A STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY THEODORE GRANT VAN ISTENDAL 1969 This is to certifg that the thesis entitled A Study of Community College Institutional. Research presented by Theodore Grant Van Istendal has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _JZh..D_._ degree in _Adminieration and Higher Education WW W Date Ma¥122f1969 0-169 I ‘1. SUIS’ filpflfl‘flflMWfl. l ‘ LIBRARY IINDERS b ABSTRACT A.STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BY Theodore Grant Van Istendal This study is based on a nationwide survey of institutional research activity within randomly selected community colleges of the United States. A personal inter- view pilot study of 19 selected Midwest and Southeastern institutions preceded a mail questionnaire survey. Ques- tionnaires were mailed to a stratified random sample of 300 of the 626 remaining public junior colleges of the United States listed in the 1968 Directory of the American Associa— tion of Junior Colleges. Responses were received from 210 (70%) of the sample. Institutional size and age were two primary variables used for analysis throughout the study. Institutions were divided on the basis of size with the smaller institutions having less than 1,200 total enrollment and the larger ones 1,200 or more. Division on a basis of age was made with the younger institutions having been founded 1960 or later and the older ones prior to 1960. Differences are reported when the chi square tests are significant at the .05 level. Theodore Grant Van Istendal Findings. (1) Institutional research organization is significantly more formalized in the larger institutions. (2) A variety of different categories of officers and committees were reported as having institutional research responsibilities. (3) Larger institutions reported having a total of 34 full-time researchers and 22 full-time support staff compared to no full-time staff reported by smaller institutions. (4) Larger institutions reported having significantly more advisory committees (47, 44%) than did smaller institutions (21, 23%). (5) Smaller institutions have significantly more of their research initiated by general administration sources. (6) Larger schools reported significantly higher institutional research budget provi- sions than did smaller institutions. (7) Three—fourth or more of the respondents reported doing research in almost all of the sub-categories listed under the six major research categories of: Area Surveys, Community Service, Students, Instruction and Faculty, Fiscal and Administrative, and Inter-Institutional Research. (8) Ranked on the basis of frequency of reporting, institutions reported needs of their institutional research programs in the following order: Fiscal resources and/or personnel, Increased use of institu- tional research findings, Improved coordination, Program of action, and Motivation. Theodore Grant Van Istendal Recommendations. (1) Philosophy, policy, and direc- tion for institutional research should be developed and implemented with adequate organizational structure, staffing, and budgeting. (2) More advisory committees should be (3) Broad participation by faculty and staff in formed. (4) Proper actually doing research should be encouraged. use of research findings should be assured. (5) Institu- tional officers, especially top—level administrators, should make every effort to ensure having a viable institutional research program. (6) Community colleges should avoid a non-research orientation, which may be apprOpriate as far as discovering basic knowledge is concerned; however, in areas of institutional concern where adequate information is needed for responsible institutional decision-making—— research should be encouraged. A STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BY Theodore Grant Van Istendal 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 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my special gratitude to Dr. Max R. Raines, Chairman of the doctoral committee, for his guidance and every assistance throughout this study. A similar eXpression of gratitude is extended to another member of the doctoral committee and Co-director of the dissertation study--Dr. Maryellen McSweeney. I also wish to thank the other committee members, Dr. Van C. Johnson and Dr. John H. Useem, for their helpful counsel and every support. I very much appreciate the assistance and coopera- tion of the Research Consultation Office of the College of Education. This Office provided generous assistance from the inception through to the very latter stages of this inquiry. Also, use of the Michigan State University computing facilities was made possible through support, in part, from the National Science Foundation. A final expression of gratitude is extended to additional individuals who were interviewed and provided eXpert advice in the development and implementation of this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 3 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Institutional Research . . . . . . . . . 4 Community College . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 6 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Antecedents of Twentieth Century Institutional Research . . . . . . . . . . 7 PreAWorld War II Twentieth Century Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Post-World War II Developments . . . . . . . ll Implementing Institutional Research . . 12 Institutional Research Organiza- tions and Research Activity . . . 15 Impacts of Institutional Research 19 Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii CHAPTER The Future of Institutional Research . . Recent Junior College and Related Institutional Research Studies . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . IV. REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS . . . . . Institutional Research Organization, Operation, and Administration . . . . Types of Institutional Research Organization . . . . . . . . . . . Officers to Whom Institutional Researchers Report . . . . . . . . Staffing Patterns and Institutional Research Director Characteristics Institutional Research Organization Age 0 O O O O O 0 O O O C O o O 0 Institutional Research Advisory Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources Initiating Institutional Research Studies . . . . . . . . . Budgeting for Institutional Research Research Categories . . . . . . . . Area Surveys . . . . . . . . . . Community Services . . . . . . . Students . . . . . . . . . . . . iv PAGE 25 27 31 35 35 37 39 41 43 43 47 47 51 52 55 56 59 61 62 62 CHAPTER Instruction and Faculty . . . . Fiscal and Administrative . . . Inter—Institutional Research . . Representative Studies and Respondent Enclosures . . . . Implementation Problems . . . . v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Related Studies . . . . . . . . . . Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . Organizational Patterns . . . . Research Categories . . . . . . Implementation Problems . . . . Comparison of Findings with Other Studies . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Studies BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A. CORRESPONDENCE TO CHIEF ADMINISTRATORS OF INSTITUTIONS IN THE STUDY AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . B O TABIES 0 O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C. SELECTED COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 63 65 66 67 68 73 73 74 75 76 77 80 81 82 83 85 88 91 98 107 133 TABLE 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Page STATES INCLUDED IN EACH OF THE.FIVE REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS STth 0 O D O C O O O DISTRIBUTION OF STUDY POPULATION, SAMPLE, AND RESPONDENTS BY REGION AND INSTITUTION SIZE WITH RESPONDENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF STRATUM SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . DISTRIBUTION OF STUDY RESPONDENTS BY REGION AND INSTITUTION SIZE WITH RESPONDENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE . . . . . . DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND AGE . . . . . . . . . . . 109 TYPES OF ORGANIZATION FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BY INSTITUTION SIZE . . . . . . 110 TITLES OF INDIVIDUALS HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BY FREQUENCY OF MENTION . . . . . . . . . . TITLES OF COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH 112 BY FREQUENCY OF MENTION . . . . OFFICERS TO WHOM INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS REPORT, BY INSTITUTION SIZE . . . . . . . . 112 SIZE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL STAFF AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTION SIZE . . . . . 113 107 108 109 111 SIZE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH NON-PROFES- SIGNAL STAFF AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTIONAL S IZE o o o o o o o O o o 0 SIZE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL STAFF As REPORTED BY INSTITUTIONAL AGE . . . . 113 113 vi TABLE 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION Page SIZE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH.NON-PROFES- 'SIONAL STAFF AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTIONAL 114 AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISTRIBUTION OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT PRO- FESSIONAL RESEARCH STAFF PER INSTITUTION BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND AGE . . . . . . 114 DISTRIBUTION OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT NON- PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH STAFF PER INSTITUTION BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND AGE . . . . . . 115 DEGREES REPORTED HELD BY INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS BY INSTITUTION SIZE . . . 115 DEGREES REPORTED HELD BY INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS BY INSTITUTION AGE . . . . 116 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTOR MAJORS FOR ALL DEGREES HELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS REPORTED AS HAVING FORMER AND/OR CONCURRENT TEACH- 116 ING ASSIGNMENTS BY SUBJECT AREA . . . . . . . INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS REPORTED AS HAVING FORMER AND/OR CONCURRENT ADMIN- ISTRATIVE ASSIGNMENTS BY ADMINISTRATIVE .AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AGE OF PRESENT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTION . 117 S IZE . C O O C O O O O O O O O O AGE OF PRESENT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTION 117 AGE 0 O O O O O O O O O O O o . .EXISTENCE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES BY INSTITUTION SIZE . . . . . . . 118 .EXISTENCE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES BY INSTITUTION AGE . . . . . . . . . 118 INSTITUTIONS HAVING ADVISORY COMMITTEES BY'PRESENT RESEARCH ORGANIZATION AGE . . . . . 118 117 EXISTENCE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY TYPE 119 vii TABLE 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Page ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP BY INSTITUTION SIZE 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O I O C 119 WAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEES OBTAIN MEMBERS BY INSTITUTION SIZE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES INITIATED BY GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SOURCES BY INSTITUTION . . . 120 SIZE AND INITIATING PERCENTAGE CATEGORIES INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES INITIATED BY FACULTY SOURCES BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND INITIATING PERCENTAGE CATEGORIES . . . . INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES INITIATED BY INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS BY INSTITU- TION SIZE AND INITIATING PERCENTAGE CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . SOURCES INITIATING INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES BY CATEGORIES OF PERCENTAGE OF INITIATION . . . . . . . . . . INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES INITIATED BY GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PERCENTAGE CATEGORIES COMPARED WITH TYPE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH 121 ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . PERCENT ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH INITIATION BY EXISTENCE OF RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE . . . 122 120 120 121 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORY AMOUNTS FOR INSTITUTIONS BY SIZE FOR LAST FISCAL mm C O O O O O O C O O INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORY AMOUNTS FOR INSTITUTIONS BY SIZE FOR THIS FISCAL WAR 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR INSTI- 123 TUTIONS BY SIZE FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR . . . . . 122 122 O O . O O O O O O INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR INSTITUTIONS BY SIZE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORY AMOUNTS FOR INSTITUTIONS BY AGE FOR LAST , 123 FISCAL YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 viii TABLE 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. REPORTED BY INSTITUTION SIZE . Page INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORY AMOUNTS FOR INSTITUTIONS BY AGE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR . .... . . . . . . . . INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR INSTITUTIONS BY AGE FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR 0 O O O O O O O C O I O O C INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR INSTITUTIONS BY AGE FOR THIS FISCAL mAR O O O O O G O O O O O O O O INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL FULL- TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF COMPARED WITH RESEARCH BUDGET FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR . . . . . . . INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL FULL- TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF COMPARED WITH RESEARCH BUDGET FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR . . . . . . 124 124 124 125 125 PROFESSIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF COMPARED WITH RESEARCH BUDGET AS A PER- CENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR . . . . . . . . PROFESSIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF COMPARED WITH RESEARCH BUDGET AS A PER- CENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR . . . . . . . . RESEARCH CATEGORY RESPONSES BY INSTITUTION SIZE 0 o o o o o o o O O O O O O O 0 RESEARCH CATEGORY RESPONSES BY INSTITUTION AGE 0 o o o o o o o o o o o REPRESENTATIVE STUDIES FORWARDED BY RESPONDENTS IN ORDER OF CHECK-LIST CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS 126 126 127 128 129 O O O O O O O 130 NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS REPORTED BY INSTITUTION AGE . . . . . . 130 ix TABLE 51. 52. 53. 54. REPORTED NEEDS OF PROGRAMS COMPARED RESEARCH BUDGET . NEEDS OF COMPARED BUDGET . REPORTED PROGRAMS RESEARCH NEEDS OF COMPARED REPORTED PROGRAMS OPERATING BUDGET REPORTED NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS COMPARED WITH THIS YEAR'S RESEARCH BUDGET AS A PERCENTAGE OF INSTITUTION TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH WITH LAST YEAR'S INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH WITH THIS YEAR'S INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH WITH LAST YEAR'S RESEARCH BUDGET AS A PERCENTAGE OF INSTITUTION TOTAL 0 Page 131 131 132 132 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION STATEgNT 91; THE PROBLEM Higher education is realizing increased pressures from opposing sides-~increasing costs, increasing enrollment and demands for service, and increasing demands from funding and supporting sources for maximum efficiency and produc— tivity. The latter has been especially evidenced at national, state, and local levels in terms of Congress, state legislatures, and local school revenue voters seri- ously questioning and/or electing not to provide needed resources. The efficiency and productivity of our educa- tional institutions have been challenged. In response to these demands, one writer observes: One of the most prominent features on the American higher education landscape is the looming mass known as "Institutional Research.” Besieged on all sides by demands for "excel- lence," hard pressed to justify the soaring costs of their activities, . . . college administrators . . . have given their blessing to a welter of research programs designed to evaluate past and present developments in their institutions. . . .1 Various inquiries have been made into institutional research in higher education generally, and junior college institutional research specifically. There is still an apparent need to obtain more current general data, as well as, additional information on community College institutional research in order that this aspect of junior college activity may be better understood. It is to this segment of higher education, which has had exponential post-World War II growth, to which the focus of this study is directed--the public junior college. PURPOSE 933; THE STUDY It is the purpose of this study to survey institu— tional research activity within randomly selected community colleges of the United States. This study of Community College Institutional Research is for the purpose of learn- ing how community colleges organize, operate, and administer a program for obtaining and processing information on which institutional decisions are made-—ranging from plant— planning to curriculum development. 1Ernest L. Boyer, "The Impact of Institutional Research on the Academic Program," Albany, New York: Office Of University—Wide Activities, State University of New York, 1967, mimeoqraphed. SCOPE g}; THE STUDY This study is concerned only with institutional research in public junior colleges of the United States. This, of course, excludes specific inquiry into institu- tional research of four-year colleges and universities, public or private, and higher education generally. Also, the focus is on public two-year institutions and not in- cluding private junior colleges. Within the institutions studied inquiry is made into only institutional research activity. OBJECTIVES OF: THE STUDY The objectives of this study are: 1. To determine the organizational and Operational patterns of institutional research programs in randomly selected community colleges and to determine the relation- ship of selected variables to the nature of the patterns. By organizational and operational patterns, reference is made to (a) staffing patterns, (b) use of advisory commit- tees, (c) origination of research studies, and (d) budgetary provisions. By selected variables, reference is made to such institutional characteristics as Size of enrollment and institution age. 2. To determine categories of institutional research most commonly done by community colleges; whether outside sources such as consultants are used for making these studies; and the extent to which these are related to such institutional characteristics as enrollment size and age. 3. To determine some of the perceived needs and prOblems of doing institutional research. This includes identifying such needs as resources, coordination, and use of research; and analysis of the extent to which these identified needs are related to such institutional charac- teristics as enrollment size and age. DEFINITION 9;; TERMS Two of the terms used in this study which might benefit from definitive explanation are "institutional research" and "community college.” The literature is rather complete with definitive eXplanations of both of these terms. Only rather brief attention is given to them here. The cover page of the questionnaire for this study and the first two pages of check—list items provide further orientation to the subject as used in this study (Appendix A-4). Institutional Research The definition of institutional research used for Purposes of this study is taken almost verbatim from Stickler's study, which is discussed in the following Chapter. This definition was provided study participants as follows: L‘DL F Institutional research as referred to in this questionnaire pertains to research con- ducted on your campus which is directed toward providing data useful or necessary in the making of intelligent administrative decisions and for the successful maintenance, operation, and/or improvement of your institution. It includes the collection and analysis of data which might be used in preparing the budget, assigning space in buildings, planning the educational program, determining teacher load, admitting .students, individualizing instruction, planning new buildings, etc. Institutional research as here used also includes studies conducted on your campus which pertain to a group (or groups) of institutions of which your institution is one member (e.g., state-wide, regional, or national studies which include your own institution. Community College The definition of community college used for pur- poses of this study is taken from the current practice of referring to two-year public junior colleges as "community colleges." 'A further definitive explanation is provided by the population source of this study. Institutions included in this study are those listed as public junior colleges in the 1968 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colleges. 2W. Hugh Stickler, Institutional Research Concerning Land-Grant Institutions and State Universities, Tallahassee, Florida: Office of Institutional Research and Service, Florida State University, September 1959, pp. 1-2. OVERVIEW gr; THE STUDY Chapter I is the first of five chapters presented in this study. Chapter II is the Review of the Literature. This review follows generally a historical development of insti— tutional research in higher education. There is a final focus on junior college institutional research and studies most directly related to concerns of this study. Chapter III describes the Methodology employed in this study including population and sample description, design of the study, limitations of the study, and orga— nization of the data. Chapter IV is the Report of Findings. Description of institutional research activity is presented and the data is analyzed on the bases of the objectives of the study. .Chapter V presents the Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the study of institutional research activity in public junior colleges. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Until recent decades, literature in the field of institutional research has been rather sparse. Of course, since junior colleges are a Twentieth Century phenomenon, institutional research in junior colleges is especially recent. A historic review of the development of institu- tional research literature provides a basic understanding of institutional research in higher education generally, as well as, the development of junior college institutional research. Primary emphasis is placed on the Twentieth Century with major focus within this period placed on the post-World War II period to present. ANTECEDENTS Q§_TWENTIETH CENTURY INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH The beginnings of institutional research probably go back to the very early history of higher education. Dressel suggested that faculty committees were appointed 1 . . . . Loring M. Thompson, "Institutional Research, Plan- ning, and Politics," The Journal 9§_Experimental_Research, 31:89. Dec. 1962. ‘1- “IF“! centuries ago and the medieval universities probably had faculty members inquiring into problems which affected the . . 