INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy o f the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Pags(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black m ark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that die copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in aqua! sections w ith a smalt overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is o f greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title , author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zoob Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48100

I

I

I

75-7114
BELTRANv Lydia Aganan, 1932INSTITUTIONAL GOALS AS PERCEIVED AND PREFERRED
BY SELECTED CONSTITUENT GROUPS IN FIVE
STATE-SUPPORTED UNIVERSITIES IN MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University. Ph.D.. 1974
Education, higher

Xerox University Microfiims ,

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

INSTITUTIONAL GOALS AS PERCEIVED AND PREFERRED
BY SELECTED CONSTITUENT GROUPS IN FIVE
STATE-SUPPORTED UNIVERSITIES IN MICHIGAN
By
Lydia A. Beltran

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education
1974

ABSTRACT
INSTITUTIONAL GOALS AS PERCEIVED AND PREFERRED
BY SELECTED CONSTITUENT GROUPS IN FIVE
STATE-SUPPORTED UNIVERSITIES IN MICHIGAN
By
Lydia A. Beltran

The Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate the goals
of Michigan State University, Michigan Technological Uni v e r ­
sity, University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and
Western Michigan University as perceived and preferred by
their respective trustees, administrators, and faculty.

The

goals investigated were related to results of university
functioning

(outcome goals) and the supportive processes

necessary for their attainment

(process g o a l s ) .

Methodology
A questionnaire containing forty statements of p o s s i ­
ble institutional goals was the principal instrument used
to gather data.

Each item in the instrument required two

types of responses showing the perceived and preferred i m ­
portance of the stated goal for the respondents'
universities.

respective

Each respondent was given five choices to

Lydia A. Beltran
rate the importance of each statement in the perceived and
preferred dimensions, with the response categories ranging
from "of no importance" to "of very high importance".
Twelve hypotheses were tested in the study.
univariate one-way analysis of variance

The

(ANOVA) was used to

test the differences in means of the different groups for
statistical significance.

It was hypothesized that differ­

ences exist among constituent groups regarding their ratings
on the perceived and preferred importance of university
goals categorized as outcome and process.

Statistical d i f ­

ferences were obtained from the ratings of the respondents
categorized according to academic groups and the institu­
tions they are affiliated with.

Statistical differences

were not obtained from the ratings of the faculty c a t e g o ­
rized according to academic rank.
Major Conclusions
The following conclusions were derived from the fi n d ­
ings:

(1) that universities in the same state system vary

with regard to the emphasis they place on institutional
goals;

(2) that teaching, research, public service, and

social criticism are re-affirmed as missions of the u n i v e r ­
sities;

(3) that differences exist among the views of trus­

tees, administrators, and faculty regarding the importance
of institutional goals;

and

(4) that academic constituencies

Lydia A. Beltran
are more concerned with goals along the preferred or should
be dimension than those along the perceived or i s .
The study raises some questions from which can be
generated future research on institutional goals:
1. How would such factors as sex, academic discipline,
and position in the academic hierarchy affect the
attitudes of faculty and administrators towards
institutional goals?
2. How would other groups, both internal and external
to the university, e.g.
dents, employers,

legislators, parents, s t u ­

local community leaders,and s e ­

condary school counselors view institutional
goals?
3. How would a university with clearly specified and
enunciated goals tend to function differently from
one without?
4. Would it be possible for any institution to give
equal attention to the university missions enun­
ciated as teaching, research, public service, and
social criticism?

Would there be differences in

emphasis between public and private institutions?
5. How would trustees, administrators,

and faculty

in one university differ from other universities
in their views and attitudes toward university
goals?

Lydia A. Beltran

What factors would affect faculty perceptions
toward research as an institutional goal?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is deeply grateful for the guidance,
support, and encouragement provided by the following during
the coursework and dissertation stages of her doctoral
program:
Dr. Walter F. Johnson, her major adviser and Chairman
of her Guidance Committee;
Dr. William Sweetland and Dr. Walker Hill, Members of
her Guidance Committee;
Dr. John Schweitzer and Mr. Joseph Wisenbaker of the
Office of Research Consultation, College of Education;
The Trustees, Administrators, and Faculty of Michigan
State University, Michigan Technological University, U n i ­
versity of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Western
Michigan State University; and
Her husband Jose and their children Joel, Jofre, and
Lynn, who have helped make

'out of the lumber of my life,

not a tavern but a temple;

out of my everyday, not a w h i m ­

per but a song'.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S .........................................

v

LIST OF F I G U R E S ......................................... viii
Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION ......................
The Need for Goal D e f i n i t i o n .........
Theory ..................................
Purposes of the S t u d y ................
Hypotheses ..............................
Significance of the S t u d y ............
Scope and Limitations of the Study . .
Definition of T e r m s ..................
Organization of the S t u d y ............

II.

III.

IV.

1
1
4
8
8
13
16
18
19

REVIEW OF RELATED L I T E R A T U R E .............

20

Introduction ...........................
Some Views on Institutional Goals
. .
The Nature of Institutional Goals
. .

20
20
34

M E T H O D O L O G Y ................ . .............

55

Population of the S t u d y ..............
Samples of the S t u d y ..................
The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .....................
Collection of D a t a .....................
Processing and Coding of Data
. . . .
H y p o t h e s e s ..............................
Statistical Analysis ..................
S u m m a r y ................................

55
56
57
61
65
65
68
69

ANALYSIS OF D A T A ....................

70

Introduction ...........................
Analysis of Research Results .........
The Hypotheses and Research
F i n d i n g s ...........................

70
71
72

Chapter

Page
Summary of Hypotheses F i n d i n g s ............ Ill
Goals Suggested by Respondents
117
S u m m a r y ..................................... 122

V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................

124

S u m m a r y ..................................... 124
Findings and Conclusions
..............
126
Recommendations for Future
R e s e a r c h ...............................127
BIBLI O G R A PHY ................................................. 130
A P P E N D I C E S ................................................. 136
A.

THE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ............................... 136
Inventory of University Goals .........
136
Cover Letter for Administrators
and F a c u l t y ............................ 144
Cover Letter for T r u s t e e s .................146

B.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES .................

iv

148

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table
3.1.

Response Rate by Institution and
by G r o u p s .............

3.2.

Faculty Response by

. . . .

64

4.1.

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Perceived Importance
of University Outcome Goals by
Trustees, Administrators, and
Faculty
................................

74

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Preferred Importance
of University Outcome Goals by
Trustees, Administrators, and
F a c u l t y ..................................

75

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Perceived Importance
of University Process Goals by
Trustees, Administrators, and
F a c u l t y ..................................

7S

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Preferred Importance
of University Process Goals by
Trustees, Administrators, and
F a c u l t y ..................................

80

M e an Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Perceived Importance
of University Outcome Goals by
Groups Categorized According To
U n i v e r s i t y ..............................

88

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

Academic Rank

63

v

Page

Table
4.6.

4.7.

4.8.

4.9.

4.10.

4.11

4.12.

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Preferred Importance
of University Outcome Goals By
Groups Categorized According To
U n i v e r s i t y ................................

89

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Perceived Importance
of University Process Goals By
Groups Categorized According To
University
......................

94

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Preferred Importance
of University Process Goals By
Groups Categorized According To
University
.............................

95

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Perceived Importance
of University Outcome Goals By
Faculty Groups Categorized According
To Academic R a n k .........................

101

Mean S c o r e s , Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Preferred Importance
of University Outcome Goals By
Faculty Groups Categorized According
To Academic R a n k .........................

102

Mean Scores, ocandard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Perceived Importance
of University Process Goals By
Faculty Groups Categorized According
To Academic R a n k .........................

107

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations and
F Statistics for Relevant ANOVA
Tables on the Preferred Importance
of University Process Goals By
Faculty Groups Categorized According
To Academic R a n k .........................

108

vi

Table
4.13-a.

4.13-b.

4.13-c.

Page
Summary of Findings for Research
Hypotheses One, Two, Three,
and F o u r ................................

112

Summary of Findings for Research
Hypotheses Five, Six, Seven,
and E i g h t .............................

114

Summary of Findings for Research
Hypotheses Nine, Ten, Eleven,
and T w e l v e .............................

116

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure
4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

Graphic Representation of Average Mean
Scores on Perceived and Preferred
Importance of Outcome Goals By
Trustees, Administrators, and
F a c u l t y .....................................

76

Graphic Representation of Average Mean
Scores on Perceived and Preferred
Importance of Process Goals By
Trustees, Administrators, and
F a c u l t y .....................................

81

Graphic Representation of Average Mean
Scores on Perceived and Preferred
Importance of Outcome Goals By
Groups Categorized According To
U n i v e r s i t y ................................

90

Graphic Representation of Average Mean
Scores on Perceived and Preferred
Importance of Process Goals By
Groups Categorized According To
U n i v e r s i t y ................................

96

Graphic Representation of Average Mean
Scores on Perceived and Preferred
Importance of Outcome Goals by
Faculty Categorized According To
Academic R a n k ................................. 103
Graphic Representation of Average Mean
Scores on Perceived and Preferred
Importance of Process Goals By
Faculty Categorized According To
Academic R a n k ................................. 109

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

"It is hard to run a railroad in such a deep fog."
Harry L. Case
The Need for Goal Definition
The American university is faced with a dilemma, one
that relates to priorities, purposes, directions, and goals.
Societal demands, spawned by the crucial needs of the hour,
make it necessary for the university to present a clear
definition of its goals.

In the wake of dwindling resour­

ces and increasing demands for service,

it should strive to

clearly enunciate the directions it is heading for and the
means it is taking to get there; it should strive to be more
specific in stating its raison d'etre and more articulate in
making it known, not only to the constituencies within its
walls but also to the publics that nurture and support it.
The American university represents a unique enter­
prise in the societal spectrum;

to remain so and maintain

its viability in the face of more demands for new programs
and services, it must resolve this dilemma and stave-off
the threat of that 'collision course'

David Riesman and

2
others have warned of -- "the crunch of new demands against
limited resources."*
be answered:
versity?

To this end, some questions have to

What are the goals and purposes of the u n i ­

What should be its goals and purposes?

should be these goals and purposes?

Whose

How should these goals

and purposes be achieved?
To answer these questions, a look at the environmen­
tal context of the university is in order.

In effectively

relating the university as a social unit to its publics,
clarity of goals and purposes is imperative and the p r e ­
sence of consensus among constituencies must be clearly
discernible.

Etzioni states that "social units should be

deliberately constructed and re-constructed to seek specific goals."

He emphasizes the importance of goals by

citing several purposes:
1. Goals set guidelines for organizational activity;
2. Goals constitute a source of legitimacy and
explain the raison d'etre of the organization;
3. Goals present a future state of affairs which
the organization attempts to attain;
4. Goals serve as standards by which members of an

*David Riesman, "The Collision Course in Higher
Education", The Journal of College Student Personnel,
X (November, 1969).
2
Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall7 Inc., 1^64), p. 3.

3
organization and outsiders can assess the p e r ­
formance of the organization;
S.

and

Goals serve as measures for the student of orga­
nizations who is interested in determining how
well the organization is performing.*

Richard E. Peterson, in a report entitled Toward
Institutional Goal-Consciousness, further stresses the im­
portance of goals and he asserts that:
1. Goals set fundamentals of policy and may serve
as the basic element in the formulation of the
institution’s policy, philosophy, or ideology;
2.

Goals are general discipline-guides;

3.

Goals are necessary to planning;

4.

Goals are needed for institutional evaluation;

and
2
5. Goals are necessary to implement accountability.

In an address given at Purdue University in November,

1971,

he likewise said that "institutional goals provide a focus
of loyalty, professional commitment, and genuine community.

3

* Ibid. , p. 5.
2

Richard E. Peterson, "Toward Institutional GoalConsciousness", Reprinted from Proceedings, Western Regional
Conference on Testing Pro b l e m s . {Berkeley, California:
Educational Testing Service, 1971). p. 14-16.
^Richard E. Peterson, College Goals and the Challenge
of Effectiveness, Text of talk given at Purdue University,
£t. Wayne tampus, Indiana, November 23, 1971, (Princeton,
New Jersey: Educational Testing Serv i c e ) , p. S.

4
In the study which is proposed here, the researcher
focuses on what the goals a r e , what the goals should b e .
how they are viewed by constituencies, and how such view ­
points c ompare.
Theory
The university is a social system and as such,
has functional problems.

it

For it to realize its specified

goals, these problems of internal functioning should be
resolved.

To do this, the internal units of the system

should understand and perform the roles for which they are
responsible, since failure to do so results in dysfunction
of the system.

In the university setting, the problems in­

ternal to the system would be largely those concerned with
processes identified as means of goal-attainment.

The a d ­

ministrator, trustee, and faculty groups would be consi­
dered internal units of the system, and their respective
roles as those that have to do with internal functions.
The study assumes that in the absence of consensus among
these units, harmonious relationships may also be absent
and the university as a social system may fail to function
as it should.

Lack of congruence among the units may r e ­

sult in internal conflict,

thus endangering the stability

of the university as a viable social organization.

The a b ­

sence of consensus could also redound to the failure of the
organization to meaningfully relate to its environment
since differences in articulating the role of the university

5
may ensue.

This, in turn, may mean denial of some needed

resources, thus curtailing services the institution was set
to provide.
This study will be based on pronouncements attri­
buted to Richard Peterson, Thad Hungate, and Talcott Parsons.
Talcott Parsons,

in his systems theory, cites the

main functional problems of social systems and identifies
these as the four functional imperatives, namely, adaptation,
goal attainment, tension management or pattern maintenance,
and integration.

Parsons explains this theory as follows:

These four functional imperatives arise
from two fundamental dilemmas of human
existence.
First, every system consists
of a plurality of units and functions in
relation to an environment defined as
external to it.
One dilemma is whether
to give priority to the solution of the
problems of co-existence with the units,
or the problems of optimizing the rela­
tion to the environment.
A second dilemma
concerns the assignment of priority b e ­
tween continuity and stability over time
on the one hand, and direct, immediate
gratification, or consummation on the
other.
Cross-classified, these dilemmas
define the four functional imperatives.1
In the university setting, adaptation would mean the
maintenance of a satisfactory relationship with the socie­
tal publics that provide resources necessary to its func­
tioning.

It would mean being equal to the demands of

R. Jean Hills, Toward A Science of Organization
(Eugene, Oregon:
Center for the Advanced Stuay of Educational Administration, University of Oregon Press, 1968),
p. 19.

6
society since it is of common knowledge that the further­
ance of education is strongly influenced by the willingness
of that society to pay for it.

G o a l -attainment would mean

the achievement of specific goals, thus maintaining the
confidence and support of the environment the university
was established to serve.

Parson's theory explains that

tension management involves the internal problems of m o t i ­
vating the individuals or units in the system to perform
their respective designated roles for system functioning.1
This underscores a need for the components of the univer ­
sity to work in harmony.

Pervin,

in expressing this need,

states that " ... the college or university is a system in
the sense that it is composed of interdependent parts which
work in a more or less complementary way towards more or
2
less compatible goals."
This makes it necessary for the
components of the university to work for greater harmony
and pursue complementary goals, thus undoubtedly lessening
another functional problem -- integration, which is c o n ­
cerned with "keeping the individuals and/or units of the
system working in a cohesive relationship in order to

1Edward C. Devereaux, Jr., "Parson's Sociological
Theory", The Social Theories of Talcott Par s o n s , ed.
Max Black ( E n g l e w o o d Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1961). p. 57.
^Lawrence Pervin, "The College As A Social System",
The Journal of Higher Education, XXXVIII (dune, 1967).

pp".~3TT-T2Z".--

----------

7
facilitate system functioning.1
Parson's theory, when applied to the university as a
social system,

implies that university goals and objectives

can only be realized if the basic problems attendant to in­
ternal functioning are resolved.

The objectives of this

study are in basic agreement with this viewpoint.
Along similar lines, Thad Hungate stressed the impor­
tance of goals and objectives and he asserts that:
Clear definition and continuous review of
objectives, and the instructional guide­
lines for achieving them are essential.
Each institution must carefully define
its objectives or purposes, the nature of
the undertakings it deems necessary to
achieve, and the guidelines in accordance
with which the undertakings are to
develop.2
Richard Peterson,

in his 'state-of-the-art* paper on

institutional goals, states that " ... diverse colleges must
be able to articulate their unique goals in ways that are
meaningful to their constituencies and other supporters if
they are to expect continuation of the support necessary
for their survival."^

Thus, in making decisions about goal

1Edward Devereaux, Jr., "Parson's Sociological
Theory", p. 65.
2
Thad L. Hungate, Management in High Education
(New York:
Bureau of Publications, Columbia University,
1964), p. 243.
t
Richard Peterson, The Crisis of Purpose:
Defini­
tion and Uses of Institutional ffoals, ERIC clearinghouse on
Higher Education, May 1970.

p r i o r i t i e s , it is important to consider the views of such
groups as students, faculty, administrators, trustees, and
other specific groups outside the academic community.
In view of the preceding theoretical bases, attempts
will be made to answer the following questions:

Do the

patterns of the responses imply a clear definition of goals
in the institutions?

Do the patterns of the responses i m ­

ply awareness of such goals by the constituencies?

Do the

patterns of the responses imply consensus and/or harmony
among the three groups?
Purposes of the Study
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the
goals of the five public, doctorate-granting universities
in the state as perceived and preferred by selected co n s t i ­
tuent groups;

it also purports to determine the relation ­

ships between these goal perceptions and preferences.

The

goals to be investigated are related to the results or o u t ­
comes of university functioning

(outcome goals) and the

supportive processes crucial to the attainment of defined
ends

(process g o a l s ) .

Hypotheses
The hypotheses are based on the assumption that role
differences among the trustees,

administrators,

and faculty

may result in differences of perceptions and preferences
for institutional goals.

That each of the universities have

9
common and distinct purposes, while sharing in common goals,
is also considered, especially in view of Wilson's a s s e r ­
tion that each institution should justify its own existence
since " ... no single institution can be all things to all
possible constituencies, and hence each university should
have distinctive goals, while sharing in common goals.
The following hypotheses are to be tested in this
study:
Hypothesis One
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators and faculty in their ratings of the
perceived importance of university outcome goals.
Hypothesis Two
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators, and faculty in their ratings of the
preferred importance of university outcome goals.
Hypothesis Three
There will be differences among the trustees,
nistrators,

admi­

and faculty in their ratings of the

perceived importance of university process goals.
Hypothesis Four
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators,

and faculty in their ratings of the

preferred importance of university process goals.

^Logan Wilson, Foreword to Whose Goals for Higher
Education?
ed., Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin Lee
(Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1968).

10
Hypothesis Five
There will be differences among the trustees, admi ­
nistrators,

and faculty of the five universities in

their ratings of the perceived importance of u n i ­
versity outcome goals.
Hypothesis Six
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators,

and faculty of the five universities in

their ratings of the preferred importance of u n i ­
versity outcome goals.
Hypothesis Seven
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators, and faculty of the five universities in
their ratings of the perceived importance of u n i ­
versity process goals.
Hypothesis Eight
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators,

and faculty of the five universities in

their ratings of the preferred importance of u n i ­
versity process goals.
Hypothesis Nine
There will be differences among the faculty ranks
in their ratings of the perceived importance of
university outcome goals.

11
Hypothesis Ten
There will be differences among the faculty ranks in
their ratings of the preferred importance of u n i ­
versity outcome goals.
Hypothesis Eleven
There will be differences among the faculty ranks
in their ratings of the perceived importance of
university process goals.
Hypothesis Twelve
There will be differences among the faculty ranks
in their ratings of the preferred importance of
university process goals.
The hypotheses indicate the existence of relation ­
ships among the responses of the three respondent-groups.
Differences in perception and preference patterns are d i s ­
cerned because of unique roles each group has to play in
the academic community.

Sargent supports this by providing

information regarding implications of the role concept.
He says that "individuals vary, hence they perceive and
interpret situations differently."1

The writer anticipated

that the administrator group, while mindful of all o b j e c ­
tives and g o a l s , would be more concerned with the supportive

1Stephen S. Sargent
and Robert C. Williamson,
Social P s y c h o l o g y . (New York:
Ronald Press Company, 1958).

12
or process goals since they usually take charge of the day
to day operation of the institution.

On the other hand,

it

is likewise anticipated that the trustee group would be con
cerned, with the same amount of intensity, with both the
outcome and process goals, especially those emphasizing the
role of the university in the total societal context since
they are supposed to safeguard the interests of both the
institution and the society each university was established
to serve.

