INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of 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 of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1 . T h e sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(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 with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of 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 equal sections with a small 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 of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of 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 N O TE : Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 I I 78-10,015 AATISH, Swaran, 1925THE ROLE OF DEANS AND CHAIRPERSONS IN GRADUATE EDUCATION IN SELECTED COLLEGES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY* Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1977 Education, higher University Microfilms International, © Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 1977 SWARAN A A T I S H ALL R I G H T S RESERVED THE ROLE OF DEANS AND CHAIRPERSONS IN GRADUATE EDUCATION IN SELECTED COLLEGES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Swaran Aatish 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 1977 ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF DEANS AND CHAIRPERSONS IN GRADUATE EDUCATION IN SELECTED COLLEGES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Swaran Aatish This study is a limited opinion survey of a sample of deans of colleges and chairpersons regarding graduate education at Michigan State University. It is also an assessment of their role in certain areas of graduate education, the changes and alternatives they suggest in their roles in view of the issues and problems confronting them in graduate education today. Specifically the study was designed to examine: (1) The role of deans and chairpersons in graduate education in selected colleges at Michigan State University; (2) Their perception of graduate education in the following areas: (a) Curriculum content and change (b) Research and instruction (c) Faculty and personnel services Swaran Aatish (d) Resources and budget (e) Graduate students and education (f) Administrative organization and practices (3) Alternatives and additions to their roles; (4) Discussion of some related issues in openended questions. The study was conducted in three professional and two nonprofessional colleges out of the eleven colleges offering graduate programs on campus. Two questionnaires ("The Role of the Dean of College in Graduate Education" and "The Role of the Chairperson in Graduate Education") were constructed for the purpose of the study. Four deans and thirty-one chairpersons responded. The data were analyzed and arranged in the order and sequence of the questionnaire separately for the deans and chairpersons. The principal findings were reported u n d e r : (1) The Role of the Dean and Chairperson in Graduate Education (2) Appraisal of Graduate Education (3) Issues and Problems in Graduate Education The major findings regarding the role of the deans and chairpersons seemed to suggest a multifaceted contribution to research development, knowledge and Swaran Aatish scholarship/ quality education and leadership. The principal assets of the role are "academic leadership," "experience and knowledge." The limits of the role are lack of time for scholarship and cooperative planning. Dedicated and presented to Dr. Keith Goldhammer DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND The Faculty on My Doctoral Committee ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writing of this dissertation was a small part of my life and stay in America. What preceded it was something both rich and scintillating and all has culmi­ nated into a profoundly stimulating learning experience. I owe all of it to a number of highly distinguished and scholarly professors and competent administrators with whom I communicated and shared teaching-learning exper­ iences during my course work for the degree, I have few words to express my thanks to Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Professor of Education and Administration and Chairman of my Guidance Committee. Dr. Johnson's untiring and relentless care of the foreign students is exemplary and his thoughtful encouragement in moments of academic disappointments is a kindly light and haven for the student scholar. Above all, his sagacious professional guidance and scholarship are a guidepost and anchor within which your limits are set for your work. Dr. Van Johnson, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Higher Education, is a jewel of a man and his touch of the milk of human kindness and suggestive advice are iii humbly acknowledged with great appreciation and warmth. Dr. Walker Hill is a wonderful listener and quiet guide and helper. His unassuming and unpretentious assistance is selfless and his life like his person has a touch of Indian generosity and quiet wisdom. Dr. John Useem, Professor of Sociology, is an example of intellectual brilliance and his sensitivity to his students' lectual interests is remarkable and great. intel­ Dr. Kay E. White, Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs, was the last to join my committee. Her grasp of administra­ tive problems had been quite often discoursed between us long before she accepted to be on my Committee. She was the last of the members on it. I cannot forget to pay my most humble and grateful thanks to my patron-Saint Mrs. Mary Jane Johnson, whose generosity and kindness are well laid in my heart and memory and with this great woman I shared some of my most anguishing moments for prayers and blessings. This wonderful saint helped me with the I.P.S. scholarship from the P.E.O. organization and introduced me to a veteran association that assists international scholars with financial awards. Hopefully, I desire to pray for those who have guided me in this piece of research work and many others who have helped me in thought and deed be blessed by the Great Lord for helping a fellow travel­ ler and well-wisher from a friendly country— India. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................. Background ................................. Administration of Graduate Education . . Statement of the P r o b l e m ................ Purpose of the Study....................... Background for the S t u d y ................ Need for Research.......................... Limitations of the S t u d y ................ Definitions................................. Significance of the Study . . . . . . Organization of the S t u d y ................ II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH . . . . 1 1 5 10 10 11 16 18 19 20 23 24 Part 1 Review of Graduate Education ............. 25 The Beginning— 1876-1900................ Consolidation and Development 19001940.................................... After World War II— 1940-65............. 25 32 35 Part 2 Organization and Administration of Graduate Education. . Issues and P r o b l e m s .................... 36 44 Part 3 Review of the Role of the Dean of the College in Literature ................ 51 Conclusive Remarks....................... 71 v Page Review of the Role of the Dean in Research Studies .......................... 72 ....................... 81 Review of the Role of Chairperson in L i t e r a t u r e ................................. The Role of the Department Chairperson . 