2 univerSIty. The early American history of institutional research is noted by Dyer, "Institutional research in American higher education has deep roots to 1701 when Increase Mather, then President of Harvard acted as an educational consultant to the founders of Yale."3 Emphasizing the point that institutional research is not entirely novel, the following is set forth: The idea of institutional research is not new although the designation has not always been thus. Here and there a dean, business manager, registrar, or other officer has for years been making regular and/or occasional institutional studies. Although the illustrations set forth were beginnings of institutional research, Stickler notes, "During the first two or three hundred years of higher education in America, colleges and universities did very little in the way of studying their own operations and problems." 2Paul L. Dressel, personal interview of September 28, 1967. . 3Henry S. Dyer, "Can Institutional Research Lead to a SCIence of Institutions?" The Educational Record, 47:452, Fall 1966. ' 4W. Hugh Stickler, "The Expanding Role of Institu- tional Research in American Junior Colleges," Junior College QQBEEaI, 31:543. May 1961. 51bid., p. 542. AL 3 Club. PRE-WORLD WAR II. TWENTIETH CENTURY DEVELOPMENTS Classic illustrations of successful implementation of institutional research in early Twentieth Century American higher education are those of Stephens College (during this period a two—year college), the University of Minnesota, and the University of Illinois. One source stated, Stephens College . . . has had an organized institutional research service for forty years. The University of Minnesota and the University of Illinois, among others, have operated organized self-study programs for several decades. Concerning Stephens College, Mayhew notes that it made a rather classic study resulting in curriculum effects: One of the earliest institutional research studies was that of W. W. Charters which became the basis for the Stephens College curriculum. He began simply by asking several hundred women to keep detailed diaries of their activities. Later he listed and classified all activities. This eventually yielded nine categories. These became the divisions of the curriculum which were designed to help women do better what they said they actually did.7 In support of both the extent and effectiveness of the Stephens program, Stickler states: Ibid., p. 543. 7Lewis B. Mayhew, "Educational Research, Its Capabilities and Limitations,“ in Invitational Conference OnyEducational Research, Research in_Higher Education: §21§2_§2_Institutional Decisions, New York College Entrance EXamination Board, 1965, pp. 4-5. 10 . . . When I left Stephens College in the late 1940's I was informed by the late W. W. Charter, director of the research service, that somewhere between 800 and 1,000 pieces of institutional research had been completed at that time. Stephens College simply would not be what it is today without its institutional research program. Charters described this kind of research as "educational engineering“-—research designed to be plowed back into the educational program in order to improve the overall operation of the college. Assessment of institutional productivity as measured by follow—up studies of students were rather extensive 10 inquiries made by Eurich9 and Pace of the University of Minnesota. The Vassar studies also assessed the impact of the institution on its students.11 On this foundation of inquiry during the early Twentieth Century, later post-World War II institutional research activity had some established models that had been sustained through national economic depression and world war. These institutions ranging from Stephens to the 8Stickler, Junior College Journal, p. 546. . 9Alvin C. Eurich and Robert C. Pace, A Follow-Up pf Minnesota Graduates from 1928 £9 1936, Minneapolis, Minn.: Univ. of Minn., 1938. loIbid.; and Robert C. Pace, They Went 52 College: AR§EE§YM2£.951 Former University Students, Minneapolis, Minn.: The University of Minnesota Press, 1941, pp. x-xi. llCarl Bereiter, "Some Persisting Dilemmas in the Measurement of Change,” in Chester W. Harris, ed., Problems IB.E§2§Q£§QQ Change. .Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963, p. 11 University of Minnesota would continue to provide leadership to this nation‘s developing organizations of institutional research. POST-WORLD WAR 1.1.1. DEVELOPMENTS It is rather widely acclaimed that the post—World War II period, especially the 1950's and 1960's, is the time of greatest development of institutional research as it is known today.12 Dyer notes that: . . . institutional research is largely a post- World War II phenomenon that got its big boost from the sudden rise in the student population and the sudden availability of foundation money for institutional self-studies. These self- studies planted the idea that a continuing program of self—examination might be useful as a way of keeping institutions fiscally sound and educationally awake. In addition to the social and philosophical consid- erations of more people wanting to go to college after World War II, and the demands made for improved higher education, there was a very attractive opportunity provided to assist in the solving of some of these institutional problems. This opportunity came in the form of a responsive Fund for the Advancement of Education, established in 1951. The Fund provided a very important stimulus to studies of liberal education college programs. The finance of these 12Stickler, Junior College Journal, p. 543. 13Dyer, p. 452. 12 self-studies permitted colleges "to free faculty time for thorough and comprehensive self—appraisal many colleges felt they needed."14 A review and appraisal of the 38 self- studies made under these Fund grants in 1952-1954 was made by Donaldson.15 Implementing Institutional Research There are numerous ways people define and View institutional research. One point of consideration has to do with the different philoSOphical positions educators have regarding institutional research and its implementation. Although the basic areas of inquiry seem pretty well agreed upon--students, faculty, curriculum, instruction, space, budget, etc.l6--there are some differences relevant to such matters as the question of jurisdiction over an institutional research agency. Some individuals believe the institutional research organization is and should be an arm of the admin- istration whereas others strongly believe it should be an arm of the faculty, the social sciences, and/or it should be very autonomous to enhance seeking out subjects for inquiry. léRoscoe H. Eckelberry, "Institutional Self-Studies," Journal Q; Higher Education, 31:107, Fall 1960. lsIbid.. pp. 107-108. 16Paul L. Dressel, "A Comprehensive and Continuing Program of Institutional Research," in Earl J. McGrath, ed., EQOperative LongeRgnge Planning iQ_Liberal Arts Colleges, New York: Teachers.College, 1964, p. 37. 13 Horn17 and Russell18 are of the administrative persuasion and Eckert, Kelly,19 and Sanford20 are of the latter orien- tation. Combining the advantages of both of these approaches Dyer states, . . . if institutional research is to have a positive and enduring impact on institutional quality, if it is to become a science in any acceptable sense, it must somehow integrate both of these points of View in a common attack on institutional problems.21 This combined approach appears to emphasize providing optimum administrative effectiveness and faculty responsive- ness. Dressel suggests that faculty involvement in the research provides for both group acceptance of findings and expanded research capacity since the research office is typically far too overloaded to undertake all research entirely by itself.22 The use of faculty advisory commit- tees in the research operation is an approach suggested for involving the faculty in the research. The mechanics of institutional research implementation may vary with l7Francis H. Horn, "A University President Looks at Institutional Research," in L. Joseph Lins, ed., The Role 9; Institutional Research lg Planning, Madison, Wisconsin: Office of Institutional Research, Univ. of Wisconsin, 1963, p. 12. 18Dyer, p. 453. 19Horn, pp. 11-12. 20Dyer, p. 453. 211bid., p. 454. 2Dressel, p. 42 (Comprehensive and Continuing Program). 14 institutional needs and capabilities. As Thompson states, "What is important is that the knowledge of modern physical and social science be applied to the analysis of major problems facing the university."23 AAnother consideration is that of whether the research should be focused rather exclusively on an indi- vidual institution or whether it Should encompass other institutions such as in a cooperative, inter-institutional research project at the state, regional, or national level. This question is not necessarily as much one of philosoph— ical difference as one of available resources and needs. Some rather small colleges have cooperatively pooled their resources together to make continuing studies which would otherwise be prohibited by cost to an individual participat- ing college. Similarly, large universities have c00perated in large studies in which each had an interest. It has proven far more expedient to cooperate in a joint effort rather than for a single institution to undertake an exten— sive study of broad, mutual interest. Thus, the size of an institution‘s resources and the size of the problem to be studied are primary determinants of individual institution versus cooperative research. 23Thompson, p. 90. 15 In addition to the earlier impetus to research provided by private funding is the further effect of gov- ernment funding. Ianni sets forth five cooperative research program areas in which the federal government provides support for education research and thereby fosters insti- tutional research.24 The current recognition of higher education as a concomitant to national defense and the total national welfare has been paralleled by increased tangible support to the public and private sector of higher education. 0f consequence to institutional research is one of the demands made of education-—that it evaluate its productivity and improve its total efficiency of operations. Thus, there is the increased emphasis today on the education planning and evaluation theses posited by Bloom,25 Mager,26 and others. Institutional Research Organizations and Research Activity. Implementation of institutional research involves philosophical and other differences as expressed in the 4Francis A. Ianni, "Federal Concern For Research in Education," in Invitational Conference on Education Research, Eéfiggggh,ig_Higher Education: Guide g9 Institutional Deci- §22Q§J New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965, pp. 65-66. 25 . . . DaVld R. Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, and Bertram B. -MaSia, Taxonomy‘ f Educational Objectives: The Classifica- £123 9: Educational Goals, New York: David McKay Company, 1964. 26 . . . . RObert F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Objec- tlves. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1962. 16 organization of the research effort. Although reference has been made to the institutional research "organization" or "office,“ institutional research does not necessarily have a formal organization or office. This is particularly true in its less sophisticated forms such as is found in some relatively small colleges with little or no formally orga- nized institutional research activity. Among the studies made of how American colleges and universities are doing institutional research, Stickler surveyed 93 land-grant institutions and state universities. He found that only 20% of the schools had full—time coordi- nation by officers or committees and almost half of the organizations were decentralized (these included many large institutions). Of the 93 respondents, 59 had made compre- hensive self-studies since World War II. This study reflected that institutional research is in a state of change and development. Thirty—five of the institutions had their present organizations for less than five years and twelve institutions had theirs for six to ten years. Only two institutions had institutional research agencies for more than 25 years.27 Some suggestions are offered by'Stickler as "guiding principles" for developing a program of institutional research. Direct recommendations are made for organizing 27Stickler, Land—Grant Study, pp. 7—10. 17 an institutional research program. His suggestions are as follows: a. Institutional research must be planned. . . . b. Responsibility for the direction, coordina— tion, and review of institutional research should be centralized. . . . c. The executive officer of the institutional research agency should report to a major institutional officer, preferably the president. . . . Institutional research must be adequately financed. . . . An institution-wide advisory committee should assist the institutional research agency in carry— ing out its responsibilities. . . . Provisions should be made for wide participa- tion by faculty members and administrative offices in planning and conducting institutional research projects. . . . Activities of the institutional research agency must be carried out at the highest levels of professional ethics. . . .28 Although Stickler's suggestions may appear largely acceptable without question, some writers seem to differ on at least a couple of the points; particularly, as they relate to organization. Dressel certainly concurs with Stickler‘s emphases on institutional research planning and institution—wide involvement, but he differs on such orga- nizational matters as the institutional research director reporting to "preferably the president." Dressel suggests 28W. Hugh Stickler, "Some Suggestions Concerning Institutional Research," in Institutional Research: Bases £25 Administrative Decision-Making. Report of the Outcomes Of Studies and Research Activities. Fifth Annual Junior College Administrative Teams Institute. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, August 8-11, 1965, pp. 19-22. 18 that due to a basic academic orientation of institutional research, and the disadvantages of reporting to the pres- ident, "Perhaps the best answer is a director of institu- tional research reporting to the academic vice president, especially if the academic vice president is clearly the second ranking officer in the institution."29 A rather succinct summary is made of the findings of Stickler's land—grant and state university study and Sprague's study of institutional research in approximately two-hundred institutions. Major conclusions drawn from these two studies are as follows: There is a trend toward the centralization of institutional research functions. This centralization is of quite recent development in most institutions. The centralization of research functions is most characteristic of institutions of medium size. Large institutions more often have some type of decentralized organization, while small institutions generally lack any formal organiza- tion. Where institutional research is centalized the responsibility for directing, conducting, or coordinating the research is most often assigned to a full-time or part-time institu- tional research officer although in some institutions an administrative—faculty com-O mittee serves as the planning and coordinating agent. 29Paul L. Dressel, "The Nature of Institutional Research," in Eileen Herridge, ed., Understanding_Instituf tional Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Midwest Community College Leadership Council, 1967, p. 14. 19 Where there is a decentralized organization, institutional research is generally done by various persons—~deans, administrative assis- tants, registrars, business officers, faculty members, or special committees. A significant number of institutions that have centralized institutional research func— tions also have institutionewide advisory committees on institutional research. IMPACTS gs; INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ACTIVITY In the development of institutional research to this point, acknowledgment has been made of the effects of environmental forces on the institutions and effects of institutional research on the institutions and their pro— grams. Although institutional research has been credited with having made worthwhile contributions to the solving of institutional prOblems, it has also been regarded as a changing and developing field that might be expected to have some growing-pains. Some individuals such as Boyer emphasize the limitations of institutional research and its impact on education.31 Answers to some of Boyer's criticisms and questions seem to be provided by a number of successful applications of institutional research in collegiate 39A. J. Brumbaugh, Research Designed £9 Improve Institutions 9: Higher Learning, Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960, p. 2. 31Boyer, p. 2. In. its 20 decision-making processes. Attention is now directed to some of these successful institutional illustrations. A report is made by Tyrrell of an institutional research project emphasizing cost analysis, measurement of quality, and instructional productivity at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Only a phase of the larger progress report is provided of this on-going program leading to Continued, programmed experimentation. Some of the results of Rensselaer's institutional research were as follows: Since 1957 there has been maintained constant unit cost of instruction, although faculty sala— ries have increased. Classroom efficiency has been increased by central scheduling, larger classes, and fewer classrooms. A controlled experiment revealed that class size is not as important a determinant of learn- ing as teaching method. An instructional file in the library and Closed Circuit Television has been developed. Independent study has been reviewed with a resulting renewed and different emphasis.32 In addition to these findings and their resulting actions, other studies and experiments were specifically projected for the future at Resselaer A continuing emphasis in institutional research and education administration is the finding of ways to use resources more effectively. Some very specific answers to 32Philip H. Tyrrell, "Project Reward: A Program of Institutional Research to Increase Instructional Productiv- 1tY."Educational Record, 42:217-218, July 1961. 21 logistical as well as other prdblems are provided by the four models Ruml establishes for different size liberal arts colleges. Through his efficiency models of minimizing course proliferation and improving the efficiency of faculty, student, and course ratios, he is able to place small col- 1eges in a very attractive position with respect to faculty salaries as well as other rewards realized from internal organization efficiency.33 Another impact of institutional research on indi— vidual institutions, as well as governing boards (which may be over a number of institutions such as a state board of regents), is the "master plan."34 This is a term used for over-all and long—range planning for physical plant, as well as, manifold other areas of educational planning. The growth of the employment of master plans has been quite significant in recent years. California has a master plan for its entire state higher education program from the numerous junior colleges through the state colleges and university system. Other states have similar master plans. Individual institutions, private and public, are increasingly developing master plans for their institutions' planning. 3Beardsley Ruml and Donald H. Morrison, Memo E_.§ QQllege Trustee, New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1959, PP. 33-44. 34Thompson, p. 39. 22 In recognition of the capabilities of institutional research, Mayhew cites an example of rewardingly accurate institutional projection and planning. The University of South Florida regarded the value of institutional research at its inception. This rather new institution had an Office of Institutional Research prior to its formal opening. Based on a study made by the office, it predicted initial enrollment for the new university to be 1,252 students. In 1960 when the University opened, the number of students which enrolled was 1,248. This close approximation seems to have rewarded the institutional research and planning of the University.35 A somewhat indirect measure of the impact of insti— tutional research may be viewed in regard to professional association activity. Just as other sciences and disci- plines have reflected their improved state-of—the-art and increased stature through professional associations, so has institutional research. (This is not to imply that associations and meetings alone indicate definite progress and professionalization.) Stickler notes the increased participation in institutional research meetings which has exceeded expectation.36 Dyer notes that institutional research is developing its own literature and the 35Mayhew, p. 5. 36Stickler, Land—Grant Study, p. 13. 23 Association for Institutional Research in January 1966 had 230 members.37 There were 382 members by June 30, 1966,38 and 577 by September 1, 1968.39 It appears that these indicators are useful in appraising the impact on institu- tions since many of them have funded and otherwise tangibly supported the representation of their institutions in this professional activity. For further significant evidence that institutional research has had an impact on higher education, Brumbaugh reported a study. In this investigation over one—hundred leading educators, most of them involved in institutional research, were asked to report on significant changes that had taken place as a result of institutional research. The most important items reported from over seventy respondents are as follows: Studies related to students resulted in a modification of admission requirements, improve- ments in student counseling, improvement of freshmen orientation, and the raising of aca- demic standards. Studies related to faculty led to improved conditions of faculty service such as the intro- duction of sabbatical leaves, better salaries, better retirement provisions, the addition of insurance, and adjustment of teaching loads. 37Dyer, p. 452. 38John E. Stecklein, A_ngk_gt_the Charter Members QEVAIR,.Minneapolis, Minn. Bureau of Institutional Research, Univ. of Minnesota, 1966, p. 2. QLOUiS A- D‘Amico, ed., "Membership Matters," Eéwsletter. 4:5, October 1968. 24 Administrative studies resulted in a marked reorganization of the administration; improve- ments in budgeting procedures; improved control of class size, teaching loads, faculty promotion practices, and instructional costs; and improved quality of programs. At the same time signif- icant savings were effected. Curriculum studies resulted in remedial courses being dropped or changed, honors pro- grams being strengthened, costly courses being identified and eliminated, modern language requirements being revised, and some two-year curricula being discontinued. Preliminary studies of plant and facilities resulted in legislative appropriations for compre- hensive planning studies as a consequence of which building plans were markedly modified and class schedules were changed. In the area of finance, tuition adjustments were made on the basis of findings in a study of the financial condition of students and their parents and the cost to students; modifications were made in the allocation of funds for various functions in the institution, and budgeting pro- cedures were improved. In View of the items listed by Brumbaugh and items and illustrations cited by other sources, it seems produc- tive to View how this impact may be enhanced and otherwise strengthened to provide for wise institutional decision- making. For these reasons it may be useful to view a few Projections which have been offered for the future of institutional research. 