The writer further anticipated that the ratings

of the faculty groups would probably stress on those goals
that deal with teaching and research since it is in these
areas that their impact should be felt and evaluated.
The study also purported to answer the following
questions,

in addition to testing the hypotheses:

1. What are the goals of the university as p e r ­
ceived and preferred by the following groups in
the state of Michigan?
a. Governing Boards
b. Administrators
c. Faculty
2. How do manifested goal perceptions and/or goal p r e ­
ferences compare among the three groups? across
groups?
3. What differences exist among the trustees, adminis­
trator, and faculty groups in their ratings of im­
portance of perceived goals? of preferred goals?

13
4. What differences exist in the consideration of
perceived and preferred outcome goals among the
three groups?

across groups?

5. What differences exist in the consideration of
perceived and preferred process goals among the
three groups?

across groups?

Significance of the Study
The present economic realities dominated by infla­
tion and impending recession are being felt by the u n i v e r ­
sity, its ivory towers notwithstanding.

The economic

downturn is offering fewer jobs for college graduates;

it

is increasing funding demands for unemployment and welfare,
making the university even more competitive for financial
support.

In the face of these current developments,

it is

imperative that the university come up with relevant and
tenable priorities, enunciate these with clear specificity,
and formulate goals that would generate directions from
which its limited resources would operate.

In the absence

of defined goals and directions, the university may not be
equal to the task society expects it to do, especially
during these uncertain times.
Samuel E. Gould asserts that "the university has
never been more necessary to the national life but never in

14
a more precarious position."*

It seems that for it to sur­

vive, it must undergo systematic metamorphosis involving
planning, evaluation, and all related institutional activi­
ties crucial to such a cycle.

Within this context, evolu­

tionary processes can be rendered meaningless without the
role of the institution and its attendant goals clearly and
explicitly defined.

Clarity of purposes, especially to

those units charged with the delivery and operation of u n i ­
versity services, will certainly help in fostering a h e a l t h ­
ier relationship between the organization and its environment.
Fortunately, all universities need not respond to
their environment in the same way and F. Champion Ward notes
that "diverse colleges must be able to articulate their
unique goals in ways meaningful to their particular consti­
tuencies,

if they are to expect continued support necessary
2
for their survival."
Corollary to this observation,

Harry Case, in formulating guidelines for a hypothetical
university, asserts that:

*Samuel E. Gould, Today's Academic Conditions (New
McGraw-Hill, I n c . , 197b).
2
F. Champion Ward, "University Initiative in Response
to Change", High Education:
Demand and Response, ed.,
W. R. Niblett. (San fcrancisco:
Jossey-Bass, I n c . , 1970).
York:

15
One of the causes of the present difficul­
ties in our institutions of higher learn­
ing seems to be that they have failed to
emphasize with strong, clear statements,
what their objectives and policies are,
and who is responsible for what.
It is
hard to run a railroad in such a deep fog.
Societal changes demand that organizations, especially u n i ­
versities, should respond to change.

Education must be

viewed at all angles and refurbished; priorities should be
decided and set to avoid wastage of limited funds.

To do

this, it is imperative that universities undergo changes
from within

to work for consensus so as to evolve a synthe­

sis of purposes and

goals both tenable and acceptable,

not

only to the units doing its functioning but also to the
bigger society outside its walls.
The study was conducted with the hope that it will
help bring about the following:
1. A synthesis of university goals as they are p e r ­
ceived by certain units internal to the institu­
tion, as awareness of each unit's perceptions
may lead to better appreciation of the concerns
of each component in the system;
2. A basis for delineation of those goals common to
all universities from those unique to each, as
this may promote more appreciation of priorities
by those charged with institutional funding and

*Harry L. Case, "A Declaration of Aims and Policies
of University X", Educational R e c o r d , L (Fall, 1969), p. 450.

16
those attendant sources of funds, be they legis­
lators, alumni, donors, or taxpayers;

and

3. A synthesis of university goals as they are p e r ­
ceived by constituencies within the university,
as knowledge of these may invariably result in
a re-study of institutional goals and a d e f i n i ­
tion of those deemed not only crucial but tenable,
especially to those charged with the processes
towards the attainment of such goals.
Algo D. Henderson asserts that "education requires
problem-solving at the highest level of joint intellectual
effort -- that decisions are best made where the professional
effort must be made; and that the really important matters
in education occur in the individual and personal relation­
ships."*

This implies the need for cohesion crucial to c o n ­

sensus and harmony within the university and the need for
mutual respect and confidence among all the interest groups
in the academic setting.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
The scope and significant limitations of the study
are herein cited:

*Algo D. Henderson, "Control in Higher Education:
Trends and Issues", The Journal of Higher Education XL,
1 (January, 1969), p” 71

17
1. The study did not consider all higher education
institutions;

it involved only the five, public

doctorate-granting universities in the state,
with their respective governing boards, their
central administrative groups, excluding the P r e ­
sidents, and their respective faculty groups.
2. No attempts were made to determine such variables
as sex, age, academic discipline, longevity of
service, and other such variables that may have
relation to attitudes toward institutional goals.
3. The size of the universities involved was not c o n ­
sidered as a variable.
4. The study did not consider other academic and/or
social groups

(e.g., legislators, employers,

parents, alumni, students, and the community)
that may be crucial to the formulation and/or
achievement of institutional goals.
5. The primary instrument for collecting data was
the questionnaire, with its inherent recognized
limitations of measurement that should be taken'
into consideration in the interpretation of data.
Contents of the questionnaire were limited to
outcome or end goals and process or supportive
functioning goals.

18
Definition of Terms
Terms used in the study are herein defined to clarify
the content of the research.
Administrators are the members of any of the five
universities*

central administrative groups, including the

various College Deans, but excluding their Presidents.
Governing Boards are the legal bodies charged with
the direct control and operation of single and multiple
institutions.

They can be referred to as Boards of T r u s ­

tees, Boards of Regents, Boards of Directors, Boards of
Visitors, Boards of Governors, or Members of the Cor p o r a ­
tion.'*'

In this study, they are those with the legal charge

of direct control and supervision of the five public d o c ­
torate-granting universities
of January,

in the state of Mi chigan as

1974.

Faculty Groups are the members of the teaching f a c u l ­
ties of the five universities listed as such in each i n s t i ­
tution's Faculty-Staff Directory.
Goals are the priorities or expected outcomes of any
or all of the universities involved in the study.

These

goals can either be perceived or are goals and preferred or

*S. V. Martorana, College Board of Trustees (New
York:
The Center of Applied Research in Education, Inc.,
1963), p. 35.

19
should be goals.

In addition, these goals can either be

outcome or end goals, e.g., to develop in the students abi­
lities of scholarly inquiry, or process goals, e.g., to
create a campus climate responsive to innovation and change.
Public university refers to the institution offering
academic programs beyond the secondary school and for which
the legal control and financial support are vested in the
state government.

In this study, the term specifically

refers to the five doctorate-granting universities

in the

state.
Trustees are the members of the governing boards of
the universities to be involved in the study.
Organization of the Study
Chapter II presents a review of literature related
to institutional goals -- the various current views and in­
terpretations on the nature of these goals, especially as
they relate to the functioning of the university as a social
system.

It likewise presents research related to the c o n ­

text of the study.

The methodology and design employed are

discussed in Chapter III.

The collected data and the methods

of analysis used to interpret them are discussed in Chapter
IV.

Chapter V includes a summary of findings, conclusions,

and recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In t roduc t ion
It is apparent that every college and university
needs to organize to plan and justify its future in the wake
of limited financial resources.

All units in the org an i z a ­

tion must define objectives geared to the institution's
goals, thus facilitating assessment and accountability where
every participant is ready and able to give active support.
It is also apparent that for a college or university
to maintain the active and loyal cooperation of its various

components,

institutional goals should serve as the core

from which such cooperation will emanate.
Selected literature related to views o n , nature o f ,
and research on institutional goals is herein reviewed.
Some Views on Institutional Goals
It is important that institutional goals need to be
clearly defined.

In defining these however, some primary

questions should be answered:
Whose should be these goals?

What should be the goals?
How should they be achieved?

20

21
Most educators and writers seem to agree that the goals of
higher education focus on three main purposes:

teaching,

research, and public service.
Clifton Wharton, in a statement on New Patterns of
Education, asserts that the university is a change agent
... that its major role as such is its impact upon knowl­
edge through research and upon persons through teaching.
He further contends that the university should strive to
provide positive impact of dynamic service to the indivi­
duals who compose it and to the community of which it is a
part.*

It seems that teaching and research should consti­

tute the primary concerns of the university, with public
service emerging as a consequence.
Taylor and Henderson are very emphatic about the role
of the university as a change agent.

Taylor feels that the

uni\rersity can only restore itself when it becomes an ac2
tive agent in recreating a society gone wrong.
Along the
same line, Henderson argues that American higher Education
is a reflection of a democratic ideology and views it as a
3
means of making changes in society.

*Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., "New Patterns in Education",
Michigan State University Catalog, 1973-74, p . 1.
^Harold Taylor, Students Without Teachers:
Crisis in the University (New York:
McGraw-Hill,
cisco:

^Algo D. Henderson, The Innovative Spirit
Jossey-Bass, 1970).

The
.
(San F r a n ­

22
James Perkins speaks of university goals as based on
knowledge acquisition, knowledge transmission, and knowledge
application.^

He may well mean teaching, research, and

public service.

There appears to be a growing concern over

the decreasing emphasis being given to the teaching function.
John Gardner expresses some fears that it is being treated
with very little importance, especially as it relates to the
undergraduates.

2

James Perkins, in discussing current c o n ­

cerns about the individual and quality of life, stresses the
importance of teaching as a university function, while ad vo­
cating that the three functions of higher education should
be viewed as mutually reinforcing, hence synthesized into a
meld of one central concern:
These new priorities have as their central
theme that human beings are more important
than knowledge, and that the individual is
more important than society.
As a c o n s e ­
quence, teaching now seems more important
than research, and certainly more impor­
tant than research that is not justified
by visible connection with the quality of
life.3

James Perkins, The University In Transition
(Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1966),
p. 9.
2
John W. Gardner, "Agenda for Colleges and Un iv e r s i ­
ties", Campus 1980, e d . , Alvin C. Eurich (New York:
Delacorte P r e s s , 1968), p. 1.
^James A. Perkins, "Higher Education in the 1970's",
Educational Record, LI (Summer, 1970), 249.

;

23
This lends credence to the current concept of the university
as the institution that should encourage the individual
search for knowledge, while re-emphasiis*:* the prinacy of
the personal, human dimension of life.
Raymond P. Whitfield and Lawrence M. Brammer und er­
score the cruciality of the teaching function of the univer­
sity.

They identify this as the Achilles* Heel of academe

and state that:
The academic Achilles' Hell is a low level
of teaching performance which institutions
have not seriously tried to improve.
Neither
hiding this neglect behind a historically
nurtured professional mystique nor continued
hope in the patience of the clientele will
any longer serve as adequate defenses.
The
time is at hand when our higher education
institutions must demonstrate that quality
of teaching is their business or anticipate
that their clients will go elsewhere.*■
Although there is some consensus about the importance of
teaching as a university function, there is also the gro w­
ing fear about the little attention it is currently being
given, hence resulting in complaints about instructional
efficiency.

To this, Eble states that "complaints about

the quality of undergraduate teaching are current and
chronic.^

Raymond P. Whitfield and Lawrence M. Brammer, "The
Ills of College Teaching:
Diagnosis and Prescription",
The Journal of Higher Ed uca tio n, XLIV, 1 (January 1973),
pp. 1-13.
2
Kenneth Eble, "The Recognition and Evaluation of
Teaching", Project to Improve College Teaching (Salt Lake
City, Utah, 1970).

24
While there seems to be general agreement on the main
concerns of higher education as teaching, research, and
public service, there is also the possibility that each will
not receive an equal emphasis across institutions.

Some

advocate that the underlying theme for university function­
ing should be the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.
The danger attendant to this however is discussed by
Robert McGarrah, and he says:
I would contend that pursuing knowledge for
its own sake is no longer enough; overindulgence in such pursuit has probably
weakened too many colleges and universities.
Hence, instead of becoming more enlightened
by science, technology, or industry fed
from the springwell of our universities, we
have grown more repressed by fears of n u ­
clear holocaust, environmental pollution,
and social divisiveness.
In an industrial­
ized society, no institution (perhaps, least
of all, the university) can escape from
effects of corporate uses and abuses of
knowledge.
He underscores the fact that institutions, most of all u n i ­
versities,

in exercising their prerogatives and performing

their functions, must not only direct influence on k now l­
edge gained through research but also the applications of
such knowledge.

Again, there is the evident implication

^Robert E. McGarrah, "The University Updated",
The Journal of Higher Ed uca tio n, XLIV, 2 (February 1973).

25
that the quality of life is the core of university existence.
Archibald MacLeish suggests that "a truly responsible u n i ­
versity would ... accept as the critical contemporary fact
the failure of the balance between society and self and
would find the reason for the failure in the dehumanizing
of the culture on the one side and the dehumanizing of self
on the other....

It would commit itself to education as a

vehicle for realization of self in society and it would uni

derline the i n .
Another example of the uneven emphasis of the three
university functions is discussed by Spencer.

He asserts

that the two main functions of the university are teaching
and research.

He however implies agreement with McGarrah's

view that the application of knowledge gained through r e ­
search should be another function of the university.
asserts " ,

He

that the university has the obligation both

to preserve and to enrich culture ... in the exact sci enc es,
we are doing too much enriching, while in the social sciences,
we are doing just the opposite."

2

*Archibald MacLeish, Text of A d d r e s s , Hampshire
College, October 1970, Amherst, Massachu set ts. Published in
Saturday R e v i e w , December 19, 1970, p. 18.
2
Lyle M. Spencer, "The Research Function in the A d ­
vancement of Knowledge", Whose Goals for American Higher
Education? e d . , Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin Lee (Washington,
D . C . : American Council on Education, 1968). p. 66.

26
Public service as a purpose of higher education is
also stressed by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
In their thirteenth report, one of the recommendations is
"a system of required community service for students.” 1
The three-fold function of the university is more
often mentioned in this order:

teaching, research, and

public service, sometimes with the implication that the third
emerges as a consequence of the implementation of the other
two.

This is implied in the statement of university purposes

adapted by the faculty at the University of Wisconsin:
The primary purpose of the university
Is to provide an environment
In which faculty and students
Can discover and examine critically,
Preserve and transmit
The knowledge, wisdom, and values
That will ensure the survival
Of the present and future generation
With the improvement in the quality
of life.2
It seems that while discovering and transmitting new
knowledge to the units within the academic community,

there

is the underlying possibility that such will eventually
filter to the larger world, thus enriching the quality of

"Reform on Campus” . A Report and Recommendations by
the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972).
7
V.
R. Potter and Others, "Purposes and Functions of
the University” , Science, CLXVII (March 1970).

27
life, not only of those within the university walls but also
of those in the larger society.

This may not have a d e f i ­

nite operational meaning when compared with an explicitly
defined purpose of public service.
Another attestation to the public service function
of higher education is contained in the recommendations s u b ­
mitted to the President and the Senate by the National Com ­
mission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education.

These

recommendations focus on the changes that should be done to
parallel the changes in American society during the last
twenty years:
Post secondary education should offer
programs of formal instruction and
other learning opportunities and e n ­
gage in research and public service of
significant diversity to be responsive
to the changing needs of individuals
and society ... it should strive for
excellence in all instruction, research,
public service, and other learning
opportun iti es.1
The same view toward public service as a concern of
higher education is contained in the Carnegie Commission's
Final Report, "Priorities for Action".

The report contains,

among others, a re-affirmation that "society increasingly
needs the contribution of higher education ... that higher

Report and Recommendations, National Commission on
the Financing of Postsecondary Education, Chronicle of Higher
Education, VIII, 17 (January 28, 1974).

28
education can help lead to more individual participation in
a democratic society, more meaningful work in a productive
economy, and more cultural diversity and creativity in a
future world with great leisure."*
The Panel on Alternative Approaches to Graduate E d u ­
cation, a commission established by the Council of Graduate
Schools, stresses this similar concern for public service.
In their summary of recommendations for change, they cite a
number of attitudes and assumptions:

(1) respect for cogni­

tive rationality as the surest means of advancing human
knowledge; and (2) concern with how to make knowledge a more
effective resource for meeting social needs.

Evidently, the

quest for knowledge should not be separate from that of g e n ­
eral human aspirations.
Another dimension has been added to the three-fold
purpose of higher education and this is social criticism as
advocated and defined by Kenneth Keniston and others.
Keniston attempts to delineate this from the other functions
and claims that it is the most neglected.

He contends that

social criticism should be one of the major roles of the
university in the face of tremendous societal change and
its attendant complexities:

^"Priorities for Action", Carnegie Commission's
Final Report, The Chronicle of Higher E duc ati on, VIII, 3
(October 9, 1977J"!

29
... the emergence of criticism as a major
function of the university is intimately
related to the changing nature and needs
of Americ an life.
In modern society, the
simple transmission of knowledge must
increasingly give way to a critical r e ­
examination of that knowledge; the e x t e n ­
sion of knowledge pre-supposes a critical
analysis of what is worth extending; and
the application of knowledge requires a
critical study of which knowledge can be
applied to what.*
It appears that the university has to make a stand regarding
the viability of the knowledge it has helped to discover and
transmit.
function,

He implies that in carrying out this critical
there is the attendant danger that the system may

take partisan positions, and this will tend to undermine
its ability to perform all its other functions.

He the re­

fore suggests that criticism should emanate from individuals
2
and groups w ithin the university.
However, this may not
be easy to do since it is common knowledge that the general
public is often inclined to view individual or group p o s i ­
tions on current issues as similar if not identical to those
of the university as a whole.

Keniston further expands the

mission of the university and he states " ... provides an

Kenneth Keniston, "Responsibility for Criticism and
Social Change", Whose Goals for American Higher E duc a t i o n ?
e d . , Charles G. bobbins and Calvin Lee, (Washington, D .C .:
American Council on Education, 1968), p. 147.
2 I b i d . , p.

161

30
education and environment that encourages students to gather
intellect, ethical sense and action into one related w h o l e . " 1'
He also asserts that the university is best equipped to p e r ­
form social criticism because of (1) its more extended time
span and inclusive scope of concern;

(2) the ability of f a ­

culty to take a broad v i e w of society because of tenure
wh ich protects them from outside forces;

(3) a more intimate

involvement with the future generation which results in a
sensitivity to the quality of future society; and

(4) the

fact that the faculty tends to be anti-authoritarian and
2
possesses a critical mind.
Shoben agrees with Keniston on the basic idea that
the university should be a social critic and he asserts that
there is "a growing mistrust of intellectual demands that
virtually all ideas and domains of inquiry be deliberately
uninvolved for their moral and political
assessed in the light of explicit values.

implications and
He suggests that

curricular changes should be effected and that such changes

^Kenneth Keniston, "The Faces in the Lecture Room",
The Contemporary University, U S A , ed., Robert S. Morison
(Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966), p. 343.
2
Kenneth Keniston, "Responsibility for Criticism and
Social Change", p. 154.
^Edward J. Shoben, J r . , "Cultural Criticism and the
American College", Daedalus, IC (Summer, 1970), p. 683.

31
should be based on the critical function.

He feels that

this will help ease doubts about "educational relevance."*
Mullaney holds another view regarding the university
function of social criticism.

He states that the uni ver ­

sity has nurtured and maintained some societal ills, and
that to vindicate itself, it should aspire "to become the
center of dissent and resistance, and an interpreter of
such behavior to the public."

He further contends that the

university need not remain neutral as advocated by Shoben
and Keniston.

In presenting a "resistance model" for the

university to follow, he gives these suggestions:

(1) that

the university divest itself of stocks and other holdings
that are contrary to person-centered values;

(2) that the

university make the curriculum action-oriented;

(3) that

the university pressure the courts to broaden their view
of disruption*

(4) that the university form alliances with

other groups; and (5) that the university strike and close
3
down as a last resort.
Mullaney holds a rather extreme
notion about the university's mission on social criticism.
In another vein, Daniel Bell, in discussing the future of

1Ibid., p. 691.
^Anthony Mullaney, "The University as a Community of
Resistance", Harvard Educational Review, XL (November, 1970),
p. 694.
3 Ibid., p. 698.

