonoua .uaclucAonno 3 av 9 AA AA 2 in» uOu oSOuu¢vfllv00u 08.! .A AuAAAndAOHm nuAunAUIum .~.a .qu accuse» .uAanu anon .qu oonaoAuAcuAu .u. Aconum -cAuonsm .uaoo oooAAou noucoo .alou .QlouA unaoAuAcuAu soouuAa AA. uOu uncouo AA: uncut cos-Aud> uo IA->A1:< Adriano no ouAauou no had-lsaoa.A.v HAI.o mmm.o vom.o mwm.o .o.m oAA.o Amm.A AAA\v AAA.¢ va.v mam.m omo.q mcm.v cent on me we a AA AA 2 emm.o ho>.o oAm.o hvo.o «no.0 .o.m mmo.o mmo.~ moA\v oAA.o chm.n mmm.m mn~.v cmm.e com: um vq on m AA AA 2 wom.o moo.o emm.o mvm.o ohm.o .o.m mvm.o hem.o ~AA\v -o.~ mno.~ ooo.~ oom.~ NmA.~ cum: mm we Av m oA AA 2 aAo.A mmo.A ooo.A vam.o oAA.A .o.m ooA.o mam.A oAA\v oAm.m mo~.m AAA.A ooo.v mom.m coo: mN be me m AA AA 2 ohm.o moe.o mov.o omn.o mmA.A .o.m mmo.o mmo.~ mAA\v 0mm.m omm.m omn.m ~n~.v ooo.v coo: vN he no m AA AA 2 ano.o Amm.c non.o vom.o com.o .o.m am~.o Avm.A AAA\v ¢v~.v va.v AAA.A omo.~ mh~.v coo: MN me No a AA AA 2 can.A moo.o ovm.o ~5~.A vmm.c .o.m emo.o mo~.~ «AA\v mmv.~ mmn.A mNA.~ mn~.~ vmv.~ coo: «w be me m AA AA 2 .o.m m~A.o nvm.A oAA\v omo.~ vv~.m ooo.~ coo.A oo~.~ coo: Aw we Ae m oA oA z mvm.o oom.o mem.o mam.o 0Ao.A .o.m «Am.o vm~.o mAA\v mmw.~ «Am.~ mne.~ ooh.~ h~h.~ coo: ow no no a oA AA 2 wmm.o nnn.o mmm.o emm.o oom.o .o.m wom.o ~vw.o oAA\v hum.~ oho.~ -~.~ ewn.~ com.~ can: «A me me m AA AA 2 auAAAoenoum moAunAueum .m.o .qu ucoocou .qucu ceoo .qu noses: ooceOAuAcoAm um. Aoocom :cAuoocm .uooo omoAAou uoucou coAueeco .sEou . .ouscAucooun.A.< mecca I’ll'lliil‘ii‘ 114 ooa.A who.A ooo.A mAe.A me~.A .o.m m-.c oNe.A AAA\e mwm.m nmm.n soo.~ ccm.n ooo.n coo: mm ee we a 0A AA 2 emo.o eem.o oom.o eAm.o -m.o .o.m m-.o one.A MAA\e moh.A mam.A new.A ooe.A eme.A see: pm we me a oA AA 2 he>.o wom.o oom.o nwm.o nmo.o .o.m mmA.o omm.A MAA\e Num.A ~Am.A new.A oom.A mem.A see: on me me a OA AA 2 mmo.o mem.o oom.o oAm.o enm.o .o.m Awm.o ~om.o eAA\e oom.A aAe.A how.A ooe.A mem.A coo: mm me me a oA AA 2 mon.o oom.o ~mn.o mmo.A omA.A .o.m AFN.o mom.A eAA\e omm.A ebo.A amm.A oo~.~ Amo.~ coo: em me me a oA AA 2 ~ea.o oew.o moo.A oAm.o -m.o .o.m 55A.o er.A NAA\e NmA.e Ahc.e ooo.e oom.e mem.e coo: mm we we a oA AA 2 mwn.o mAn.o ham.o oAm.o -m.o .o.m meo.o mo~.~ eAA\e AAm.A se>.A eee.A ooe.A eme.A coo: ~m we me a oA AA 2 wnm.o omm.o hmm.o oAA.o eoe.o .o.m er.o nm~.n NAA\e man.A mmm.A mmm.A ooA.A NmA.A coo: Am ee me a 9A AA z om>.o omm.o mee.c ham.o umm.o .o.m Amm.c ea~.o MAA\e mom.A mmm.A omn.A oom.A eme.A see: on me me a oA AA 2 mnm.o mee.o nmn.o hee.o -m.o so.m eom.o eN~.A oAA\e Nsm.A emm.A mom.A nwn.A mem.A see: a~ we me a AA AA 2 auAAAneooum noAunAueum .m.o .qu ucoocou .uAccO seen .qu mooeoz ooceuAuAcmAm am. Aoocum ucAuoosm .umoo emoAAou noncoo cOAuaoso .sEou .ooomuucooll.A.4 Hand? 115 eeA.A 000.0 0A0.0 0N0.0 00A.A .o.m 050.0 N00.A 0AA\e AAO.N ee~.0 0N0.N 000.0 A00.0 newt be «e Ae 0 0A AA 2 A0h.0 A00.0 00e.0 00e.0 NN0.0 .o.m e00.0 000.0 NAA\e 000.A 000.A 00>.A 000.A e0e.A new: 0e he Ae 0 0A AA 2 000.0 000.0 00e.0 0A0.0 NN0.0 .o.m «00.0 ~00.e AAA\e meA.N 00A.N 00>.A 00e.A 0e0.A new: me he 0e 0 0A AA 2 .000.0 000.0 A00.A eA0.A ANN.A .o.m 00A.0 A00.A 00A\e 0e0.0 000.0 050.~ 000.0 000.~ new! ee 0e 00 0 0 AA 2 000.0 0A0.0 00e.0 Nme.0 00~.A .0.m 00A.0 000.A 00A\e e00.~ 000.~ 000.A 000.A 0e0.N :00: 0e 0e 00 0 0A AA 2 A00.0 ewh.0 0A0.0 00e.0 00A.A .o.m 0Ae.0 000.0 00A\e 000.A A00.~ 000.A 000.A 0A0.A Emu: me 0e 00 0 0A AA 2 000.A 000.A 0Nh.0 000.0 0NA.A .n.m 00h.0 eAe.0 AAA\e 00N.N A00.N eee.~ 000.A e00.~ Geo! Ae ee me a 0A AA 2 heh.0 0Ah.0 500.0 0A0.0 e00.0 .n.m e00.0 00A.