4OBrumbaugh, p. 43. I flrh “In; WEN 25 THE FUTURE Q§_INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH One rather ambitious question asked about institu- tional research is whether it might lead to a science of institutions. Dyer answers this question by stating that this can happen but only if institutional research in the process of dealing with particular institutional prOblems also evolves generalizations (building theory), develops more dependable and believable measures of institutional variables, and increases its experimentation sophistication-- leading to a body of cumulative results.41 Having reviewed some of the components of a philosophy of science, Dyer provides a challenge for the scientific development of institutional research. Although the sophistication of Dyer's challenge is a commendable goal, there is a somewhat more attainable intermediate step provided by McConnell. He suggests that what is needed most now is descriptive and analytical research——not as complex as Dyer suggests for fulfilling the criteria of becoming a science.42 with this as a starting point it may be more likely that the more vigorous Objectives can be reached through a gradual process. 41Dyer, p. 466. 42T. R. McConnell, "Needed Research in College and University organization and Administration," in Institute on College Self-Study, The Study2£_Academic Administration, BOUlder. Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963, p. 115. 26 Faculties are viewed as receiving increased services from offices of institutional research; however, this will be accompanied by increased demands on the faculty. Thompson suggests that "future faculty committees will have at their disposal offices of institutional research and planning," and he adds, "Faculty committees may well have more work to do rather than less because a good office of institutional research will raise questions, make the faculty more aware of evolving changes, and point out new courses of action which must be considered."43 This latter point is further supported by Dressel who states that an office of institutional research should "be a source of irritation to at least a few persons."44 In addition to fulfilling the role of a gad-fly, some writers suggest the institutional research office is likely to obtain some derivative functions. They suggest that with the advent of the junior college movement, the office may have many unique and varied topics for study. Stickler suggests there are many things a junior college administrator should want to know; the community, local training and job opportunities, adult education opportuni- ties, student backgrounds, general education needs, student 43Thompson, p. 90. 4Dressel (Comprehensive and Continuing Program), p. 42. 27 alumni information, etc.45 With the advent of increasing numbers of junior colleges and their increasing student population, it appears that Stickler's suggestion provides extensive junior college institutional research territory. Possibly some measure of future institutional research activity could be obtained by projecting some existing research programs into other institutions which may have little or no organized research activity. Stickler notes that the Office of Institutional Research of Florida State University services the president's office, board of regents, dean of faculties, council of academic deans, faculty, graduate students, state agencies, state public schools, and other institutions of higher education.46 RECENT JUNIOR COLLEGE AND RELATED INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES A study which assists in conceptualizing some of the concerns of this present inquiry is a biographical study of the Association for Institutional Research membership. This study provides background information about institutional researchers ranging from formal education to work assignment patterns. Findings of particular interest to this study include: 45Stickler, Junior College Journal, p. 545. 46Ibid. 28 Fifty-eight per cent of the members hold doctor's degrees, typically in some area of professional education. For the twenty—eight per cent whose highest degree is the master's degree, education is again the major area of emphasis, followed by business and economics. This latter area is also the major area of study for the AIR members (12 per cent) whose highest earned degree is a bachelor's degree. . . . Less than one-third of the AIR members indicated that they devoted almost full-time to institutional research while about 60 per cent spent more than half-time in this work. The proportion of AIR members with doctorate degrees is consistently high among institutions of all sizes-—equal to or better than the pro- portions of academic staff with such degrees in these institutions.47 Another area of interest in the present study is the use of advisory committees for institutional research. The literature makes numerous references to the advisability of having institutional research advisory committees. The composition and implementation of such a committee may vary widely; however, one writer summarizes the purposes of a faculty advisory committee to the office of institutional research as follows: 1. to assist the director in establishing priorities for the efforts of the office, 2. to suggest possible areas of inquiry, 3. to react to ideas of the institutional researcher for possible studies, 47Stecklein, p. 22. 29 4. to serve as a channel of communication between the office and the faculty at large.48 A very recent national survey of junior college institutional research made by Roueche and Boggs reports findings which are especially pertinent to the present study. In this national telephone survey, 70 (84%) of 83 sampled institutions responded. These researchers found: The area that receives the greatest junior college research emphasis is "students"-—these studies account for 42 per cent of all institu- tional research studies. The area of least emphasis (accounting for only 1.3 per cent of all studies) is "instruction." Only 23 per cent of the participating insti- tutions have personnel employed to coordinate institutional research. In 39 per cent of the institutions no regular staff member has the responsibility for coordinating institutional studies. In other institutions this responsi- bility is the task of an administrator. There is no relationship between the amount of institutional research and the institutional variables of age and/or type of control. The institutional variables of enrollment size, staff size, and institutional total gross income correlated significantly with the number of studies reported by institutions. . . .49 The single, extensive study most nearly related to the present one is Swanson's investigation of institutional 48Joe L. Saupe, Memo £9_§_Newcomer £2_the Field of Institutional Research, A Review Prepared for the Associa— tion for Institutional Research, 1967, p. 3. 49John E. Roueche and John R. Boggs, Junior College Institutional Research: The State gf_the Art, Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968, p. 47. 30 research in junior colleges——public and private—-of the United States. Of a total of 669 institutions included in the inquiry, 336 responded—-243 were public and 93 were private institutions. The 243 public responses were 60.1% return of the total of 404 public institutions in the study. Findings of the study most pertinent to the present one are as follows: 1. Less than 20 percent of the colleges had formally organized programs of institutional research. Five had full—time and 56 had part- time co-ordinators, most of whom (45) were responsible to the president. 2. More than one third of the participants reported that committees were involved in their programs. . . . 4. Outside consultants (typically university professors) were used by more than 100 colleges. 5. Less than 2 percent had written policies or regulations regarding research. 6. Fewer than one in ten provided a separate item in their budget for research. Most colleges financed their programs through departmental budgets, and few had grants. 7. Chief administrators usually initiated studies, evaluated and interpreted results, dis- seminated findings, and had a major role in planning studies. . . . 8. Limited assistance was provided workers—- usually secretarial-clerical aid, and equipment and supplies. . . . Seventy-two percent used re- search findings for curriculum planning. Two of three colleges used findings in: making decisions, improving instruction, establishing goals, prepar- ing for accreditation, and planning for future needs. . . . 11. Three fourths stated that involving staff members in planning and conducting studies was very effective in encouraging them to use findings. 31 12. One third co—operated in interinstitu- tional research--usually by answering question- naires or submitting reports. There were few joint studies. 13. Sixty percent indicated lack of time as their biggest problem in developing effec— tive programs. . . . 15. Public junior colleges, . . . and those with enrollments over 800 were most active in institutional research. Age seemed to have little effect. . . . Many made recommendations regarding improved communications and coordina- tion in inter-institutional research.50 SUMMARY Antecedents of institutional research go back to the medieval universities, and more recently, early and mid— Twentieth Century institutions of higher learning. To the extent information has been obtained for use in institu- tional decision-making, institutional research has begin- nings almost as early as the beginnings of higher education itself. However, to the extent this institutional decision- making informational source and process has become refined, formalized, and otherwise developed--institutional research has evolved in rather recent years. Just as research in industry and government is somewhat recent as a formally organized and reasonably well supported function of institu- tions, so is this true in large measure of educational and institutional research. 0Herbert L. Swanson, "An Investigation of Institu- tional Research in the Junior Colleges of the United States" (unPUblished Ed.D. dissertation, University of California at LOS Angeles, 1965), pp. xviii-xix.. 32 Community college institutional research combines two developing sectors of higher education. Community col- leges are, of course, a very fast developing institutional level of higher education. The fact that this institutional level of higher education is past the very early developing stages and still expanding with exponential growth greatly adds to the magnitude of the importance of this sector of higher education. Along with the growth of this institu- tional level itself is development in the field of institu- tional research. The comparative newness of institutional research as a more formalized process in higher education is reflected, in part, by relatively recent development of its own professional association. Thus, community college institutional research certainly combines two factors having rather recent, accelerated develOpment. Reflecting its relative newness and its earlier stages of development, institutional research is still having its role and functions identified and discussed by a variety of participants in higher education. Fortunately, some authorities have come forth with very useful, concrete guiding principles for developing and Operating institutional research programs. It is also helpful to know that reports are avail- able of how institutions have used their research findings to bring about changes in their institutions' operations. Benefits of the use of research for modifying programs 33 include instructional improvement, better planning and use of facilities, and improved student services. Current literature, of the last decade, refers to some of the primary concerns of this present study. Orga- nization, operation, and administration of institutional research in all junior colleges of the United States--public and private—-was investigated early in this decade. Another very recent nationwide study of sampled junior colleges was made and largely supports former findings. Commonalities of these studies include finding that less than one-fourth of the institutions had formal institu— tional research organization, including a separate coordina- tor for institutional research. Institutional age seemed to have little relation to level of research activity. Institu- tional size was related to research activity--with the larger institutions having the more active research programs. Differences between findings of these two major studies included the more recent study finding no relation between institutional control-—public and private--and research activity, whereas the former study found public junior colleges to have the more active programs. Also, the recent study found the research category of "students" to receive most emphasis (42% of all reported studies) with least emphasis placed on "instruction" (1.3% of all reported studies). Curriculum and programs received second most emphasis with 2L% of all reported studies being in this 34 category. Whereas, the earlier study found 72% of the institutions using research findings for curriculum planning and two-thirds used them to improve instruction. Although the institutional research literature; particularly some of the more recent studies, provides a good measure of understanding about junior college insti- tutional research; there is additional information which seems to be needed to provide better current understanding of the subject. In addition to need for up-dating previ— ously researched material, there is need for additional types of information such as further measure of the kinds of current community college institutional research activity. The present study is intended to provide some of this addi— tional information, as well as, further insight into the prospects of community college institutional research. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY A random sample of United States community colleges employing a mail questionnaire is the basis for this investigation. A pilot interview study preceded the mail questionnaire survey. POPULATION AND SAMPLE The population includes all public junior colleges in the United States. The 1968 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colleges provides the actual pOpula— tion listing. In order to maximize efficiency in the study and ensure adequate national representation, a stratified random sample of the population was used. Of the 645 public junior colleges of the United States listed in the 1968 Directory, 19 were deleted because they were used in a convenience sample for the pilot study. Of the remaining 626, a strat- ified random sample of 300 was selected for the study--ZlO (70%) of which responded. The bases of sampling stratification were geograph- ical location and institutional total enrollment size. The 35 re 36 rationale for selecting these two stratifying criteria was that nationwide geographical representation within the random sample was desired, as well as, institutional size representation. The geographical stratification is by regions and within the regions a stratification by institu— tion size. An underlying determinant in selecting the regions and institutional size strata was the desirability of having individual sample cells of adequate size for statistical analysis. The listing of regions and their respective states was arrived at largely by ensuring ade- quate geographic representation in the sample (Table 1). Similarly, proportionate representation of institutional size was desired in the sample. Inspection of institution median sizes within the regional categories revealed that 1,200 would provide a desirable value for dividing all institutions into large and small size categories. Analysis of the population, sample, and respondents by region and institution size is provided by Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 provides an analysis with responses as a percentage of each individual institution size and region strata. Responses as a percentage of each individual cell sample ranged from 57.0% to 90.0%. Table 3 provides an analysis of responses as a percentage of the total sample across all strata cells. Since sample sizes were established on a proportional basis with the population, differences in these response percentages reflect differing response rates and In (3 ('7‘ c") 37 difference in population size. Inspection of the response rates reflect that they depart from their sample proportion— ality a range of only 0.2% to 2.7%. Analysis of respondents by institution size and age reflects a tendency toward smaller institutions being younger and conversely larger institutions being older (Table 4). These relationships provide a focal point for analysis throughout this study. Of interest to this study are the questions of whether institutional research activity varies with such factors as institution size and age. DESIGN 9;; THE STUDY A pilot study was made of institutional research at some 19 selected Midwest and Southeastern public junior colleges. This study permitted the investigator to meet with various college personnel-—primarily administrators-— to further familiarize himself with community college insti- tutional research, as well as, to obtain the assistance of college staff members in pretesting and otherwise developing the national mail questionnaire. Concurrent with the pilot study, and prior to it, selected individuals who were regarded as experts in insti- tutional research generally, and/or junior college institu- tional research specifically, were also interviewed for their comments on institutional research and specifically this study. 38 Following the questionnaire pretesting and other preparations, a nationwide questionnaire mailing was made to the sample of 300 on October 1, 1968. The questionnaire (Appendix A-4) was accompanied by the explanatory cover letter mailed to the individual institutions' presidents-- chief administrators (Appendix A-l). A week after the initial mailing a follow-up "reminder-thank you“ card was also mailed to the entire sample on October 8, 1968 (Appendix A-2). A follow-up letter and additional copy of the questionnaire was mailed to all non-respondents to date on October 22, 1968 (Appendix A—3). As intended, practically all of the 210 responding institutions returned their questionnaires and enclosures during the month of October 1968 or during the very early part of November 1968. The requested enclosures of representative studies and other institutional research information was used to further analyze community college institutional research activity. Statistical analysis includes frequency tabulations of each questionnaire response by size and age of institu- tion. Data is also analyzed by the chi square test of significance and the Mann-Whitney ”U" Test for two samples. 39 LIMITATIONS gig; THE STUDY The mail questionnaire survey nature of this study presents cautions that should be observed and measures were taken to minimize adverse effects. Questionnaire response is of course a major consideration of such a study; partic— ularly, when relatively complex material such as some of that requested in this study is desired. The pilot study permitted the opportunity to obtain the advice of repre- sentative respondents on how to gain maximum response productivity. Individually typed and personally addressed cover letters along with attractively printed follow—up cards and colored questionnaire printing were used to encourage positive receiver response. Similarly, the ques- tionnaire design emphasized an informational presentation of the subject of inquiry, with an interest building types- of—studies check-list proceeding into some of the more difficult questions such as budget computation, and conclud- ing with a relatively simple general interest question and request for "further comments" and enclosures. Further advantage was taken of typical college schedules and upon recommendation of the doctoral advisor, mailings and empha— ses were scheduled to encourage data collection during the month of October. This strategy proved successful with practically all responses being received by the middle of November. 40 Related to sampling and respondents was the planning that went into determining sample stratification. Institu- tion location and size were employed to optimize cell size contingencies for statistical analysis. The questionnaire response was of course voluntary and dependent upon the perceptions and understandings of respondents. Although the questionnaire was mailed to the institution chief administrator, they were encouraged to Obtain the assistance of other staff members in responding to the inquiry. Ease and completeness of response was sought and respondent control was minimized. This study was not designed to be a comparative perceptual study in which close control on respondents would be insured to provide for a measure of how different staff members might respond to a given question. Such a study is acknowledged as being a very likely topic for further research. Rather than obtain— ing in-depth data from a few selected institutions, this inquiry sought to obtain a current overview of public junior college institutional research. CHAPTER IV REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS All items of this inquiry are analyzed by the characteristics of institutional enrollment size and age. Emphasis is placed on reporting relevant relationships. By relevant relationships, reference is made to findings with a meaningful basis in the community college setting. Thus, statistical significance alone is not the only basis for presenting and analyzing data. Consideration is also given to criteria of relevance. Although some of these relevance criteria become most evident in the discussion of the data, it may be useful to generally state that attention is given to relationships of logical order and whether data follows any pattern of empirical meaningfulness or apparent reason for being. Differences are reported when the chi square tests are significant at the .05 level. These are indicated in the appropriate tables (Appendix B). Some of the reported data is not statistically significant. In some cases this fact itself is relevant and useful in the analysis of institutional research activity. In addition to the two primary characteristics of age and size employed throughout the analysis, additional variables will be 41 42 selected from previously analyzed characteristics as the analysis progresses. A note of explanation may be helpful regarding the presentation and analysis of data used in this report of findings. Due to the nature of the questionnaire instrument and the information sought, respondents were encouraged to make multiple responses where appropriate. Often when reporting response frequencies it seems most useful to combine responses to an item as it was reported separately, as well as, in combination with other items of a given question. The concern here would be with whether an insti- tution fulfilled a given criterion-—irrespective of other relationships. Thus, most response frequencies reported in this analysis include responses to a question or category given separately, as well as, responses given to a question in combination with other answers to that question. Since respondents were encouraged to make multiple responses to a single question when it was most apprOpriate to describe their institution, this situation develops. The result is that a question with answer categories (a), (b), (c), and (d) may typically receive a single response, such as only (a); whereas some institutions may respond with (a) and (b) or other combination responses. When the latter is the case the response such as for (a) in combination with other answers is included in the frequency total for (a) just as if this were the only answer given this question. Where it 43 is relevant to present answers as they were reported in combination with each other, these are presented. When reporting significance levels, data is pre— sented as the raw data was analyzed-—by discrete categories and in combination with other response items actually reported in a given inquiry area. Thus, a given item with its individual responses is reported separately from the same item which may have been reported along with other combination responses. Rather than redundantly reporting the significance criterion; henceforth, the expression of data being reported as being "significant” is to be under- stood as fulfilling the .05 level significance criterion. The three major areas into which the findings of this study are divided are: Organizational Patterns Research Categories Implementation Problems. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, OPERATION, AND ADMINISTRATION Types 2: Institutional Research Organizations There are various ways institutional research orga- nizations could be characterized. The research organization types reported here follow the pattern of the previously 44 mentioned Sticklerl study on which the primary organization question of this study was based. Similarly, the more simplified table categories are used to summarize the larger question descriptions. Thus, institutional research coordination reported as a "main function" is regarded as full—time coordination; "one of (other) functions" is regarded as part-time coordination; research "carried out by several officers" as decentralized coordination; and "very little institutional research . . . no formal orga- nization" as stated. A category of ”other" was provided but it was seldom used by respondents. In addition to responding to categories individually, respondents were encouraged to make multiple responses as appropriate to a given question. Although the individual organization ques- tion categories seemed adequate for most institution responses, some did elect to use multiple responses to describe their situation. When considered with the variable of institution enrollment size, institutional research organization is significantly more formalized and develOped in the larger institutions (Table 5). This is particularly evident in the larger institutions having proportionately far more full- time coordination, and conversely, far fewer institutions having little research and no formal organization. The more 1Stickler, Land-Grant Study, p. 7. 45 formal and developed programs are regarded as those having more full—time coordination and evidencing programs more structured than those with little or no research activity or organization. PAs noted previously, institutional size and age are two major variables used for analysis throughout this study—- with an emphasis on institutional size. Although it is possible that both of these variables may reveal an equal relationship to institutional research activity, it seemed more likely that size would have the greater impact since basic economic considerations such as the scale of Opera- tions may largely determine the programs an organization may support. Therefore, larger institutions by their mere size and resources may support functions such as a research activity which smaller institutions may find it very dif— ficult to sustain as a separate program. Thus, having reviewed the relationship of institu- tional size and finding it significantly related to insti— tutional research organization, the variable of institutional age was considered with organization type. This comparison of research organization and institutional age did not reveal a statistical level of significance by the criterion of this study. These findings suggest that institution size is much more a determinant of research organization than is institution age. 46 A number of different categories of officers and committees were reported as having institutional research responsibilities. A summary of these officer and committee categories are provided by Tables 6 and 7. These frequency distributions of the titles of the officers and committees having institutional research responsibilities provides a measure of the breadth of involvement across specialities and disciplines. The reported 72 institutional research officers include some 35 different titles. Some of these titles reflect rather exclusive emphasis on institutional research duties whereas others reflect responsibilities for academic and general administration, teaching, and other areas of involvement. Likewise, the 10 titles of the 23 reported research committees reflect a breadth of involve- ment. The decentralization and dispersal of the institu- tional research function throughout the college is evident from the assortment of titles reported as having direct institutional research coordination responsibilities. Although an effort was made to combine titles in the table presentation, this was tempered by the fact that some similar appearing office titles may have considerably different duties. The pilot study for this inquiry and other community college exposure guided the researcher in this attention to category guidelines. 47 All but possibly the last few committee titles listed reflect a direct and primary concern for institu- tional research. Officers £9 Whom Institutional Researchers Report A related organizational question is that of who are the officers to whom institutional researchers are respon- sible—-the president (chief administrator), vice-president, academic dean, or other. Neither institutional size nor age revealed a significant relationship to this topic. It was believed that smaller institutions may have more of their officers reporting to higher administrators, such as the president; and conversely, larger institutions would have more reporting to lower level administrators such as vice—presidents and deans. This seems to be the case to some extent but not significantly so (Table 8). Staffing Patterns and Institutional Research Qirector Characteristics Staffing patterns reflect organization and provide further measure of institutional research activity. Analysis was made of staff composition with regard to full- time and part-time personnel--professional educator and non—professional support staff. A simple distribution of responses provides some of the patterns one might expect to emerge. In this regard, larger institutions reported having a total of 34 full-time researchers and 22 full-time support 48 staff, compared to none reported by smaller institutions for these work assignment categories (Tables 9 and 10). The older institutions also reported higher staffing levels for almost all staffing categories (Tables 11 and 12). Thus, larger and older institutions not only tend to have more staff in the larger research workload assignment categories, but also, they tend to have as many or more in the lower workload categories than the smaller, younger institutions. Further analysis of staffing workload assignments was provided by use of the MannAWhitney "U" Test for two samples. Differences are reported when these tests are significant at the .05 level. Professional and non-professional research staff sizes were analyzed on the basis of total full-time equiv- alent staff for each institution reporting research staff composition. Sixty large institutions and 24 small insti— tutions reported having research professional staff. The "U" value for these institutions was 486.5 and the "z" score was a significant -2.4. Table 13 provides data demonstrating that more larger institutions reported having research pro- fessional staffs and these staffs tended to be larger than those of the smaller institutions. Forty—seven of the older institutions and 37 of the younger ones reported having professional staff. The "U“ value for these institutions was 315.0 and the "z" score was 49 a significant —5.2. Table 13 provides data demonstrating that more older institutions reported having research pro- fessional staffs and these staffs tended to be larger than those of the younger institutions. Non—professional research staffs (secretarial and clerical) were reported by 46 large institutions and 12 small ones. The "U" value for these institutions was 113.5 and the "z" score was a significant -3.2. Table 14 provides data demonstrating that more larger institutions reported having research support staffs and these staffs tended to be larger than those of the smaller institutions. Thirty-one of the older institutions and 27 of the younger ones reported having non—professional (support) research staffs. The "U" value for these institutions was 482.5, and the "z” score was 1.0. Of these four tests, this one for non-professional staff and institutional age is the only one not significant. Thus, the significantly larger professional research staffs of older institutions are not supported by non-professional staffs significantly larger and more numerous than those of the younger insti- tutions. The educational background and experience of the institutional research coordinator was another portion of the inquiry area of staffing patterns. These data lend themselves most suitably to frequency distribution analysis. 50 In some cases the data provides contrasts when the basic variables of institution size and age are employed. In response to inquiry into formal education and degrees held by institutional research directors, the responses summarized in Tables 15 and 16 were reported. As was true throughout the inquiry, multiple responses were encouraged. Thus, degrees were reported and of course most respondents reported having multiple degrees, not only at different levels but also, often within a degree level. Although all degree categories were solicited in the questionnaire, it was evident that some respondents reported only the highest degree held. In these cases, if a graduate degree was reported a bachelor's degree was also assumed. Numerous references were made to having credit hours beyond a given degree but only the completed degrees were used for purposes of this tabulation. Once again, the larger and older institutions tended to predominate in all degree categories. Further inquiry into the education and background of institutional research directors provides additional insight into what goes into the making of a research director. When combining majors for all degrees we have the overview presented in Table 17. Along with degrees held and major fields of study are the descriptive areas of past experiences and present concurrent duties--whether they be teaching, administration, and/or other assignments. 51 A summary of these data is provided in Tables 18 and 19. It appears that the educational backgrounds and experiences of institutional research directors are most varied. A single stereotype hardly comes to the fore. Also, few areas of teaching or administration seem to be omitted in this portrayal of institutional researchers. Ipstitutional Research Organization Age Another area of inquiry which may add to the under— standing of present institutional research organization and activity is the age of institutional research organizations—— for both present and prior organizations. Very few institu— tions had research organizations prior to their present one and over three-fourths of these present organizations were not more than three years old (Tables 20 and 21). The larger, older institutions tended to have more and older research organizations, although not significantly so, for both present and prior organization categories. Since only 15 institutions reported having a prior research organization, no further analysis of prior organization was attempted. As might be expected, the older institutions tended to have the older research organizations although this trend was ever so slight. Although none of these relationships were statistically significant, their fre- quency distributions do provide for further organizational analysis. 52 Institutional Research Advisory Committees In addition to the primary research organization, it seemed useful to look into the supporting agencies and committees for institutional research. One of these was the institutional research advisory committee. Due to the value that may be gained from having staff and faculty support and assistance through such a committee, it was decided that advisory committees should provide a further measure of institutional research activity. Also, knowing the composition of these committees and how individuals become committee members provides a measure of institutional philosophy toward the research function. It seemed likely that the larger and older institu— tions would have had the need, time, and resources to sufficiently organize their institutional research activity to the extent of having advisory committees. These assump- tions were in part supported by the study findings, but not entirely so. A total of 68 institutions reported having advisory committees. The existence of these committees was signif- icantly related to institution size—-with the larger institutions having 47 (43.9%) to the smaller institutions 21 (23.1%) (Table 22). Institutional age was not a signif- icant factor in advisory committee existence, in fact, respondents were almost equally divided in their responses according to institution age (Table 23). 53 Since age of institutional research organization itself may be a more precise indicator of the existence of supporting organization, such as advisory committees, inspection was made of these relationships. Only age of present research organization was used for this purpose since there were so few institutions reporting having research organizations prior to their present one. From the responses it appears that there is no significant relationship between research organization age and existence of advisory committees. There appears to be a tendency for institutions which have advisory committees to establish them after their research organization is a year old (Table 24). Although the data does not directly reflect whether the reporting institutions with a present research organization age of one year or older had advisory commit- tees during their first year, the data indicates that some- what more institutions had no advisory committee compared to those having one when the research organization was less than one year old. Contrasted to this was the rather even balance of institutions with and without an advisory com- mittee when their research organization was more than a year old. This seems to suggest that advisory committees may not have a major role in the initial steps of developing institu- tional research programs. In addition to the institution and organization age dimension, is the relation of type of institutional research 54 organization to existence of advisory committees. It might be expected that the more formally organized research organizations would have more advisory committees. This pattern is significantly supported by the findings of this study, and conversely, very few institutions with no formal research organizations reported having advisory committees (Table 25). Composition of institutional research advisory committees seems to be rather varied——including representa— tives from tOp and general administration, faculty, and general staff (Table 26). There is a tendency for chief administrators, vice-presidents and deans, and department chairmen to be on advisory committees when these committees exist. As requested, institutions responded with the cate- gories of officers represented on advisory committees. However, only the categories were noted-~not the number of committee members from a given category. Thus, department chairmen are listed as a category but no indication was sought for the number of department chairmen on a committee from a given institution. The process of becoming a member of the institutional research advisory committee ranges from faculty election to administrative appointment. A predominance of administrative appointments were reported. In all categories of institution age and size there was a tendency for most committee members to be appointed by the administration, even though this may 55 have been done in conjunction with other procedures-~such as recommendation by a faculty organization (Table 27). Of those responding, there tended to be a predominance of administrative appointments to advisory committees in the smaller institutions. Sources Initiating Institutional Research Studies Operation of an institution's research activity may be reflected by the involvement of individuals and officers in initiating research studies. Analysis of responses by institution age and size for this topic revealed smaller institutions have significantly more of their research initiated by general administration sources (Tables 28, 29, and 30). An overall pattern for all respondents appears. Institutional research tends to be initiated by the general administration (including department chairmen) and meeting requirements made by external sources such as governmental agencies (Table 31). It is also evident that even when institutions have institutional research directors, the directors tend to initiate considerably less than half of the research. This may be due in part to the research demands made by other sources within (and without) the institution, thus limiting the initiating capacities and resources of the research director. 56 Since the type and degree of research organization development may have an effect on the sources initiating research, this variable was used for analysis. When com- paring initiation sources of research studies with research organization patterns there was a significant tendency for the more decentralized and less organized institutions to have a larger percentage of their research studies initiated by the general administration (Table 32). When comparing sources initiating research with existence of research advisory committees, one might expect the existence of advisory committees to contribute to wider staff involvement in initiating studies; however, this was not reflected by a significant reduction in the percentage of research initiated by administrative sources (Table 33). Budgeting for Institutional Research Budget provision for an operation is of course one of the more concrete indicators of commitment to an activity. This study sought to find budgetary relationships between institutions on the bases of variables such as institution size, age, and type research organization. Some of the analysis up to this point may be much more clearly brought into focus when it is determined just what have been the tangible budget expenditures made on institutional research. 57 Of the 45 institutions reporting having an amount budgeted for institutional research last fiscal year, they were about equally divided between the budget categories of $10,000 and above and below $10,000. Analyzing these budget categories by institution size and age results in the sig- nificant difference of 23 larger schools having a research budget of $10,000 or more contrasted to only 1 smaller institution reporting a budget in this amount (Table 34). Moving from last fiscal year's research budget to this year's, 63 institutions reported a research budget amount. Although slightly more younger institutions were reported in both budget amount categories for this year, the more detectable pattern is still the significance of larger schools having a research budget of $10,000 or more. Thirty-two larger schools reported being in this category while only four smaller schools did so (Table 35). A related budget measurement used was institutional research budget as a percent of total institutional operat- ing budget. The resulting summary budget percent categories were 1% and above and less than T%. Thirty-nine institu- tions reported this percentage computation for last fiscal year with 23 being at the 1%.or above level and 16 below E%. Larger institutions reported higher response frequency in both budget percentage categories with significantly almost five times the number of larger institutions in the T% and above category (Table 36). Combining the total responses 58 for last year and this year to these budget questions, the larger schools made about three times as many responses to the budget questions compared to the smaller institutions. Although there is no certainty of the meaning of non- responses, possibly this means the smaller schools have far less research budget provision than do the larger schools. The budget percentage data for this fiscal year was reported by 57 institutions. Again, the most dominant pat- tern was for larger institutions to report higher frequency responses in both budget percentage categories with signif- icantly four times as many larger institutions reporting in the L% and above category (Table 37). .Analysis of research budget by institutional age provided no significant relationships (Tables 38, 39, 40, and 41). When comparing the budgeted amount for last fiscal year with total full-time equivalent professional research staff there is a significant predominance of staff in the $10,000 and above budgeted programs--as might be expected (Table 42). Similarly, institutions with the larger research budgets for the present year have significantly more pro- fessional full-time equivalent staff (Table 43). Also, the research budget as a percentage of total operating budget re- sponses for both last and this year support the tendency of the 59 higher financed organizations to have a larger number of full-time equivalent total staff (Tables 44 and 45). These latter observations were made to add to the descriptive patterns which emerge as the various component parts of research organizations and their institutions are analyzed to determine commonalities, relationships, and differences among various institutions and patterns. As would be expected, the data from this study provides an increased measure of understanding as it is analyzed in its parts and then put together in arrangements of ever increas— ing complexity. The tabulations and cross-tabulations pro— vide for a further measure and description of institutional research activity with some of the relationships supporting others and some calling attention to departures from what might be expected patterns. Research Categories In order to provide some measure of actual institu- tional research activity across individual areas of research, respondents were requested to use a check—list to reflect their institutionsl research activity according to cate- gories of research topics (Appendix A-4). For each research category, responses were solicited for whether research had been done in the given category; whether outside research sources such as consultants were used; and whether an area needed researching. The placement of the check-list early 60 in the questionnaire also provided some orienting value to the respondent for the remaining portions of the study. As an indicator of the general interest value of the check-list, about 200 of the 210 total study respondents used the check-list for almost every research category listed. This response rate was of particular value for purposes of statistical analysis. The individual research categories are discussed in this section in the order they appear in the check—list. In addition to the responses which report research activity by the check-list categories, the representative studies and respondents' enclosures solicited in the study are also discussed