32
the university, presents four missions:

Cl) to act as the

custodian of Western culture and evaluator of claims to
membership in the "chain of learning";

(2) to advocate the

search for truth through inquiry and scholarship, the d i s ­
covery of the laws of nature, and the explication of the
norms and rules that govern human behavior;

(3) to train a

large number of people as professionals in specific fields;
and (4) to apply knowledge to social use.*

He seems to a d ­

vocate the traditional concept of the university as p r i m a ­
rily a community of scholars where the primary concerns are
the search for truth and knowledge and the enrichment of
society as a result.
Godfrey,

in her study about the current composition

of governing boards in public institutions of higher ed u c a ­
tion cited the major missions of the university as:
1. Public Service -- the extension and appli­
cation of university resources such as
faculty, facilities, and research findings
to meet public needs;
2. Scholarship and Research -- to foster in­
tellectual development and the pursuit of
learning through research;
3. Vocational Preparation -- to provide o ppo r­
tunity to obtain the knowledge needed to
pursue useful careers;

Daniel Bell, "Quo Warranto?"
Notes on the Govern­
ance of Universities in the 1970*s.
The Embattled University, ed., Stephen Graubard and G. Ballotti (New Y o r k :
George Braziller, Inc., 1970), pp. 231-232; Daniel Bell,
"By Whose Right?" Power and A u t h o r i t y , e d . , Harold Hodgkinson
and R. Muth (San Francisco:
Jo s s e y - B a s s , Inc., 1971),
pp. 163-164.

33
4. Teaching and Knowledge Transmission -- to a d ­
vance knowledge and cultivate a sense of the
past; and
5. Social Criticism -- to act as a social critic
providing opportunity for critical re-examination of knowledge and interpretation of
behavior.1
Apparently, another dimension,

that of vocational pr e p a r a ­

tion, has been added to make the institutions more in line
with the current egalitarian concept of high education.
In assessing the evolutionary role of the student in A m e r i ­
can higher education, Wallace presents a different picture
of the university and its tasks, and he contends that:
(1) Due to the socially imposed commitment to the democra­
tization of higher education and its increased dependence
on society,

it has become progressively diffused into the

public domain of society; and (2) As a societal institution,
higher education has, over time, assumed a larger number of
tasks that could be considered divergent from its original
role of educating the young.

It has dropped or sought to

divest itself of some of the functions it has previously
served.

It is evident that higher education, to remain a

*Helen Ruth Godfrey, "A Profile of Female Trustees of
Four-Year Public Colleges and Universities and a Comparison
of Female and Male Trustee Perceptions of Selected Trustee
Functions and University Issues" (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
College of Education, Michigan State Univeersity, 1971).
2
Douglas Wallace, "Assessment of the Evolutionary
Role of the Student in American Higher Education" (Unpub­
lished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Indiana, 1972).

34

viable societal institution, should undergo changes and
assume tasks considered crucial to the demands of the p r e ­
sent society.
The preceding review of literature indicates that
the general purposes and functions of higher education are
teaching, research, public service, and social criticism.
However, emphasis for each vary from institution to insti­
tution, hence there is no inference that they should be
considered equal.
The Nature of Institutional Goals
This portion of the review deals with institutional
goals as they are viewed along two dimensions:
and the process.

the outcome

Evidently, there is some form of consensus

regarding the importance of assessing the impact of the main
functions of higher education upon the student and upon so­
ciety.

The uniqueness of the college experience makes the

student the core of concern, thus

'student development' has

evolved as an all-important outcome goal of higher education.
The Carnegie Commission, recognizing student develop­
ment as a primary concern of higher education, presents
suggestions focusing on the same theme:

"Individualization

of educational experience so that the students'

interests

and aspirations assume first priority in the content of a l ­
ternative learning environments."

In its thirteenth report,

the Commission presents the following recommendations:

35
1. Preservation and extension of diversity
of programs among and within colleges
and universities;
2. Achievement of more relevance in the
curriculum;
3. Provisions of more creative opportunities
for students;
4. Greater attention to the emotional growth
of students;
5. More opportunities for a broad liberal arts
education; and
6. Greater attention and recognition for a d ­
vising in the educational pr oce ss. 1
There is the implication that if some or all of these recom­
mendations were considered by colleges and universities
when defining or re-defining their goals and p r i o r i t i e s , a
major change would take place in American higher education.
Nevitt Sanford also supports the student development
concept of higher education.

In discussing the crucial

educational issues of the future, he stresses the importance
of individual development as a function of higher education:
Education and training, in the society
we may then envision, would both be h u ­
manistic, that is based on an u n d e r ­
standing of what people are by nature,
and of what they need, to develop all
potential.
Thus we would direct our
attention to a whole range of talents
such as those involved in communication,
relating to people, perceptual clarity,
and so on.
If we implemented such a

"Reform on Campus", A Report and Recommendations of
the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (Mew York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1^72).

36
p r ogram ... many people now disadvantaged
would actually have advantages.1
Sanford's view underscores the importance of the in­
dividual and the quality of life, a view shared by others
in the education spectrum.

Harold Taylor, in evaluating

the impact of the recent student unrests on campus, stresses
the need for more concern on the human dimension of the i n ­
dividual.

He states that:

"the students need to learn more

than how to maintain academic subjects; they need to learn
2
h o w to live."
He looks at the educational experience as a
positive means of enriching personal relationships.

This

lends more proof to claims that campus climate is im p e r a ­
tive to student development.

The fact that students undergo

some forms of change during the college years is also r e ­
p o rte d in a study conducted by Dressel and Lehmann.

They

came up with findings which indicate significant changes in
the students*

critical thinking ability,

dogmatism, and values.

stereotypic beliefs,

These same findings indicate that

these changes which occur over the four years of college
study were a significant decrease in stereotypic beliefs
and unreceptivity to new ideas, an increase in

■^Nevitt Sanford, "Loss of Talent", Issues of the
Seventies, ed., Fred Harcleroad (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass,
inc., 1970), p. 66.
^Harold Taylor, "Student Unrest", Issues of the
Seventies, ed., Fred Harcleroad (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass,
Inc." T970), p. 127.

z

37
open-mindedness, and a significant improvement in critical
thinking ability.*
David Hess expresses a concurrent orientation; he
emphasizes the concept of man as viewed by philosophers,
social scientists, and theologians.

He believes that all

the components of the academic community should be directed
towards the development of persons as the end of the educational process.

Self-development as a goal of the ed uca ­

tional process is also shared by many, although in different
dimensions.

Lewis Mayhew,

higher education,

in discussing the future of

states that:

"Within the teaching insti­

tutions, professors will have accepted that their chief duty
is to help young people change."^

William Byron, reacting

to the current social and political upheavals in Washington,
presents a case for the university:
An educational enterprise, a learning
community, a climate of inquiry called
a university, should at the very least,

Paul L. Dressel and I. J. Lehmann, "Impact of Higher
Education on Student Attitudes, Values, and Critical T h i n k ­
ing Abilities", Educational R e c o r d , XLVI (Summer, 1965),
pp. 248-258.
2
David Hess, "The Person-Centered Function of Higher
Education" (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, College of Education,
Michigan State University, 1962).
^Lewis Mayhew, "The Future Undergraduate Curriculum",
Campus 1 9 8 0 , ed., Alvin C. Eurich (New York:
Delacorte
Press, 1968), p. 217.

38
provide an environment designed to assist
the student in acquiring a properly d e v ­
eloped sense of self-hood.^Colleges and universities should have goals viewed
along another dimension.

It is apparent that for an a cad e­

mic community to achieve end or outcome goals, there should
be a parallel set of process goals, those goals that are
supportive of the system in order for it to achieve its
ends.

Hence,

in attempting to work towards the evolvement

of a "developed individual", committed to truth and those
significant others that constitute the highest quality of
life,

acollege or university must nurture an atmosphere

supportive

towards the same goal.

William Bryon,

in

stressing the impact of the educational experience,

states

that:
Another minimal expectation in any u n i ­
versity community is a common commitment
to truth ... the university is an atmos­
phere of open inquiry and free quest for
truth ... somehow, through a creative
cataclysmic curriculum, the student should
meet in his professors, his peers, his
books, and his projects, but especially
in himself, the value, which, in developed
and personalized form, will mutually gu ara n­
tee that his judgements will be principled.2
Apparently, academic freedom should be rendered m e a n ­
ingful to all the components of the academic community so

^William Bryon, "A Need for Principled Judgement",
The Chronicle of Higher Educat ion , VIII, 13 December 1973.
2 Ibid.

39
that the end-goals of the institution could be attained.
Evidently, there is a felt need for all the compo­
nents of a college or university to be committed to the
goals of the institution, especially in the face of waning
credibility and threatening financial squeeze.
Commission on Higher Education,

The Carnegie

in a study concerning some

imperatives for higher education, gives the following recom­
mendations for administrators,

trustees, and faculties:

(1) trustees and administrators are urged to insist on o u t ­
put data in terms of clearly stated goals and objectives of
the institution;

(2) trustees and administrators are urged

to review budgeting guidelines and procedures for funds;
(3) faculties are urged to understand the nature of the
current cost squeeze; and (4) they are urged to become more
flexible while examining loads, class size, curricular d u ­
plication, and tenure percentages.1

In re-defining goals

and priorities or in evaluating old ones, these should be
considered, especially as they relate to the extent of goalachievement.

It is evident that the presence of consensus

among the university's units is imperative;

that they should

decide on priorities and goals around which will be p a t ­
terned the programs the institution can offer is crucial.

lf'The More Effective Use of Resources:
An Imperative
for Higher Education", A Report and Recommendations by the
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972).

40
The importance of a supportive campus climate is also
underscored by Charles Neff, in his discussion of the nature
of academic responsibility.

He contends that institutional

units should maintain harmony, particularly in their views
toward the functioning of the system and their respective
academic responsibilities.

He states that:

A university is a social institution
... one which contributes to the
maintenance and transformation of
social values, that it is most ef fec ­
tive when it possesses a common p h i l o ­
sophy ... one which results to the
process of education and individual
development but which also has social
implications; that such a philosophy
must generally engage and have re le­
vance for the members of its community.
The impact of the university community on the total
development of a student is supported by Pace and he states:
''It is quite clear that different college environments do
have demonstrable consequences on student behavior."
The existence of a marked relationship between the
development of a student and the climate of his college or

Charles B. Neff, "Toward a Definition of Academic
Responsibility", The Journal of Higher Ed ucation, XL 1
(January 1969) , pp"I 12- 12.
2
C. Robert Pace, "Implications of Differences in
Campus Atmosphere for Evaluation and Planning of College
Programs", e d . , Robert Sutherland and Others, Personality
Factors on the College Campus:
Review of a S y m p o s i u m ,
(The Hogg Foundation for Mental health, University of
Texas), pp. 43-61.

err

41
university is underscored by Sanford.

In his studies

focused on personality development from the freshman to
senior years of the college experience, he attributes
much of the change in the student to the nature and impact
of the institution upon his personality.1
A similar study conducted by Gottlieb and Hodgkins

2

and another done by Heist and Webster^ indicate that the
change in the student during the college years is the r e ­
sult of the interaction of two factors:

his origins and

the university community in which he finds himself.

This

underscores the role of campus climate in student
develop men t.
Evidently, the existence of various interpretations
of and views on the nature of institutional goals generate
questions crucial enough to merit investigation and close
study.

Apparently,

the current overall role of higher

1Nevitt Sanford, "Personality Development During the
College Years", Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , XXXV (1956),
pp. 74-80.
^D.
Cultures:
to Student
1963), pp.

Gottlieb and B. Hodgkins, "College Student SubTheir Structure and Characteristics in Relation
Attitude Change", School Review, LXXI (Autumn,
266-289.

3Paul Heist and Harold Webster, "Differential C h a r ­
acteristics of Student Bodies -- Implications for Selection
and Study of Undergraduates", Selection and Educational
Differentiation:
Proceedings (Berkeley, California:
The
Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1960), pp. 96-104.

42
education seems ambiguous, especially as it relates to the
expectations of the various publics the universities are
established to serve.

Coogan states that:

The American people, broadly speaking,
do not fully understand the vital role
played by universities in this rapidly
changing world of ours.
If somehow,
and I think we need to know what our
'image* is beforehand, we could indi­
vidually and collectively break through
this almost invisible barrier between
us and a lot of our many publics, we
would render an incalculable service
to higher education.!
Regardless of claims about the ambiguity of the role of the
university and the cruciality of goals to the effective
translation of this role to the publics, research done along
this line seems to indicate a dearth, hence a marked need
for more studies.
Research relevant to this study is herein reviewed:
A very comprehensive study related to institutional
goals was conducted by Gross and Grambsch.

Using the sys­

tems model originally adopted for the study of o rganiza­
tions, they developed a set of specific goals and catego­
rized them into outcome and support goals.

In their study,

James H. Coogan, "Image Studies of Higher Education:
Guidelines for Market Research", Current Issues in Higher
Education, I 9 6 0 , Proceedings of the fifteenth Annual
National Conference on Higher Education, pp. 235-238.
Washington:
Association for Higher Education, National
Education Association, 1960.

43
they qualified outcome goals as "those which are manifested
in a product of some kind . .."* and support goals as "those
activities

carried on with the organization to keep it func-

tioning effectively to achieve

output goals.

They justify

the category of support goals by saying:
... in any organization, activities c o n ­
cerned with support may be regarded as
goals, since they are essential to the
healthy functioning of the organization;
since they clearly involve an intention
or aim of the organization as a whole,
and since many participants perceive
them as worthy, give a great deal of
attention to them, and deliberately
engage in activities that will move
the organization toward them.3
These two types of goals served as the base of their
study and along these dimensions, forty-seven questionnaire
statements

(or goals) were formulated and mailed to the

faculties and administrators of sixty-eight universities in
the United States.
The output goals were categorized into:
1. Student-expressive -- those that deal with
attempts to change the student's identity
or character in some way;

Edward Gross and Paul Grambsch, University Goals
and Academic Power (Washington, D.C.:
American Council on
Education, 1968), p. 9.
2Ibid.
3 Ibid.

44
2. Student-instrumental -- those that deal with
the student's being equipped to perform c e r ­
tain functions for society;
3. Research -- those that deal with the d i s ­
covery or production of new knowledge, or
the solution of problems; and
4. Direct service -- those that involve direct
and continuing service to the larger society.1
The support goals were likewise categorized into:
1. Adaptation -- those that represent the need of
the university to come to terms with the e n ­
vironment in which it is located;
2. Management -- those that deal with decisions:
University governance,

internal conflict,

and establishment of goal priorities;
3. Motivation -- those that tend to maintain
high level of morale among staff and students;
and
4. Position -- those that help to maintain the
position of the university in the face of
pressures that could change its relative
2
status.

1Ibid
2 Ibid

45
The researchers justified their use of a large number of
specified goals by stating that "it is our belief that the
study of organizations has suffered from an overly simple
view of goals.1
The respondents involved in the study were asked to
rate the importance of each goal on the basis of how impor­
tant they prefer it to be and how important they perceive
it at their respective institutions.
interesting findings,

The study came up with

some of which are herein cited:

Perceived goals ranked the most important:
1. Protect the faculty's right to academic
freedom;
2. Increase or maintain the prestige of the
university;
3. Maintain top quality in those programs felt
to be especially important;
4. Ensure the continued confidence and hence
support of those who contribute substantially
to the finances and other material resource
needs of the university;
5. Keep up to date and responsive;
6. Train students in methods of scholarship and/
or scientific research; and

1 Ibid.

46
7. Carry on pure research.1
Preferred goals ranked the most important:
1. Protect the faculty's right to academic
freedom;
2. Train students in methods of scholarship
and/or scientific research and/or creative
endeavor;
3. Produce a student who has had his intellect
cultivated to the maximum;
4. Maintain top quality in all programs
engaged in;
5. Serve as a center for the dissemination of
new ideas;
6. Keep up to date and responsive; and
7. Maintain top quality in those programs felt
2
to be especially important.
The study indicates particular concern about academic
freedom, student development, and research.

Goals focused

on these concerns were opted as very important by the res­
pondents involved in the study.

One of the conclusions r e ­

veal that administrators and faculty "tend to see eye to
eye with a much greater extent than is commonly supposed."3

1Ibid.
2Ibid.
3 Ibid.

47
Using the same instrument, William Thomas conducted
a study of the perceptions and preferences of students,
faculty, and administrators in the field of student pe r s o n ­
nel at Michigan State University.

He compared the results

with those obtained by Gross and Grambsch.

Some of his

findings are:
Most preferred goals for the university:
1. Keep up to date and responsive;
2. Serve as a center for dissemination of new
ideas;
3. Protect and facilitate the student's right
to inquiry;
4. Help students to develop objectivity about
themselves;
5. Protect the fac u l t y ’s academic freedom;
6. Involve students in the government of the
university; and
7. Maintain top quality in all programs.*
The results of this study seem to imply more concern about
supportive or process goals and the cruciality of these to
the achievement of end or outcome goals.

One of the major

*William L. Thomas, Jr., "Perceptions of University
Goals:
A Comparison of Administrators, Faculty, and Students
Engaged in the Practice, Teaching, and/or Study of Student
Personnel Administration at Michigan State University with
a Nationwide Study of University Faculty and Administrators",
(Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, College of Education, Michigan
State University, 1970), p. 79.

48
conclusions indicates the existence of a "general philoso­
phical posture that values quality education while m a i n ­
taining concern for individual human development."1
A similar study was conducted by Norman Uhl for the
National Laboratory for Higher Education where he employed
an earlier version of the Institutional Goals Inventory
(IGI) to gather data from five institutions in the Caroli­
nes and Virginia.

One of the principal purposes of the

study was to test the Delphi Technique as a measure of
achieving consensus among diverse constituent groups r ega rd­
ing institutional goals.

The findings indicate that beliefs

about goals generally converge with the repeated administration of the inventory along with feedback results.
Stead conducted an analysis of the goal perceptions
and preferences of students, faculty, administrators, and
trustees at Michigan State University using an instrument
patterned after that formulated by Gross and Gambsch.
Employing Parson's theory of social systems, he analyzed
university goals along the dimensions of the four functional
imperatives identified as adaptation, pattern maintenance,
tension management, and integration.

Some conclusions of

the study are:

1Ibid.
^Norman P. Uhl, "Identifying College Goals the Delphi
Way", Topical Papers and Reprints No. 2 (Durham, North Caro­
lina:
National Laboratory for Higher Education, 1971).

49
1. It is important for institutions of higher e d u ­
cation to develop and articulate goals;
2. Instrumental or process goals are as important
as output or end goals, they should be kept in
proper balance;
3. All the respondent-groups recognize the importance
of maintaining a satisfactory relationship with
the larger society and the need to secure resources
necessary for effective university functioning; and
4. All the constituent groups felt that the goals
should be given greater emphasis than was the case
in practice.*
Stead's concluding statements focus on the importance of
the role of the university to the development of both the
student and society.
The Danforth Foundation sponsored a similar study
using the modified form of the Gross and Grambsch instru­
ment.

Colleges with limited resources from Appalachia and

the Great Plains were involved in the study.

Administrators,

faculty, and students were asked to respond to the que s t i o n ­
naire.

The major findings indicate the presence of agree­

ment among the respondents regarding the importance of

Ronald Stead, "Analysis of the University Goal P e r ­
ceptions and Preferences of Students, Faculty, A dmi ni s t r a ­
tors, and Trustees at Michigan State University" (Unpub­
lished Ph.D. Thesis, College of Education, Michigan State
University, 1971).

50
goals that focus on teaching and student-oriented
activiti es.*
Swarr conducted another study on the goals of c o l ­
leges in New York state.

Among the features of this study

which differentiates it from other similar investigation
on institutional goals are:

(1) its focus upon public co l­

leges and (2) its comparison with university and private
college studies.

Some of the major findings are:

1. Respondents indicate a desire that greater im­
portance should be given to the goals than i_s
given them;
2. There are reliable differences between the goal
perceptions and preferences of the faculty and
administrators of the four colleges; and
3. Goal perceptions and preferences of the state
college faculty are more similar overall to
those of small, private church-related college
staff in the Danforth study than to the u n i v e r ­
sity staff responses recorded in the Gross and
Gambasch study.

2

^"A Report:
College Goals and Governance", Danforth
News and Notes, (St. Louis:
Danforth Foundation, 1969),
p. 2.
^Philip C. Swarr, "An Empirical Study of the Goals
of Colleges and Universities as Perceived and Preferred by
Faculty and Administrators", (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
Syracuse University, 1971).

51
Quinn conducted a similar study in Massachusetts
using the Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI) developed by
the Educational Testing Service.

He involved the higher

education institutions in the state.

Some of his c onc lu­

sions are:
1. that state colleges should offer career programs
that would be more intellectual than vocational;
and
2. that state universities should be primarily intel­
lectual and focused on the pursuit of knowledge
for its own sake, hence the maintenance of excel­
lent graduate pro grams.1
Another study on university goal preferences was c o n ­
ducted by Parker.