83 88 Conclusive Remarks Conclusive Remarks ....................... 101 Review of the Role of the Chairperson in Research Studies .......................... 102 Conclusive Remarks III. . . . . . . . . 113 P R O C E D U R E S ........................................ 114 Purpose . . . . . Construction of the Instrument . . . . . Description of the Questionnaire . . . . Population and Sample ....................... Mailing Procedures and Returns ............. Analysis of Data................................. IV. 114 118 120 122 125 127 ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A .............................. 129 Data Analysis with Respect to the Deans . . 130 Part 1 Previous Graduate Experience of the Deans (Item #1).............................. 131 Role Perceptions by the Deans (Item #2) . 131 Assets of the Role of the Dean (Item #3) . 133 Part 2 Graduate Programs and Curriculum— Area I . 134 Importance of Graduate Programs (Item #4). 134 Quality of Graduate Programs (Item #5). . 135 Innovations/Experiments/Changes in Graduate Programs (Item #6)................. 135 The Dean's Role in Formulation of Grad­ uate Curricula (Item # 7 A ) ................. 135 Evaluation of Graduate Curricula (Item # 7 B ) ................................. 136 Alternatives and Additions to the Role (Item #8)................ 136 vi Page Research and Instruction— Area II . . . 137 The Dean's Role in Educational and Research Policy (Item #11A)..................139 Budget Provisions (Item #11 B ) .............. 140 Managerial Affairs of Research and Instruction (Item #11C) 140 Alternatives and Additions (Item #12) . . 140 Faculty and Personnel Services— Area III. . 141 Promote Faculty Morale (Item #13A) . . . 141 Help the Faculty Academically and Pro­ fessionally (Item # 1 3 B ) ..................... 142 Responsibility with Faculty (Item #14). . 142 The Dean's Role in Employing Additional Faculty (Item #15A) 143 Promoting High Quality Education (Item # 1 5 B ) ...................................144 Retaining High Quality Faculty (Item # 1 5 C ) ............................ 144 Preventing Understaffing (Item #15D) . . 144 Recruitment of Faculty (Item #16A) . . . 145 Tenure of Faculty (Item #16B ) . . . . . 146 Salary Maximums for Faculty (Item #16C) . 146 Nonrenewal of Faculty Contracts (Item # 1 6 D ) ............................ 146 Resources and Budg e t— Area I V ........... 14 7 Effects of Inadequate Budgets (Item #17) . The Dean's Responsibility in Preparation of the Budget (Item #18A) . . . . . The Dean's Efforts in Increasing the Resources of Income (Item #18B) . . . Bases of Resource Allocations to the Departments (Item #19) Strategies of Budgetary Control (Item # 2 0 ) ............................ 150 Options for Budget Allocations (Item # 2 1 ) ............................ 151 Graduate Education and Prospective Planning (Item # 2 2 ) .................. 152 Graduate Students and Education— Area V . The Dean's Role in Graduate Student Enrollments (Item #23A) ................. vii . 148 149 14 9 150 152 153 Page General Competency (Item #23B) . . . . Decreasing Dropouts (Item #23C). . . . Inquiring and Reviewing Standards (Item #23D)............................. Relationships with Students (Item #24) . Improvement in Quality of Graduate Stu­ dent Performance (Item #25A) . . . . Evaluate Quality of Graduate Student Performance (Item #25B)............ 156 Issues and Problems (Item #26). . . . Participation in Activities/Achievements Regarding Graduate Education (Item # 2 7 ) ............................. Administrative Organization and Practices— Area V I .................................... Administrative Personnel (Item #2 8) . . Faculty/Administrative Committees (Item # 2 9 ) ............................. Authority over Committees (Item #30) . . The Dean's Mode of Feedback with the Chairpersons of the Departments (Item #31A)............................ The Faculty Member (Item #31B) . . . . The Graduate Students of the College (Item # 3 1 C ) ...................... 162 The Role of the Dean Regarding Admis­ sion of Graduate Students (Item #32A) . Review of Academic Achievement of the Graduate Students (Item #32B) . . . . Retention or Dismissal of Graduate Stu­ dents (Item #32C)................... 163 Award of Graduate Degree (Item #32D) . . Relationships with the Chairpersons (Item # 3 3 ) ......................... 163 Bases of Administrative Decisions (Item # 3 4 ) ......................... 164 The D e ans' Opinion about Their Role (Item # 3 5 ) ......................... 165 Selection of the Dean (Item #36) . . . The Deans' Responsibilities Regarding Graduate Education with the Provost and the Graduate Dean (Items #37 and 3 8 ) ............................. 166 viii 154 154 154 155 155 156 157 15 8 15 8 160 160 161 162 162 162 16 3 165 Page Part 3 Limitations of the Dean's Role (Item #39) . ,.. ....................... Major Responsibilities of Deans Regard­ ing Graduate Education (Item #40) . . 167 Analysis with Respect to the Chairpersons . 168 166 Part 1 Previous Graduate Experience of the Chairpersons (Item #1) ................ 16 8 Role Perception of Chairpersons (Item # 2 ) ......................... 170 Assets of the Role of the Chairpersons (Item # 3 ) ......................... 171 Part 2 Curriculum Content and Change— Area I 175 Changes in the Content of Graduate 175 Curricula (Item # 4 ) ................ Role in Formulation of Graduate Cur­ ricula (Item # 5 ) ................... 176 Participation in Graduate Level Courses (Item # 6 ) ....................... 177 Alternatives/Additions in Graduate Curriculum (Item #7).............. 177 Factors Which Maintain a High Quality Curricula and Graduate Programs 178 (Item # 8 ) ....................... Research and Instruction— Area II. . . Relationship of Teaching and Research (Item # 9 ) ....................... Effect of External Funding on Instruc­ tion and Research (Item #10) . . . Participation in Research and Instruc­ tional Activities (Item #11) . . . The Chairperson's Role in Maintaining Standards of Graduate Instruction (Item #12A)....................... The Chairperson's Role in Facilitating Scholarship (Item #12B).......... . 179 179 . 180 . 180 182 183 Page Participation in Instructional/ Research Projects (Item #13) . . . . Alternatives and Additions to Role (Item # 1 4 ) ............................. Structural Changes and Alternatives (Item # 1 5 ) ............................. Contributions of Research to Instruction (Item # 1 6 ) ............................. Faculty and Personnel Services— Area III 184 184 185 186 . 187 Competency of Faculty (Item #17) . .. Support for Additional Faculty (Item # 1 8 ) .......................... Chairman's Authority Regarding Personnel Services (Item # 1 9 ) .................... Change in Role since Appointment (Item # 2 0 ) ............................. Faculty Salaries as Incentives (Item # 2 1 ) ............................. Helping Faculty Academically and Pro­ fessionally (Item # 2 2 ) ............ 190 Resources and Budget— Area IV . . . . Faculty Salaries (Item #23) ....... Effects of Inadequate Budgets (Item # 2 4 ) .......................... Chairperson's Responsibility Regarding Preparation of the Budget (Item #25) Chairperson's Role in Increasing Resources of Income (Item #26) . . Bases of Resources (Item #27) . . . . Strategies of Budgetary Control (Item # 2 8 ) .......................... Options for Budget Allocations (Item # 2 9 ) .......................... Preparing Budget Plans (Item #30) . . Financing of Graduate Education (Item # 3 1 ) .......................... Issues in Graduate Education (Item #32) Graduate Students and Education— Area V. 187 188 188 189 190 192 192 193 . 