~ NAA\e 0hA.e 0eA.e 005.0 00e.e 000.e and: 0e 0e we 0 0A AA 2 0e0.0 000.0 000.0 h~0.0 00A.A .a.m ee0.0 0e0.~ AAA\e A00.e 000.0 060.0 000.e 000.e sec: 00 ee Ne a 0A AA 2 huAAAndnoum mOAumAueum .m.a .on acovcou .uAdnu ammo .MAO Hflnfiflz cop—Bah Hnmflm s We HOOSOW IGMHQQAAm . HQQD OUOHHOU HOHGOU “000.08 .EEOU 6353804: .A.¢ an. 116 0e0.0 0A0.0 eA0.A 0A0.A 0A0.A .o.m 0A0.0 000.0 0AA\e 000.0 e00.0 eee.0 000.0 0e0.0 coo: 00 0e 0e 0 0A AA 2 000.0 0e0.0 000.0 00A.A e00.0 .o.m 0eA.0 000.A AAA\e A00.A A00.0 AAA.0 A00.0 0A0.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 000.A 000.0 000.0 ee0.0 e00.0 .o.m 0000.0v 000.0 0AA\e 000.0 000.0 000.0 A00.0 000.e coo: 00 ee 0e 0 AA AA 2 0e0.0 000.0 000.0 A00.0 000.0 .o.m 00e.0 000.0 eAA\e 0e0.A 000.A 000.0 A00.0 000.A coo: e0 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 Ae0.0 e00.0 00e.0 000.0 e0e.0 .o.m 00A.0 000.A 0AA\e 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.A 00A.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 0A AA 2 000.0 00e.0 000.0 00e.o 000.A .o.m e00.0 000.e 00A\e 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.0 coo: 00 0e 00 0 0A AA 2 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.A A00.A .0.0 000.0 e00.0 00A\e e00.0 A00.0 000.0 AAA.e 00A.0 coo: A0 0e 00 0 0 AA 2 eA0.0 000.0 A00.0 000.0 000.A .o.m A00.0 000.0 00A\e 000.0 0e0.0 000.0 000.A 000.A coo: 00 0e 00 0 0 AA 2 000.0 000.0 000.0 0A0.0 000.0 .0.0 0e0.0 e00.0 0AA\e 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.A e0e.A coo: 0e 0e 0e 0 0A AA 2 0A0.0 000.A 00A.A 000.A 00A.A .0.0 000.0 ee0.0 00A\e 0A0.A 000.0 000.0 00e.0 0A0.A coo: 0e ee 00 0 0A AA 2 0oAAAooooum ouAueAuoum .m.o .qu ucoocou .quco coon .qu noose: oucoOAuAcoAm cm. Aoocom ucAuoosm .udoo oooAAou uoucoo coAueoso .EEoo .ooscAucounl.A.¢ Manda 117 000.A e00.A eA0.A 00e.0 ee0.A .o.m 000.0 ee0.0 00A\e e00.0 000.0 eee.0 000.A A00.0 coo: 00 ee 00 0 0A AA 2 00e.0 e0e.0 000.0 000.0 e00.0 . .0.m 0A0.0 e00.0 0AA\e 000.A 000.A 000.A 0A0.A 000.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 AA AA : 000.A 000.0 0AA.A 000.A 00e.A .o.m 0e0.0 000.0 00A\e 000.0 000.0 000.0 00A.0 e00.0 coo: e0 0e 00 0 AA AA : 000.0 000.0 000.0 0e0.0 000.0 .0.0 00A.0 000.A 0AA\e 000.A 000.0 000.A 000.A 0e0.A coo: 00 ee 0e 0 AA AA 2 eeA.A 000.A A00.0 000.0 000.A .o.m 0A0.0 A0e.A 0AA\e AA0.0 000.0 AAA.0 e0e.A A00.0 coo: 00 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 Ae0.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 e0e.0 .0.m 00A.0 0A0.A 0AA\e 00e.A 0e0.A 000.A 0e0.A 00A.A coo: A0 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 0e0.0 0e0.0 000.0 000.0 e00.0 .0.0 000.0 000.A eAA\e 000.A 000.A 000.0 0e0.A 0A0.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.A .0.m 000.0 0A0.0 AAA\e 00A.0 000.0 eee.0 00A.0 000.0 coo: 00 0e 0e 0 0A AA 2 0A0.0 000.0 Aee.0 000.0 e00.0 .0.0 0A0.0 000.0 eAA\e e00.A 000.A 000.A 0A0.A 000.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 >0AAAooooum moAquuoum .m.o .qu ucoocou .qucO coon .qu nonlcz oocooAuAcoAm sh. Aoocom IcAuodcm .udoo omoAAoo uoucoo cOAuaodO .EEOU .UoccHuc00l4.A.¢ 04:49 118 00e.0 00e.0 Aee.0 000.0 e00.0 .o.m 000.0 000.A AAA\e eA0.A e00.A 000.A e0e.A e00.A coo: 00 ee Ae 0 AA AA 2 000.A 000.A 000.0 e00.0 00e.A .o.m 00e.0 000.0 0AA\e 00A.0 000.0 000.0 00A.0 000.0 coo: 00 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 e00.0 000.0 Ae0.0 00e.0 e00.0 .o.m 00e.0 000.0 0AA\e e00.A 000.A 00A.0 000.A 000.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 tAuAAAnoooum moAunAuoum .m.o .qu ucoocou .qucu cooo .qu moons: oocoOAuAcmAm um. Aoocom ncAuooom .udoo omoAAou uoucou coAueosc .EEou .voccAucOUl0.A.