He used the goals inventory developed by

Gross and Grambsch to determine faculty preferences among a
group of higher education institutions.
differences

His findings reveal

in goal perceptions based on such factors as

militancy of the institution involved and the employment
status and discipline of the respondents.

2

1Mathew J. Quinn, "In the Public Service:
The Goals
of Public Higher Education in Massachusetts as Perceived
and Preferred by Major Decision-Makers" (Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, Boston College, 1972).
2
Reuben D. Parker, "University Goal Preferences of
Faculty" (Unpublished Ed.D. Thesis, New Mexico State U n i ­
versity, 1972).

52
Julius B. Roberson conducted a study to determine
the goals of Memphis State University as perceived and p r e ­
ferred by administrators,

faculty, and students.

He for­

mulated a questionnaire composed of thirty-six goal state­
ments categorized into eleven areas of emphasis.

Some of

his findings reveal the following:
1. That differences exist within the administrators,
faculty, and student groups regarding goal p r e ­
ferences and perceptions; and
2. That there is a lack of congruence between the
groups in both perceived and preferred goals.^
The need for a better articulation of institutional
goals is recommended in a study done by Larry L. Howard.
Using an environmental assessment approach similar to the
CUES formulated by C. Robert Pace, he investigated the
goals of Missouri Baptist College in St. Louis.

Some of

his recommendations are:
1. That studies should be done to more clearly arti­
culate the goals of institutions;
2. That studies should be done to determine reasons
of marked differences in the perception of college
goals by constituencies; and

1Julius B. Roberson, ’’Perceived and Preferred Goal
Congruence In A State University",(Unpublished Ed.D. Thesis,
University of Tennessee, 1971).

53
3. That all institutions of higher learning should
continuously re-examine and/or revise statements
of goals and philosophies.**
Richard Grubb, using a modified version of the Ins­
titutional Functioning Inventory (IFI) formulated by the
Educational Testing Service,

investigated the goal percep­

tions and preferences of the faculty and staff of the U n i ­
versity Park Campus of Pennsylvania State University.
recommendations focus on one salient fact:

His

that there is

a need for institutional changes especially as they relate
2
to institutional planning.
In the wake of myriad and conflicting demands made
upon the university, much disparity and concern have arisen
regarding goals and priorities.

This is substantiated by

the foregoing review of literature and research related to
institutional goals,

*Larry L. Howard, "Institutional Goal Statement
Evaluation Using An Environmental Assessment Approach:
Case Study" (Unpublished Ed.D. Thesis, University of
Missouri in Columbia, 1971).

A

^Richard E. Grubb, "A Study of Faculty and Staff
Perceptions of Present and Desired Future Functional E m ­
phases at University Park Campus of the Pennsylvania State
University" (Unpublished Ed.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State
University, 1971).

54
It is apparent that in the diversity of demands made
upon higher education,

the role and functions of the u n i ­

versity have become quite ambiguous, and at the same time
encompassing.

The emergence of new concepts all focused

on the enrichment of the quality of human life has evolved
as the background of university purposes.

Although there

is a definite consensus regarding the purposes of higher
education as teaching, research, and public service,

there

are some forms of incongruence regarding the emphasis
placed on these purposes across institutions.
In this chapter,

selected literature related to ins­

titutional goals was reviewed -- the nature of their evolvement and the importance of their clear articulation, not
only to academic constituencies but also to the greater
society that nurtures and supports higher education.

err-

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to compare goal p e r c e p ­
tions and goal preferences of the governing board members,
the administrators,

and the faculty of the five public,

doctorate-granting universities in the state of Michigan,
namely, Michigan State University, Michigan Technological
University, University of Michigan, Wayne State University,
and Western Michigan University.
In this chapter, the populations of the study, the
sampling procedures,
are delineated.

and the instrument used to collect data

Likewise the methods of data collection

and statistical analyses, and the subsequent testing of the
hypotheses are presented.
Population of the Study
The Trustees
This group is composed of the members of the govern­
ing boards of the five universities as of January,

1974.

The Administrators
This group is made up of the key officers in the
central administration of the universities,

5S

including the

56
Deans of the different colleges and the Vice Presidents for
the different areas, but excluding the Presidents.
The Faculty
This group is composed of the members of the teaching
faculties in the five universities identified as such in
their respective Faculty-Staff Directories.
Samples of the Study
The Trustees
All the members of the governing boards of the five
universities as of January 1974 were sent questionnaire
forms.

Three of the institutions involved in the study have

eight members in their respective boards; two have seven
each.

(N * 36)
The Administrators
All those involved in the central administration of

the universities w ete included in the study.

Also included

were the Deans of the different Colleges and the Vice P r e ­
sidents for such areas as Research, Development,
Affairs,

Instruction, and Finance.

Student

The Presidents were

excluded because it was assumed that they occupy a very
distinctive position in the academic hierarchy.

(N - 106)

S7
The Faculty
A random sample of five per cent from the faculty
groups of each university was involved.

The sample was

derived from the ranks of the members of the teaching f acul­
ties as listed in each u niv er s i t y ’s Faculty-Staff Directory.
It was assumed that the sampling would yield sub-samples of
academic rank that would be representative of the faculty
populations.

(N * 300)

The random sample technique was used because such
factors as sex, age, academic discipline,

longevity of ser­

vice, or status of employment were not considered as inde­
pendent variables.
The subjects were identified through the use of a
table of random numbers.
The faculty sample was limited to five per cent of
the total number of faculty members in each university.
It was assumed that this would be representative of the
faculty populations.
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire was employed as the principal ins­
trument for gathering data.

(See Appendix A)

It consisted

of forty items developed by the researcher and based on those
contained in the instrument formulated by Gross and Grambsch

58
(University Goals and Academic Power)1 , and those contained
in a similar instrument developed by the Educational Testing Service (Institutional Goals Inventory)

7

.

The initial form of the instrument was reviewed by
the Chairman of the researcher*s Guidance Committee and the
Director of the Office of Research Consultation in the C o l ­
lege of Education.

A pilot run was later conducted with

ten graduate students in the College of Education.
vised form of the questionnaire

The r e ­

(See Appendix A) evolved

from suggestions of the pilot respondents.
Each questionnaire item required two types of r e s ­
ponses, showing the perceived and preferred importance of
the stated goal for the respondents'
ties.

respective universi­

Each respondent was asked to rate each goal state­

ment on the basis of its importance as either an is goal
(perceived)

or should be goal

(preferred).

Each respondent

was likewise given five choices to rate the importance of
each goal statement in the perceived and preferred d i m e n ­
sions, with the response categories ranging from "of no
importance" to "of very high importance".

1Edward Gross and Grambsch, Paul V . , University
Goals and Academic Power (Washington, D.C.:
American
Council on Education, 11168).
i n s t i t u t i o n a l Goals Inventory (IGI), (Princeton,
New Jersey:
Educational Testing Service, 1972).

59
Spaces were provided in the instrument for the r e s ­
pondents to write in those goals they felt were distinctive
for their respective universities but were not among those
statements contained in the questionnaire.
The categorization of the goal statements was similar
to that used by Gross and Grambsch in their earlier cited
study.

The goals were of two types:
a) those that deal with output or outcome goals c a t e ­
gorized as:

individual development,

career o rie n­

tation, research, public service, and humanism;
and
b) those that deal with process or effective func­
tioning goals categorized as: academic freedom,
community government, campus climate, off-campus
learning, and accountability.
There were four goal statements for each category, hence
twenty statements for outcome goals and the same number for
process goals.
The specific areas covered in the instrument are as
fo l l o w s :
Outcome Goal Areas
A.

Individual Development -- these goals include

those concerned with the academic,
nal development of students,

intellectual, and p e r s o ­

their acquisition of general

and specialized knowledge, and their development of aware­
ness of their personal goals and self-worth

(1,2,3,4)

60
B.

Career Orientation -- these goals include

those

concerned with the student's career planning and vocational
or professional development, both in the undergraduate and
graduate schools.
C.

(5,6,7,9)

Research -- these goals include

those involved

in contract research studies in the sciences and those that
are generally concerned with the acquisition of more kno wl­
edge through scientific study.
D.

(8,10,11,12)

Public Service -- these goals include those that

provide services concerned with continuing education for
career training or re-training and those involved in c o m ­
munity services such as cooperation with governmental and
social agencies in community policy formulation.

(13,16,

18,20)
E.

Humanism -- these goals include those that are

concerned with the humanity of all men, those that help
develop respect for diverse cultures and awareness of c u r ­
rent human issues, those that enrich the quality of human
life and increase the chances for the attainment of world
peace.

(14,15,17,19)
Process Goals
A.

Academic Freedom -- these goals include those

that protect faculty and students in their pursuit of kn owl ­
edge and ensure them the freedom to choose life styles.
(35,36,37,40)

61
B.

Community Government -- these goals include those

that provide for participation of constituencies in d e c i ­
sion-making, especially on issues directly affecting them,
and those that deal with the development of mutual trust
and respect among the students,
and staff.
C.

faculty, administrators,

(21,24,26,28)
Supportive Campus Climate -- these goals include

those that facilitate involvement in intellectual and cul ­
tural interaction and those that provide for new methods
and approaches in academic procedures.
D.

(22,23,25,30)

Off-Campus Learning -- these goals include those

that provide opportunities for study off-campus and p a r t i ­
cipation in action projects that would help develop in the
student awareness of community service.
E.

(27,29,31,32)

Accountability -- these include those that are

concerned with the efficiency and e ffe ctiveness of the i n s ­
titution in achieving specified goals.

(33,34,38,39)

Collection of Data
The questionnaire forms were mailed on March 4, 1974
to the selected samples,

together with cover letters

Appendix A) and self-addressed,

(See

stamped return envelopes.

The same cover letter was used for both the administrators
and faculty.

Another cover letter was composed for the

trustees because it was felt that they should be made more
aware of the importance of their cooperation to the validity

62
of the study since they constitute the smallest munbeT
among the groups.

(See Appendix A)

Each mailed questionnaire form was given a code n u m ­
ber to identify the respondent and the particular group he
represents.

It was hoped that this would facilitate later

attempts to follow-up non-respondents.

Fifteen days follow­

ing the mailing of the questionnaire forms, follow-up let­
ters were sent to the respondents at their respective a d ­
dresses.

Telephone calls were made to those residing in

the Greater Lansing area.

In cases where respondents m i s ­

placed the forms sent earlier and signified their wil l i n g ­
ness to cooperate, second copies were mailed.
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize the final response rate
in the survey.
Since Michigan State University had the highest
faculty membership among the five universities and con se­
quently yielded the largest sample in the study, it was not
surprising that the largest return of the responses was o b ­
tained from there.

Similarly, Michigan Technological U ni­

versity manifested the smallest number of return because
the least number in the sampling comes from this university.
It is relatively small compared to the other four un iversi­
ties in terms of enrollment and faculty and staff membership.
The rate of response could have been higher if tele­
phone calls were made to all the respondents.

As it was,

Table 3.1.

Institutions

Response Rate By Institution And By Group

Trustees
Sample Response
Size
Rate
n
%

k " TT U T>"5
Administrators
Saimple Response
Size
Rate
n
i

faculty
Sampl e Response
Size
Rate
n
4

T O T A L S
Sample Response
Size
Rate
n
t

l)Michigan
State
University

8

4

50.00

36

35

97.22

98

60

61.23

142

99

69.71

2)Michigan
Technolo­
gical
University

8

2

25.00

24

14

58.33

16

13

81.25

48

29

60.46

3)University
of Michigan

7

3

42.85

23

14

60.84

84

25

28.57

114

42

37.48

4)Wayne State
University

8

3

37.50

20

12

60.00

56

24

42.85

84

39

46.43

5)Western
Michigan
University

7

3

42.85

18

18

100.00

46

12

26.09

71

33

44.59

38

15

39.47

121

93

76.86

300

134

44.66

459

242

52.50

TOTALS

Faculty Totals:

MSU - 1,963;

MTU « 322;

U of M » 1,676;

WSU « 1,122;

WMU - 916

It can be noted that the administrators manifested the highest return and the
trustees the lowest. The low return rate among the trustees seems to be attributable to
their busy schedules and the increasing number of similar questionnaires they receive
attendant to their positions in the academic hierarchy.

64

letters were sent to those residing beyond the Greater
Lansing area and this proved to be ineffective as a p r o c e ­
dure for follow-up.
Table 3.2 summarizes the faculty response in the
survey.

Table 3.2

Faculty Response by Academic Rank

A C A D E M I C

R A N K

Assistant Associate
Institution Instructor Professor Professor Full
Professor Totals

MSU

9

12

10

29

60

MTU

0

3

4

6

13

U of M

3

5

9

8

25

WSU

2

6

8

8

24

WMU

1

2

1

8

12

15

27

32

59

134

Totals

The faculty sampling was derived at random from the
faculty directories of the universities involved in the
study.

The total faculty membership in the five institu­

tions is 5,999 as of Summer, 1973.*

Five per cent of

^American Association of University Professors
B u l l e t i n , Summer, 1973.

i

65
this total, or three-hundred, were given questionnaire forms;
134 or 44.66 per cent responded.
Processing and Coding of Data
Questionnaire data were coded for computer analysis.
To quantify the data, the different response categories
were assigned the following arbitrary values:

of very high

importance ■ 5, of high importance ■ 4, of medium importance
= 3, of little importance *= 2, and of no importance * 1.
The values assigned to the individual ratings were then r e ­
corded on coding sheets.
data processing cards.

These were later key-punched on
A complete check and verification

was later done to ensure the accurate analysis of the data.
Hypotheses
Twelve hypotheses were tested in the study.

They

are stated in nondirectional form since the researcher had
no clear expectation of results.

Theory and related re­

search do not provide a defined trend from which expected
results could have been inferred.
Hypothesis One
There will be differences among the trustees, a dmi ­
nistrators, and faculty in their ratings of the p e r ­
ceived importance of university outcome goals.

66
Hypothesis Two
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators, and faculty in their ratings of the p r e ­
ferred importance of university outcome goals.
Hypothesis Three
There will be differences among the trustees, a dmi ­
nistrators, and faculty in their ratings of the p e r ­
ceived importance of university process goals.
Hypothesis Four
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators, and faculty in their ratings of the p r e ­
ferred importance of university process goals.
Hypothesis Five
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators, and faculty of the five universities in
their ratings of the perceived importance of uni v e r ­
sity outcome goals.
Hypothesis Six
There will be differences among the trustees, a d m i ­
nistrators, and faculty of the five universities in
their ratings of the preferred importance of u n i v e r ­
sity outcome goals.

67
Hypothesis Seven
There will be differences among the trustees, admi­
nistrators, and faculty of the five universities in
their ratings of the perceived importance of univer­
sity process goals.
Hypothesis Eight
There will be differences among the trustees, admi­
nistrators, and faculty of the five universities in
their ratings of the preferred importance of u niver­
sity process goals.
Hypothesis Nine
There will be differences among the faculty ranks in
their ratings of the perceived importance of un ive r­
sity outcome goals.
Hypothesis Ten
There will be differences among the faculty ranks in
their ratings of the preferred importance of univer­
sity outcome goals.
Hypothesis Eleven
There will be differences among the faculty ranks in
their ratings of the perceived importance of univer­
sity process goals.

68

Hypothesis Twelve
There will be differences among the faculty ranks in
their ratings of the preferred importance of univer­
sity process goals.
Analysis of Data
The hypotheses were tested by obtaining each respon­
dent's total scores for the ten goals along the perceived
(is) and preferred (should be) dimensions.

The differences

between each respondent’s scores on the same dimension were
then calculated.
Statistical Analysis
To test the hypotheses in the null, the univariate
one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was used.

This tech­

nique tests the differences in means of different groups
for statistical significance.

It is thoroughly discussed

by Kirk in his Experimental Design:

Procedures for the

Behavioral Sciences.*
The acceptance of the hypotheses tested was based on
the .05 level of significance.

The program FINN available

on the CDC 6500 computer at Michigan State University was
used for the data analysis.

*Roger E. Kirk, Experimental Design:
Procedures for
the Behavioral Sciences (Belmont, California:
flrooks/Cole
Publishing (Uompany, 1 § 6 8 ) , pp. 245-270.

Summary
The populations and samples involved in the study
and the development and administration of the questionnaire
used to gather data are discussed in this chapter.

Also

presented are the hypotheses tested and the procedures used
in the data analysis.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
This portion of the study is concerned with the a n a l ­
ysis and presentation of the collected data.

The hypotheses

are re-stated in testable form and discussions of the find­
ings are presented, especially as they relate to the q ues ­
tions raised in Chapter I.
The members of the governing boards, the administra­
tors, and samples from the faculties of the five universi­
ties involved in the study were asked to rate the importance
of each goal statement along two dimensions:
is or should be .

perceived or

The respondents were likewise asked to

consider the goal items in relation to how they view the
importance given each of the goals at their respective
institutions.
Forty possible institutional goals were investigated.
As indicated in Chapter III, twenty of the goal items were
classified as outcome goals categorized into individual d e v ­
elopment, career orientation,

research, public service, and

humanism, and the other twenty are classified as process
70

71
goals categorized into academic freedom, community gov ern ­
ment, supportive campus climate, off-campus learning, and
accountability.

The hypotheses are related to these goal

categories and classifications, hence the data were analyzed
along these lines.
Analysis of Research Results
The research design used in the study made it p o s s i ­
ble to investigate the university goals as they were viewed
by the respondents from the five universities involved.

It

also made possible a comparative analysis of the importance
of the goals as they were rated along the perceived
and preferred

(is)

(should be) dimensions by the respondents c a ­

tegorized by group (trustees, administrators, and faculty)
and by institution

(Michigan State University, Michigan

Technological University, University of Michigan, Wayne
State University,

and Western Michigan University).

A com­

parative analysis was also made for the same goals as they
were viewed by the faculty categorized by academic rank
(instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and
full p r o f e s s o r ) .
The hypotheses were tested in the null form.

The

.05 level of significance was set as the point at which any
of the null hypotheses will not be accepted.

72
The Hypotheses and Research Findings
The hypotheses were re-stated in testable form, along
with the discussion of the findings relative to each.

For

purposes of minimizing repetitive statements of the null
forms of the research hypotheses,

items relating to the same

areas of interest were combined.
Hypothesis One
There will be no differences among the trustees, a d ­
ministrators,

and faculty in their rating of the p e r ­

ceived importance of the university outcome goals.
The average mean scores and the standard deviations
on the perceived importance of the five university outcome
goals as rated by the trustees, administrators, and faculty
are shown on Table 4.1.
It can be noted that significant differences exist
among the ratings of the groups on the perceived importance
of the specified university outcome goals.

While they p e r ­

ceived individual development, career orientation, and r e ­
search as the most important of the outcome goals and public
service and humanism as the least in their respective u n i ­
versities,

significant differences among the ratings were

obtained.

Hence, none of the null hypotheses contained in

Hypothesis One were accepted.
ponding ANOVA Tables).

(See Appendix B for corres­

73
Hypothesis Two
There will be no differences among the trustees, a d ­
ministrators, and faculty in their ratings of the
preferred importance of the university outcome
goals.
The average mean scores and the standard deviations
on the preferred importance of the five university outcome
goals as rated by the three groups are shown on Table 4.2.
While individual development, career orientation,
and research are again rated as the most preferred outcome
goals and public service and humanism as the least p r e ­
ferred, analysis show significant differences among the
groups in their ratings on career orientation and public
service, hence two of the null hypotheses contained in
Hypothesis Two were not accepted.

(See Appendix B for cor ­

responding ANOVA Tables).
A visual representation of the same ratings is shown
on Figure 4.1.
It can be noted from Figure 4.1 that the groups are
fairly well agreed in their ratings of the importance of
the outcome goals along the perceived and preferred d i m e n ­
sions.

They prefer the goals to be given more importance

than they are being presently given in their respective
universities.

The three groups rated individual de vel op­

ment as the most important perceived and preferred outcome

Table 4.1. Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables on the Perceived Importance of University Outcome
Goals by Trustees, Administrators, and Faculty

RESPONDENT GROUPS
University Outcome
Goals

Trustee
N * 15
Mean
S.D.

Administrators
N = 93
Mean
S.D.

Faculty
N * 134
Mean
S.D.

F
Statis­
tic

P

1. Individual Devel­
opment

16.733

2.576

15.559

2.716

14.567

3.019

5.876

.003*

2. Career Orienta­
tion

16.133

2.416

15.083

2.470

14.492

2.373

4.017

.019*

3. Research

16.066

2.463

15.827

2.792

14.880

2.976

3.513

.031*

4. Public Service

14.533

3.090

14.258

2.354

12.962

2.413

9.043

.0005*

5. Humanism

14.200

3.211

13.419

2.856

12.194

3.298

5.829

.003*

•Significant at .OS level.