and summarized in this section. Two major Tables (46 and 47) are superimposed on the check-list of institutional research categories discussed in this section. The total responses for each institutional variable of size and age for each research category is pro- vided in the approximate space where respondents checked their individual responses. A modification of the reporting procedure is used in column "C" of the check-list. In this reporting column a diagonal is used to report responses made in this column separate from those made in combination with other responses given for the same research category. In the three response columns to the left of the "C" column, reported frequencies are totals of individual, as well as, combination responses. In the "C" column the frequency to 61 the left of the diagonal includes only responses made in the "C" column not in combination with other column responses. Whereas, the frequency to the right of the diagonal includes responses which were made in combination with at least one of the columns to the left of the "C" column. This is useful in research category analysis since a response in only column "C" is the only response which does not include at least some estimate of research effort devoted to a tOpic. For those categories indicated as having a statistically significant relationship with the variables presented, these computations were based on responses given individually and in combination for a given research category. Area Surveys. Surveys such as those made for the initial planning purposes of an institution were expected to be rather broadly employed by respondents. Whether they be called Initial Planning Survey, Feasibility Study, or by some other name, it seems that common practice is to make such a study prior to starting a new institution. .A total of some 90.4% of the respondents reported either making the surveys and/or having them done by outside sources such as consultants. There was a significant differ- ence in this research category between institutions on the basis of institutional age. The younger institutions reported using considerably more outside sources, such as 62 consultants, in making Area Surveys than did the older institutions (Table 49). Community Services. Community services and continu— ing education are commonly regarded as major functions of the comprehensive community college. This category inquired into the research done on this institutional function. In keeping with some of the assumptions of this study, it may have been expected that the larger, older institutions would have reported doing more community services research. How- ever, not only does this not seem to be the case, but in part the reverse is true—-there was a slight tendency for the younger institutions to place a heavier emphasis on community services research (Table 47). Students. A rather broad range of categories was included under the research topic of students. These sub- categories and the total percentage of institutions making studies on these tOpics were as follows: Admissions (80.3%), Alumni and Former Students (57.T%), Enrollment (92.2%), Student Personnel Services (76.9%), and Demographic and Attitude Studies (68.9%). Admissions Policies and related practices were studied by a substantial number of the respondents; however, some institutions reported this question as being non- applicable due to their having an “open-door“ admissions policy. Of course, the sub—categories within this topic 63 certainly provide research opportunity which may possibly be even more needed in an open-door admissions institution (Table 46). Alumni and Former Students studies were made by significantly more larger (64.2%) than smaller (48.9%) institutions. This is reflected by more than twice the number of larger than smaller institutions reporting devot- ing a major research effort to this tOpic (Table 46). Enrollment studies tended to receive a heavier emphasis from larger schools, although not significantly so, when compared with smaller institutions (Table 46). Student Personnel Services tended to be researched somewhat more by larger institutions, although not signif— icantly so (Table 46). Demographic and Attitude Studies were made signif- icantly more by the larger institutions (78.3%), compared to the smaller ones (57.8%) (Table 46)o Instruction and Faculty, Another commonly stated emphasis of the community college is quality instruction with student-centered faculty. This section is devoted to reporting inquiry into these academic research categories. The sub-categories in this section and the total percentage of institutions making studies in them were as follows: Curriculum (79.2%), Instructional Program, Methods, and Materials (73.3%), Library (81.r%), and Faculty (81.0%). 64 Both the objective responses and assorted annotations made on the returned questionnaires reflected the interest in library studies. Possibly the somewhat tangible nature of identifying library holdings and needed acquisitions for appropriate collections provides a kind of ready answer for library studies. Also, impetus may be provided by fund- ing sources. Government, foundation, and other sources for funds provide an added motivation for doing more of this kind of research. Whatever the case, library studies seem to be among the more popular institutional studies (Table 46). Faculty studies were about as popular as library studies with the larger institutions placing a somewhat heavier emphasis on them--although not significantly so. Faculty studies, along with the other categories of instruc- tional and academic studies, would be expected to have rela- tively high research activity in institutions which so strongly promote their instructional excellence. However, it should be noted that the categories used in this study were of sufficient breadth that it might be somewhat diffi— cult to entirely avoid some of these study categories. Thus, the categories are of sufficient breadth to permit a broad range of research within each one. The fact that one-fifth of the respondents reported needing research in these categories and the fact that they did not report giving even minor research attention to these topics, may 65 provide some cause for questioning superior instructional quality claims of at least three institutions (Table 47). Fiscal and Administrative. This section of studies includes some of the major concerns of the president, dean of administration, and of course other staff members. The sub-categories of this section and the total percentage of institutions making studies in them were as follows: Finance (81.8%), Physical Plant and Facilities (93.0%), and Administration and Organization of the Institution (73.6%). These subjects of concern are given considerable attention. Many of these topics are simply supporting functions for the larger, primary affairs of the institution. However, they can have devastating veto effect on the total program if they are not cared for properly. This may of course be acutely illustrated by the onslaught of financial, physical plant, and/or organizational problems hindering proper operation of an institution. Compared to the study categories up to this point, Finance studies seem to use more outside sources, such as consultants, than do previously mentioned categories except for the Initial Planning Survey (Table 46)° Physical Plant and Facilities studies are made by the largest total percentage of institutions (93.0%). 66 Inter-Institutional Research. This concluding section of studies very nicely complements the first section of studies considered-~Area Surveys. These are two of the categories with statistical significance when considered with institution age-~and size, in the case of inter- institutional research (Tables 46 and 47). These first and last research categories seem to present some of the clearer institutional study patterns. Larger institutions report more than twice the involvement in inter—institutional research as compared to smaller institutions. Although this may be consonant with what one would expect of a larger, more established institution; it may not be consistent with one of the purposes of inter—institutional research--that of assisting institutions, especially smaller ones, to make studies they could not make by themselves. However, in this regard it is noteworthy that the smaller, younger institu- tions report somewhat more use of sources outside their own institution for inter—institutional research purposes. Numerous respondents referred to transfer student follow—up studies made in regard to this category. These transfer student studies also serve to illustrate a degree of overlapping of research categories, not only in this study, but also in the nature of institutional research itself. Inter-institutional studies serve to illustrate this point well since "inter-institutional“ simply refers to research c00peration across or between institutions. 67 It does not refer to an actual topic of study—-such as "transfer student follow-up studies." Representative Studies and Respondent Enclosures. As requested, a number of respondents forwarded studies and various other enclosures helpful in providing a further understanding of their institutional research activity. The studies forwarded were summarized in Table 48. It was not intended that an attempt would be made to systematically evaluate or otherwise analyze these studies. Other enclo- sures included items ranging from a copy of a research newsletter one institution distributes to its staff, to jOb descriptions for institutional research directors. Enclo- sures were provided in conjunction with the final question— naire request for "general observations or further comments." Several of these comments were most noteworthy; however, rather than to discuss them here in detail they shall be alluded to in various parts of the study—-particularly, in the next section on problems and needs of institutional research. Some of these comments have been selected for inclusion in Appendix C. These comments are presented in their original quotation form with no further annotations. As in the case of the pilot study for this survey, these various enclosures and comments which.were volunteered, further support the findings of this study and add to a better understanding of community college institutional research. 68 Implementation Problems When asked to respond with the needs and problems of implementing research in their institution, 191 of the 210 study participants provided a variety of responses. Some of these responses were the basic categories provided in the questionnaire——answered singularly or in combination with others. Responses were volunteered in the "other" write—in category and these were sometimes stated with the requested “general observations or further comments" solic— ited at the conclusion of the inquiry. The three major categories for response provided in the questionnaire were each sufficiently broad so that most of the responses fell within one or a combination of these categories. The first response category of "fiscal resources and/or personnel" included such needs as financial support of the research function, equipment (such as computers), and provision of research staff-—including a director. As might be expected, this category received rather broad response-- almost twice as many responses as any of the other catego- ries in this question (Table 49). The second response category was I‘improved coordina- tion." This category was also commonly regarded as a prob— lem of institutional research programs (Table 49). Of course, the response categories to this whole question are not entirely mutually exclusive because of the very interrelated- ness and nature of some of these problem areas. As in this 69 case of need for coordination, need for improved coordina— tion may be in part an outgrowth of the need for research personnel; specifically, a research director. Also, coordination problems may very well be related to problem areas to be discussed further in this section. The need for "increased use of institutional research findings" seems to be regarded as much, if not more, of a prdblem than coordination (Table 49). Certainly, with all the prdblems identified in this inquiry area, if research findings are not used after all the reported obstacles are surpassed in acquiring these findings, this may provide a kind of final defeat. In an effort to reduce the remaining responses to a few manageable categories they were refined into two additional areas besides the remaining "other" category. The first of these remaining categories is summarized under the caption of "program of action." Some of the respondents referred to the need for planning, organizing, and establish- ing procedures for a program of research. These needs were expressed in a number of ways-—some simply stated that they needed to "get organized," with all the ramifications this may imply. As in the case of the other of these last response categories, they were not responded to nearly as frequently as the first three response areas (Table 49). However, they do seem to provide some useful insights into the whole 7O matter of research problems. This next problem category follows this same pattern. Problems in this category were summarized under the heading of "motivation." This simply refers to desiring and wanting to have a viable institutional research program. Respondents referred to various kinds of sources of needed motivation. They believed the faculty, board of directors, and others had to want institutional research if it were to succeed in their institution. This is not to say all of these sources have to be supportive, for a program to flour- ish. Certainly, there are illustrations of good research programs without this ideal situation. At least one administrator responded that he felt faculty support was needed to improve his institution's research proqram. Another respondent cited need for desire on the part of the board of directors to support a research program. The latter brings to mind a very vivid illustra- tion of need for motivation on the part of an institution's board. During the pilot study for this larger inquiry, one president of a larger institution presented the interviewer with budget and organization charts used at a recent board meeting. Organizational and budget provision for research was clearly, and literally, crossed-out as a result of the board's decision. This president seemed to feel he made the case clear for the need for institutional research 71 organization and budget provision but his board acted to eliminate them from the forthcoming fiscal year's program. Aside from various other organizational considerations, this illustration in point seems to support the expression.of some respondents that motivation was needed for the support of a research program on the part of board members, as well as, faculty and others——including the administration itself. The variables of institutional age and size present no apparent patterns of research needs and prdblems. When age and institutional size are considered at different levels, no differences in research needs and problems appear across those levels. Except for the larger institutions making almost twice the number of responses expressing need for increased use of institutional research findings, the needs and problems seemed similar to institutions irrespective of their size or age (Tables 49 and 50). When comparing research program needs and prOblems with research budgetary provisions no significant differ- ences appear. This may be noteworthy in light of the fact that one might expect the lower financed programs to have greater financial and other needs. Actually, a number of the responses reflect the reverse. Some of the needs categories are reported with at least slightly higher fre- quency among the higher financed research programs. These figures are provided for last year and this year's actual research expenditure amounts and these amounts as a 72 percentage of total institutional Operating budget (Tables 51-54). An explanation for the better financed research programs reporting having as many, or more, needs and prOblems than the lesser financed ones may be related to their mere magnitude and size. Thus, more prOblems and needs may accompany the larger and more complex programs. Also, the fact that the better financed programs almost equally reported the category including needed fiscal resources, may mean that these program respondents see the need for much more research services to be provided than the current operations provide. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY Community College Institutional Research combines two develOping sectors of higher education. Community col— leges are, of course, a very fast developing institutional level of higher education. The fact that this institutional level of higher education is past the very early developing stages and still expanding at a high growth rate greatly adds to the magnitude and importance of this sector of higher education. Along with the growth of this institu- tional segment of higher education is develOpment in the field of institutional research. The comparative newness of institutional research as a more formalized process in higher education is reflected, in part, by the relatively recent development of its own professional association-- during this decade. Thus, community college institutional research certainly combines two factors having rather recent, accelerated development. This inquiry is based on nationwide study of institu- tional research activity within randomly selected community colleges of the United States. 73 74 Related Studies Two studies on junior college institutional research are particularly relevant to this one. Swanson invited all two-year institutions-—public and private—-listed in the 1962 Directory of the American Association of Junior Col- leges to participate in an investigation of institutional research practices in junior colleges of the United States.1 Very recently, Roueche and Boggs made a nationwide telephone interview survey of institutional research in sampled junior colleges--public and private. Commonalities of these two studies include finding that less than one-fourth of the institutions had formal institutional research organization, in the case of the Swanson study, or a separate, full-time coordinator for institutional research in the case of the Roueche and Boggs study. Institutional age seemed to have little relation to the level of research activity. Institutional size was related to research activity—-with larger institutions having the more active research programs. Differences between findings of these two studies included the more recent Roueche and Boggs study finding of 1Herbert L. Swanson, “An Investigation of Institu- tional Research in the Junior Colleges of the United States" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University Of California at Los Angeles, 1965), pp. xviii-xix. 2John E. Roueche and John R. Boggs: Junior College Institutional Research: The State of the Art. Washington, D.C. American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968. p. 47. 75 no relationship between institutional control-—public or private-~and research activity, whereas the former Swanson study found public junior colleges to have the more active programs. Also, the Roueche and Boggs study found the research category of "students" to receive most emphasis (42% of all reported studies) with least emphasis placed on "instruction" (1.3% of all reported studies). Curriculum and programs received second most emphasis with 2F% of all reported studies being in this category. Whereas, the .Swanson study found 72% of the institutions used research findings for curriculum planning and two-thirds used them to improve instruction. Roueche summarizes the specific need for junior college institutional research as follows: It is now necessary that the junior college assume a research function (at the institutional level) if it is to substantiate its claim of superior teaching. . . . Effective institutional research programs are the results of a commitment to the need for research as a prerequisite to institutional plan- ning. The junior college president must be will- ing to translate his research interest into budgetary provisions for the activity. Study Methodology A personal interview pilot study of 19 selected Midwest and Southeastern institutions preceded a mail 3John E. Roueche, "Superior Teaching in Junior Colleges: Research Needed," Improving College and Univer- sity Teaching, 16:33-35, Winter 1968. 