194 . 194 195 196 197 . 198 198 . 199 . 200 Graduate Student Enrollment of 197677 (Item # 3 3 ) ...................... 200 Competence and Promise of Graduate Students (Item #34) ................ 200 x Page Principal Reasons for Graduate Drop­ 2 01 outs (Item # 3 5 ) .................. Participation in Graduate Activities/ Achievements (Item #36) ............. 201 Quality of Graduate Student Performance (Item #37)......................... 204 Problems of Graduate Students of Con­ cern to Chairpersons (Item #38). . . 205 Problems of Evaluating Graduate Pro­ grams (Item #39).................. 205 Administrative Organization and Prac­ tices— Area V I ...................... 208 Administrative Personnel in the Departments (Item #40)............ 208 Faculty Committees (Item #41). . . . Responsibility Regarding Graduate Edu­ cation Committees (Item # 4 2 ) . . . . Chairperson's Role Regarding Scholarly Standards (Item #43A) ................ Academic Achievement of the Graduate Student (Item #43B).................... Retention or Dismissal of Graduate Students (Item #43C) The Award of Graduate Degree (Item # 4 3 D ) .......................... Role with Faculty (Item #44) . . . . Role with the Administrators of the Office of the Dean (Item #45) . . . Administrative Decisions (Item #46) . . The Chairpersons' Opinions about Their Role (Item #4 7 ) ....................... Selection of the Chairperson (Item #48).............................. Interdepartmental Relationships of the Chairpersons (Item #49) 210 211 212 213 213 214 214 215 215 216 217 217 Part 3 Factors Limiting the Chairperson's Role . 218 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 220 S u m m a r y .................................... Findings.................................... 220 222 Page Part 1 The Role of the Dean and Chairperson in Graduate Education ....................... 222 Defining the Role S t y l e ............ 222 Role in Graduate Curriculum andChange . 223 ........... 225 Alternatives and Additions Role in Research and Instruction . . . 225 Alternatives and Additions ........... 227 Role in Faculty and Personnel Services . 22 8 ............. 2 30 Alternatives and Additions Resources and B u d g e t .................... 2 30 Alternatives and Additions ............. 2 33 Role Regarding Graduate Students and E d u c a t i o n ......................... 233 Alternatives and Additions . . . . . 236 Role in Administrative Organization and P r a c t i c e s ......................... 236 Limitations of the R o l e ............ 241 Part 2 Appraisal of Graduate Education and R e s e a r c h ............................. 242 Graduate Programs and Curriculum C o n t e n t ............................. 242 Teaching and Research .................... 244 Faculty and Personnel Services . . . . 246 24 8 Resources and B u d g e t ............... Graduate Students and Education. . . . 249 Administrative Organization and Prac­ tices................................ 250 Part 3 Issues and Problems in Graduate Education Important Factors Which Will Help To Maintain High Quality Curricula and Graduate Programs................... . 251 252 Quality faculty ....................... Quality research and support . . . . Quality students and research. . . . Top quality library ................ Graduate curricula .................... 252 253 254 254 255 Page Problems of Graduate Students of Con­ cern to C h a i r p e r s o n s ....................... 256 Problems of Evaluating Graduate Programs . 258 259 Issues in Graduate Education ............. Recruitment of graduate students . . . 260 Prospective employment opportunity . . 260 Low enrollments.............................. 261 Inadequate financial support for quality programs...........................262 Inadequate staffing for quality graduate programs .................... 262 Revision of university goals . . . . 262 Structural Changes/Alternatives in Admin­ istration of Graduate Programs. . . . 263 Implications of the Study....................... 264 Recommendations for Further Research . . . 269 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. LETTERS TO THE D E A N S ...............................272 B. LETTERS TO THE CHAIRPERSONS........................ 274 C. Q U E S T I O N N A I R E S ..................................... 276 D. FOLLOW-UP LETTERS .............................. 302 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................. 304 xiii LIST OF TABLES Page 1. 2. Number of responses to the questionnaire to "The Role of Chairpersons/Deans in Graduate Education" .......................... 127 Number of returns from professional and non­ professional colleges to the questionnaire "The Role of the Chairperson in Graduate E d u c a t i o n " .......................... 127 3. Graduate experience of deans in the study . . 131 4. Role perceptions by deans........................... 131 5. Role perceptions by deans of "professional col­ leges" and "nonprofessional colleges" (Arts and Sciences) (Item #2)...........................132 6. Importance of graduate programs..................... 134 7. Rank order of the types of responsibilities deans share with faculty (Item # 1 4 ) . . . . 143 8. Rank order of aspects affected by inadequate b u d g e t s ........................................... 148 9. Data distribution showing dean's bases of resource allocations to the departments 10. . . 150 Data distribution of budgetary control; rank order of strategies used by deans . . . . 151 Budget allocations— Rank order of options for budget allocations .......................... 152 12. Graduate education and financing .............. 153 13. Rank order of activities/achievements of deans in graduate education ....................... 157 11. 14. Title, role, and responsibility of administra­ tive personnel in the c o l l e g e s ................. 159 xiv Page 15. The dean's authority over faculty/administra­ tive c o m m i t t e e s .............................. 161 16. Relationship as dean with chairpersons 163 17. Rank order of bases of administrative decisions of d e a n s .......................... 164 18. Factors that limit the role of the dean. 167 19. Previous experience of chairpersons . . . . 20. Previous experience of chairpersons of pro­ fessional and nonprofessional colleges . 21. 22. 23. 24. . . . . 168 . 169 Distribution of data for role perception of c h a i r p e r s o n ................................. 170 Role perception of chairpersons of profes­ sional and nonprofessional colleges . . . 171 Rank order of assets which contribute to the satisfaction of the role of the chair­ persons........................................ 172 Rank order of assets which contribute to the satisfaction of the role of the chair­ persons of the "professional" and the "nonprofessional" colleges ................ 173 25. Changes in content of graduate curricula 26. Rank order of perceptions of chairpersons in formulation of graduate curricula . . . . 176 Rank order of changes in graduate curricula as suggested by chairpersons................ 177 Rank order of factors which help to maintain a high quality curricula and graduate p r o g r a m s .................................... 178 27. 28. . . 175 29. Data distribution of teaching and research. . 