Table 4.2. Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics £or Relevant
ANOVA Tables on the Preferred Inportance of University Outcome
Goals by Trustees, Administrators, and Faculty

RESPONDENT GROUPS
Trustees
N * 15
Mean
S.D.

Administrators
N - 93
Mean
S.D.

Faculty
N « 134
Mean
S.D.

F
Statis­
tic

1. Individual Devel­
opment

18.533

1.726

17.516

2.030

17.194

2.447

2.571

.079

2.Career Orienta­
tion

17.400

2.292

17.118

1.875

16.238

2.365

5.389

.005*

3. Research

17.400

1,882

17.043

2.333

16.402

2.587

2.493

.085

4. Public Service

16.400

3.180

16.150

2.216

14.798

3.015

7.830

.001*

5. Umanism

16.600

2.585

15.387

3.068

14.932

3.526

1.928

.148

University Outcome
Goals

•Significant at .05 level.

P

Figure 4.1

Graphic Representation o£ Average Mean Scores On
Perceived And Preferred Importance of Outcome Goals
By Trustees, Administrators, And Faculty

19.00
18.50
18.00
17.50
17.00
16.50
16.00
15.50
15.00
14.50

---------

14.00
13.50
13.00
12.50

OG-

OG.

Outcome Goals
1. ()Gi - Individual Development
2. OG2 - Career Orientation
3. OG 3 - Research
4. OG 4 - Public Service
5. OG 5 - Humanism

OG.

OG,

.

2.
3.

5
Legend

Grou

1

OG

Trustees
Administrators
Faculty

—

Perceived
Preferred

77
goal.

They rated humanism as the goal being given the least

importance in their institutions.
Hypothesis Three
There will be no differences among the trustees, a d ­
ministrators, and faculty in their ratings of the
perceived importance of university process goals.
On Table 4.3 are shown the average mean scores and
standard deviations on the perceived importance of u niver­
sity process goals as rated by the three groups involved
in the study.
Evidently,

the groups perceived academic freedom as

the most important process goal and off-campus learning as
the least in their respective universities.

Although it

appears that they are fairly agreed on the relative impor­
tance of the goals, statistical differences were obtained
on their ratings on community government and supportive
campus climate.

Also, the faculty perceived accountability

as being given more importance than community government,
off-campus learning, and supportive campus climate.

Sta­

tistical differences were obtained among the ratings, hence
two of the null hypotheses contained in null hypotheses
three were not accepted.
ANOVA Tables).

(See Appendix B for corresponding

78

Hypothesis Four
There will be no differences among the trustees, a d ­
ministrators, and faculty in their ratings of the
preferred importance of university process goals.
The average mean scores and standard deviations on
the ratings of the three groups regarding the preferred im­
portance of university process goals are shown on Table 4.4.
It can be noted that the groups are agreed on the
preferred importance of four of the process goals -- acade­
mic freedom, community government,
mate, and off-campus learning.

supportive campus c l i ­

The trustees rated a cco unt ­

ability as the most preferred university process goal, as
opposed to the preferences of the administrators and faculty.
Statistical differences were obtained on their ratings on
accountability as a process goal, hence Hypothesis Four was
accepted.

(See Appendix B for corresponding ANOVA Tables).

A visual representation of the g r o u p s 1 ratings on
the perceived and preferred importance of university p r o ­
cess goals is shown on Figure 4.2.
Evidently, there is agreement among the three groups
regarding the need for the universities to give more impor­
tance to the specified process goals.

The trustees p e r ­

ceive and prefer accountability as the most important p r o ­
cess goal as opposed to the administrators who prefer sup­
portive campus climate and the faculty who favor academic
freedom.

Table 4.3. Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables on the Perceived Importance of University Process
Goals by Trustees, Administrators, and Faculty
RESPONDENT GROUPS
University Process
Goals

Trustees
N - 15
Mean
S.D.

Administrators
N » 93
Mean
S.D.

Faculty
N ■ 134
Mean
S.D.

F
Statis­
tic

1. Academic Freedom

15.200

3.075

14.666

3.490

13.708

3.538

2.756

.066

2. CoQnuiity Government

15.066

4.267

14.150

3.685

12.514

3.879

6.703

.001*

3. Supportive Campus
Climate

15.066

3.195

14.494

3.447

12.880

3.477

7.383

.001*

4. Off-Caqpus Learning

13.000

3.000

12.053

3.347

11.470

3.424

1.854

.159

5. Accountability

14.266

4.267

13.903

3.329

13.007

3.372

2.368

.096

^Significant at .05 level.

P

Table 4.4. Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables on the Preferred Importance of University Process
Goals by Trustees, Administrators, and Faculty

University Process
Goals

RESPONDENT GROUPS
Trustees
Administrators
N «= 93
N « 15
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.

1. Academic Freedom

16.933

3.239

15.741

3.355

15.858

3.545

.773

.463

2. Gonnunity Government

16.933

3.150

15.849

3.659

15.686

3.752

.775

.452

3. Supportive Campus
Climate

16.600

2.354

16.247

3.308

15.746

3.469

.876

.418

4. Off-Campus Learning

14.800

3.233

13.774

3.614

13.843

3.664

.530

.589

5. Accountability

17.066

2.463

14.913

3.428

13.746

4.020

6.793

^Significant at .05 level.

Faculty
N » 134
Mean
S.D.

F
Statis­
tic

P

.001*

Figure 4.2.

Graphic Representation of Mean Scores On
Perceived And Preferred Importance of Process
Goals By Trustees, Administrators, And Faculty

18.00
17.50
17.00 o>«
16.50
16.00 $
15.50
15.00
14.50
14.00
13.50
13.00
12.50

12.00
11.50

11.00
PGX

PG 2

PGj

PG4

Process Goals

Groups

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1. Gi - Trustees
2. G2 - Administrators
3. G 3 - Faculty

PGi PG 2 PG 3 PG4 PG 5 -

Academic Freedom
Community Government
Supportive Campus Climate
Off-Campus Learning
Accountability

PG

5

Legend
—

Perceived
Preferred

82
Discussion
The findings relative to hypotheses one, two, three,
and four are hereby discussed as a package because of the
apparent inter-relationships of the university goals in­
vestigated and the categorization of the respondents to the
questionnaire.
Among the university outcome goals,
elopment, career orientation,

individual d e v ­

and research were rated as

the more important perceived and preferred goals of the
five universities.

Although the three groups prefer to see

that all the specified outcome goals be given more impor­
tance than what they are being presently given, they con si­
der public service and humanism as the least concerns of
the institutions, and individual development as the fore­
most.

It seems that the academic constituencies involved

in the study are primarily concerned about the student and
his consequent evolvement into a well-rounded person, aware
of his potential and self-worth, and equipped with the n e ­
cessary tools to be self-sufficient and contributive to
society.
It is of interest to note that among the outcome
goals investigated, public service and humanism were rated
as the least perceived and least preferred by the groups
involved.

While public service has been identified as a

positive university goal by related studies reviewed by the

83
researcher,

its importance as viewed by those involved in

this study seems relatively less than individual develop­
ment, career orientation, and research, although they m a n i ­
fested preference that like the other goals, it should be
given more importance.
Among the five process goals investigated, academic
freedom was perceived as the most important by the three
groups involved in the study.

Evidently, the institutions

are concerned with those items that tend to protect the
students and faculty in their activities to pursue kno wl­
edge and ensure maximum student intellectual and personal
development.

The groups rated off-campus learning as the

least important of the perceived process goals.

This goal

category includes those that provide opportunities for
student participation in action projects that would help
develop

community

and world awareness.

It can be assumed

at this point that its counterpart among the outcome goals
earlier stated is humanism, which was also rated as the
least preferred among the stated goals.

Relative comments

written in by some of the respondents focus on the concept
that the inculcation of humanism in the student is primarily
a role of the church and/or the family.
It is of interest to note that although the three
groups are agreed on the need for the universities to give
more importance to all the specified process goals, the
trustees rated accountability as the most preferred process

84
goal, the administrators rated supportive campus climate,
and the faculty rated academic freedom.

The trustees seem

to be particularly concerned with the acquisition of r esour­
ces necessary to the effective functioning of the institu­
tions and the relative cost-effectiveness that would help
substantiate the effective utilization of resources a b s ­
tracted from the environment.

On the other hand, the admi­

nistrators are concerned with supportive campus climate
which includes innovative intellectual and cultural faci­
lities that could enhance academic procedures relating to
a progressive campus community.

Such could relate to the

times and would render a campus community better equipped
to develop students to their utmost potentials.
The faculty rated academic freedom as the most im­
portant process goal; they seem to want more assurance that
their teaching activities be left unhampered by censures
inimical to their pursuit of more knowledge and truth.
The three groups -- the trustees, administrators,
and faculty, manifested differences

in their ratings of the

perceived and preferred importance of both the outcome and
process goals.

They are however agreed that the uni ver si­

ties they represent should give these goals more importance
than what they are presently being given.
Findings in this study lend some confirmation to the
viability of Talcott Parson's sociological theory on social
systems.

Projected along this theory, the university

85
components involved in this study manifested indications of
consensus and harmony, thus nurturing pattern maintenance
and tension management resulting in their performance of
designated roles necessary to the effective functioning of
the systems, the universities.

It should be noted that the

goals investigated in this study are positive and accepted
institutional goals.

That the university components also

foster adaptation and goal attainment is evident because
of their apparent concern in maintaining satisfactory r e l a ­
tionships with the societal publics that provide resources,
adaptati on, and their awareness of the need to attain e x ­
pected goals, goal attainment, to keep the support and c o n ­
fidence of these publics.
At this juncture, it can be assumed that the u n i v e r ­
sities involved in the study are functioning effectively
as social systems as evidenced by the presence of P a r s o n ’s
Mfour functional imperatives'* in their organizations.
Hypothesis Five
There will be no differences among the trustees, a d ­
ministrators, and faculty of the five universities
in their ratings of the perceived importance of u n i ­
versity outcome goals.
Shown on Table 4.5 are the average mean scores and
standard deviations on the ratings of the five groups c a t e ­
gorized by institution regarding the perceived importance
of the outcome goals investigated.

86
As shown on Table 4.5,

individual development and

research are rated as the most important outcome goals and
humanism as the least.

Although discrepancies are discerned

in the ratings of the groups,

statistical differences were

obtained only on ratings on two of the specified outcome
goals:

research and humanism.

While the Michigan State

University and University of Michigan groups rated research
as the most important perceived outcome goal in their r e s ­
pective institutions,

the other three universities did not

concur, hence statistical differences were obtained.

The

groups from Michigan State University, Michigan Technologi­
cal University, Wayne State University, and Western M i c h i ­
gan University rated humanism as the least important p e r ­
ceived goal.

The groups from the University of Michigan

rated it the second least important; they rated public
service the least important.

Statistical differences were

also obtained on ratings on humanism, hence two of the
hypotheses contained in null Hypothesis Five were not
accepted.

(See Appendix B for corresponding ANOVA T ab l e s ) .

Hypothesis Six
There will be no differences among the trustees, a d ­
ministrators, and faculty of the five universities
in their ratings of the preferred importance of u n i ­
versity outcome goals.

87
Table 4.6 contains the average mean scores and stan­
dard deviations on the preferred importance of university
outcome goals as rated by the groups categorized by the
institutions they represent.
It can be noted that all but one of the five groups,
that from the University of Michigan, rated individual d e v ­
elopment as the most preferred outcome goal.

This p a r t i ­

cular group rated research as the goal they prefer to be
given the most importance.

While the groups from Michigan

State University, Michigan Technological University, and
Western Michigan University rated humanism as the least
preferred outcome goal, the groups from the University of
Michigan and Wayne State University rated public service
the same way.

It is interesting to note that no statis­

tical differences were obtained from the ratings of the
university groups on the preferred importance of the five
outcome goals.

All the hypotheses included in null H y p o ­

thesis Six were accepted.

(See Appendix B for correspond­

ing ANOVA T a b l e s ) .
On Figure 4.3 is shown a visual representation of
the ratings on the perceived and preferred importance of the
five university outcome goals as viewed by the groups c a t e ­
gorized according to the universities they are affiliated
with.

Actual differences between perceived and preferred

ratings were not compared statistically but in every case,
mean values on Table 4.6 were higher for each category than
those on Table 4.5.

Table 4.5. Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables on the Perceived Importance of University Outcome
Goals By Groups Categorized According to University
RESPONDENT GROUPS ACROSS UNIVERSITIES
University
Outcome
Goals

F
Michigan State Michigan Tech- Uiiversity of Wayne State
Western Michi­
University
nological Univ. Michigan
gan University Statis­
University
N ■ 42
N - 39
N « 33
N - 99
N « 29
tic
Mean
S.D. Mean
S.D. Mean
S.D.
S.D. Mean
S.D. Mean

1. Individual
Develop­
14.646
ment

2.711

2. Career
Orienta­
tion

14.636

3. Research

P

3.436 15.214 3.048 15.538 2.918

15.575

3.010 1.046

.384

2.173 14.379

3.075

2.332

14.939

2.771

.476

15.787

2.789 14.000

2.951 16.095 3.137 15.128 2.284

14.303

3.046 4.135

.003*

4. Public
Service

13.454

2.722 13.241

2.798 13.238

2.148 13.727

2.452 1.117

.349

5. Humanism

12.313

2.694 11.862

3.997

2.706 13.734 2.721 12.909

4.354 2.753

.029

15.206

♦Significant at .05 level.

15.000

13.571

2.409 15.333

2.116 14.256

.880

Table 4.6. Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables an the Preferred Importance of University Outcome
Goals by Groups Categorized According to University
RESPONDENT GROUPS ACROSS UNIVERSITIES
Uiiversity
Outcome
Goals

Michigan State Michigan Tech- University of Wayne State
Western MichiF
University
nological Univ.
Michigan
University
gan University Statis
N - 99
N * 29
N - 42
N « 39
N * 33
tic
Mean
S.D. Mean
S.D. Mean
S.D. Mean
S.D. Mean
S.D.

1. Individual
Develop­
17.222
ment

2.336 17.965

2.079 17.333 2.344 17.538 2.371

2. Career
Orienta­
16.323
tion

2.419 16.448

2.338 16.952 1.780

16.717

3. Research

16.646

2.500 15.793

2.895

17.452

2.026

4. Public
Service

15.080

3.032 15.586

2.556 14.976 2.617

5. Humanism

14.606

2.870

3.706 15.547

14.793

17.363

2.058

P

.644

.631

2.025 17.333

3.160 1.589

.178

17.000

2.384 16.424

2.411

2.252

15.820

2.644 16.363

2.472

1.819

.126

2.864 16.102

3.059 15.909

4.605

2.152

.075

.064

Figure 4.3.

Graphic Representation of Mean Scores On
Perceived And Preferred Importance of Outcome
Goals By Groups Categorized According To University

18.00
17.50
17.00
16.50
16.00
15.50
15.00

Src
O/*._ .

14.50
14.00
13.50
13.00
12.50
12.00
11.00

OG,

OG.

OG.

OG,

OG,

Outcome Goals

University Groups

Legend

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

—

OGi - Individual Development
0G2 - Career Orientation
0G3 - Research
OG4 - Public Service
OG 5 - Humanism

Ui
U2
U3
U4
U5

- Michigan State University
- Michigan Technological University
- University of Michigan
- Wayne State University
- Western Michigan University

Perceived
Preferred

Apparently, the groups are generally agreed that
these five goals should be given more than the emphasis
they are presently being given.

It is evident that they

are concerned about the need for their respective institu­
tions to put more emphasis on goals relating to individual
development, career orientation, research, public service,
and humanism, although their preference focuses mostly on
individual development.
Hypothesis Seven
There will be no differences among the trustees,
administrators, and faculty of the five universities
in their ratings of the perceived importance of
university process goals.
On Table 4.7 are presented the average mean scores
and standard deviations on the ratings regarding the p e r ­
ceived importance of process goals by groups categorized
by the institutions they represent.
It is of interest to note that the groups from M i c h i ­
gan State University, University of Michigan, and Wayne
State University rated academic freedom as the most impor­
tant perceived university goal as opposed to the Michigan
Technological University group who rated accountability as
the primary concern of their institution at the present
time and the Western Michigan University group who rated
both community government and supportive campus climate as

92
the most important perceived goals in their campus.

Al­

though there are some indications of fluctuation among the
ratings of the five groups on the perceived importance of
accountability as a goal, statistical differences were not
derived.

However,

statistical differences were obtained

from the ratings of the groups on the four other g o a l s :
academic freedom, community government,
climate, and off-campus learning.

supportive campus

Hence, of the five h y p o ­

theses contained in null Hypothesis Seven, one was accepted
and four were not.

(See Appendix B for corresponding

ANOVA T a b l e s ) .
Hypothesis Eight
There will be no differences among the trustees, ad­
ministrators, and faculty of the five universities in
their ratings of the preferred importance of uni ver ­
sity process goals.
The average mean scores and standard deviations on
the ratings of the university groups regarding the preferred
importance of university process goals are presented on
Table 4.8.
Marked discrepancies on the ratings of the university
groups regarding the preferred importance of the five p r o ­
cess goals are clearly discerned.

While the groups from

Michigan State University, Michigan Technological University,
and University of Michigan prefer to see the most emphasis

93
placed on supportive campus climate, the groups from Wayne
State University and Western Michigan University prefer
academic freedom and community government respectively.
Four of the groups rated off-campus learning as the least
preferred process goal.
Statistical differences were obtained on the ratings
of the groups on the preferred importance of four of the
university process goals:

academic freedom,

community g o v ­

ernment, supportive campus climate, and off-campus learning.
Although deviations on the ratings on accountability were
apparent,

statistical differences were not obtained.

Th e r e ­

fore of the five hypotheses contained in null Hypothesis
Eight, one was accepted and four were not.

(See Appendix

B for corresponding ANOVA Tables).
A visual representation of the university groups*
ratings on the perceived and preferred importance of the
five university process goals is presented on Figure 4.4.
Except for the group from Western Michigan Uni ver ­
sity who prefer accountability to be given less importance
than what it is presently being given,

all the other groups

manifested their desire to see more emphasis given to the
goals.

Evidently,

there is a felt need for the un ive rsi ­

ties to re-align existing objectives and focus more on those
relating to academic freedom, community government, and
supportive campus climate.

It is apparent from the responses

Table 4.7. Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables on the Perceived Inportance of University Process
Goals by Groins Categorized According to University

RESPONDENT GROUPS ACROSS UNIVERSITIES
P

University Process Michigan State Michigan Tech­ University of Wayne State
University
Michigan
nological Univ.
University
Goals
N - 39
N - 42
N « 29
N - 99
S.D.
S.D. Mean
S.D. Mean
Mean
S.D. Mean

F
western Michi­
gan University Statis
tic
N « 33
Mean
S.D.

1. Academic
Freedom

13.616

2.870

12.310

3.559

14.424

4.867

5.575

0.0005*

2. Cormunity
Government

12.888

3.392

12.206 4.723

13.714

3.094 13.897 4.9S6

15.151

3.289

4.809

.001*

3. Supportive Cam­
13.171
pus Climate

3.322

12.279

4.312

14.309

3.189

13.734

3.971

15.151

2.724

3.368

.011*

4. Off-Caucus
Learning

11.464

3.268 10.896 4.320

11.738

2.632 11.846

3.414

13.545

3.192

3.062

.017*

S. Accountability

13.282

3.588 12.551

13.357 2.703 13.692

4.053

14.442

2.15]

1.278

.279

•Significant at .05 level.

3.434

4.005

15.404 2.930

15.410

Table 4.8. Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANCVA Tables an the Preferred Importance of University Process
Goals by Groups Categorized According to University
RESPONDENT GROUPS ACROSS UNIVERSITIES
University Process Michigan State Michigan Tech­ University of
Michigan
University
nologies]. Univ.
Goals
N - 42
N - 29
N * 99
Mean
S.D.
S.D.
Mean
S.D. Mean

Wayne State
University
N = 39
Mean
S.D.

1. Academic
Freedom

15.222

3.082

2. Community
Government

14.939

Western Michi­
gan University
N - 33
Mean
S.D.