76 questionnaire survey. Questionnaires were mailed to a stratified random sample of 300 of the remaining 626 public junior colleges of the United States listed in the 1968 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colleges. Stratification was on the basis of region and size and pro- portional allocation was used'in selecting the sample from these strata. Responses were received from 210 (70%) of the sample. Follow-up measures used to encourage maximum re— sponse rate included a reminder—thank-you card sent to the entire sample and later a letter to non—respondents. Summary 9f_Finding§ Institutional age and size were two primary vari— ables used for analysis throughout this study. Institutions were divided on a basis of age with the older institutions being founded before 1960 and the younger ones 1960 or later. Institutional size was determined by regarding total enroll- ment size of less than 1,200 as Small and 1,200 or more as large. Both size and age categories were determined by inspection of the population age and size distributions and establishing a convenient value which best approximated a median figure--thus, the 1,200 size and 1960 age divisions. Differences are reported when the chi square tests are significant at the .05 level. The three major areas into which the findings of this study are divided are: 77 Organizational Patterns Research Categories Implementation PrOblems. Organizational Patterns. Institutional research organization is significantly more formalized and developed in the larger institutions. These more formally organized and developed programs have more full-time research coordi- nation and other organizational structure as contrasted to those institutions with little or no research organization. A variety of different categories of officers and committees were reported as having institutional research responsibilities. A total of 72 officers with 35 title categories, ranging from Research Director to President, were reported as having research responsibilities. Simi- '1arly, 23 committees with 10 title categories were reported as having research responsibilities. Some of these officers and committees were reported as existing concurrently. However, only about one—third of the institutions have a program which approaches being formally organized when considered on the bases of such criteria as type of organization, titles of individuals and committees having institutional research responsibility, research staff size, and budgetary provisions. Officers to whom institutional researchers report are somewhat varied but smaller institutions tended to have 78 more of their researchers reporting to higher level admin- istrators, such as the president. Staffing patterns tend to reflect somewhat larger research staffs in the larger and older institutions. I Larger institutions reported having a total of 34 full-time researchers and 22 full-time support staff compared to no full-time staff reported by smaller institutions. The Mann— Whitney "U" Test for two samples, with differences reported when these tests were significant at the .05 level, were used to analyze research full-time equivalent staff sizes by institution size and age. By these tests, the larger and Older institutions had significantly more institutions re- porting having professional research staffs and these staffs tended to be larger than those of the smaller and younger institutions. Similarly, larger institutions reported hav— ing significantly more and larger non-professional (support) staffs. Institution age was not a significant factor in non- professional staff size. Thus, the significantly larger and more numerous professional research staffs of the older institutions are not supported by non—professional staffs significantly larger and more numerous than those of the younger institutions. A tabulation of academic majors for all degrees held by research coordinators reflects a breadth of background with emphases on the following majors: education, social science, mathematics, and physical (and biological) science. Also, the teaching and administrative backgrounds, for both 79 past and present educational assignments, were most varied. A stereotype of institutional research director background and experience is not evident. The age of institutional research organization was requested for both present organization and any organization which may have existed prior to the present research organi- zation. Very few institutions reported having research organizations prior to their present one. Of those report— ing presently having organizations 91 (83%) were not more than 3 years old. Advisory committees for institutional research were reported by 68 (34%) of the responding institutions. Larger institutions reported having significantly more advisory committees (47, 44%) than did smaller institutions (21, 23%). Sources initiating institutional research studies were varied. However, a predominant tendency was toward initiation by general administration sources (including department chairmen) and meeting requirements made by exter- nal sources such as governmental agencies. Smaller institu- tions have significantly more of their research initiated by general administration sources. Budget provisions were reported for the present and past fiscal years. Of the 45 institutions reporting a bud- get amount for last fiscal year, 23 larger schools had a research budget of $10,000 or more while only 1 smaller institution reported a budget of this amount. Similarly, of the 63 institutions reporting a budget amount for the 80 present fiscal year, 32 larger schools reported a budget of $10,000 or more while only 4 smaller schools reported budget provisions in this amount. Larger schools reported signif- icantly higher budget provisions than did smaller institu- tions for these 2 years. Resegrch Categories. About 200 of the 210 study respondents completed a check-list to reflect their insti- tutions' research activity in the six major categories of research topics and their sub—categories listed below. Research Categories Area Surveys 1. Initial Planning Survey Community Service 1. Community Services and Continuing Education Students 1. Admissions Policies 2. Alumni and Former Students 3. Enrollment 4. Student Personnel Services 5. Demographic and Attitude Studies Instruction and Faculty 1. Curriculum 2. Instructional Program, Methods, and Materials 3. Library 4. Faculty Fiscal and Administrative 1. Finance 2. Physical Plant and Facilities 3. Administration and Organization of the Institu- tion Inter-Institutional Research 1. Statewide and/or Regional and National Coordina- -tion and Planning. 81 Three—fourths or more of the respondents reported doing_research in almost all of the categories listed. Area Surveys, Enrollment, and Physical Plant and Facilities studies had especially high reported research activity with about 90% of the respondents reporting activity in these categories. There was a significant difference in the Area Survey category on the basis of institutional age. The younger institutions reported using considerably more out- side sources, such as consultants, in making Area Surveys than did the older institutions. Alumni and Former Students studies were reported by little more than half of those responding. Larger institu— tions report significantly more activity in this student research category. DemOgraphic and Attitude Studies were made significantly more by the larger institutions. Inter- Institutional Research studies were participated in signif- icantly more by larger institutions and younger institut- tions made significantly more use of sources outside their own institution for making these studies. Implementation Problems. Needs and problems of implementing research in their institutions were reported by 191 of the 210 study respondents in five basic problem cate- gories. Fiscal resources and/or personnel were the most cOmmonly reported needs--receiving almost twice as many responses as any of the other categories. Improved coordi- nation and inoreased use of findings were the next two 82 categories commonly reported. These two were mentioned with almost equal frequency. Need for a program of action is a category of responses which summarizes such problems as the need for planning, organizing, and establishing procedures for a research program. Need for motivation includes desire on the part of the institution to have and provide for a research program. Comparison g£_Findings with Other Studies. As in the case of the previous studies, research organization is very limited. Only about one—third of the institutions exhibit minimal formal organization criteria as contrasted to about one-fourth of the institutions in the previous studies. As Roueche and Boggs found, studies on students are quite popular. As with the Swanson study, the present findings reflect about a two-thirds to three-fourths support for curriculum and instructional research. As contrasted to only one-third of the institutions participating in inter— institutional research in the Swanson study, about three- fourths reported such participation in the present findings. As in the case of the two previous studies, institutional age had limited relation to research programs; however, it was more evident than in the Roueche and Boggs findings. Also, as found in the previous studies, institutional size is a recurring factor with larger institutions exhibiting the more research activity. Of course, institutional con- trol was not a variable in this study since only public 83 institutions were studied. But, as Swanson found, the larger of these public institutions do have the more orga— nized and developed research programs. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study either directly or in— directly seem to support making the following conclusions: 1. Based on the questionnaire response rate, pilot study interviews, and various comments and information vol— unteered by respondents, there is considerable interest on the part of community college leaders in the subject of institutional research. This is not to say that this inter- est has in all cases, or even most, been translated into substantial, concrete research program activity. On the contrary, numerous comments were volunteered recognizing the discrepancy between present and past research programs and desired accomplishments. 2. Organization, especially in the smaller institu- tions, is largely inadequate for conducting institutional research in prObably two-thirds, if not more, of the com- munity colleges. 3. A wide variety of officers from different spe— cialties and disciplines have responsibility for institu- tional research in community colleges, although the number involved in any single institution is very limited. Very little support staff, such as clerical assistance, is pro- vided researchers. 84 4. The educational backgrounds of institutional research directors are quite varied. A variety of academic degree majors and teaching and administrative assignments-- past and present——are represented. 5. The rather young age of community college insti- tutional research organizations probably contributes to a number of problems which beset them. Institutional expan— sion prOblems, particularly in the research function, are reflected in the need for refinement and structure of the research process. 6. Advisory committees are sufficiently few and young that they have had a less than major impact on com- munity college institutional research-—in either its devel- opment or continuance. 7. Demands made on institutional research are such that having a program organized is hardly optional. Increas- ing external demands, such as for government reporting, require adequate information retrieval. Also, higher levels of sophistication of the staff within the institution re- quire additional institutional information. 8. Budget provisions are not adequate for even a marginal research Operation in most institutions. The few institutions reporting a research budget of $10,000 or more, hardly indicate adequate budgetary provision. ’9. A rather broad range of categories seems to have received research attention from community colleges in spite of the limited provisions that may be made for doing this 85 research. Thus, the rather broad range is probably not typically researched in considerable depth or with regular— ity. Also, since inquiry into these research categories did not specify recency or time of research completion, some of the reported categories were possibly studied years ago. Some may have been dependent upon considerable external support and assistance beyond the scope of this study. 10. Needs and problems of implementing institu— tional research are quite varied. The recognition of these needs may be a major step in their solution. Need for fis- cal resources and personnel, improved coordination, and in- creased use of institutional research findings are major problem areas needing attention. 11. The community college may be reaping the results of a non-research orientation of its earlier devel- opment. A non-research orientation in academic affairs, such as the development of basic knowledge, may have carried over into affairs of the institution and its analysis of its operations. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made on the bases of the total study including the questionnaire survey, pilot study, and review of literature. An emphasis is placed on basic steps for improving institutional research in the com— munity colleges. These recommendations are not intended to 86 be entirely novel--some may be a restatement and re—emphasis of previously made recommendations. 1. Philosophy, policy, and direction for institu- tional research should be developed, early in the life of the institution, and implemented with adequate organiza- tional structure, staffing, and budgeting. This is not to say all institutions should necessarily provide a full-time research director, at least not initially, but such direc- tion should be provided as is needed by an institution. This may very well mean part-time coordination; particularly, for some of the smaller institutions. Adequate staffing should also include both professional and support staff, such as clerical and secretarial, as needed. Budgetary pro- vision should be adequate and specifically included as a ~separate item in the institutional budget. 2. An advisory committee for institutional research should be formed with the establishment of the research orga- 'nization--if not before. This is to encourage faculty and ‘staff involvement in the planning and implementation process of the research program. Emphasis should be placed on estab- lishing an advisory committee early in the life of a re- search program and not as an appendage after-the-fact. The advisory committee might also provide an evaluative function for the institutional research program. 3. Broad participation by faculty and staff in actually doing institutional research should be encouraged. It is probably neither desirable nor practical that the 87 research office itself attempt to exclusively make all institutional studies, but rather, it is probablymore appropriate that the office provide supportive, facilitating assistance. 4. Proper use of institutional research findings should be assured. Research findings should be widely dis- seminated; particularly, to those directly concerned. Pro- visions should be made to implement findings where appro— priate. 5. Institutional officers, especially top—level administrators, should make every effort to ensure having a viable institutional research program. This includes develOping support for such a program by faculty, boards of directors, and all individuals directly concerned with the governance of the institution. This may be implemented by in-service training-~in board or faculty meetings--concern- ing the nature of institutional research and its institu- tional importance for the decision-making process. Also, active participation by institutional officers in organiza— tions such as the Association for Institutional Research should contribute toward strengthening their institutions‘ research programs. Conversely, organizations with institu- tional research interest and eXpertise should seek out the Opportunity to be of service to community colleges--as the Association for Institutional Research is doing. I 6. Community colleges should actively seek to re- direct what appears to be a non-research emphasis of this 88 particular level of higher education. It seems that what may be an approPriate non—research orientation, such as in areas of discovering basic knowledge is concerned, may have carried over into areas of institutional concerns where adequate information is most needed for responsible decision— making. Some of the pronouncements made by community col- leges, such as superior instruction, certainly need con— tinued research support. In conclusion, itseems appropriate to observe that although Community College Institutional Research does encompass two developing aspects of higher education--the latter, institutional research, seems to be lagging consid— erably behind development and progress of the general com- munity college itself. Just as there has been previous emphasis on junior college institutional research through studies, conferences, and other means, continued attention and emphasis may lead to fruitful fulfillment of the prom- ises of Community College Institutional Research. Reggmmendations for Further Studies Through the course of this study, a number of ques- tions have arisen which seem to deserve further, concentrated attention. To provide additional information for better understanding community college institutional research, the following areas are recommended for further study: 89 l. Perceptual study of various categories of individuals associated with institutional research is needed. This study would include perceptions of the role of institu- tional research and analysis and evaluation of it as it is practiced in institutions. These studies would include per— ceptions of administrators, faculty, and board members. 2. In—depth case studies need to be made of institutional research programs. A purpose of this study would be to identify determinants in the develOpment of superior research programs. Conversely, it may be as profitable, or more so, to study institutions with non- existent or unsuccessful research programs to determine organizational-environmental factors and other determinants of the state of affairs for research in these institutions. Also, inquiry should be made into the use of institutional research in specific decision-making situations. A case study analysis of an institution's use of institutional research in arriving at its ten most major decisions in recent years could be an approach for an inquiry of how institutional research is actually used in the decision- making process. 3. Qualifications, duties, and working conditions of institutional researchers should be studied. This in- cludes not only the research director, but also, his fellow staff researchers. It appears that there is a variety of 90 ways of implementing research programs. The combinations of ways researchers are used and perform their duties would be useful to know for institutions seeking to develop or improve a program of institutional research. The use of advisory committees and consultative personnel, possibly on the faculty or staff, would be areas for concern in this study. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Bagley, Clarence H., ed. A_Conceptual Framework for Institutional Research. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual National Institutional Research Forum. Pullman, Wash.: Office of Institutional Research, Washington State University, 1964. Conference on Institutional Research in Higher Education, March 29-30, 1962 (Proceedings). Research Bulletin N2. 6. DeKalb, 111.: Northern Illinois University, 1962? Conference on Institutional Research in Higher Education, March 28-29, 1963 (Proceedings). Research Bulletin N9, 11. DeKalb, 111.: Northern Illinois University, 1963'.— Corson, John J. Governance 9f_Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Council of State Governments. Reports 9Q_Higher Education: Ag Annotated Bibliography 9£_Recent Reports 9f_State Study Commissions and Other Official Agencies. Chicago: Ill.: The Council, March 1958. Council of State Governments. State Higher Education Study Commissions. Chicago, Ill.: The Council, 1959. Donaldson, Robert S. Fortifyinngigher Education: A_Story 9£_College,Se1f—Studies. New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1959. Dressel, Paul L" e£_gl, Evaluation ig;Higher Education. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Dressel, Paul L., and Mayhew, L. B. General Education: Explorations ig_Evaluation. ‘Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1954. 91 92 Eurich, Alvin C., and Pace, Robert C. Follow—Up Study Lf Minnesota Graduates from 1928 to 1936. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, 1938. Fincher, Cameron, ed. An Annotated Bibliography Lf Institutional Research 1967- 1968. Association _for Institutional Research, 1968. Fincher, Cameron, ed. Institutional Research and Academic Outcomes. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Forum on Institutional Research. Athens, Ga.: Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, 1968. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. This Is the Community_College. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968. Harris, Chester W}, ed. Problems ;2 Measuring Change. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963. Herridge, Eileen, ed. Understanding Institutional Research. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The Midwest Community College Leader- ship Council, 1967. Institute on College Self-Study. The Study 9§_Academic Administration. Boulder, Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963. Invitational Conference on Educational Research. Research ;Q_Higher Education: Guide 59 Institutional Decisions. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965. Krathwohl, David R., Bloom, Benjamin, and Masia, Bertram B. Taxonomy 9; Educational Objectives: The Classification g§_Educational Goals. New York: David McKay Company, 1964. Lins, L. Joseph, ed. Basis for Decision: A_Compgsite of Current Institutional Research Methods and‘Reports E: Colleges and Universities. Madison,‘Wis.: Dembar Educational Research Services, 1963. Lins, L. Joseph, ed. The Role Lf Institutional Research in Planning. Proceedings of the Third Annual National Institutional Research Forum. Madison,‘Wis.: Office of Institutional Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1963. Mager, Robert F. Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1962. I 1| Illi I ll‘j 93 McCall, Harlan R., g£,§;, Prdblems 9; New Faculty Members ;Q_Colleges and Universities. E. Lansing, Mich.: Center for the Study of Higher Education, Michigan State University, 1961. McGrath, Earl J. Cooperative Long—Range Planning ;p_Liberal Arts Colleges. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. McGrath, Earl J. Memo to a College Faculty Member. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961. McKeachie, Wilbert J., gt_§l, Research gp_the Characteris— tics 2; Effective College Teaching, Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan, 1964. Meeth, Richard L., ed. Selected Issues in Higher Education: Ag Annotated Bibliography. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965. Pace, Robert C. They Went EQ_College: A Study 2: 951 Former University Students. Minneapolis, Minn.: The University of Minnesota Press, 1941. Roueche, John E., and Boggs, John R. Junior College Institutional Research: The State 9£_the Art. Washing- ton, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968. Ruml, Beardsley and Morrison, Donald H. Memo tg.g_College Trustee. New York: McGraw—Hill Inc., 1959. Saupe, Joe L. Memo to a Newcomer to the Field Lf Institu— tional Research. —A— Review Prepared for the— Association for Institutional Research, 1967. Schramm, Wilbur. The Research Ln Programmed Instruction-—An Annotated Bibliography. U. S. Office of Education Bulletin #35. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1964. Schultz, Raymond E. Administrators for America's Junior Colleges: Prediction 9£_Need l965-l980. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1965. Sprague, Hall T. Institutional Research ;g_the West: Report 9§_§_Survey gf_Institutional Self Studies 22. ”Western Colleges and Universities. Boulder, Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1959. 94 Stecklein, John E. A Look a; the Charter Members 9£_AIR. Minneapolis, Minn.: Bureau of Institutional Research, University of Minnesota, 1966. Stickler, W. Hugh. Institutional Research Concerning Land— Grant Institutions and State Universities. Tallahassee, Fla.: Office of Institutional Research and Service, Florida State University, September 1959. Thornton, James W., Jr. The Communitngunior College. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. College Self-Study: Lectures pn_Institutional Research. Richard G. Axt and Hall T. Sprague, eds. Boulder, Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1960. ARTICLES Abramson, David A. "Curriculum Research and Evaluation," Review of Educational Research, 36:388-395, June 1966. Boyer, Ernest L., and Michael, William B. "Outcomes of College," Review 2£_Educational Research, 35:277-291, October 1965. Brinker, Paul A. "Our Illiberal Liberal-Arts Colleges: The Dangers of Undergraduate Overspecialization," Journal 9; Higher Education, 31:133-138, March 1960. D'Amico, Louis A., ed. "Membership Matters," The Asso- ciation for Institutional Research Newsletter, 4:5, October 1968. Dressel, Paul L. "A Comprehensive and Continuing Program of Institutional Research," in Earl J. McGrath, ed. COOperative Long—Range Planning i2 Liberal Arts Colleges. New York: Teachers College, 1964, pp. 37-49. Dyer, Henry S. "Can Institutional Research Lead to a Science of Institutions?" The Educational Record, 47:452-466, Fall 1966. Eckelberry, Roscoe H. "Institutional Self-Studies," Journal lgngigher Education, 31:107-108, Fall 1960. Riesman, David. “Alterations in Institutional Attitudes and Behavior,“ in Logan Wilson, ed. Emerging Patterns in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965, p. 72. 