180 30. Rank order of effects of external funding . . 181 31. Research and instructional activities with f a c u l t y .................................... xv 181 Page 32. Chairman's role in maintaining standards of graduate instruction . . . . . . . . 182 33. Chairman's role in facilitating scholarship . 183 34. Changes in r o l e ............................. 35. Structural changes and alternatives. 36. Rank order of contributions of research to i n s t r u c t i o n ............................ 186 37. Competency of f a c u l t y .................. 187 38. Funds for additional faculty ................. 39. Chairman's authority regarding personnel s e r v i c e s ............................... 40. 41. 42. 43. . . 184 . 185 188 189 Change in the role of chairpersons since their initial appointment ................ 190 Rank order of ways of helping faculty aca­ demically and p r o f e s s i o n a l l y ........ 191 Rank order of aspects affected by inadequate b u d g e t ............................... 193 Chairperson's role in increasing resources of income............................... 194 44. Bases of resources to the department . 45. Rank order of strategies of budgetary c o n t r o l ............................... . . 195 196 46. Chairperson's options for budget allocations. 47. Graduate education and financing........ 48. Rank order of issues in graduate education as perceived by the chairpersons . . . . 199 Rank order of the principal reasons for graduate dropouts .......................... 202 49. 50. Participation in graduate activities/ achievements............................ xvi 197 19 8 203 Page 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Rank order of aspects that can improve quality of graduate student performance . . 204 Rank order of problems of graduate students of concern to c h a i r p e r s o n s ................ 206 Rank order of problems of evaluating graduate p r o g r a m s .................................... 207 Chairperson's responsibility regarding graduate education committees . . 211 . . Rank order of steps for academic reforms or change ............................. 214 Rank order of factors affecting administra­ tive decisions of chairpersons ............. 216 Rank order of factors limiting the chair­ person' s role................................. 219 xvii Many days I squatted under the bo tree wrapped in the warmth of my thoughts. The leaves became the stars, thestars became the leaves; the sun became the rain, the rain became the sun. Many years I squatted under the bo tree wrapped in the warmth of no-thought; no reflections, no dreams, no imagery. The night became the day, the day became the night; day - night. Many centuries I squatted under the bo tree wrapped in the warmth of the arms of the sky, wrapped in the warmth of the arms of the weaker. The voice of Buddha xviii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background Graduate education and research in America have played a potential role and shouldered a stupendous responsibility in its technological, scientific advance­ ment and educational and cultural development and eminence. While graduate programs expanded with the rapid expansion of higher education in the 1940s, the expansion was really encouraged and reinforced in the post-sputnik period by huge federal funding and investment designed to increase the scientific and research base of graduate education. The fact that the first Ph.D. in America was granted by Yale in 1861 and that graduate schools in the American universities in the last hundred years have made significant contributions in scholarship, research, and skilled personnel to the various fields of technical and scientific advancement, industry, business, health, and welfare is a recognized example of human ingenuity and pursuit. Carmichael confirms this period of progress during a century of technological and scientific 1 2 advancement: "Though less than one hundred years old as an organized university activity, graduate education and research have in that period probably influenced the life of society more than any other one division of the uni­ versity, because they have stimulated the professional schools, government, business and industry to emphasize research as a means of progress."^ Graduate education in major universities in a span of a few decades expanded from a tiny fraction of students with a small share in the university resources to a huge enterprise, recruiting great numbers of gifted students, highly qualified faculty, involved in techno­ logical and professional achievements and successes. Michigan State University is an illustration of the edu­ cational developments and changes which were launched in the first half of the century to work themselves out in decades following the second world war. The process of expansion of graduate education at M.S.U. was reinforced during the post-sputnik period as at other institutions of higher education in the country. Federal funding and investment became a potential source of professional and scientific development in line with advancement in the various fields of technical and scientific studies. York: The university first expanded its ^"Oliver C. Carmichael, Graduate Education (New Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1961)',’ p. 2*1. master's program in 1955 and the Ph.D. program in 1957. 2 In 1959, M.S.U. awarded 151 Doctorates and 936 Master's degrees; it ranked twenty-second in the nation for the number of doctor's degrees awarded and fifteenth for the 3 number of Master's degrees. On-campus enrollment of graduate students grew from 1,666 in 1955 to 3,489 in 4 1960, an increase from 9 percent to 16.4 percent. By 1962 eight colleges advanced degrees. 5 at M.S.U. were authorized to give About 275 areas or fields of concen­ tration were covered by seventy departments in these g colleges. In the academic year of 1960-1961, 891 of the faculty at M.S.U. had doctoral degrees which repre7 sented 66.9 percent of its instructional colleges. In 1959-1960, the faculty was committed to over 1,500 research projects.® 2 Michigan State University, The System of Admin­ istration of Graduate Studies at M.sTlH (East Lansing: Office of Research Development and the Graduate School, publication no. 3, 1962), p. 26. 3Ibid., p. 18. 4Ibid., p. 13. 5 Ibid., p. 6, namely: the Colleges of Agricul­ ture, Business and Public Service, Communication Arts, Education, Engineering, Home Economics, Science and Arts, and Veterinary Medicine. g M.S.U., System of Administration, p. 6. ^ I b i d . , p. 23. 8Ibid. 4 Michigan State University today has eleven colleges 9 which are authorized to give advanced degrees. The work of these colleges is supported by strong under­ graduate programs. Each of these colleges is responsible for developing its own graduate programs consistent with professional standards of their respective fields. Seventy-six departments in these eleven colleges offer graduate programs."1"^ The on-campus enrollment of graduate students in spring 1977 was 6,868.^'*' During the 1975-76 academic year, M.S.U. awarded 6,343 Bachelors, 2,607 Masters, 535 Doctorates, 110 Doctors of Veterinary Medicine, 52 Educational Specialists, 89 Doctors of Medicine, 71 Doctors of Osteopathy, and 4 diplomas for Advanced Graduate Study. Since 1861, the year the first degrees were granted, M.S.U. has awarded a total of 198,656 degrees. 