F
Statis­
tic

P

14.724 3.604

16.261

3.084

17.743

2.662

16.181

4.653

5.061

.001*

3.741 14.965

4,468

15.976

3.032

17.076

3.723

17.575

2.291

5.176

.001*

3. Supportive Cam­
15.383
pus Climate

3.515

15.551

3.850

16.452

2.830

16.051

3.755 17.545

1.621

3.012

.019*

4. Off-Campus
Learning

13.373

3.707

13.137

4.525

14.166

3.097

13.666

3.511 15.909

2.402

3.644

.007*

5. Accountability

14.373

3.770 14.034

4.187

14.309

3.537 13.641

4.463 15.818

2.833

1.617

.171

•Significant at .05 level.

Figure 4.4.

Graphic Representation of Mean Scores On Perceived
And Preferred Importance of Process Goals By Groups
Categorized According To University

18.00
17.50
17.00
16.50
16.00
15.50
15.00
14.50
14.00

<0
O'

13.50
13.00

V

12.50
12.00

11.50

11.00
10.50
PG,

PG,

PG.

PG.

Process Goals

University Groups

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

PGi - Academic Freedom
PG 2 - Community Government
PG 3 - Supportive Campus Climate
PG4 - Off-Campus Learning
PG 5 - Accountability

Ui
U2
U3
U4
U5

-

PG
Legend

Michigan State University
—
Michigan Technological University
University of Michigan
Wayne State University
Western Michigan University

Perceived
Preferred

97
that off-campus learning as a process goal does not seem
appealing to the groups, although their ratings on it indi­
cate that it should also be given a little more emphasis.
Discussion
Like the first four hypotheses, hypotheses five, six,
seven, and eight will also be discussed as a package because
of the apparent inter-relationships of the goals investiga­
ted and the university gToups involved in the study.
The groups from Michigan Technological University,
Wayne State University, and Western Michigan University
rated individual development as the most important perceived
goal in their respective institutions as opposed to those
of Michigan State University and University of Michigan who
rated research on the same level.

Related literature re­

viewed by the researcher identifies research and individual
development through teaching as two of the primary functions
of higher education.

It can be noted that the universities

involved in this study are in line with other higher e d u c a ­
tion institutions along this regard.

Similar studies indi­

cate the universality of these goals, even if their empha­
sis across institutions may not be equal.

Research as a

university goal was rated as the most important by the
groups from the University of Michigan;

they manifested

their concern that it should be given the most emphasis
among the goals identified.

This tends to portray the

98
University of Michigan as a research-oriented institution,
and this nature is accepted and appreciated by the c o n s ­
tituencies from this institution.
The group from Michigan State University also p e r ­
ceived research as the most important present goal of the
institution.

They however rated individual development as

their most preferred goal.

Although the groups from M i c h i ­

gan Technological University, Wayne State University, and
Western Michigan University rated individual development as
the most important perceived goal in their respective c a m ­
puses, they indicated that it should be accorded more than
the attention it is presently being given.
Four of the groups perceived humanism as the least
important goal in their respective institutions.

Three of

these same groups rated it as the least preferred.

It is

interesting to note that although public service is p o s i ­
tively identified as one of the primary functions of
higher education in related literature reviewed in this
study, the five university groups did not rate it similarly.
That the groups categorized according to the u niver­
sities they represent agree on the goals in varying degrees
shows that the institutions involved in the study, although
pursuing common goals, tend to vary on the emphasis they
place on these individual goals.
organizations

This is so because social

in general maintain priorities in line with

the interests of their unique environments.

Projected along

99
Parson's earlier-stated sociological theory, this is neces­
sary because it helps the organization maintain itself.
While meeting the needs of constituencies external to the
university, resources needed for its functioning can be
elicited from them, ada pta tio n.

Agreement among constituen­

cies internal to it (the trustees, administrators, and
faculty in this study) will foster tension management and
pattern maintenance imperative to the achievement of expec­
ted outcomes, goal a tta inm ent , that could render the org a­
nization more viable to the society it exists to serve.
Hypothesis Nine
There will be no differences among the faculty ranks
in their ratings of the perceived importance of uni ­
versity outcome goals.
On Table 4.9 are shown the average mean scores and
standard deviations on the ratings of the faculty groups
regarding the perceived importance of the university outcome
goals.
From the ratings shown on the table, deviations among
the faculty groups are apparent.

While the instructors and

associate professors rated research as the most important
present goal in their respective institutions, the assist­
ant professors rated career orientation and the full pr o f e s ­
sors rated individual development.

It can be noted that all

the groups are agreed on humanism as the least perceived

100
goal in their universities.

Although slight discrepancies

are discerned from the ratings, statistical differences
were not obtained, hence all the hypotheses included in null
Hypothesis Nine were accepted.

(See Appendix B for corres­

ponding ANOVA Tables).
Hypothesis Ten
There will be no differences among the faculty ranks
in their ratings of the preferred importance of
university outcome goals.
The average mean scores and standard deviations on
the preferred importance of university outcome goals as
rated by the four faculty groups are shown on Table 4.10.
There is a clear convergence among the groups'
views regarding the need for their respective institutions
to give more emphasis on activities relating to individual
development.

All the four groups are agreed that the five

identified outcome goals should be given more than the
emphasis they are presently being given.

Although discre­

pancies among their ratings on public service and humanism
are discernible, statistical differences were not obtained.
Hence, all the hypotheses included in null Hypothesis Ten
were accepted.

(See Appendix B for corresponding ANOVA

Tables).
On Figure 4.5 is shown a visual representation of
the groups' ratings on the perceived and preferred importance
of university outcome goals.

Table 4.9.

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables on the Perceived Importance of University Outcome
Goals By Faculty Groups Categorized According To Academic Rank
"

FACULTY RESFONDENTGRUUPS
Associate
Assistant
Professor
Professor
N * 32
N * 28
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.

Full
Professor
N - 59
Mean
S.D.

F
Statis­
tic

University
Outcome
Goals

Instructor
N * IS
Mean
S.D.

1. Individual
Develop­
ment

14.533

3.481

13.821

2.539

14.781

3.087

14.813

3.087

.750

.524

2. Career
Orienta­
tion

14.533

1.807

14.321

1.866

14.718

2.542

14.440

2.647

.153

.929

3. Research

16.333

3.436

14.000

2.194

15.125

3.159

14.796

2.987

2.150

.097

4. Public
Service

12.866

1.726

12.642

2.111

13.218

2.195

13.000

2.810

.291

.831

5. Humanism

11.600

3.042

11.642

2.613

12.000

4.142

12.711

3.135

.943

.422

P

Table 4.10.

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables on Preferred Importance of University Outcome Goals
By Faculty Groups Categorized According To Academic Rank
'

University
Outcome
Goals

Instructor
N - 15
Mean
S.D.

FACULTY RESPONDENT" GRCUF5"
Full
Associate
Assistant
Professor
Professor
Professor
N - 32
N - 59
N - 28
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.

1 . Individual
Develop­
ment

17.200

3.051

17.321

1.886

17.531

2.565

16.949

2.487

.418

.740

2. Career
Orienta­
tion

16.666

1.951

15.714

2.157

16.593

2.298

16.186

2.582

.869

.459

3. Research

16.733

2.711

16.071

2.106

17.218

2.310

16.033

2.840

1.723

.165

4. Public
Service

14.533

2.099

14.535

2.755

15.250

2.602

14.745

3.531

.349

.790

5. Humanism

14.466

3.113

15.250

2.875

14.718

4.252

15.016

3.540

.209

.890

F
Statis­
tic

P

Figure 4.5.

Graphic Representation of Mean Scores On Perceived
And Preferred Importance of Outcome Goals By Faculty
Categorized According To Academic Rank

18.00
17.50
17.00
16.50
16.00
15.50
15.00
14.50
14.00
13.50
13.00
12.50
12.00

11.50

OGj

OG2

OG j

OG^

Outcome Goals

Faculty Groups

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1.
2.
3.
4.

OGi - Individual Development
OG 2 - Career Orientation
OG 3 - Research
OG4 ■ Public Service
OG 5 - Humanism

FGi FG2 FGj FG 4 -

OG j-

Instructors
Assistant Professors
Associate Professors
Full Professors

Legend
—

Perceived
Preferred

104
The four faculty groups are generally agreed on the
need for their respective universities to be more concerned
with activities relating to individual development.

Al­

though humanism and public service are the goals they c on­
sidered the least important, they manifested views that
they wish to see these goals,

together with the three others

categorized as outcome goals, be given more than the present
emphasis they are being accorded.

It is apparent that the

faculty groups are not content about the present rate these
goals are being implemented in their respective universities.
Hypothesis Eleven
There will be no differences among the faculty ranks
in their ratings of the perceived importance of
university process goals.
The average mean scores and standard deviations on
the perceived importance of university process goals as
rated by the faculty groups categorized according to a cad e­
mic rank are shown on Table 4.10.
While the instructors, associate professors, and full
professors rated individual development as the goal they
perceived as most important on their respective campuses,
the assistant professors rated accountability on the same
base.

Slight differences are apparent on the groups*

ratings on community government and supportive campus c l i ­
mate.

It can be noted that all the groups rated off-campus

105
learning as the least important perceived goal in their
respective institutions.

Although slight differences are

evident among the ratings of the groups regarding the p e r ­
ceived importance of the five process goals, statistical
differences were not obtained, hence all hypotheses c o n ­
tained in null Hypothesis Eleven were accepted.

(See

Appendix B for corresponding ANOVA Tables).
Hypothesis Twelve
There will be no differences among the faculty ranks
in their ratings of the preferred importance of u n i ­
versity process goals.
Shown on Table 4.12 are the average mean scores and
standard deviations on the preferred importance of u n i v e r ­
sity process goals as rated by the faculty groups ca teg o­
rized according to academic rank
Supportive campus climate was rated as the most i m­
portant preferred goal by the instructors.

The assistant

professors rated academic freedom while the associate p r o ­
fessors rated community government as the goals they p r e ­
fer to be emphasized most in their respective institutions.
It is of interest to note that the full professors rated
two goals, community government and supportive campus c l i ­
mate, along the same levels of perceived importance.
Accountability was rated the least important preferred
process goal by the instructors and assistant professors

106
while off-campus learning was rated similarly by the asso­
ciate professors and full professors.
Evidently,

slight discrepancies among the ratings

of the faculty groups can be observed but statistical d i f ­
ferences were not obtained, hence all the five hypotheses
contained in Hypothesis Twelve were accepted.

(See A p p e n ­

dix B for corresponding ANOVA Tables).
A visual representation of the groups* ratings on
the perceived and preferred importance of university p r o ­
cess goals is shown on Figure 4.6.
Agreement among the four groups regarding the need
of their respective universities to give more emphasis on
the five process goals is evident.

Although there are

slight variations in the degrees they wish the goals to
be emphasized, statistical differences were not obtained.
Academic freedom was perceived by three of the groups as
the most important goal and it was likewise rated as the
second most preferred.

Accountability and off-campus

learning were rated as the least important process goals.
Off-campus learning was also rated as the least important
perceived goal in the universities.

Actual differences

between perceived and preferred ratings were not statisti­
cally compared but in every case, mean values on Table 4.12
were higher for each category than those on Table 4.11.

Table 4.11.

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables on Perceived Importance of University Process Goals
By Faculty Groups Categorized According To Academic Rank
'1

FACULTY-R SPONDENT GROUPS’
Associate
Full
Assistant
Professor
Professor
Professor
N * 28
N - 32
N » 59
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.

F
Statictic

University
Process
Goals

Instructor
N = 15
Mean
S.D.

1 . Academic
Freedom

13.933

2.737

13.035

3.072

13.250

4.406

14.220

3.394

.946

.420

2. Community
Govern­
ment

12.333

3.265

10.964

3.805

12.562

4.087

13.271

3.809

2.318

.079

3. Supportive
Campus
Climate

12.600

3.065

11.821

3.662

12.781

3.424

13.508

3.460

1.568 .200

4. Off-Campus
Learning

11.533

2.850

10.785

3.022

11.250

3.818

11.898

3.526

.721 .541

5. Accounta­
bility

12.533

2.503

13.178

3.611

12.687

3.325

13.220

3.523

.292 .831

P

Table 4.12.

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics for Relevant
ANOVA Tables on Preferred Importance of University Process Goals
By Faculty Groups Categorized According To Academic Rank

'TOULTY RESPONDENT’GROUP5
Assistant
Professor
N * 28
Mean
S.D.

Associate
Professor
N - 32
Mean
S.D.

Full
Professor
N « 59
Mean
S.D.

F
Statis­
tic

P

University
Process
Goals

Instructor
N * 15
Mean
S.D.

1 . Academic
Freedom

16.133

3.583

16.071

2.761

16.312

4.291

15.440

3.465

.550

.679

2. Community
Govern­
ment

15.600

3.157

15.035

4.281

16.406

3.078

15.627

3.973

.675

.568

3. Supportive
Campus
Climate

16.266

2.604

15.142

3.960

16.250

3.262

15.627

3.547

.637

.592

4. Off-Campus
Learning

14.600

2.873

13.142

3.628

14.375

3.309

13.694

4.031

.807

.492

5. Accounta­
bility

14.266

4.026

13.107

3.813

13.875

4.171

13.847

4.097

.337

.798

Figure 4.6.

Graphic Representation of Mean Scores On Perceived
And Preferred Importance of Process Goals By Faculty
Categorized According To Academic Rank

17.50
17.00
16.50
16.00
15.50
15.00
14.50
14.00
13.50

42s

13.00
12.50

12.00
11.50

11.00
10.50

PG1

PG2

PG.

PG;

PG,

Process Goals

Faculty Groups

Legend

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1. FGi - Instructors

—

PGx PG 2 PG 3 PG4 PG 5 -

Academic Freedom
Community Government
Supportive Campus Climate
Off-Campus Learning
Accountability

2.

3.
4.

FG2 - Assistant Professors
FG3 - Associate Professors
FG^ - Full Professors

Perceived
Preferred

Discussion
The findings relating to Hypotheses Nine, Ten, Ele­
ven, and Twelve are hereby briefly discussed as a package.
The ratings of the faculty groups categorized a c ­
cording to academic rank indicate a clear convergence of
their respective points of view.

That they are generally

agreed on the degrees of importance the university goals
should be pursued is very indicative of their awarenes
about the goals higher education institutions are supposed
to achieve to maintain their viability as social units.
Related literature reviewed by the researcher identify
teaching as one of the primary functions of the university.
The Faculty involved in this study rated items dealing
with individual development, primarily teaching a ctivi­
ties, as the most important goals of their respective ins­
titutions.

It was expected by the researcher that this

would be the trend of the faculty ratings because it was
assumed that they would be most concerned with goals
related to activities they are most involved in.
The fact that no statistical differences were o b ­
tained from the ratings of the four faculty groups indi­
cates that academic rank does not have much bearing on the
points of view of faculty regarding institutional goals.

Ill
Summary of Hypotheses Findings
On Tables 4.13-a, 4.13-b, and 4.13-c are presented
the summary of hypotheses findings.

They are structured

in accordance with relating tabulated data contained in
tables presented earlier in this chapter.

The research

hypotheses are stated to conform with those adapted by the
researcher for this study.

The goals contained in each

hypothesis are spelled-out to make a clearer presentation
of the findings.
The earlier package-discussion of hypotheses fin d­
ings according to related groupings makes it necessary for
the researcher to discuss the following tables similarly.
Table 4.13-a is the tabulated summary of findings
for research Hypotheses One, Twc\ Three, and Four.

On the

table are shown the corresponding research hypotheses,

the

sub-hypotheses in the form of the stated goals, the F
statistic values, and the probabilities of accepting each
sub-hypothesis.
Evidently, a package acceptance of any of the stated
research hypotheses in Table 4.13-a is not possible.

Sta­

tistical analysis was done for each of the goals along the
perceived and preferred dimensions.
Differences are apparent in the ratings of the three
academic groups regarding the perceived importance of o u t ­
come goals categorized as individual development, career
orientation, research, public service, and humanism.

112
Table 4.13-a.

Summary of Findings for Research
Hypotheses' fate1, Two, Three, and Four
P----

Research Hypotheses

Statis­
tic

O n e : There will be differences among
the trustees, administrators, and
faculty in their ratings of the
perceived importance of university
outcome goals.
1. Individual Development
2. Career Orientation
3. Research
4. Public Service
5 . Humanism

5.876
4.017
3.513
9.043
5.829

.003*
.019*
.031*
.0005*
.003*

T w o : There will be differences among
the trustees, administrators, and
faculty in their ratings of the
preferred importance of university outcome goals.
1. Individual Development
2. Career Orientation
3. Research
4. Public Service
5. Humanism

2.571
5.389
2.493
7.830
1.928

.079
.005*
.085
.001*
.148

Three: There will be differences
among the trustees, administra­
tors, and faculty in the
ratings of the perceived im­
portance of university process
goals.
1. Academic Freedom
2. Community Government
3. Supportive Campus Climate
4. Off-Campus Learning
5. Accountability

2.756
6.703
7.383
1.854
2.368

.066
.001*
.001*
.159
.096

F o u r : There will be differences
among the trustees, administra­
tors, and faculty in their ra ­
tings of the preferred importance
of university process goals.
1. Academic Freedom
2. Community Government
3. Supportive Campus Climate
4. Off-Campus Learning
__________ 5. Accountability______________

.773
.775
.876
.530
6.793

.463
.452
.418
.589
.001

•Significant at

.05 level.

Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept

Accept
Accept

Accept
Accept

113
Differences in ratings are similarly discerned on the pre~
ferred importance of career orientation and public service.
That the trustees,

administrators, and faculty are not

agreed on the perceived and preferred importance of univer­
sity outcome goals in their respective institutions is
noted.

Hence,

the research hypothesis on the existence of

differences among their ratings was accepted.
Table 4.13-b is the tabulated summary of findings
for research Hypotheses Five, Six, Seven, and Eight.
corresponding hypotheses,

The

together with the goals contained

in each, the F statistic values, and the probability values
determining the acceptance of each sub-hypothesis stated in
the form of specified goals are included in this table.
This table will show the ratings of the groups cate­
gorized according to the institutions they are affiliated
with.
It can be noted that differences exist among the five
groups regarding their ratings on the perceived importance
of research and humanism as outcome goals.

This indicates

differences on the emphasis given these goals by the u n i ­
versities involved in the study.

The groups are agreed on

the need for the institutions to give more emphasis on a c ­
tivities relating to all the outcome goals.

Two sub-hypo­

theses contained in Hypothesis Five were accepted but sta­
tistical analysis failed to yield conclusive evidence to
accept all those included in Hypothesis Six.

114
Table 4.13-b.

Summary o f Findings for Hypotheses
Five. Six, £even, and Eignt

-------------------------------------------------------- F----------

Research Hypotheses

S tatis­
tic

Five: There will be differences among the
trustees, administrators, and faculty
of the five universities in their r a ­
tings of the perceived importance of
university outcome goals.
1. Individual Development
2. Career Orientation
3. Research
4. Public Service
5. Humanism

1.046
.880
4.135
1.117
2. 753

.384
.476
.003*
.349
.029*

S i x : There will be differences among the
trustees, administrators, and
faculty of the five universities
in their ratings of the preferred
importance of university outcome
goals.
1. Individual Development
2. Career Orientation
3. Research
4. Public Service
5. Humanism

.644
1.589
2.252
1.819
2.152

.631
.178
.064
.126
.075

Seven: There will be differences among the
trustees, administrators, and faculty
of the five universities in their r a ­
tings of the perceived importance of
university process goals
1. Academic Freedom
2. Community Government
3. Supportive Campus Climate
4. Off-Campus Learning
__________ S. Accountability__________________

5.575
4.809
3.368
3.062
1.278

.0005*
.001
.011*
.017*
.279

Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept

Eight: There will be differences among the
trustees, administrators, and faculty
of the five universities in their r a ­
tings of the preferred importance of
university process goals.
1. Academic Freedom
2. Community Government
3. Supportive Campus Climate
4. Off-Campus Learning
__________ 5. Accountability__________________

5.061
5.176
3.012
3.644
1.617

.001*
.001*
.019*
.007*
.171

Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept

•Significant at .05 level.

Accept
Accent

115
Except for accountability, all the hypotheses re la­
ting to process goals contained in Hypotheses Seven and
Eight are accepted.

Marked differences exist among the

groups in their ratings on the perceived and preferred im­
portance of university process goals.

However, it is of

interest to note that the groups are agreed on the p e r ­
ceived and preferred importance of accountability as a p r o ­
cess goal.