< ”Adda 119 000.0 000.0 Aee.0 00e.0 e00.0 .o.m 00A.0 000.A 0AA\e e00.A 000.A 000.A 000.A e00.A coo: 0 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 000.0 e00.0 000.0 e00.0 00e.0 .o.m 000.0 ee0.A 0AA\e e00.A 0e0.A 000.A e00.A 000.A coo: 0 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 000.0 e00.0 0A0.0 000.0 000.A .o.m 000.0v 00A.AA 00A\e AAO.A e00.0 000.0 000.A 000.0 coo: 0 0e 00 0 0 AA 2 000.A 0e0.0 0A0.0 e00.0 000.0 .o.m 0e0.0 0eA.A 0AA\e 00e.0 A00.A 000.A 000.A 000.A coo: 0 00 0e 0 AA 0A 2 0e0.0 00e.0 000.0 00e.0 0A0.0 .o.m A00.0 00e.0 eAA\e 000.A 00e.A 000.A 000.A 00e.A coo: 0 0e 0e 0 AA 0A 2 0e0.0 00e.0 000.0 000.0 e00.0 .o.m 000.0 e00.0 0AA\e 00e.A 00e.A 000.A 0e0.A e00.A coo: e 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 000.0 000.0 000.0 0A0.0 000.0 .o.w 0eA.0 000.A 00\e 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00A.0 coo: 0 e0 00 0 e 0 z 000.A A00.A 0A0.0 0e0.A 0AA.A .0.0 000.0 0A0.0 AOA\e e00.0 e00.0 000.0 00A.0 000.0 coo: 0 ee 00 0 0 0 .2 000.0 000.0 000.0 0e0.0 000.A .o.m 000.0 eAe.A e0\e 0A0.0 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.0 coo: A 00 00 0 0 0 z :UAAAnonoum moAumAuoum .m.o .qu ucoocou .quco cooo .qu cones: oocooAuAcmAm gm. Aoocom ucAuodcw .udoo oooAAoo uoucou cOAuuoco .Ecoo .ooocAucounu.A.4 040:8 120 0e0.0 0A0.0 Aee.0 e00.0 0A0.0 .o.m 000.0 0eA.A eAA\e 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.A coo: 0A 0e 0e 0 AA 0A 2 AOA.A 000.0 000.0 e0A.A 000.A .o.m 000.0 00A.A 00A\e 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00e.0 coo: 0A Ae 0e 0 AA 0A 2 000.A 000.0 000.0 0AA.A 000.0 .o.m 000.0 0e0.A 00\e 0AA.0 000.0 eA0.~ 000.0 000.0 coo: 0A e0 e0 0 0 m z 000.A A00.0 000.A 000.A 000.0 .o.m A00.0 0e0.0 00A\e 000.0 000.0 000.~ 000.A 000.N coo: 0A 0e 00 0 0 0A 2 000.0 000.0 00e.0 000.0 0e0.0 .a.m 000.0 AOA.A 00A\e 0A0.0 000.0 000.A 000.A 000.0 coo: eA we 0e 0 0A 0A 2 00A.A 000.0 e00.0 A00.0 00A.A .o.m 000.0 000.A 00A\e 000.0 00A.0 000.0 A00.0 000.0 coo: 0A 0e 00 0 AA 0A 2 000.0 e00.0 e0A.A 000.A 000.0 .o.m 000.0 000.A e0A\e 000.0 A00.0 00e.0 000.0 000.0 coo: 0A ee Ae 0 0 0 z 00e.0 e00.0 000.0 00e.0 e00.0 .O.m 0A0.0 e00.0 0AA\e 000.A 00e.A 000.A 000.A e00.A coo: AA 0e 0e 0 AA AA 2 00A.A A00.0 000.0 0eA.A 000.A .n.m 00e.0 000.0 00\e 00e.0 000.0 00e.0 00e.0 0N0.N coo! 0A 00 00 0 0 0 z :uAAAooooun moAunAuoum .m.n .uAn ucoocou .qucU coon .uAn cones: oocoOAuAcoAm gm. Aoocom :cAuoncm .unon oooAAoo uoucou coAueoco .Eeoo . .ooscAucooI .A .4 ounce 121 000.0 A00.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 .n.m 000.0 000.0 0AA\e 000.A 0A0.A 000.A 000.A 0e0.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 0A AA 2 000.A 000.0 0ee.0 00e.0 e00.0 .n.m 000.0 000.0 00\e 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 0e0.0 coo: 00 00 00 0 0 AA 2 eA0.0 00e.0 Aee.0 000.0 e00.0 .n.m 00A.0 000.A 0AA\e 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 0 AA 2 0A0.0 000.0 000.0 000.A 000.0 .n.m 000.0 000.A 00A\e e00.0 000.A AAA.0 AAA.0 eee.0 coo: e0 0e 00 0 0 0 z e0e.0 00e.0 Aee.0 0A0.0 e0e.0 .n.m 000.0 000.0 0AA\e 000.A 000.A 000.A 00A.A 00A.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 0A AA 2 000.0 000.0 000.0 00e.0 000.0 .n.m 000.0 00e.0 0AA\e 000.A 00e.A 000.A 000.A e0e.A coo: 00 0e 0e 0 0A AA 2 000.0 000.0 0A0.0 000.0 000.0 .n.m AOA.0 000.A 0AA\e 000.A 000.A 000.A 000.A e0e.A coo: A0 0e 0e 0 0A AA 2 000.0 e00.0 000.0 A00.0 e00.0 .n.m e00.0 000.A AAA\e e0e.0 Ae0.0 000.0 A00.0 000.0 coo: 00 ee Ae 0 AA AA 2 000.0 00e.0 000.0 e0e.o 000.0 .n.m 000.0 A00.A 0AA\e 000.A 0Ae.A A00.A 0A0.A e0e.A coo: 0A 0e Ae 0 AA AA 2 auAAAnonoun moAumAuoum .m.n .uAn ucoocou .quco coon .uAn nonscz oocooAuAcmAm =0: Aoocom ucAuonom .unon omoAAou uoucoo coAUnooo .EEou .vochucooll.A.