12 M.S.U. is among the first 9 This Is Michigan State University, 1977 Facts Book (MSUl Department of Information Services, 1977) ," p. 32, namely: The Colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Arts and Letters, Business, Communication Arts and Sciences, Education, Engineering, Human Ecology, Human Medicine, Natural Science, Social Science, and Veterinary Medicine. ^ 1977 Facts B o o k , op. cit., p. 32. ^ M . S . U . , Enrollment Report Spring, 1977 (MSU: Office of the Registrar Evaluation and Research, Spring 1977), p. 1. 12Ibid., p. 24. 5 twelve universities in the number (more than seven hundred) of Doctor's degrees awarded annually. 13 During 1976-77, Michigan State University had a total of 3,405 competent faculty, including a considerable number enjoying national and international reputations. 14 In 1976-77, the faculty was committed to some 3,000 major research projects. Administration of Graduate Education The development of graduate education in the last hundred years has had a corresponding evolution in the direction of decentralization of administration. This is the natural consequence of the problems associated with increasing complexity of university organization and the multifunctional role of institutions. Increase in enrollments, specialization, diversity of curricula, expansion of scholarship and research, and German influence on higher education resulted in the delegation of duties from the president to a division of adminis­ trative officers, including the librarian, registrar, bursar, secretary, and dean. Harvard had its first "dean" as a representative of the faculty in 1 8 7 0 . ^ 131977 Facts B o o k , op. c i t . , p. 32. 14Ibid., p. 31. 16 15Ibid., p. 44. John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education in Transition (New York: Harper &R o w , Publishers, 1958) , p. 322. 6 The institution of the graduate school at Johns Hopkins in 1876 and later at other universities strength­ ened the autonomy of the departments and the faculty loyalty to the disciplines. Since the graduate dean did not have the authority to recruit or pay for the faculty, his role came to be an adjunct function of the role of the dean of the school or college which had con­ trol over the budget and faculty appointment with the departments: "The graduate dean was master of an illusory empire, in which he always had to depend upon the acceptance of his programs or recommendations by individual faculty members, department h e a d s , and deans of other colleges." 17 Obviously, the dean of the col­ lege and the department chairman enjoyed more adminis­ trative authority than the graduate dean, "thus placing formal responsibility where the actual power is," 18 says Berelson. The events following Sputnik had challenged the role of administration to direct academic policy from above rather than seeking cooperation from below. "The role of administration," said David Starr Jordan, "is 17 Charles M. Grigg, Graduate Education (New York: The Center for Applied Research in E d u c a t i o n , I n c . , 1965), p. 27. 18 States Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in United (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960), p. 121. to expedite instruction." greater power. 20 19 Faculties came to have "The principal vehicle for implement­ ing the more active voice in the university affairs was the academic senate." 21 The administrative power structure that was con­ centrated in the presidential hierarchy of administrative deputies and controlled academic policy before World War II emerged in a participatory democracy which demon. . strated joint concern and responsibility. 22 In the last twenty years the process of decen­ tralization has considerably improved. Graduate ed u ­ cation has come to be administered by well-defined units, variously known as the graduate school, college, the academic department, dean of the academic college, the graduate and the faculty. the department, The and graduate school have come to share the administration of graduate education. These developments and changes in administration provide an interesting case study at Michigan State Uni­ versity. Michigan State University was one of the first few universities to initiate a decentralized system of T O pp. 370, Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit. 374. 20Ibid. , p. 375. 22I bid., pp. 370-76. (3d e d . ; 1976) , 21Ibid. 8 graduate operations with central accountability. The increasing perplexities surrounding graduate work in particular in the last twenty years added to the responsi­ bilities both of the central administration and graduate offices at Michigan State University. Problems like diversity of graduate programs and services, in knowledge and enrollments, increase and increasing areas of specialization created a severe strain on a system of responsibility and authority which was more direct and centrally controlled. Prior to 1955, the graduate school operated under a system of direct administration for both the master's and the doctoral program. The shift in the master's program came in 1955 as a result of a study by the deans of the colleges on campus which had large graduate programs. of November 5, 1957, and May 12, 1959, Two documents introduced admin­ istrative changes in the doctoral programs. As a result, the master's and doctoral programs came to be adminis­ tered by the respective colleges, and the graduate school came to serve as a coordinating agency for these programs. Each college administers its own graduate programs within the policies and regulations established by the university in concert with the graduate council. Each college is responsible for its own administrative 9 decisions, and the office of the graduate dean has developed a system of inquiry and review on a variety of important o p er at io n s.2 3 The structure of graduate administration today encompasses eleven colleges which are authorized to give advanced degrees. The other components of the adminis­ trative structure include the Dean of the Graduate School (usually referred to as the graduate office) graduate council, chairpersons, and the the deans of several colleges and the the college graduate committees, major professors and guidance committees of the several departments, and the graduate forum. There is no separate graduate faculty at Michigan State University. It devolves upon these individuals and units to carry out the basic purposes and policies enunciated by the faculty and the Senate and administer graduate education under university-established policies. The units have come to have wide responsibilities and functions in a decentralized system of graduate administration with . . 24 central accounta bx l xt y. An interesting conclusion from this background would be that while the institution of the graduate 23 • Allan Tucker, "Decentralxzed Graduate Admxnxstration with Centralized Accountability," College and University 40 (Winter 1965): 132. 24 pp. M.S.U., System of A d m x n xs t ra tx on , op. ext., 43-44 , 67; Tucker'j op. c i t . , pp. 132-39. 