They rated it as the least important perceived

and preferred goal in their respective universities.
On Table 4.13-c is shown the tabulated summary of
findings for Hypotheses Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve.
Included are the statement of the corresponding hypotheses,
the sub-hypotheses stated in the form of the specified
goals, the F statistic values, and the probability values
for the acceptance of each sub-hypotheses.
The ratings of the faculty groups categorized a cco r­
ding to academic rank are shown on this table.
It is apparent from the foregoing table that H y p o ­
theses Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve can not be accepted.
No statistical differences were obtained from the analysis
of ratings for each of the sub-hypotheses, hence the r e ­
search hypotheses on the existence of differences among the
groups is not acceptable.

It should be mentioned at this

point that academic rank does not significantly affect
faculty consideration regarding institutional goals.

116
Table 4.13-c.

Summary of Findings for Hypotheses
Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve

Research Hypotheses

F Statistic

P

Nine: There will be differences among the
faculty ranks in their ratings of
the perceived importance of univer­
sity outcome goals.
1. Individual Development
2. Career Orientation
3. Research
4. Public Service
5. Humanism

. 750
.153
2.150
.291
.943

.524
.929
.097
.831
.422

Ten: There will be differences among the
faculty ranks in their ratings of
the preferred importance of u niv er­
sity outcome goals.
1. Individual Development
2. Career Orientation
3. Research
4. Public Service
5. Humanism

.418
.869
1.723
.349
.209

.740
.459
.165
.790
.890

Eleven: There will be differences among
the faculty ranks in their ratings
of the perceived importance of
university process goals.
1. Academic Freedom
2. Community Government
3. Supportive Campus Climate
4. Off-Campus Learning
S. Accountability

.946
2.318
1.568
.721
.292

.420
.079
.200
.541
.831

Twelve: There will be differences among
the faculty ranks in their ratings
of the preferred importance of
university process goals.
1. Academic Freedom
2. Community Government
3. Supportive Campus Climate
4. Off-Campus Learning
5. Accountability

.505
.675
.637
.807
.337

.679
. 568
.592
.492
.798

317

Goals Suggested By Respondents
Although the questionnaire was formulated and d e v e l ­
oped to include the more common goals of higher ed ucation,
it was not meant to provide an exhaustive
institutional goals.

list of possible

Hence, spaces were provided to en­

courage the respondents to write in other goals they felt
should be included.

While it was difficult for the re­

searcher to quantify and categorize these statements, the
goals are herein enumerated because of their apparent
significance to the respondents.
The wording of the goals was taken verbatum from the
questionnaire responses.

Also illustrated are the various

rankings given them by the respondents.
The Trustees
Two of the trustees involved in the study wrote in
the spaces provided in the questionnaire the following
suggested goals for their respective institutions:

118

\

0

Specified Other Goals
N 4, X

*

is
To coRBunicate to students a genuine
desire to enrich their lives
should be

V

^ N \

5

X
X

To communicate to the taxpayer that
MSU is a good value for funds
received

is
should be

X

To free the faculty to do what they
want to do without restrictions

is
should be

X

To manage finances to advantage
the faculty

is
should be

X

is
should be

X

To vigorously solicit additional
funds

X

X

X

X

IS

To eliminate non-intellectual
posturing

should be

To really listen to students -eliminate biases and discrimination

is
should be

To inspire intellectual
exploration

is
should be

To develop awareness of social
responsibility

is
should be

X

To develop an awareness of
ethics and morality

is
should be

X

To develop self-discipline

is
should be
is
should be

X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

119
The Administrators
Four of the administrators involved in this stud/ added the
following goal statements to the listing in the questionnaire.

\>\* v"£v \
w
XV&N v v \
*\ v \
o

Specified Other Goals
.... ........

“

.\

k

'

To find ways of interpreting uni­
versity life and needs to the
public

is
should be

X

To find ways to encourage and
iiqplement innovative methods
of instruction

is
should be

X

To find ways to give greater
support to and implement programs
for part-time students

is
should be

X

To assist students understand the
role of the United States in
international politics and
economics
To provide infoxmation through
research and teaching about
the life styles, history, and
aspirations of American mino­
rity groups

is

X

X

X

X

should be
is
should be

X

X

X

The additional goals listed by the administrators show their
apparent concern for a supportive campus climate that would be recep
tive to innovations and provide programs for part-time students and

120

other minority groups.

Concern for the need to convey a clear picture

of the politico-economic role of the United States in the community
of nations was also stressed.
The Faculty
Nine of the faculty members involved in the study added thir­
teen statements to the goals contained in the questionnaire.

Also

cited are the degrees of importance they perceived and preferred
the goal statements.

Specified Other Goals

To enphasize the systematic and valid
evaluation of teaching effectiveness
To provide a law school

is
should be
is
should be

X
X
X
X

To improve the quality of
existing programs

is
should be

To streamline record-keeping, paper
work, and administration

is
should be

X

To provide beneficial information
for improving faculty teaching
performance

is
should be

X

X
X

X

X

121

V

Specified Other Goals

\

\

Ojc.\

x >

\

To provide faculty with highest
is
possible salary and to share
openly (at least with individual) should be
how salary is devised
To provide a viable successful
faculty salary bargaining unit
to avoid national labor unions
To provide a two-way total ac­
countability between faculty
and administration
To ensure that social education
be kept on a par with technical
education
To ensure an environment which
does not respond to each whim­
sical change in society
attitudes
To provide a scholarly environ­
ment for the pursuit of pure
research by staff and students
To make the Provost appear
omniscient
To encourage vision an part
of faculty and administration

X
X

is
should be

X
X

is

X

should be
is

X
X
X

should be
is

X

should be

X

is

X
X

should be

X

is
should be
is
should be

X
X
X

122
Some of the added statements are merely qualifica­
tions of some of the items in the questionnaire.

Concerns

relating to such items as quality of teaching and attendant
incentives,

supportive campus climate to facilitate the im ­

provement of existing programs,
academic groups are emphasized.

and accountability among
It can be noted that some

statements reflect on personalities which are not in line
with the purposes of this study.
Summary
The statistical tests used on the twelve hypotheses
did not show a definite trend.

In some cases, statistical

differences were not obtained, hence corresponding hypothe­
ses on the existence of differences among ratings of the
groups were not accepted.
All the hypotheses relating to the four faculty groups
categorized according to academic rank were not accepted; no
statistical differences were obtained among their ratings.
It should be stated at this juncture that the groups
involved in the study are generally agreed on the preferred
importance of all the goals stated in the questionnaire.
That there is a prevalent discontent regarding the emphasis
placed on these goals in their respective universities is
apparent from the responses of the groups.

]

123
Although actual statistical analysis was not done to
compare the ratings on the goals along the perceived and
preferred dimensions, mean values on the perceived ratings
were less than those on the preferred ratings.

Hence, the

groups* expressed desire is greater for should be or p r e ­
ferred goals than for i_s or perceived goals.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Included in this chapter are brief accounts of the
purposes, the samples, the instrument, and the findings of
this investigation.

Also included are conclusions and r e ­

search recommendations derived from the findings.
Summary
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the
goals of the five, public doctorate-granting universities in
the state of Michigan as perceived and preferred by selected
constituent groups.

The goals were specified in nature and

were related to the results or outcomes of university func­
tioning

(outcome goals) and the supportive processes n e c e s ­

sary for their achievement
the universities'

(process go a l s ) .

The members of

governing boards, central administration,

and faculties were involved in the study.
A questionnaire containing forty statements of p o s ­
sible institutional goals was the principal
to gather data.

instrument used

Each item in the instrument required two

124

125
types of responses, showing the perceived and preferred
importance of the stated goal for the respondents'
pective universities.

res­

Each respondent was asked to rate

each goal statement on the basis of its importance as either
an is goal (perceived) or should be goal

(preferred).

Each

respondent was likewise given five choices to rate the im­
portance of each statement in the perceived and preferred
dimensions, with the response categories ranging from "of
no importance" to "of very high importance".
Twelve research hypotheses were examined in the study.
The univariate one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was used

to test the differences in means of the different groups for
statistical significance.
A review of related literature indicated concern
regarding the need for universities to develop and enunciate
their goals.

It is apparent that in the diversity of d e ­

mands made upon higher education, the role and functions of
universities have become quite ambiguous.

The emergence of

new concepts all focused on the enrichment of the quality of
life has evolved as the background of university purposes.
Although there appears a definite consensus regarding the
purposes of higher education as teaching, research, and
public service, there are some forms of incongruence r e ­
garding the emphasis placed upon these purposes across ins­
titutions.

Some educationists also added another dimension

to these purposes, social criticism.

They assert that

126
higher education should make a stand regarding the viability
of the knowledge it has helped to discover and transmit.
It was hypothesized that differences exist among
constituent groups regarding their ratings on the perceived
and preferred importance of university goals categorized as
outcome and process.

The tests for significance failed to

indicate the acceptance for all the twelve research h y p o ­
theses.

Statistical differences were obtained from the

ratings of the respondents categorized according to academic
groups and the institutions they are affiliated with.

Sta­

tistical differences were not obtained from the ratings of
the faculty categorized according to academic rank.
A number of goals not contained in the instrument
were listed by the respondents.
Findings And Conclusions
The following findings and consequent conclusions are
hereby presented.

They are considered in the light of c u r ­

rent literature on the cruciality of goals to the effective
functioning of higher education.
1.

It was confirmed in this study that universities
in the same state system vary with regard to the
emphasis they place on institutional goals.
Current related literature also indicates the
existence of these variations across universities.

127

2.

Teaching,

research, public service, and social

criticism were re-affirmed as missions of the
universities in this investigation.

All the

constituent groups involved are agreed

on these

as goals of universities.
3.

Findings in this study indicate that differences
exist among the views of trustees, administra­
tors, and faculty regarding the importance of
the institutional goals identified in the q u e s ­
tionnaire.

Evidently, this stems from the dif ­

ferent roles they play in the educational s e t ­
ting.

Apparently,

goals closely related to their

particular concerns were viewed with more
consideration.
4.

It was also demonstrated in this study

that a c a ­

demic constituencies are more concerned with
goals along the preferred or should be dimension
than those along the perceived or i£.

Their

expressed consideration was greater for should be
goals than for rs goals,

in line with human n a ­

ture's desire for improvement of the status quo.
Recommendations for Future Research
There are problems attendant to the nature of u n i v e r ­
sities as social organizations,

especially as they relate to

their viability as social institutions.

The need for more

128
empirical and theoretical research along these dimensions can
not be denied; hence this study raises some questions from
which can be generated future research on institutional
g o als .
1.

How would such factors as sex, academic dis ci­
pline, and position in the academic hierarchy
affect the attitudes of faculty and administra­
tors towards institutional goals?

2.

How would other groups, both internal and e xte r­
nal to the university,

e.g., legislators, p a r ­

ents, students, employers,

local community

leaders, and secondary school counselors view
institutional goals?
3.

How would a university with clearly specified
and enunciated goals tend to function differently
from one without?

4.

Would it be possible for any institution to give
equal attention to the university missions enun­
ciated as teaching, research, public service,
and social criticism?

Would there be differences

in emphasis between public and private institutions?
5.

How would trustees, administrators, and faculty
in one university differ from other universities
in their views and attitudes toward university
goals ?

129
6.

What factors would affect faculty perceptions
toward research as an institutional goal?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, Daniel.
"By Whose Right?"
Power and A uth o r i t y , ed.
Harold Hodgkinson and R. Muth.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1971.
"Quo Warranto?"
Notes on the Governance of
Universities in the 1970's.
The Embattled U n i ­
versity . ed.
Stephen Graubard and G. Ballotti.
New Y o r k : George Braziller, Inc., 1970.
Byron, William.
"A Need for Principled Judgement".
The
Chronicle of Higher Education.
(Washington, D.C.)
DecemFer 1 9 7 3 . --------------Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
"Priorities for
Action".
Final Report.
The Chronicle of Higher
Education.
(Washington, D.Q.). October 3, 1973.
___________ . "The More Effective Use of Resources:
An Im­
perative for Higher Education".
Report and Re com ­
mendations.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1972.
"Reform on Campus".
Report and Recommendations.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972.
Danforth Foundation.
"A Report:
College Goals and Go v e r n ­
ance".
Danforth News and Notes.
St. Louis.
November 1969.
Devereaux, Edward C.
"Parson's Sociological Theory".
The
Social Theories of Talcott Par s o n s . ed.
Max
Black.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Pr entice-Hall,
Inc., 1961.
Dressel, Paul L. and I. J. Lehmann.
"Impact of Higher E d u ­
cation on Student Attitudes, Values, and Critical
Thinking Abilities".
Educational R ec o r d s . XLVI
(Summer, 1965). 248-25IH
Eble, Kenneth.
"The Recognition and Evaluation of Teaching".
Project to Improve College Teaching.
Salt Lake
City, Utah. 1970.

131
Etzioni, Amitai.
Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
Ne w Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.
Gardner, John W.
"Agenda for Colleges and Universities",
Campus 1 98 0 . ed.
Alvin E. Eurich.
New York:
Delacorte Press, 1968.
Godfrey, Helen R.
"A Profile of Female Trustees of FourYear Public Colleges and Universities and a C o m ­
parison of Female and Male Trustee Perceptions
of Selected Trustee Functions and University
Issues".
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, College of
Education, Michigan State University, 1971.
Gottlieb, D. and Hodgkins, B.
"College Student Sub-Cultures:
Their Structures and Characteristics in Relation
to Student Attitude Change".
School R e v i e w .
LXXI (Autumn, 1963).
Gould, Samuel E.
Today's Academic Condition.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1970.

New York:

Gross, Edward and Grambsch, Paul.
University Goals and
Academic P o w e r . Washington, D . C . : American
Council on Education, 1968.
Grubb, Richard E.
"A Study of Faculty and Staff Perceptions
of Present and Desired Future Functional Emphasis
of University Park Campus of Pennsylvania State
University".
Unpublished Ed.D. Thesis.
P enn ­
sylvania State University, 1971.
Heist, Paul and Webster, Harold.
"Differential Character­
istics of Student Bodies -- Implications for
Selection and Study of Undergraduates".
Selection
and Educational Differentiation:
Proceedings.
Berkeley, California:
The Center for the Study
of Higher Education, 1960.
Henderson, Algo D.
"Control in Higher Education, Trends
and Issues".
The Journal of Higher E duc ation.
XL (January, 1969).
Hess, David,
"The Person-Centered Function of Higher Educa­
tion".
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, College of E d u ­
cation, Michigan State University, 1962.
Hills, R. Jean. Toward A Science of Organization. Eugene,
Oregonl
Center for Advanced Study of Educational
Administration, University of Oregon Press, 1968.

132
Howard, Larry L.
"Institutional Goal Statement Evaluation
Using An Environmental Assessment Approach:
A
Case Study".
Unpublished Ed.O. Thesis, Uni ver ­
sity of Missouri in Columbia, 1971.
Hungate, Thad L. Management in Higher Educa tio n. New York:
Bureau of Publications.
Columbia University, 1964.
Keniston, Kenneth.
"The Faces in the Lecture Room".
The
Contemporary University. USA,
ed.
Robert S.
Morison.
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966.
__________ . "Responsibility for Criticism and Social Change".
Whose Goals for Higher Education? ed.
Charles
Dobbins and Calvin Lee.
Washington, D.C.:
Ameri­
can Council on Education, 1968.
Kirk, Roger E.
Experimental Design:
Procedures for B e h a ­
vioral" Sciences. Belmont, California:
brooks-Cole
Publishing Company, 1968.
MacLeish, Archibald.
Text of Address delivered at Hampshire
College, October 1970.
Amherst, Massachusetts.
Published in Saturday R e v i e w . (December 19, 1970].
McGarrah, Robert E.
"The University Updated".
The Journal
of Higher Edu cation, XLIV, 2 (February, 1973).
Martorana, S. V.
College Board of T rus t e e s . New York:
The Center of Applied Research in Education, Inc.,
1963.
Mayhew, Lewis.
"The Future Undergraduate Curriculum".
Campus 1 9 8 0 . ed.
Alvin Eurich.
New York:
Delacorte Press, 1968.
Mullaney, Anthony.
"The University as a Community Of
Resistance".
Harvard Educational R e v i e w . XL
(November, 1970).
National Commission on the Financing of HigheT Education.
"Report and Recommendations” . The Chronicle of
Higher Education.
VIII, 17.
(Washington, t>.C .) .
January 1974:--National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary
Education.
"Report and Recommendations".
The
Chronicle of Higher Ed uca tio n. (Washington, B.C.)
January 24, 1974.

133
Neff, Charles B.
"Toward a Definition of Academic Respon­
sibility".
The Journal of Higher E duc ati on. XL
1 (January 196$).
Pace, C. Robert.
"Implications of Differences in Campus
Atmosphere for the Evaluation and Planning of
College Programs",
ed.
Robert Sutherland and
O t h e r s . Personality Factors on the College Campus
Review of a Symposium^ University of Texas:
Tne
Hogg foundation for Mental Health, 1962.
Parker, Reuben D.
"University Goal Preferences of Faculty".
Unpublished Ed.D Thesis.
New Mexico State U n i ­
versity, 1972.
Perkins, James A.
"Higher Education in the 1970vs".
tional Record.
LI (Summer, 1970).

Educa-

___________ .
The University in Transit ion . Princeton, New
Jersey:
Princeton Universlty IPress, 1966.
Pervin, Lawrence.
"The College As A Social System".
The
Journal of Higher Educat ion . XXXVIII (June
1967),
Peterson, Richard E.
"College Goals and the Challenge of
Effectiveness".
Text of Address given at Purdue
University, Fort Wayne Campus, Indiana.
November 23, 1971.
Princeton, New Jersey:
Edu ca­
tional Testing Service, 1973.
___________ . The Crisis of Purpose:
Definition and Uses of
Institutional G o a l s . ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher
Education, Ma y 1970.
___________ . "Toward Institutional Goal Consciousness".
Reprinted from Proceedings, Western Regional C o n ­
ference on Testing Problems.
Berkeley, California;
Educational Testing Service, 1971.
Potter, V. R. and Others.
"Purposes and Functions of the
University".
S c i e n c e . CLXVII
(March 1970).
Quinn, Mathew J.
"In the Public Service:
The Goals of
Public Higher Education in Massachusetts as P e r ­
ceived and Preferred by Major Decision-Makers".
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Boston College, 1972.
Riesman, David.
"The Collision Course in Higher Education".
The Journal of College Student Personnel.
(November 1969).

134
Roberson, Julius B.
"Perceived and Preferred Goal C o n ­
gruence in A State University".
Unpublished Ed.D
Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1971.
Sanford, Nevitt,
"Loss of Talent".
Issues of the Se ven tie s.
ed.
Fred Harcleroad.
San Francisco:
J o s s ey- Bas s,
Ind., 1970.
__________ . "Personality Development During the College
Years".
Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l . XXXV
(January, 1956).
Shoben, Edward J.
"Cultural Criticism and the American
College".
Daedalus
IC.
(Summer, 1960).
Spencer, Lyle M.
"The Research Function in the Advancement
of Knowledge".
Whose Goals for Higher Education?
ed.
Charles Dobbins and Calvin Lee.
Washington,
D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1968.
Stead, Stanley R.
"Analysis of the University Goal Percep­
tions and Preferences of Students, Faculty, A d m i ­
nistrators, and Trustees at Michigan State U n i v e r ­
sity".
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, College of E d u ­
cation, Michigan State University, 1971.
Swarr, Philip C.
"An Empirical Study of the Goals of Colleges
and Universities as Perceived and Preferred by
Faculty and Administration".
Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, Syracuse University, 1971.
Sargent, Stephen and Williamson, Robert.
Social Psychol ogy .
New York:
Ronald Press
Company, 1958.
Taylor, Harold.
"Student Unrest".
Issues of the S eve n t i e s .
ed.
Fred Harcleroad.
San Francisco:
J o s s e y-B ass ,
Inc., 1970.
__________ . Students Without Teachers:
The Crisis of the
University.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1969.
Thomas, William L. Jr.
"Perceptions of University Goals:
A
Comparison of Administrators, Faculty, and Students
Engaged in the Practice, Teaching, and/or Study of
Student Personnel Administration at Michigan State
University With a Nationwide Study of University
Faculty and Administration".
Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, College of Education, Michigan State U n i ­
versity, 1970.

2

135
Uhl, Norman P.
"Identifying College Goals the Delphi Way".
Topical Papers and Reprints No. 2 . Durham, North
Carolina:
National Laboratory for Higher Educa­
tion, 1971.
Wallace, Douglas.
"Assessment of the Evolutionary Role of
the Student in American Higher Education".
Un­
published Ph.D. Thesis, University of Indiana, 1972
"University Initiative in Response to
Ward, F. Champion.
H i gher
Education:
Demand and R esp o n s e .
____
Change".
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
ed.
W. R. Wiblett.
In c., 1970.
Wharton, Clifton Jr.
"New Patterns of Education".
State University Catalog, 1973-74.