95 Roueche, John E. "Superior Teaching in Junior Colleges: Research Needed," Improving College and University Teaching, 16:33—35, Winter 1968. Stickler, W. Hugh. "The Expanding Role of Institutional Research in American Junior Colleges," Junior College Journal, 31:542-548, May 1961. Thompson, Loring M. "Institutional Research, Planning, and Politics," Journal 9f_Experimental Education, 31:89—91, December 1962. Tyrrell, P. H. "Project Reward: A Program of Institutional Research to Increase Instructional Productivity," The Educational Record, 42:212—222, July 1961. Wilson, Logan. "Analyzing and Evaluating Costs in Higher Education," The Educational Record, 42:99-105, April 1961. OTHER SOURCES Boyer, Ernest L. "The Impact of Institutional Research on the Academic Program,“ Albany, New York: Office of UniversityéWide Activities, State University of New York, 1967, Mimeographed. Swanson, Herbert L. "An Investigation of Institutional Research in the Junior Colleges of the United States," unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1965. Personal interview with Dr. Paul L. Dressel in his office at Michigan State University, September 28, 1967, inquiring into the development of institutional research, institu— tional research at Michigan State University, and bibliographic data for the subject. Personal interview with Dr. Joe L. Saupe in his office at Michigan State University, July 17, 1968, inquiring into methods of carrying out this study. Personal interview with Dr. W. Hugh Stickler in his office at Florida State University, July 24, 1968, inquiring into his recommendations for the pilot study, question- naire construction, and use of his Land-Grant Study findings in conjunction with the present study. 96 Personal interview with Dr. B° Lamar Johnson during a conference at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Kalamazoo, Michigan, August 26, 1968, inquiring into studies and conferences he has led on the subject of junior college institutional research. Personal interview with Dr. Dorothy Knoell during a conference at Michigan State University, October 21, 1968, inquiring into procedures, particularly non— respondent follow-up recommendations, to be used in this study. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE TO CHIEF ADMINISTRATORS OF INSTITUTIONS IN THE STUDY AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE A-l COMMUNITY COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDY DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ROOM 425 ERICKSON HALL MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48823 Dr . __, President Community College Dear Dr. __y : Increasingly, institutions of higher education have been relying on institutional research to provide information on which institutional decisions are based. The nature and extent of the development of community college institutional research is being studied at the nat- ional level. It is for this purpose that a sample of Junior colleges across our nation are participating in a study in order that we may better know how Junior colleges obtain information for their decision- making. YOur institution has been randomly selected for participation in this study. Institutional research is defined with sufficient breadth in this study to include studies ranging from current student demographic and space utilization studies, to initial planning area surveys--poss- ibly made at the inception of your institution by a citizens advisory committee. In order that we may have adequate and accurate response representing institutions having varying institutional research programs, please complete, or have completed, the enclosed survey form and return it by October 1h, 1968. It is projected that this study will be reported in a national publication. Findings of this study will be reported by institutional groupings and no institution will be identified in- dividually. Should you desire additional report of the findings please indicate this at the end of the questionnaire. Thank.you very much. Very respectfully, Ted van Istendal Project Director lTV:bc Encl. 97 we very much appreciate your participation in the Community College Institutional Research Study. Your response is important and necessary for this national study. If your questionnaire has already been completed and returned we especially thank you for your prompt- ness. If you are still completing the questionnaire please be sure to return it by the October 14, return date. Thank you very much, Ted Van Istendal Project Director 98 A-3 COMMUNITY COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDY DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ROOM 425 ERICKSON HALL MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48823 Octdber 22, 1968 Dr. , President Community College Dear Dr. : To date your response to the national Community College Institutional Research Study has not been received. As mentioned initially, your response shall be kept confidenT tial and is most important to our investigation of community college institutional research. Possibly your response is in the mail and we will soon receive it. Another copy of the questionnaire is enclosed should you desire one. We very much appreciate your completing the questionnaire and returning it to us. Thank you very much. Very respectfully, Ted Van Istendal Project Director Enclosure 99 COMMUNITY COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH: A STUDY OF HOW COMMUNITY COLLEGES OBTAIN INFORMATION FOR THEIR INSTITUTIONS’ DECISION-MAKING Please return to: COMMUNITY COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDY DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ROOM 425 ERICKSON HALL ' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48823 PURPOSE pg THIS STUDY: This study of Community College Institutional Research is for the purpose of learning how community colleges organize, operate, and administer a program for obtaining and processing information on which institutional decisions are made -- ranging from plant- planning to curriculum development. DEFINITION NOTE: Institutional research as referred to in this questionnaire pertains to research conducted on your campus which is directed toward providing data useful or necessary in the making of intel- ligent administrative decisions and for the successful maintenance, operation, and/or improvement of your institution. It includes the collection and analysis of data which might be used in preparing the budget, assigning space in buildings, planning the educational program, determining teacher load, admitting students, individual- izing instruction, planning new buildings, etc. Institutional research as here used also includes studies conducted on your campus which pertain to a group (or groups) of institutions of which your institution is one member (e.g., state- wide, regional or national studies which include your own insti- tution. .100 1. DIRECTIONS: The following list but is not meant to be all- (A) An estimate of the rate has been directed to each category by c do research in an area but do n effort, please check "Minor." done by an organization other than your own committees, outside consulting agencies). previously researched, or researched only researching by your institution. inclusive. 9. A 9 Check (J) Check (J) Check (J) areas of areas those research done by needed, not done by your outside previously or 1. institution. source. extensively MAJOR MINOR researched. suggests examples of types of ins For each category 0 l institutional research effort 0 hacking either "Major" or "Minor." ot regard it as a (B) Those areas, institution (i.e. (C) Check the categories of studies, not on a limited basis, Check or omit any categories as 101 titutional research studies, f studies please indicate: f your institution that If you "Major" part of your total research if any, that have been or are being , citizens advisory which you believe need is apprOpriate. 5353 Surveys Initial Plannigg Survey: Area surveys of communities and area served by your institution -— community educational needs, articulation with other educational insti— tutions, plant location studies. Community Service 1. Services and Continuing Consultation services, short adult and continuing Community Education: courses, conferences, education. Students 1. Admissions Policies: Studies of admission requirements, admissions counseling prac- tices, admission of non-resident students, follow-up of students denied admission or admitted but not enrolled. Alumni 32d Former Students: Studies of occupations, earning power, public service, their financial support of the institution, transfer student "follow—up" studies. Enrollment: Studies of projected enroll- ments, student—faculty ratios, college-age population analyses, trends. Student Personnel Services: Guidance and counseling, food services, extra-class activities, job opportunities, scholarship and loan policies and practices. Demographic and Attitude Studies: Studies of student origins, economic status, educa- tional qualifications, withdrawals, non- resident students, college costs, marital status, attitude-value studies, student reactions to the program of the institution. Check ( J) Check ( J) Check (J) areas of areas those research done by needed, not done by your outside previously or institution. source. extensively MAJOR MINOR researched. 102 Instruction and Faculty 1. Curriculum: Extent of curriculum, prolifer— ation of courses and curricula, general education, relationships between liberal and general education and occupational edu- cation, articulation with other institutions -- secondary, senior college, area vocational schools, etc. Instructional Progggg, Methods, Egg Materials: Individualization of instruction, honors programs, teaching methods, grade distributions and grading practices, instructional media, instructional grouping -- size and hetero- genity. Library: Library holdings, appropriateness of collections, effectiveness of library services, student use of library. Faculty: Studies of academic origins, edu- cational preparation, retention and turnover. salaries, retirement plans, fringe benfits, teaching loads, tenure policies, academic freedom policies, conditions of employment. future faculty needs. Fiscal and Administrative 1. Finance: Budget analyses, unit cost studies, evaluations of tuition, fees, student charges, sources of revenue. Physical Plant 229 Facilities: Space utili- zation, class size studies, plant planning. Administration and Organization gf_the Institution: Studies of division of respon- sibility, relations between offices and departments, relationships to governing bodies. Inter-Institutional Research 1. All Statewide ggg/gg Regional gg§_Nationa1 Coordination 22g Plannigg: Statewide studies of higher education, need for additional community colleges, inter-institutional cooperation, transfer student performance. Other (Please specify) 103 Please check the ONE (or more if appropriate) of the following statements which most 2. accurately describes the organization for institutional research at your institution. a. There is an officer or comittee whose main function is to coordinate all institutional research which is conducted on this campus. Title of officer: 93 Name of committee: b. There is an officer or committee 993 gf_whose functions it is to coordinate institutional research conducted on this campus. Title of officer: 93. Name of committee: c. Institutional research is carried out by several officers (or committees) in this institution. The findings may be used by the respective officers (or committees) in their own operations, or the reports may be distributed by the several officers (or committees) to various other personnel as the nature of the material suggests. d. There is very little institutional research conducted on this campus, and, therefore, no formal organization of it has been established. e. Other: (Please describe) I! You DID NOT Answsa QUESTION #2 As "A" OR "a", You WILL PROBABLY OMI'I' QUESTIONS 3 THROUGH SJ 3. To whom do the officers (or committees) listed in item 2 report directly? a. President (chief administrator) b. Vice-President c. Academic Dean d. Other (Please specify): 4. what is the composition of your institutional research staff with respect to the num- and nonprofessiona] ber of full-time and part-time personrel -- professional educators staff (i.e., clerical)? Professional Educators: nstitutional research work load assign- Number of staff on each of the following i 1/3 time , 1/4 time , ments: Full-time , 3/4 time____. 1/2 time____, other (Please specify):___ Nonprofessional Staff: e following institutional research work load assign- Number of staff on each of th 1/2 time , 1/3 time , 1/4 time , ments: Full-time , 3/4 time . other (Please specify): 5. What is the professional educa research director? MW Preparation: (Check all categories of degrees held by your director.) B.A. B.S. M.A. M.S. M.Ed. Ed.S. Ed.D. Ph.D. —— Other Major Fields pg Study: List Degrees by appro— priate major) Mathematics (statistics) Physical, bio- logical science Education Economics (Bus. Admin.) Social Science Humanities Other How long has the present organization for a. Less than one year. b. One to three years. c. Four to five years. d. More than five years 104 Primary Past Experience: (Please specify approxi- mate number of years.) M= Mathematics (statistics) Physical, bio- logical science Education Economics (Bus. Admin.) Social Science Humanities ______Other Administration: Admissions, registrar Counseling _m_ _Dean, division head Other If so, how many? years. If your institution had an institutional research organi organisation, how long was it in existence? tional background and current duties of your institutional Present Concurrent Duties: (Please specify work-load for those applicable.) Teachipg: Mathematics (statistics) 'Physical, bio- logical science Education Economics (Bus. Admin.) _.___Social Science _____;flumanities ___Other Administration: Admissions, registrar Counseling Dean, division head Other institutional research been in effect? ration prior to your present 105 Is there an agency or committee which functions as an advisory committee (i.e., faculty or staff) on institutional research? Yes , No . If so, what officers are represented on this comittee? (Check as many as appropriate.) a. President (chief administrator) b. Vice-President c. Department Chairmen d. Institutional research director e. Other If you answered the above question "Yes", how do individuals become members of the agency or committee? (Check all appropriate.) a. Appointed by administration b. Appointed by faculty organisation (i.e., faculty senate). c. Elected by faculty. d. In officio status. e. Other Approximately what percentage of your institutional research studies have been initiated by each of the following categories? Approximate X initiated by each source. 1 a. General administration -- Including research suggested by department chairmen, Board of Trustees, and/or research required by external sources (i.e., State Department of Education). 1 b. Faculty _____1 c. Institutional research director 2 d. Other What is your total amount budgeted for all institutional research for: (1) last fiscal year , and (2) this fiscal year ? IF THIS AMOUNT IS NOT FOEMALLY EUDGETED, TIONAL RESEARCH IS AESOIEED ST OTHER BUDGET ITEMS: TIE INSTITUTIONAL. RESEARCH PORTION 0R (HIT THE QUESTION IF YOU PREPER A ROUGH ESTIMATE IS MOST ADEQUATE. I? INSTITU- PLEASE MAKE A CONVENIENT ESTIMATE 0? TO DO SO. What is your total institutional r OPthting budget (not including capital outlay) for: ‘04 (2) this fiscal year 7 esearch budget as a percentage of your institution's (1) last fiscal year 106 10. In your judgment, what are the most pressing needs of the institutional research program in your institution? (Check as many as appropriate.) a. Fiscal resources and/or personnel. b. Improved coordination. c. Increased use of institutional research findings. d. Other In order that this study may provide some further measure of community college institutional research activity, it would be helpful if you would please enclose repre- sentative studies either completed or presently being made by your institution. Two, three, or four of your studies will be most adequate. Whether the studies are bound, mimeographed, or summarized in a page or two is immaterial. Also, any descriptive data such as lists of studies you have made or are going to make, research director's job description, etc. would be useful. If you have general observations or further coments on institutional research at your institution or other institutions, please comment: study of conunity college studies or other materials Thank you again for Thank you very much for your contribution to this institutional research. Please enclose any representative you may care to forward and return this form by October 14, 1968. your very valuable assistance. APPENDIX B TABLES 107 TABLE 1. STATES INCLUDED IN EACH OF THE FIVE REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY Northeast Southeast Midwest West Far West Maine ~.Maryland Michigan Texas California New Hampshire Virginia Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Vermont W. Virginia Indiana New Mexico Washington Massachusetts N. Carolina Illinois Arizona ,Alaska Rhode Island S. Carolina Missouri Kansas Hawaii Connecticut Georgia Iowa Colorado New Ybrk Florida Minnesota Utah Pennsylvania Alabama Wisconsin Nevada New Jersey Mississippi wyoming Delaware Louisiana Nebraska .Arkansas S. Dakota Tennessee N. Dakota Kentucky Montana Idaho 108 .ucmEHHomcm amuou oom.H BOHUQ .HHmEm nm>onm pom udeHHouom Hmuou oom.a .mmamqllmmnmm nodusumumch 0.05 cam oom one o.on AHA moa mom m.oo mm oma mam Hmuoa «.mh mo Ho hma N.mb mm mm Hoa o.~o m ma om umoz mom m.ho mm mm baa o.mh ma om No o.om mm mm on ummz H.~h on He mma 0.0m ON mm Ho o.>m ma am no ummzpmz m.m@ Hm ms «ma o.mo ma mm mm o.ah mm am ooa unassuoom m.mm Hm me moa o.m© ha hm hm o.oo ca mm mo unmonuuoz .mnm x..mmm .Amm .mom .mmm x..mmm .Hmm .mom .mmm x..mmm .Hmm .mom msonom Hmuoa mmamq HHmEm omnmm aofluoufiumcH mdmzflm ZDBGmBm m0 mwdazmummm < mfl mBZmnzommmm EBHZ HNHm ZOHBDBHBmZH QZG ZOHOMm Mm mazmnzommmm QZ< .mflmzflm .ZOHBGADmom MQDBm hO ZOHBDmHMBmHQ .N mflmde 109 TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF STUDY RESPONDENTS BY REGION AND INSTITUTION SIZE WITH‘RESPONDENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE Institution Size Small Large Total Regions Rsp. % Rsp. Rsp. % Rsp. Rsp. % Rsp. Northeast 14 6.1 17 8.1 31 14.8 -Southeast 36 18.0 15 7.1 51 24.3 Midwest 18 8.6 26 12.4 44 21.0 West 23 11.0 15 7.1 38 18.1 Far west 8 3.8 38 18.1 46 21.9 Total 99 47.1 111 53.9 210 100.0 TABLE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND AGE Institution Agea Young Old Total ms: 1:? Ion Fb %TC F %'r F %'r Small 61 29.0 38 18.1 99 47.1 Large 47 22.4 64 30.5 111 52.9 Total 108 51.4 102 48.6 210 100.0 aInstitution‘Ages--Young institutions were founded 1960 or later; Old institutions were founded prior to 1960. bF = Frequency. q%T = Percent of total. 110 TABLE 5. TYPES OF ORGANIZATION FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BY INSTITUTION SIZE* Institution Size Small Large Total Type of Organization F F F Full-time coordination 4 32 36 Part-time coordination 24 34 58 Decentralized organization 43 43 86 No formal organization 36 18 54 Other 5 2 7 *Relationships with the chi square test significant at the .05 level. 111 TABLE 6. TITLES OF INDIVIDUALS HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BY FREQUENCY OF MENTION Title Director/Coordinator of Institutional Research Director/Coordinator/Supervisor of Research Dean/Director of Students, Student Personnel, or Student Services . . . . . . . . . . Assistant to the President or Administrative Assistant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director/Coordinator/Supervisor of Research and DevelOpment . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dean of Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . Director/Supervisor of Research and Planning Registrar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director of DevelOpment . . . . . . . . . . Assistant Dean--Director of Research and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'Assistant Dean--Research . . . . . . . . . . Director-~College Research and Evaluation . Director of Educational and Institutional Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director of Research, Development, and Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director of Research and Federal Proqrams . Associate Director of Research and Testing . Research Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . Research Associate . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chairman of Research Committee . . . . . . . Director of College District Planning . . . Director of the College . . . . . . . . . . Director of Branch Campus . . . . . . . . . Dean of the College . . . . . . . . . . . Executive Vice President and Dean of Faculties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director of Academic Services . . . . . . . Director of Educational Services . . . . . . Dean of Admissions, Records, and Research . Dean of Community Services . . . . . . . . . Director of the Computer Center . . . . . . Director of Special Services . . . . . . . . Administrative Assistant to the Development Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H l—‘I—‘N [01000003515 U1 HIAPJHPHPJHIAPJH HPHF‘HP‘F‘HPJF‘ I... \l N 112 TABLE 7. TITLES OF COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES HAVING RESPONSI- BILITY FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BY FREQUENCY OF MENTION Title F_ Research Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Institutional Research Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Committee on Institutional Research and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Institutional Research and EXperimentation Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Institutional Studies Committee . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Study Steering Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Curriculum Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Administrative Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Professional DevelOpment Committee . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Council of Deans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _1 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 TABLE 8. OFFICERS TO WHOM INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS REPORT BY INSTITUTION SIZE Institution Size Small Large Total Officers Reported To F F F President 38 50 88 Vice-President or Dean 13 24 37 Other 2 2 4 113 TABLE 9. SIZE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL STAFF AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTION SIZE Institution Size Professional Staff Workload Small Large Total Assignment F F F Full-time 0 34 34 3/4 time 1 3 4 l/2 time* 5 8 13 1/3 time* 8 9 l7 l/4 time 36 53 89 *Relationships with chi square test significant at the .05 level. TABLE 10. SIZE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH NON-PROFESSIONAL STAFF AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTIONAL SIZE Non-Professional Institution Size Staff Workload Small Large Total Assignment ‘F F F Full-time 0 22 22 3/4 time 1 3 4 1/2 time 0 l4 14 1/3 time 1 5 6 1/4 time 13 21 34 TABLE 11. SIZE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL STAFF AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTIONAL AGE Institution Age Professional Staff Workload Young 01d Total Assignment F F F Full-time 9 20 29 3/4 time 1 3 4 1/2 time 6 7 13 1/3 time 11 6 17 1/4 time 34 55 89 114 TABLE 12. SIZE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH NON-PROFESSIONAL STAFF AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTIONAL AGE L J Non—Professional InStltutlon Age Staff Workload Young Old Total Assignment F .F F Full-time 7 15 22 3/4 time 2 2 4 1/2 time 6 8 14 1/3 time 2 4 6 1/4 time 18 16 34 TABLE 13. DISTRIBUTION OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH STAFF PER INSTITUTION BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND AGE* L Full-Time' Institution Size Institution Age Equivalent Small Large Total Young Old Categories F F F F F 9.00 - 1 1 - 1 3.25 - l 1 - 1 3.00 - 1 1 — l 2.92 1 - 1 1 - 2.25 l _ l l _ 1.75 1 _ 1 _ 1 1.50 - 4 4 3 l 1.25 1 1 2 - 2 1.08 - 1 1 - 1 1.00 1 25 26 8 18 0.75 1 l 2 l 1 0.67 1 - 1 1 - 0.50 3 10 13 7 6 0.33 4 3 7 5 2 0.25 10 12 22 10 12 Total 24 60 84 37 47 Sum of ranked values for "U" test 786.5 2783.5 1443.0 2127.0 Over-all professional staff Median FTE = 0.59 *Significant at the .05 level with the Mann-Whitney "U" Test. 115 TABLE 14. DISTRIBUTION OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT NON- PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH STAFF PER INSTITUTION BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND AGE Full-Time Institution Size Institution Age Equivalent Small Large Total Young 01d Categories F F F F F 4.50 — 1 l _ l 2.00 — 1 l _ l 1.67 — 1 l _ l 1.25 - l l l _ 1.00 - 16 16 6 10 0.50 1 12 13 7 6 0.25 8 8 16 8 8 Total 12 46 58 27 31 Sum of ranked values for "U" test 185.0 1519.5 . 