10 school promoted the expansion of graduate education and research, the increasing pressures on graduate work in due course initiated a decentralized system of adminis­ tration in the American Universities and Michigan State University is a case study in reference. Statement of the Problem The problem involved in the present study in the light of the preceding review is concerned with the administration of graduate education in the United States, including such matters as the role of academic adminis­ trators, their involvement in policy formulation, the extent of their participation in the actual operation of the graduate programs; their appraisal of graduate edu­ cation and the changes they perceive are necessary in administration in order to meet present issues and problems in graduate education. Purpose of the Study It becomes readily apparent that a doctoral level research study on the problem enunciated above would be too limited to undertake an analysis of the administration of graduate education for all institutions of higher edu­ cation in the country. Consequently, this study will be confined to an examination of the administration of graduate education at Michigan State University. 11 More specifically, the study will be an examination of the following: (1) The role of deans and chairpersons in graduate education in selected colleges at Michigan State University; (2) Their perception of graduate education in these colleges with special reference to the following: (a) curriculum content and change (b) research and instruction (c) faculty and personnel services (d) resources and projects (e) graduate students and education (f) administrative organization and practices (3) Their opinion about alterations and additions in their role for a more viable contribution to graduate education; (4) Related issues confronting them in graduate education. Background for the Study The Deans of colleges and Chairpersons are cus­ todians of academic programs in the university while the faculty is formally responsible for academic policies and development. As administrators, their concern for the improvement and development of higher education is 12 not confined to their interest in one discipline or a field of specialization. hensive, Their concern is more compre­ for their responsibility is to improve and develop teaching, research, opportunities of public service, and to maintain and encourage quality programs and education. The best description of the role of the academic administrator may be found in D e u t s c h ’s defi­ nition of the role of the dean: " . . . to strengthen the academic work of his school or college, weaknesses, find its and seek to remove them, and take note of the best teachers and scholars and give them help and encouragement." He goes on to say that administrators "are expected to have established visions and to exercise discriminating judgment. These ideas and judgments are expected to be coordinated with faculty views and not 25 exercised a r b i t r a r i l y . " The deans and chairpersons are concerned as much as the faculty with the academic health of the college. As academic administrators, they are concerned consciously or unconsciously with the academic health of the college. Graduate education presents from time to time a complex number of problems— a major problem may be pr o ­ liferation of the curriculum. 25 The view may be divided . Monroe E. Duetsch, The College from Within (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1955) , p . 53. 13 regarding specific roles of the deans and chairpersons and faculty in curriculum formulation. Horn says, The president expects the dean to exercise control over his curriculum, but he seldom doas. The dean lets the departmental chairperson pour on new courses, he keeps low enrollment courses going year after year instead of de-activating them, and he provides too few large classes to bring about some balance.2 6 The faculty members are interested in teaching and research, but they are also concerned about their professional development and ambitions. How do the deans and chairpersons promote the academic and professional interests of the faculty? The deans and chairpersons know that members of the profession are attracted to the college and department depending on their prospects for development and work. They also know that the faculty members have considerable interest in their discipline and would like administrators to act with discretion with respect to course content, and standards of education. instructional processes, They are interested that the chairperson or the dean should provide adequate facilities for scholarly development of research and instructional activities. In a period of uncertainty and financial strain, graduate students are increasingly distressed with graduate programs for a number of reasons. The academic pC Francis H. Horn, Challenge and Perspective in Higher Education (Southern Illinois University Press, 1971), p. 117. 14 reasons are the most compelling and frequently disillusion them about their prospects in graduate education. result is attrition or dropouts. The What is the role of the dean and chairperson in responding to the students who may interrupt their studies or be tempted to drop out of the program for academic reasons? What do they do to relieve the graduate student of the pressure gen­ erated by the academic debilities of the department? What do they do to make the intellectual life of the graduate student more meaningful and fruitful? How do they help the disenchanted graduate student to prevent a national "waste" of an academically qualified student? The budget of the department is another area which has its weaknesses and strengths. This is an area in which the administrators have the final authority but the faculty have substantial basis to participate in it without sharing its complexities. In any event, academic community of the college, department, the and administrative staff have to agree about the utilization of financial resources and plan budget to meet the academic requirements. The deans and chairpersons have special responsibility for funding graduate education and augmenting their resources and showing discreet judgment in its distribution and allocation. The controversy over the role of teaching and research seems to be endless. The universities which 15 have participated in national research and development programs in times of national crisis and emergency are thinking in terms of their responsibility to society and the students. Many academic administrators and faculty members are showing concern for institutional research and academic interests. They are constantly thinking whether concentration in research or concentration in teaching determines excellence of programs, academic stability and equity in graduate education. Graduate education is more expensive than under­ graduate education and is maintained and developed at greater costs. limitations. It is more open to public pressures and In order to retain the effectiveness of instruction and preserve quality programs in academics and research, it seems important to review the status of graduate education from time to time to have more effective programming and planning of graduate edu­ cation, prevent possible deterioration of standards, and retain quality programs and diversity of academic efforts without much loss of initiative and innovation— or without suspending experiments in new programs. Prospective improvement or development of graduate programs and quality education and research at unit or college level suggest a need for discriptive infor­ mation or statistical application to processes and p r o ­ cedures of administration. 