Michigan

"The Ills of
Whitfield, Raymond and Brammer, Lawrence.
College Teaching:
Diagnosis and Prescription".
XLIV, 1 (January
The Journal of Higher Education.
1977) ' -----------------------Wilson,

Logan.
ed.
D.C.

Foreword to Whose Goals for Higher Education?
Washington,
Charles TT. Bobbins and Calvin Lee.
American Council on Education, 1968.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
THE QUESTIONNAIRE

INVENTORY OF UNIVERSITY GOALS

Directions
1.

The questionnaire consists of forty statements of possible
university goals.

You are asked to respond to each state­

ment in two different w a y s :
(a) How important is_ the goal at your university?
(b) In your opinion, how important should the goal b £
at your university?
2.

Please consider your particular institution in making
your judgement.

3.

Please try to respond to every goal statement contained
in the questionnaire by checking one box after _is and
one box after should b e .

4.

A section is provided for additional goal statements
that you might think unique to your institution but not
included in this inventory.

Please feel free to write

in these goals.
The questionnaire is intended to be confidential.

Results

will be summarized by groups and no responses of individuals
will be reported.

136

137

Name of Institution

Please check opposite the word that best describes you.

Governing Board Member _____
Administrator
Faculty Member

_____
,

_____________________
Academic Rank

138

Please respond to these goal
statements by checking one box
after is and one box after
shouldTEe

\ ° A >
\
X
\

\v\ft,
\ A V*
\ y; \
\ ^
\

Y\V
\

1. To help students acquire basic
knowledge in the sciences and
humanities
2. To develop in the students abi­
lities of scholarly inquiry
and help them acquire a tho­
rough knowledge of at least
one discipline
3. To help students develop
awareness of their self-worth
and individual goals* and
means of achieving these
goals
4. To help students develop honest
and trusting relationships with
others
5. To provide opportunities for
training students in speci­
fic careers and/or
professions
6. To develop new programs im­
perative to a highly indus­
trialized society* like those
in Ccnputer Technology*
Nuclear Engineering, etc.
7. To provide opportunities for
re-training individuals for
new jobs

is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be

V

\V> \

139

\

o A ^ \ ° A ^
v
W A V tvV

Please respond to these goal
statements by checking one box after
is and one box after should be.

\ Sv\ ,
\ % A
\%A'ci

-

\

A

V
\

is
8. To contribute to the enrichment of
knowledge through research
should be
9. To develop and maintain strong
graduate programs and conduct
advanced study through research
institutes and centers
10. To assist government, agro­
business, and industry through
research
11. To conduct basic research in
the social sciences
12. To conduct basic research in
the natural sciences
13. To develop programs in conti­
nuing education for the
comnunity
14. To help evaluate the values and
practices of Anerican society
and help work out modification
or enrichment of any of these
15. To develop in the student the
concern about the welfare of
all mankind and the achieve­
ment and/or maintenance of
world peace

is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be

140

V'A'^ \°,«\°
\\\\^
a ^\V\A
\V\*

Please respond to these goal
statements by checking one box after
is and one box after should be.

16. To develop and maintain programs
to supply the professional and
specialized manpower needs of
the state
17. To provide opportunities for
students to study and evaluate
current institutions, thus
creating in them awareness of
what is going on
18. To provide educational oppor­
tunities for all and maintain
viable programs to meet the
diversity of their needs

\ %
\

is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is

19. To provide cultural programs
for the enrichment of comnunity experiences
20. To provide assistance to agen­
cies, both government and pri­
vate, in developing programs
for the state, taking into
consideration regional or
national priorities
21. To develop a system by which
all components of the univer­
sity (students, trustees, ad­
ministrators , faculty) can be
involved in decision-making and
community governance
22. To create a campus climate res­
ponsive to innovation and change

I

should be
is

should be
is

should be
is
should be

Yr> V ^ . V
\
'

141

V V a w \V\
\
\ V \ \ \v\

Please respond to these goal
statements by checking one box after
is and one box after should be.

23. To provide activities for cultural
and intellectual enrichment, es­
pecially for students mid faculty
24. To create a system of campus
government that will be sensitive
and responsive to all consti­
tuents' needs and concerns
25. To sponsor enrichment programs
of cultural events such as con­
certs , lectures, and art
exhibits
26. To foster a climate of nutual
confidence and respect among the
various isiits in the institution
27. To award degrees where part of
credits for graduation can be
earned through basic examinations
28. To maintain a campus climate
where camunication is open and
differences of points of view are
respected
29. To award degrees for study done
through correspondence, extension
centers, or field work
30. To provide opportunities for
students and faculty to come
together and discuss interests
and ideas common to them

<x
Nrk

\

is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be

\
\

142

Please respond to these goal
statements by checking one box after
is and one box after should be.

31. To expose students to other campus
experiences by allowing them to
work for credits in other colleges
and universities
32. To encourage students to partici­
pate in off-caiqpus projects such
as Peace Corps and Vista

X'pS
\

^
x%» \

is
should be
is
should be
is

33. To be concerned with accountabi­
lity demands, especially from
funding sources like the legis­
lature. foundations, and alunni
34. To maintain a system of manage­
ment where cost criterion is
a primary concern
35. To ensure the freedom of faculty
members to present unpopular or
controversial issues and/or
ideas in the classroom
36. To place no restrictions on the
off-campus political activi­
ties of academic constituents
37. To make certain that students
are given all opportunity to
listen to controversial
points of view
38. To make all components of the
system aware of cost
effectiveness

should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be

xl

V

143

\
Please respond to these goal
statements by checking one box
after is and one box after
shouldTEe.

c
^

■oN.
39. To provide periodic evaluation in
is
all levels and units of the ins­
titution to assess extent of
should be
achievement of goals
is
40. To ensure that all constituencies
in the university be given the
freedom to choose their own
should be
life styles
Others, please specify.

is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be
is
should be

COVER LETTER FOR ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY

1946 Burton Avenue
Holt, Michigan
48842
March 4, 1974

The implications of the current societal crises are ge ne­
rating problems for the university, particularly in c o n ­
cerns related to goals and priorities.
What are the goals
of a university? What should be its goals?
Whose goals
should be pursued and how should these be pursued?
These
are but few of the questions that should be answered to
maintain the viability of the university as a social
organization.
I am conducting a study of university goals as they are
perceived and preferred by trustees, administrators, and
faculty in the five public, doctorate-granting universi­
ties in the state.
These groups are crucial to effective
university functioning and as such, are important in the
development and implementation of university goals.
This
will provide an opportunity for you to express your views
about the goals of your institution.
This study is rela­
ted to my doctoral dissertation.
It has been approved by
my Guidance Committee.
The enclosed inventory consists of forty statements of
possible institutional goals.
Please rate them with r e s ­
pect to their appropriateness to your particular u n i v e r ­
sity.
The inventory is coded to provide a control system
for the processing of the responses.
Data will be handled
and analyzed in such a way as to ensure the anonymity of
the respondents whose identity will be known only to the
researcher.
It is important that the response rate be
high because the sample for each group is quite small.

It would be highly appreciated if the completed question­
naire were returned in the self-addressed, stamped e n ­
velope by March 20, 1974.
I am thanking you in anticipation of your cooperation.
Sincerely,
< £ f C U / 0 J C l •j£eAU*tOLSfi
Cydia A. Beltran
Office:

LAB/j bb
Enclosure

213 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Phone:
353-7810

146
COVER LETTER FOR TRUSTEES

1946 Burton Avenue
Holt, Michigan 48842
March 4, 1974

As a member of the Governing Board, I am aware of your
concern about the goals of the university.
The current
societal CTises make goal-setting one of the most d i f ­
ficult, yet essential tasks facing universities.
What
should be the goals of a university?
This has become
the primary question confronting those concerned with
university functioning.
In the wake of the threatening
financial crunch, priorities have to be explicit and
attendant goals should be clearly enunciated.
I am conducting a study on university goals as they are
perceived and preferred by trustees, administrators, and
faculty in the five public, doctorate-granting universi­
ties in the state.
These groups are crucial to univer­
sity functioning and as such, are important to the devel­
opment and implementation of goals.
This will provide
an opportunity for you to express your views about the
goals of your institution.
This study is related to my
doctoral dissertation.
It has been approved by my
Guidance Committee.
The enclosed inventory consists of forty statements of
possible university goals.
Please rate each with re s­
pect to its appropriateness to your particular institu­
tion.
The instrument is coded to provide a control sys­
tem for the processing of the responses.
Data will be
handled and analyzed in such a way as to ensure anony­
mity of the respondents whose identity will be known
only to the researcher.
As the membership of Governing
Boards is quite small, it is imperative that there be
a high response rate if generalizations about this group
are to be meaningful.

147

It would be highly appreciated if the completed que sti on­
naire were returned in the enclosed s e l f - add res sed f
stamped envelope by March 20, 1974.
I am thanking you in anticipation of your cooperation.
Sincerely,

bydia A. Beltran
Office:

213 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Phone: (517) 353-7810

LAB/jbb
Enclosure

i

APPENDIX B

148
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table I.

The Outcome Goals As Perceived By The T r u s t e e s ,
Administrators, And faculty

Outcome Goal 1 -- Individual Development

SOURCE

"

"

“

Between Groups
Within Groups

"3E

Mean Square

2

48.796

239

8.304

F Statistic -

p-

5.876

.003*

E Statistic

P

4.017

.019*

E Statistic

P

3.513

.031*

E Statistic

P

9.043

0.0005*

E Statistic

P

Outcome Goal 2 -- Career Orientation
df

SOURCE
Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

23.410

239

5.826

Outcome Goal 3 -- Research
df

SOURCE
Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

29.114

239

8.285

Outcome Goal 4 -- Public Service
df

SOURCE
Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

53.668

239

5.935

Outcome Goal 5 -- Humanism

SOURCE

"

df

Between Groups

2

57.125

239

9.799

Within Groups

Mean Square

♦Significant at .05 level.

5.829

149
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table II.

The Outcome Goals As Preferred By The Trustees .
Administrators, And faculty

Outcome Goal 1 -- Individual Development
s u u r c e ....

Between Groups
Within Groups

df

Mean Square

2

13.102

239

S.095

F Statistic

P

2.571

.079

£ Statistic

P

5.389

.005*

F Statistic

P

Outcome Goal 2 -- Career Orientation
SOURCE

df

Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

25.743

239

4.776

Outcome Goal 3 -- Research
SOURCE

df

Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

15.042

239

6.032

5.389

.085

F Statistic

P

7.830

.001*

F Statistic

P

Outcome Goal 4 -- Public Service
s o u r Oe

df

Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

57.897

239

7.393

Outcome Goal 5 -- Humanism
SOURCE

df

Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

21.096

239

10.937

^Significant at

.OS level.

1.928

.148

ISO
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table III.

The Process Goals As Perceived By The Tr us t e e s .
Administrators, And Faculty

Process Goal 1 -- Academic Freedom

sbufeCE

df

Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

33.668

239

12.212

F Statistic

P

2.756

.066

P Statistic

P

6.703

.001*

F Statistic

P

7.383

.001*

Process Goal .2 -- Community Government

SOURCE "

"'

"

Between Groups
Within Groups

df

Mean Square

2

98.341

239

14.670

Process Goal 3 -- Supportive Campus Climate
df

SOURCE
Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

87.864

239

11.900

Process Goal 4 -- Off-Campus Learning
SOURCE

df

Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

21.070

239

11.364

F Statistic

p- -

1.854

.159

F Statistic

p

Process Goal 5 -- Accountab ility
df

SOURCE
Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

27.265

239

11.665

•Significant at .05 level.

2.368

.095

1S1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table IV.

The Process Goals As Preferred By The T r u s t e e s ,
Administrators, And faculty

Process Goal 1 -- Academic Freedom

SOURCE

df

Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

9.239

239

11.945

E Statistic
.773

P
.463

Process Goal 2 -- Community Government
df

SOURCE
Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

10.524

239

13.571

F Statistic
.775

F
.452

Process Goal 3 -- Supportive Campus Climate

SOURCE

df

Between Groups
Within Groups
Process Goal 4

SOURCE' " "
Between Groups
Within Groups
Process Goal 5

SOURCE "

..

Between Groups
Within Groups

Mean Square

2

9.849

239

11.239

F statistic
.876

”P
.418

Off-Campus Learning
" df

Mean Square

2

6.596

239

13.114

F Statistic
.530

HP
.589

Accountability
df

Mean Square

2

94.250

239

13.872

•Significant at .OS level.

F Statistic

P

6.793

.001*

152
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table V.

The Outcome Goals As Perceived By The Groups
Categorized According to Universi

Outcome Goal 1 -- Individual Development
SOURCE

df

Between Universities

Mean

4

Within Universities

Square
9.034

F Statistic
1.046

P~
.384

237_______8.635________________________

Outcome Goal 2 -- Career Orientation
SOURCE

df

Between Universities
Within Universities

Mean

4

Square

5.269

E Statistic
.880

P~
.476

237_______ 5.984________________________

Outcome Goal 3 -- Research
s Ou

RC e

df

Between Universities
Within Universities

Me an

4

Square

33.251

F Statistic
4.135

P
.003*

237_______ 8. 040________________________

Outcome Goal 4 -- Public Service
SOURCE

--- ------

df

Mean “Square

F Statistic'

T~

Between Universities

4

7.058

1.117

.349

Within Universities

237_______ 6 .318________________________

Outcome Goal 5 -- Humanism
SOURCE

df

Between Universities
Within Universities

4

Mean

Square

27.628

P Statistic
2.753

P
.029*

237_______ 9.903________________________

♦Significant at

.05 level.

153
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table VI.

The Outcome Goals As Perceived By The Groups
Categorized According to University

Outcome Goal 1 -- Individual Development
dlT Mean Square

SOURCE
Between Universities
Within Universities

4

3.345

237

5.192

F Statistic
.664

... p .
.631

Outcome Goal 2 - - Career Orientation
SOURCE

df

Between Universities
Within Universities

Mean Square

4

7. 795

237

4.902

F Statistic

P

1.589

.178

F Statistic

P

Outcome Goal 3 -- Research
df

SOURCE

4

13.475

237

5.982

Between Universities
Within Universities

Mean Square

2.252

.064

F Statistic

P

Outcome Goal 4 -- Public Service
SOURCE

" ''

df
4

14.025

237

7.707

Between Universities
Within Universities

Mean Square

1.819

.126

F Statistic

P

2.152

.075

Outcome Goal 5 -- Humanism
SOURCE

df

Between Universities
Within Universities

Mean Square

4

23.282

237

10.814

•Significant at .05 le vel .

154
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table VII.

The Process Goals As Perceived By The Groups
Categorized According To University

Process Goal 1 --

Academic Freedom

SOURCE

d'f Mean Square

Between Universities
Within Universities
Process Goal 2 -SOURCE

Within Universities

' ~~

Within Universities

237_____ 11.515_______________________

4

69.509

4.809

"" P
.001*

237______14.451_______________________

'df

Heah~5quare

4

40.609

F~ Statistic
3.368

P
.011*

237_____ 12.057_______________________

Off-Campus Learning

SOURCE

df Mean Square

Between Universities
Within Universities
Process Goal 5 --

<0.005*

Supportive Campus Climate

Between Universities

Process Goal 4 --

5.575

"df "Mean "Square" F Statistic

Between Universities

SOURCE

64.204

P~

Community Government

"

Process Goal 3 --

4

F Statistic

4

33.889

F1Statistic
3.062

P
.017

237______11.066_______________________

Accountability

SOURCE

df Mean Square

Between Universities
Within Universities

4
237

15.010
11.743

•Significant at .05 level.

F Statistic
1.278

P
.279

155
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table VIII.

The Process Goals As Preferred By The Groups
Categorized According to University

Process Goal 1 -- Academic Freedom
SOURCE

df

Between Universities

Mean Square

4

56.539

F Statistic

P~~

5.061

.001*

Within Universities____ 237_____ 11.170_______________________
Process Goal 2 -- Community Government
SOl/RcE

df

Between Universities
Within Universities

Mean Square

4

65.575

F Statistic

P~

5.176

.001*

237_____ 12 .668_______________________

Process Goal 3 -- Supportive Campus Climate
SOURCE

df

Between Universities
Within Universities

Mean Square

4

32.728

F Statistic

P~

3.012

.019*

237______10.865_______________________

Process Goal 4 -- Off-Campus Learning
SOURCE

df

Between Universities
Within Universities

Mean Square

4

45.608

F Statistic

P

3.644

.007*

237______12. 514_______________________

Process Goal 5 -- Accountability
SOURCE

df

Between Universities
Within Universities
•Significant at

4
237

Mean Square
23.280
14.392

.05 level.

F Statistic

P

1.612

.171

156
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table IX.

The Outcome Goals As Perceived By The Faculty
Categorized According to Academic Rank

Outcome Goal 1 -- Individual Development
SOURCE _
between Faculty
Groups

df

Mean Square

3

F Statistic

6.879

.750

P
.524

Within Faculty
Groups____________ 130______ 9.171__________________________
Outcome Goal 2 -- Career Orientation

SOURCE —
Between Faculty
Groups

'Mean Square'
3

F ’Statistic"

.880

.153

P~
.927

Within Faculty
Groups____________ 130______ 5. 745__________________________
Outcome Goal 3 -- Research
SOURCE
between Faculty
Groups

df

Mean Square

3

F

18.565

Statistic

P

2.150

.097

Within Faculty
Groups____________ 130________ 8.633________________________
Outcome Goal 4 -- Public
SOURCE
^
between Faculty
Groups

Service

df
3

Mean Square

F

1.727

Statistic
.291

P
.831

Within Faculty
Groups____________ 130________ 5.920________________________
Outcome Goal 5 -- Humanism
SOURCE
^
Between Faculty
Groups

df
3

Mean Square
10.274

F

Statistic
.943

P~
.422

Within Faculty
Groups____________ 130_______10.893________________________

1S7
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table X.

The Outcome Goals As Preferred By The Faculty
Categorized According to Academic Rank

Outcome Goal 1 -- Individual Development
SOURCE
“
Between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

dr

Mean Square

3

2.543

130

6.071

F Statistic - -p.418

.740

Outcome Goal 2 -- Career Orientation
s Ou R c e
Between Faculty
Groups

Within Faculty
Groups

df

Mean Square

3

4.880

130

5.613

F Statistic
.869

P
.459

Outcome Goal 3 -- Research
SOURCE
Between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

df

Mean Square

3

11.349

130

6.586

F Statistic

P

1.723

.165

F Statistic

P

Outcome Goal 4 -- Public Service
SOURCE
Between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

" d'f

M e a n Square

3

3.225

130

9. 229

.349

.790

Outcome Goal 5 -- Humanism
SOURCE
Between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

df

Mean Square

3

2.653

130

12.664

F Statistic
.209

P
.890

158
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table XI.

The Process Goals As Perceived By The Faculty
Categorized According To Academic Rank

Process Goal 1 -- Academic Freedom
SOURCE
---Between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

Mean Square

df

F Statistic

11.872

3

.946

F
.420

12.538

130

Process Goal 2 -- Community Government
s o u r CE

Between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

Mean Square

df
3

33.878

130

14.614

f Statistic

P

2.318

.079

F Statistic

P

Process Goal 3 -- Support ive Campus Climate
SOURCE
Between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

"

Mean Square

3

18.722

130

11.937

1.568

.200

Process Goal 4 -- Off-Campus Learning
SOURCE "
Between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups
Process Goal 5
SOURCE '
between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

df

Mean Square

3

8.514

130

11.798

F Statistic
.721

P
.541

,
A ccountability
df

Mean Square

3

3. 380

130

11.560

P Statistic
.292

P
.831

159

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Table XII.

The Process Goals As Preferred By The Faculty
Categorized According To Academic Rank

Process Goal 1 -- Academic Freedom
Mean Square

SOURCE
Between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

3

6.432

130

12.715

F Statistic
.505

.679

Process Goal 2 -- Community Government
SOURCE
between Faculty
Groups

df" Mean Square

Within Faculty
Groups

3

9. 585

130

14.185

F Statistic
.675

P
.568

Process Goal 3 -- Support ive Campus Climate
df

SOURCE
between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

Mean Square

3

7.738

130

12.139

F Statistic
.637

P
.592

Process Goal 4 -- Off-Campus Learning
SOURCE
between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups
Process Goal

5

SOURCE
between Faculty
Groups
Within Faculty
Groups

...

^

Mean Square
3

10.890

130

13.484

F Statistic
.807

P
.492

.
A ccountability
df

Mean Square

3

5. 544

130

16.405

F Statistic
.337

P
.798