732.5 972.0 Over—all non-professional staff Median FTE = 0.50 *Significant at the .05 level with the Mann-Whitney "U" Test. TABLE 15. DEGREES REPORTED HELD BY INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS BY INSTITUTION SIZE Institution Size Small Large Total Degree F F F Bachelors 25 66 91 Masters 19 53 72 Specialists 3 4 7 Doctors 8 20 28 116 TABLE 16. DEGREES REPORTED HELD BY INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS BY INSTITUTION AGE Institution Age Young Old Total Degree F F F Bachelors 37 54 91 Masters 32 40 72 Specialists 2 5 7 Doctors 7 21 28 TABLE 17. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTOR MAJORS FOR ALL DEGREES HELD Maj or F % Mathematics (statistics) 25 17.1 Physical, biological science 23 15.8 Education 49 33.6 Economics (Bus. Admin.) 8 5.5 Social Science 29 19.9 Humanities 4 2.7 Other 8 5.5 Total 146 100.0 TABLE 18. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS REPORTED AS HAVING FORMER AND/OR CONCURRENT TEACHING ASSIGN- MENTS BY SUBJECT AREA Former Concurrent Subject Area F F Mathematics (statistics) 30 6 Physical, biological science 19 1 Education 17 4 Economics (Bus. Admin.) 7 4 Social Science 24 4 Humanities 8 2 Other 16 4 117 TABLE 19. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS REPORTED AS HAVING FORMER AND/OR CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSIGNMENTS BY ADMINISTRATIVE AREA Former Concurrent .Administrative Area F F Admissions, registrar 13 10 Counseling 24 7 Dean, division head 27 28 Other 28 19 TABLE 20. AGE OF PRESENT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTION SIZE Institution Size Age of Research Small Large Total organizat ion F % F % F % Less than 1 year 11 28.9 29 40.3 40 36.4 1-3 years 23 60.5 28 38.9 51 46.4 4—5 years 1 2.6 7 9.7 8 7.3 More than 5 years 3 7.9 8 11.1 11 10.0 Total 38 100.0 72 100.0 110 100.0 TABLE 21. AGE OF PRESENT INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION -AS REPORTED BY INSTITUTION AGE Institution‘Age . Age of Research Young 01d Total Organization ,F % F % F % Less than 1 year 19 36.5 21 36.2 40 36.4 1-3 years 27 51.9 24 41.4 51 46.4 4-5 years 4 7.7 4 6.9 8 7.3 More than 5 years 2 3.8 9 15.5 11 10.0 Total 52 100.0 58 100.0 110 100.0 118 TABLE 22. EXISTENCE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES BY INSTITUTION SIZE* Institution Size Committee Small Large Total Existence F %. F % F % Yes 21 23.1 47 43.9 68 34.3 No 70 76.9 60 56.1 130 65.7 Total 91 100.0 107 100.0 198 100.0 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. TABLE 23. EXISTENCE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES BY INSTITUTION AGE Institution Age 4Committee Young 01d Total Existence F % F % F % Yes 32 32.0 36 36.7 68 34.3 No 68 68.0 62 63.3 130 65.7 Total 100 100.0 98 100.0 198 100.0 TABLE 24. INSTITUTIONS HAVING-ADVISORY COMMITTEES BY PRESENT RESEARCH ORGANIZATION AGE Existence of Advisory Committee Present Research Yes No Total Organization .Age F % F % F % Less than 1 year 14 27.5 24 44.4 38 36.2 1-3 years 26 51.0 23 42.6 49 46.7 4-5 years 6 11.8 2 3.7 8 7.6 More than 5 years 5 9.8 5 9.3 10 9.5 Total 51 100.0 54 100.0 105 100.0 119 TABLE 25. EXISTENCE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY TYPE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION* Existence of Advisory Committee Yes No Type of Organization F F Full-time coordination 23 12 Part-time coordination 29 27 Decentralized organization 24 57 No formal organization 7 44 Other 1 6 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. TABLE 26. ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP BY INSTITUTION SIZE* Institution Size Small Large Total Positions F‘ F F President (chief administrator) 9 17 26 Vice President, Dean, Div. head 12 20 32 Department Chairmen 10 28 38 Institutional Research Director 4 24 28 Other 6 25 31 Total 41 114 155 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. TABLE 27. WAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEES OBTAIN MEMBERS BY INSTITUTION SIZE Institution Size Methods of Obtaining Small Large Committee Members F F Administrative appointment 17 38 Faculty appointment 3 16 Faculty election 1 2 ,Ex officio status 1 2 Other 1 3 120 TABLE 28. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES INITIATED BY GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SOURCES BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND INITIATING PERCENTAGE CATEGORIES* Institution Size Initiation Percentage Small Large Total Categories F F F 65-100% 62 54 116 35-64% 14 27 41 1-34% 2 9 11 Total 78 90 168 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. TABLE 29. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES INITIATED BY FACULTY SOURCES BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND INITIATING PERCENTAGE CATEGORIES Institution Size Initiation Percentage Small Large Total Categories F F F 65-100% 2 3 5 35-64% 8 12 20 1—34% 43 51 94 Total 53 66 119 TABLE 30. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES INITIATED BY INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DIRECTORS BY INSTITUTION SIZE AND INITIATING PERCENTAGE CATEGORIES Institution Size Initiation Percentage Small Large Total Categories F F F 65-100% 2 9 11 35-64% 2 10 12 1-34% 10 27 37 Totals 14 46 60 121 TABLE 31. SOURCES INITIATING INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES BY CATEGORIES OF PERCENTAGE OF INITIATION Initiation Percentage Categories loo-65%. 64-35% 34—l%’ Total Initiating Source F F F F General Administration 116 41 11 168 Faculty 5 20 94 119 Inst. Research Director 11 12 37 60 Other 3 0 16 19 Total 135 73 158 366 TABLE 32. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH STUDIES INITIATED BY GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PERCENTAGE CATEGORIES COMPARED WITH TYPE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION* Initiation Percentage Categories Type of Research loo—65%) 64-35% 34—E% Organization F F F Full-time coordination 11 15 7 Part-time coordination 29 14 2 Decentralized organization 59 24 3 No formal organization 3 5 1 Other 3 0 0 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. 122 TABLE 33. PERCENT ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH INITIATION BY EXISTENCE OF RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE Initiation Percentage Categories Existence of 100-65% 64—35% 34-1% Total Advisory Committee F F F F Yes 35 16 7 58 No 78 22 4 104 Total 113 38 11 162 TABLE 34. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORY AMOUNTS FOR INSTITUTIONS BY SIZE FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR* Budget Amount Less Than $10,000 Institution $10,000 or More Total S ize F % F % F % Small 10 90.9 1 9.1 11 100.0 Large 11 32.4 23 67.6 34 100.0 Total 21 46.7 24 53.3 45 100.0 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. TABLE 35. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORY AMOUNTS FOR INSTITUTIONS BY SIZE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR* Budget Amount Less Than $10,000 Institution .$10,000 or More Total Size F % F % F % Small 14 77.8 4 22.2 18 100.0 Large 13 28.9 32 71.1 45 100.0 Total 27 42.9 36 57.1 63 100.0 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. 123 TABLE 36. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR INSTITU- TIONS BY SIZE FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR* Budget Percentage Institution Less Than 1%. 1% or More Total Size F % F \ % F % Small 5 55.6 4 44.4 9 100.0 Large 11 36.7 19 63.3 30 100.0 Total 16 41.0 23 59.0 39 100.0 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. TABLE 37. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR INSTITU- TIONS BY SIZE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR* 1 I L 1 Budget Percentage Institution Less Than 1% 1% or More Total Size F % F % F % Small 11 68.8 5 31.3 16 100.0 Large 21 51.2 20 48.8 41 100.0 Total 32 56.1 25 43.9 57 100.0 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. TABLE 38. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORY AMOUNTS FOR INSTITUTIONS BY AGE FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR Budget Amount Less Than $10,000 Institution $10.00 or More Total Age F %. F %. F '% Young 10 43.5 13 56.5 23 100.0 Old 11 50.0 11 50.0 22 100.0 Total 21 46.7 24 53.3 45 100.0 124 TABLE 39. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORY AMOUNTS FOR INSTITUTIONS BY AGE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR Budget Amount Less Than [$10,000 _ Institution $10,000 or More Total ,Age F ‘% F ‘% F % Young 16 43.2 21 56.8 37 100.0 Old 11 42.3 15 57.7 .26 100.0 Total 27 42.9 36 57.1 63 100.0 TABLE 40. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR INSTITU- TIONS BY AGE FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR Budget Percentage Institution Less Than 1%. 1% or More Total .Age F %. F %» F % Young 10 50.0 10 50.0 20 100.0 Old 6 31.6 13 68.4 19 100.0 Total 16 41.0 23 59.0 39 100.0 TABLE 41. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH BUDGET CATEGORIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR INSTI- TUTIONS BY AGE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR Budget Percentage Institution Less Than 1% 1% or More Total Age F ‘% F ‘% F % Young 22 64.7 12 35.3 34 100.0 Old 10 43.5 13 56.5 23 100.0 Total 32 56.1 25 43.9 57 100.0 125 TABLE 42. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF COMPARED WITH RESEARCH BUDGET FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR* Budget Amount Less Than $10,000 $10,000 or More Total Staff Workloads F F F l or more FTE 4 23 27 'Less than 1 FTE 9 4 l3 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. TABLE 43. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF COMPARED WITH RESEARCH.BUDGET FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR* Budget Amount Less Than $10,000 $10,000 or More Total Staff Workloads F F F l or more FTE 5 29 34 Less than 1 FTE 11 6 17 *Significant at the .05 level with the chi square test. 126 TABLE 44. PROFESSIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF COMPARED WITH RESEARCH BUDGET AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR LAST FISCAL YEAR Budget Percentage Less Than 1% T% or More Total Staff Workloads F F F l or more FTE 8 19 27 Less than 1 FTE 6 2 8 TABLE 45. PROFESSIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT STAFF COMPARED WITH RESEARCH BUDGET AS A.PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR Budget Percentage Less Than r% 1%ior More Total Staff Workloads F F F 1 or more FTE 11 22 33 Less than 1 FTE 12 2 l4 1327 .Ho>oH mo. onu um unmoHuwcuHm mummu mumsvm H30 nuH3 maHnmcoHumHom. .mcoHusuHuucw mound I A .ucoHusuHuacH,HHa2m u m Q a «.mN ooH o.mN mN o.NN NN He NN 6H H mm n.NN mN N.NN MN ac 6H m m anoumwmom Hmco.usuwumcHluoucH o.mN moH n.vN mm N.mN NN HH ma aN a :oHusuHumcH me» No mm n.NN NN N.NN «N m mm mN m coHuaNHcmmuo can .cHsc< o.mm ooH wle mH m.N m NN mN «6 H moHuHHHomm no m.nm HH m.o o HN on Ne m can ucmHm Hmonxna m.Hm NoH v.Nm NN o.NH mH oN on em H mm N.Hm HN m.mH mmlfl NN 5N an m oucmch O>AumuumACu~EU4 mucm Hangman.— o.Hm 60H m.mm HN N.¢H mH 6 Na me H mm m.mN NN N.¢N NN 0H «m NN m HuHsomm H.Hm moH o.Hm mN o.aH oN m mm mN H mm N.Hm HN m.mH mH m we mN m NumunHH N.NN NoH «.mN mm 6.0N NN m mm Hm H mHmHuoum: ocm1+mcosumz mm m.oo an N.mm Nm N mm MN m .EmumOHN HmcoHuusuumcH N.mN moH o.Hm Nm o.aH 0N HH 6m we H Na m.NN NN N.NN NN HH Nm mm m EsHsoHuuso Muasomm 0cm coHuosuumcH m.mm moH m.mN mN N.HN NN NH Nm mN H .mmHeaum mosuHuu< om m.Nm Na N.N¢ mm NH mm m m can oHnamumoEoo m.oN ooH o.mm 6N o.NH mH N Hc me a ma m.mo cm H.om mN m mm on m Hmccomuwm ucwnsum N.Nm NoH NAWm oH ~44 m NH mm 06 H No N.mm NH m.HH HH mH an an m ucaeHHoucm H.Nn ooH N.¢o we m.mm mm e on mN H .mucmesum om m.m¢ ma H.Hm 64 H Hm NH m nuance 6cm HaasH< n.6m moH o.Hm NN @4mH oN m me an H mm o.mn NN e.oN 0H m ov Nm m moHuHHom maonmHsuc muchSum v.mm voH «.mm 0N o.oH HH NH 66 Ne H ma H.Hm NN m.mH mH HH He Hm m coH>uom HuHcseaoo ¢.oo coH «.mm mH oon HH ma «N me ha mm v.Hm oH o.m m Nm oN Ne mm a>o>usm amu< x m x m \ ax m m m m anomounu cane anommumo whoomumo mcoo >H0>Hmcwuxm mousom HocHz uoflmz mcHzoumouom mHne 0» can uNHm xm no >HmooH>oum mchuoo am \Jfi1 * Hauoa mnemocommom noumomwm mcHoo x uoz .oOpwmz mcoo noumwmmm mwmwwswwwmwwmmm ZUHM 0m 0% MO mow: NO flaw: NO mam: o m 4 WNHm ZOHBDBHBmZH Wm mmmzommmx >m00ma<0 m0moH no. ueu an uauuHuHcmHn memo» manna» Hen :uH3 umHencoHumHuz¢ .naoHusuHuaaH noeHo n o .nQONunuuumcw maso» n Ma a «.mN mo N.mc oN N.oN NN «N NH NH 0 ea a.oo 6N H.mH mH NN «N N » croumoaoz HacoHusuHuncHnuoucH . Na m.mo oN H.oN mN o oN oN o :oHusuHumcH any do w NN ooH o.NN NN c.NN NN HH 66 NN a :OHumuHcamuo can .:Han¢ o.Na ma . .mqmm o N.v e NN NN on o moHuHHHomMII aoH ¢.oa NH o.N oH oN NN mm u can uaaHm HauHmazm o.Hm Na m.Nm HN N.NH 6H NH NN NN o mcH o.Hm NN o.mH oN 6N oN 6N » moamch osHuauuchHsuc can HaouHm o.Hm om N.Hm oN «.mH NH 6 mN NN 0 mm m.om «N N.NH NH HH mN NN a NuHsoam H.Hm om N.Nm HN N.oH 6H m cm mN o NoH c.mN mN o.HN NN N «m 6N a NuauaHH N.NN 6N H.NN mN N.NN NN 4 Ne NN o mHNHuwummlqcm..mvoammmll 66H m.oo ov N.oN NN N ma mN » amumoum HmcoHuuauuucH N.mN mm m.NN . 6N H.NN HN m HN ea c NoH v.om mN o.NH HN 6H NN we » IanuHuuno >u~sumh can :Owuosuuucu «.06 Ma xlwfimw1 fin N.Hn mN ma mm ON 0 nmwcaum monumuut NcH m.mo 6N H.HN NN 6H NN NH » can uHamaumoama o.oN Nm N.mN mN N.vN «N o oN mN o aon>uom NeH v.mN mN o.HN NN 6 av ¢N » Huacouuma acuoaum N.Nm om 1‘ w.Hm HH New I.w NH «N me .o ooH m.NN NH m.N 6 NH 6N on » acmaHHouam H.Nm ma N.Nw He w.NN NN N NN 6N o uncounum - om o.Nm Hm o.mv Na 6 «N NH » Hanson can HaluH< N.oo ea m.Hm oN H.mH NH N am mN o qu o.oN oN N.HN NN m Ne NN » noHuHHom :oHuque¢ mmmmmmww ¢.mo em o.vm 6N . o.wH mH 6H we mN 0 now 5.00 NN M .NH 3 «H do 3 H motion audio v.6a Na m.mm 6H H.¢H NH HN «N No no neH N.oa a N.m o Hm 6N me we nausuam aoua .u m x. u \ mu. m m m m huomfluau Dana anomouuu Naomuuao anon haflbuunouxu mousom nocax. “Ohm: uaHeuunoaon ana 0» ecu ouHm an ac HHuaoH>uum uoHuuno an a a an n.Hauoa nuauuaonuos couscous mnHon.x ac: .606602 «can Annamaua nmwwm uwwmomuz souaoaufl HO uncut HO unou‘ HO anuu‘ o n c HUG IOHHDHHBGIH.HG mflwlchmfll flfldeflhflu IUE‘HWMK .hv flflnflh 129 TABLE 48. REPRESENTATIVE STUDIES FORWARDED BY RESPONDENTS IN ORDER OF CHECK-LIST CATEGORIES E Area Surveys, Master Plan Studies, Accreditation and/or Self-Studies . . . . . . . . . 15 Community Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Students Admissions Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . 5 Alumni and Former Students . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Enrollment--Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Student Personnel Services . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Demographic and Attitude Studies . . . . . . . . 11 Instruction and Faculty Curriculum-~Occupational Education and Articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Instructional Methods, Practices, Media . . . . . 12 Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fiscal and Administrative Finance . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Physical Plant and Facilities--Space Utilization and Class Size Studies . . . . . . 3 ‘Administration and Organization Study . . . . . . 1 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 TABLE 49. NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS REPORTED BY INSTITUTION SIZE Institution Size Small Large Total Needs F F F Fiscal resources and/or personnel 64 69 133 Improved coordination 27 39 66 Increased use of findings 24 46 70 Program of action 6 10 16 Motivation 2 4 6 Other 7 6 l3 TABLE 50. NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS REPORTED BY INSTITUTION AGE Institution-Age Young Old Total Needs F F F Fiscal resources and/or personnel 69 64 133 Improved coordination 27 39 66 Increased use of findings 31 39 70 Program of action 6 10 16 Motivation 2 4 6 Other 10 3 13 131 TABLE 51. REPORTED NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS COMPARED WITH LAST YEAR'S RESEARCH BUDGET Budget Amount Less Than $10,000 $10,000 or More Total Needs F F F Fiscal resources and/or personnel 15 12 27 Improved coordination 6 11 17 Increased use of findings 9 12 21 Program of action 1 l 2 Motivation 1 l 2 Other 2 l 3 TABLE 52. REPORTED NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS COMPARED WITH THIS YEAR'S RESEARCH BUDGET Budget Amount Less Than $10,000 $10,000 or More Total Needs F F F Fiscal resources and/or personnel 19 19 38 Improved coordination 5 18 23 Increased use of findings 10 18 28 Program of action 2 3 5 Motivation 1 l 2 Other 3 2 5 132 TABLE 53. REPORTED NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS COMPARED WITH LAST YEAR'S RESEARCH BUDGET AS A APERCENTAGE OF INSTITUTION TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET Budget Percent Less Than 1% 1%lor More Total Needs F F F Fiscal resources and/or personnel 10 16 26 Improved coordination 6 9 15 Increased use of findings 8 ll 19 Program of action 2 2 4 Motivation 0 l 1 Other 2 2 4 TABLE 54. REPORTED NEEDS OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS ~COMPARED WITH THIS YEAR'S RESEARCH BUDGET AS A PERCENTAGE OF INSTITUTION TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET Budget Percent Less Than F% E% or More Total Needs F F F Fiscal resources and/or personnel 21 16 37 Improved coordination 8 12 20 Increased use of findings 14 13 27 Program of action 3 2 5 Motivation 0 l 1 Other 3 2 5 APPENDIX C SELECTED COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY RESPONDENTS 133 Institutional research at our college emphasizes direct contact between faculty and the research director. Primary emphasis is placed on evaluation of instructional methods. [Need to] decide with appropriate criteria what is to be researched. *** Institutional research, as a formal part of the junior college organization, is in an embry- onic state. It has not yet been fully recognized as a vital part of the junior college. Therefore its great potential has not been realized. *** Our institutional research is too limited to even be mentioned. At the present time it consists of the compiling of needed statistics for state and federal reports. We are recently organized without adequate funds. The Board feels the limited funds should be used for other items than research at this time. [Need] Board approval and acceptance of need for [an institutional research program]. *** Limited funds and staff and trained person- nel have made our efforts at research very sketchy. (Minimal data gathering for various federal, state, and local reports constitutes the bulk of the effort thus far. Though insti- tutional research has been recognized as neces- sary--other more pressing needs have been given priority. Only recently have we begun to recog- nize that research is properly part of the role of the community college (philosophically speak- ing). We hope now to make some strides in this area with regard to formalizing the effort, allocating budget, appointing advisory commit- tees, projecting goals, etc. *** 134 [Need] time and desire to do research by faculty members. *** We are too busy admitting, counseling, hir- ing, firing, passing bond issues and filling out forms and answering questionnaires to save any time for institutional research! It's too bad; but true. *** A self-study evaluation for accreditation purposes, a study of drOpouts for a dissertation and very minor research projects by departments are the only efforts toward research we have undertaken. We feel that research is needed in many areas but do not have the funds or avail- able staff to do so. *** Our junior college is just starting its fourth year. We have a building program under— way on a new campus, and have not "matured" enough yet to organize for institutional re- search on a continuing or long range plan. *** Since our college has been in existence for such a short period of time--since October, 1966, we are necessarily involved in institutional re- search and studies concerned with Regional Accred- itation, etc. *** At a recent seminar for institution research directors of community colleges . . . it was evident that most of the participants did not have a clear idea of the scope of institutional research (i.e., what types of things can legiti- mately be called institutional research) and then hgw_does one conduct studies. *‘k‘k 135 This has been a difficult questionnaire for me to fill out, since my position is quite new and no job—description has been formalized. I have no staff and am coordinator of the math department in addition to teaching 6 hours. Because of these limitations, most of our "research" is being done by individuals from the administration and faculty. . . . At present, I am attempting to predict grades in math courses by means of high school records and Regents Scholarship Exams. I am also going to try to place personal values on our math courses for individual students, based on their educational-vocational goals and high school backgrounds. The intent is to use this information for guidance purposes. One of my major goals this year is the setting up of a computerized system for the collection, storing, and dissemination of student data. *** I have conducted several studies on my own initiative to demonstrate the need for empirical data in the decision making process. The college has just created the position and I am designing the type of structure, function, sc0pe, and sequence of an I.R. program to present to the Board of Trustees. This year will be devoted to designing and develOping such a program and I will probably move to a full time I.R. position by next year. .Currently my studies are mostly descriptive to determine student characteristics and provide a reference point for future eXperi- mental studies which will involve faculty, admin- istration, and students. I hope to play a con- sultant role to these groups. I am enclosing an I.R. newsletter which I designed for dissemina- tion to the college. 136 Am just now striving to get some semblance of an institutional research program initiated. At this point, all research is actuated by and structured around Title III proposal and Southern Association year of self study. *** The office of Institute Research has been sorely needed for the past several years. A program of continuing research to this date has been non-existent and the system of collation of data has been a haphazard Operation. To date, with the advantage of the availability of Federal and State monies to assist individual colleges, Institution Research is becoming more and more a necessity for the growth and develop- ment of a college. The problems of the Director of Institutional Research would be greatly alle- viated if the Federal and State governments would stop employing people whose task it seems is to create more and more paperwork. *** nIcuIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES WWIImW1|"WINHl11|“{IllHWI‘HIWIWHI 31293107731725