16 Need for Research There is considerable evidence that Michigan State University as an institution has been interested in achieving a high level of quality in its programs. The development and growth of quality in graduate edu­ cation is by and large the result of the efforts of the faculty and graduate students; the maintenance and furtherance of the quality of graduate education and research remains the fundamental concern of the admin­ istrators . "The basic concern of administration in graduate schools," said Allan Tucker, "must be for quality and how quality can be sustained and nurtured despite problems associated with the explosion of new knowledge and formidable increases in graduate enrollment." Administrators, 27 like the faculty, have increasing concerns and responsibilities for the development of new areas of graduate knowledge, programs, retention of old quality innovations and changes in curricula and academic programs; they also have concerns for the per­ plexities surrounding recruitment of quality faculty and students, especially at a time when state appropriations are not sufficient to generate the stimulus for inno­ vation, required for expansion, or provide scope for experimentation, needed for change. 27 Tucker, op. c i t . , p. 132. The rationale for 17 development and change is the need to match quality programs. President Wharton, in his State of the Uni­ versity Address in 1971, explored the theme "continuity and change" in the current context of academic greatness under stress. Wharton stated: Future developments in many instances will have to come through substitution of new programs for old programs rather than sheer addition. In other instances, new additions will have to be limited to those areas where there are high degrees of complementarity with already existing programs of excellence.28 There are always good reasons for periodic evalu­ ation of graduate education and research in an insti­ tution. The evaluation of graduate education and research at the departmental and college level will offer scope of development to quality programs, require containment of inactive programs, deserving programs. and give special consideration to The appraisal of views of deans, c h a i r p e rs on s, faculty and graduate students regarding graduate education and research will help to promote institutional growth through a process of self-analysis and assessment. It will also help to develop an infor­ mation system for the institutions based on a realistic assessment of practices and projections. At a time when the quality of graduate education and research is 28 Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., President, Continuity and Change: Academic Greatness under Stress (M.S.U.: State of the University Address, Faculty Convocation, February 15, 1971), p. 7. 18 considered as a determining factor for financial support, the need for improved information and statistical descriptions of graduate education at the unit and college level is greater. This study is a pilot attempt at appraisal of graduate education by deans and chairpersons viz-a-viz their role in graduate education in certain selected colleges at Michigan State University. preliminary effort, Since it is a the importance of the study will be exploratory, partial, and suggestive. Limitations of the Study 1. This study is confined to the role of deans of colleges and chairpersons of departments with reference to graduate education only. 2. No effort is made to consider the role of the dean of academic affairs, or Provost, or dean of the graduate school. 3. The study is limited to five colleges of the University. The results may not be fully sup­ portive of a more comprehensive study covering all the eleven colleges which offer graduate programs on the campus. The implications may, however, be suggestive of the roles of the deans of colleges and chairpersons in graduate edu ­ cation in public-supported universities. 19 Definitions 1. The term "dean" in the study is used to refer to the person who is directly in charge and responsible for the college offering graduate programs. He is often called the "academic dean" of the college. The term is definitely not used for the Graduate Dean or the Provost or Dean of Academic Affairs. The term is, how­ ever, considered applicable to associate dean/ assistant dean of the college if the dean of the college shares his role with them and delegates some of his activities to them. 2. "Chairperson" is used for the person designated as such by the university who is in charge of the academic unit of the college. The term "vice­ chairperson" or "associate chairperson" will bear the same connotation if the role is shared. 3. "Role" is used to denote the part played by a person occupying a responsible position. 4. "Department" is an administrative subdivision of a school or college giving instruction in a branch of study. 29 York: 29 Carter V. Good, Dictionary of Education McGraw-Hill Book C o m p a n y , 1959), p. 47l. (New 20 5. "Administration" is used to mean operating or functioning. 6. "Perspective" is a point of view or opinion as a prospect of the future. Significance of the Study "It didn't take me long to discover you can't run a university from the fourth floor of the adminis­ tration building. It has to be run at the university level," said Lawrence L. Boger, Michigan State University. former Provost at 30 The eminence of a university lies in the academic strength of the departments— in the abilities and exper­ iences of the faculty to teach and do research and the learning capacities of the students. Does the strength of the university also lie in operating it at the unit level? The chief academic officer seemed to be a strong believer in operating a university at the unit level. "Basically I view that the department chairman's role is to enhance the environment of individual faculty members to help them be professionally productive and personally satisfied. We have to have a high morale." 30 31 Lawrence L. Boger, M.S.U. News B u l l e t i n , September 23, 1976, p. 2. 31 Ibid. 21 Boger remarked about the role of the administra­ tors. "I have never really thought that administrators have different goals from students and faculty. Students who want to learn, teachers who want to teach and do research and administrators who see that both can do that, that's what I believe. This brings us to the substance that since the department is the most important organized unit in the university, entrusted with the growth and expansion of higher education, the deans and chairpersons have de fi ­ nitely a significant contribution to make to the quan ti ­ tative and qualitative development of education including graduate education, faculty development, and students' productivity and achievement. A study into the roles of the deans and chair­ persons will provide an insight into their contributions to graduate education, and problems, the limitations of their roles especially at a time when restricted resources and public pressures for more effective use of scarce resources inhibit initiative and imagination in administrative processing as well as program develop­ ment and research. A decentralized system of graduate operations is a process of adjustment and flexibility in administration. 