< man‘s APPENDIX B LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE [ II {I I . L755 c/I/Iott goumlation QDIOIECtd 5IO MOTT FOUNDATION BLDG FLINT. MICHIGAN 48502 OUG PROCUNIER TELEPHONE 232-9500 IRECTOR, TRAINING AND ousssumanorw March 10, 1971 Arnold Munoz, Mott Intern from Michigan State University is considering a dissertation relating to the role analysis of a Center Director. In our discussion about the topic, we concluded that a survey of persons directly involved with the Center should be under- taken. To aid us in determining the extent of the survey. may we take a few minutes of your time and ask you to indicate the persons you think should be surveyed. Please check the persons whom you think would provide the most valuable in—put in regards to the role of a Center Director. University President College Dean Department Chairman (What Department? j Professors of Education Center Director Superintendents (with whom you are working) Community School Directors Principals (of Community Schools) Teachers (in Community Schools) 122 123 Adults (in the area of a Community School) Mott Interns (Doctoral) Mott Interns (Master's) Mott Foundation (Director of Training and Dissemination) Mott Foundation (Director of Short Term Training Program) Mott Foundation (University Representative Professors) Others (Please list) Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed envelope as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Doug Procunier Arnold Munoz , Mott Intern AM:kr Enclosure 124 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mums-0mm m2: NOT! INSTITUTE POI COW MOW COLLEGE O! IDUCATION 0 317 mcxsou HAIL July 8, 1971 You will no doubt remember a questionnaire you received last May. The questionnaire pertained to a study being conducted by Arnold Munoz on the Role Expectancies held for the Director's of Centers for Community Education Development based at You may have forgotten or you may have misplaced the questionnaire. If you have forgotten I would like to urge you to complete the questionnaire as it is vitally important to the study. If you have mi8placed it, I will gladly send you another copy upon request. I know your time is valuable and I appreciate any and all considerations given to this request. Respectfully, /\. {4‘ 4//// /.75’L’2', Arnold N. Munoz ANM/ fb 125 {Tl/Is dI/Iott goumlation {pro/acts SIO MOTT FOUNDATION BLDG FLINT. MICHIGAN 48502 DOUG PROCUNIER TELEOHONE 232.9500 omrcron, TRAINING AND msszmmxnouv This letter is to ask your help and cooperation in a study being conducted on the Directors of the University Centers for Community Education Development. The study entails an analysis of Role Expectations, and Role Conflict. Mr. Arnold N. Munoz of Michigan State University is conducting the study which has approval of the Director of the Division for Training and Dissemination and the Administra- tion of the Mott Foundation's Projects Office. Since you and your staffs are directly affected by Center's activities, you can help us gain a better understanding of the various expectations held for the Directors. It will take about thirty minutes to complete all the items. When results of questionnaires are reported, neither your name nor the name of your institution of school district will be used. We would appreciate it immensely if you could return the questionnaire in the enclosed, stamped envelope within the next three to five days. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Arnold N. 5% 126 The following demographic data are requested from you. In order to maintain a record'of resoonses the questionnaire is coded, all identifi- cation will subsequently be removed. Responses will not be presented in any form that will identify you, and data will not be presented as an evaluation of work of current or past Center Directors. Title of present position: Number of months or years at present position: years months Number of months or years you have been familiar with activities of Center: years months In what capacity were you employed before present position? What is your highest academic degree obtained? Bachelors Masters Doctorate Other Age at last birthday Major area of study 127 The following statements refer to some asoects of the Center Director's position in the eleven university settings. You are asked to circle the response which most approximates how you feel about the Center Director's role in each case. The following scale will be used. Strongly agree SA Agree A Undecided U Disagree D Strongly disagree SD Not applicable NA Expectations for Director's Performance As a Center Director, Dean of College, Department Chairman (or administrative equivalentl , Superintendent, Community School Director, or member of Training and Dissemination staff, what obliga— tions do you feel the Center Director has, in regard to the following activities ? 1. Make recommendations for the SA A U D SD appointment, promotion, or dismissal of subordinates. 2. Accept full resoonsibility SA A U D SD for the decisions of his subordinates . 3. Keep his office open to all SA A U D SD community members . 4. Write articles for profes— SA A U D SD sional journals which will be of benefit to others in the profession. 5. Keep a watchful eye on the SA A U D SD personal life of his subordinates . all. .| ill I III Ill-I'll 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 128 Cooperate willingly with researchers who are attempt- ing to advance knowledge in his field. Consult with staff members about filling vacant staff positions . Speak to all major civic groups at least once a year. Develop and have on paper long range plans. Seek able people for open positions rather than con- sidering only those who apply. Giye consideration to local values or feelings regarding race, religion, national origin, in filling vacant positions . Seek counsel and advice from influential local citizens. Defend his staff from attack when they try to present the pros and cons of various controversial social and political issues. Secure outside help when changes are being considered. Establish regular channels of communication with local newspapers . Help his staff to get higher salaries. Fight continuously against SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA any local attacks on educational principles or methods which he knows are sound. SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 129 Encourage the formation of local committees to cooperate with the school board in studying school problems. Compile a list of the general characteristics desired in the staff. Occasionally compromise with local pressure groups. Make no major curriculum changes without first seeking approval. Take a definite stand against any unreasonable demands which may come from local citizens. Make changes in Center program without consulting the staff. Take a neutral stand on any issue on which the community is evenly Split. Avoid involvement with factional groups in the community. Read most of the professional journals. Help the Dean and Chairmen resist demands by staff for higher salaries. In drawing up the budget, cost factors are given greater consideration than educational needs. Work on committees sponsored by the state department of education and professional organizations . SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 130 Encourage and assist in the establishment of an adult education program if none exists at the local level. Assume the responsibility to plan and promote opportunities for local district administra- tors to discuss and study Community Education issues. Make regular visits to local school superintendents and their schools. Remain aloof from community issues not effecting his office. Maintain continuous contact with key legislative groups. Actively seek support of service clubs and citizen .SA SA SA SA SA' SA groups for Community Education. Provide ways in which school districts receiving services may evaluate the Center's program. Be familiar with the educa- tional programs carried on by the local school districts. Teach courses relevant to Community Education only. Teach courses in Community Education at the undergraduate level only. Spend most of time on the premises of the Center and/or College or University. Spend most of time in surround- ing community helping school districts interested in Community Education . SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD . ‘.I.Illpl. ill" II II I! III 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. SO. 51. 52. 53. 131 Employ the services of fellow department or college professors as resource persons for the Center. Attend all department meetings when scheduled. Attend all social gatherings of his colleagues from the college and/or department. Submit regular written reports to department chairmen, and Mott Foundation staff. Be on call to Community School Directors in case of sudden need. Where Community School Director has a conflict with principal, step in as mediator. Make absolutely sure there is commitment to Community Education on the part of school districts before providing extensive time or monies. Be available to fellow profes— sors as a resource person upon request. Be administratively respon- sible mainly to the department chairman and/or Dean. Be administratively respon- sible mainly to the Director of the Mott Foundation Projects Division of Training and Dissemination. Be ready to provide "seed money" to local districts willing to implement Community Education. Sponsor regular workshops on Community Education. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 54. SS. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 132 Distribute on a regular basis, SA a newsletter discussing current trends and research on Community Education. Provide funds to school SA districts interested in visiting Flint. Provide support and guidance SA to students writing masters or doctoral thesis on Community Education. Attend all conferences and SA workshops relevant to Community Education. Visit at least one other SA Center once a year. Address local school boards SA regularly as to progress of Community Education program in their schools. Know, understand, and work SA for solutions to problems of various ethnic or racial groups. Plan activities that bring SA together various Community School Directors to share experiences. Be responsible for surveying SA community needs and planning programs, together with local leaders, to meet them. Consult often with the Chair- SA man of the Department Ior administrative equivalentl in matters of planning, scheduling, and operating the activities of the Center. SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 133 64. Take part as .a regular staff member in _a_l__l parts of the college or department program. 65. Have broad knowledge of educational problems outside the realm of Community Educa- tion. 66. Help select and train all per- sons who work in Community Education programs . 67. Address orientation program for new teachers in regard to Community Education's aims and philosophy. 68. Ask help of local business- men in providing materials, supplies and support for districts starting Community Education programs. 69. Serve as resource person to local superintendents. SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD 70. In your opinion what single factor contributes most to the effectiveness of the Center? 71. In your opinion what single factor detracts most from the effectiveness of the Center? 134 Expectations for Center Director's Attributes The job of Center Director is open at x university. What kind of person would you recommend for the position? Use the same scale as before. 1. Married SA A U D SD 2. Outspoken SA A U D SD 3. Church member SA A U D SD 4. A good public speaker SA A U D SD 5. Well informed on modern SA A U D SD educational practices 6. Practical SA A U D SD 7. Have doctor's degree SA A U D SD 8. Skilled in public relations SA A U D SD 9. Tactful SA A U D SD 10. Male SA A U D SD 11. Able to express ideas clearly SA A U D SD 12. Easy-going SA A U D SD 13. Previous success as an educational SA A U D SD administrator l4. EXperienced teacher SA A U D SD 15. Have master's degree SA A U D SD 16. Conservative in dress SA A U D SD 17. A man of intellectual SA A U D SD brilliance 18. Persistent SA A U D SD 19. Sense of values SA A U D SD 20 . Scholarly SA A U D SD 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 135 Dynamic leader Vigorous Works well with other people Attractive personal appearance Businesslike in financial matters Promoted from within the university Indicate by circling one or more, the age that the director would have to be for you to recommend him. *ANF - age not a factor SA SA SA SA SA SA C: C.‘ C.‘ C: C.‘ U U U U U SD SD SD SD SD SD 25-35 35-45 45-55 55- ANF* APPENDIX C LIST OF DIRECTORS, AND UNIVERSITIES; MAP OF REGIONS AND LOCATIONS OF CENTERS APPENDIX C LIST OF DIRECTORS, AND UNIVERSITIES; MAP OF REGIONS AND LOCATIONS OF CENTERS Regional Community Education Center Directors ALMA COLLEGE Mr. Hugh Rohrer, Director ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY Mr. Thomas Mayhew, Director BALL STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Curtis Van Voorhees, Director BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY Dr. Israel Heaton, Director EASTERN CONNECTICUT STATE COLLEGE Dr. Ron Frank, Director EASTERN MIGHICAN UNIVERSITY Dr. Jack Minzey, Director FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY Dr. V. M. (Bill) Kerensky, Director NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Mr. Ben Martin, Director SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE Dr. Tony Carrillo, Director UNIVERSITY OF OREGON Mr. Larry L. Horyna, Director WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Dr. Gerald Martin, Director 136 >twmw223 0;Z<.:.< 3 109m>hom [- 2.033. d come—pup.— "‘llittltllit