22 A decade which has seen great stress in the graduate schools will in such a system require new mechanisms and human skills to generate response without destroy­ ing the morale of the faculty by undermining the quality of education. The study will reveal some of the mechanisms and devices used by the administrators to make cooperative attempts to alter curricula, make changes to meet the demand for innovations and secure program survival. In a period of deficit funding it will also reveal the patience and wisdom of deans and administrators used in evaluating their programs and defining legitimate boundaries to graduate activities and programs. At a time of rapid change and anxiety coupled with uncertainty, accurate timely information is vital to respond to problems especially of a graduate level. The deans and chairpersons are concerned about trends in their various fields, projected outcomes of each discipline, student enrollments, professional chances, concentration on research and teaching and innumerable other national and community concerns impinging on graduate prospects and chances. The deans and chair­ persons may, therefore, develop an information system for their colleges and departments based on a realistic assessment of practices and projections. Such information may be derived from studies including one like the present. 23 Organization of the Study The study is organized in five chapters. Chapter I gives the background of the problem and purpose of the study, enumerates its limitations, and discusses the sig­ nificance of the study. Chapter II is an appraisal of graduate education and graduate administration in the literature, with a review of the role of deans and chair­ persons in the last twenty years in literature and research. Chapter III has six parts and examines the procedures of the study in each part. analysis of the data, and chairpersons; Chapter IV is an separately for the deans of colleges and Chapter V includes a summary of the study, examines the findings regarding the role of the deans and chairpersons, appraisal of graduate education, alterations and additions in the role, and issues in graduate education. This chapter also discusses the implication of the study and provides recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH This chapter focuses on four aspects in literature and research and consists of three sections. 1. In the first section a review of graduate edu­ cation is made beginning with its inception at Johns Hopkins to its present development with relevant issues and problems facing it. 2. The second section deals with the development of administration of graduate education with special reference to the organizational changes promoting graduate education after World War II and decentralization of academic governance. 3. The third section reviews the role of the dean of the college and chairpersons of departments in literature and research and especially in the last two decades. 24 25 Part 1 Review of Graduate Education The Beginning^— 1876-1900 The failures of some institutions to establish graduate education according to Berelson 2 and the success of Johns Hopkins in 1876 was preceded by a period of fifty years and especially after 1850 when there were several efforts to establish graduate education in America. All of these efforts failed at Harvard, Michigan, Yale, Columbia, Pennsylvania, Western Reserve, University of the South, and University of Virginia. 3 This was the time of the unearned Master's degree that was awarded 4 to the institution's own alumni. The controversy and conflict involved in estab­ lishing graduate education was due in main to the local The sources of information for review of graduate education were: Everett Walters, Graduate Education Today (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965); Lewis B. Mayhew and Patrick J. Ford, Reform in Graduate and Professional Education (New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, I n c . , 1965); Oliver C. Carmichael, Graduate Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publ i s h e r s , 1961) ; Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in United States (New York: McGraw-Hill' Book Company, 1960); John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education in T r a n s i t i o n , 3d revised ed. (New York: Harper and Row P u b l i s h e r s , 1976). 2 Berelson, op. cit., p. 6. 3Ibid. 4Ibid. 26 resistance to change of classical curriculum for science and professionalism. Besides, it was objected that expenses should be incurred on graduate education rather than improve existing undergraduate programs. Many of the arguments used today against innovations in graduate education, says Berelson, it at all. 5 were used then against starting The issues were: (1) Hostility of faculty to change; (2) Conflict between scholarship and professional practice; (3) Impact of ever-increasing knowledge; (4) Internal and external pressures (needs of times). The controversy was resolved when Johns Hopkins established its graduate programs in 1876 and took lead over others. Elsewhere programs of graduate study took g root in three kinds of institutions. Strong Private Colleges New Institutions Hopkins Clark Chicago Harvard Columbia Yale Cornell Strong Public Institutions California Michigan Wisconsin The developments of the next forty years until the establishment of the association of the American universities (1900) determined for the most part the ^Ibid., p. 8. ^Ibid., p. 9. 27 character of American education. The graduate school which was established after the German model had far reaching consequences on graduate education as well as the organizational pattern of graduate study. The German concept of higher education became the concept of graduate education at Johns Hopkins University and later at a number of other universities. President Gilman, first President of John Hopkins, had the following to say about this influence: "The avowed purpose of graduate education," said President Gilman, "was the most liberal promotion of all useful knowledge— the encouragement of research; the promotion of young individual scholars, who by their excellence will advance the sciences they pursue and the society where they dwell." 7 Graduate education came to emphasize scholarship and research, and instructional methods. freedom of teaching "Professors were chosen for their ability to do original investigation and were not burdened with extensive teaching duties; for them the g advancement of science and learning was paramount." Fabian Franklin said of the German influence: "The key note of the German system was also the key note of Mr. Gilman's conception of the university that was to be; for he had in view the appointment of professors 7 Quoted in Walters, op. c i t . , p. 1. ^Ibid., p. 11. 28 who had shown their ability as investigators, whose duties as teachers would not be so burdensome as to interfere with the prosecution of their researches, whose students should be so advanced as to stimulate them to their best work, and the fruit of whose labor in the advancement of science and learning should be continually manifested in the shape of published results." Although the character of the graduate studies was considerably influenced by the German system of higher education in the beginning, it was gradually modified to meet the requirements of the growing nation. The first modification of the German system was that the graduate school in the American universities instituted a pattern of organization for graduate education which included undergraduate departments as well as graduate departments. Several critics believe that this dual organization has plagued the system of graduate education ever since. It is objected that the graduate school being more expensive is supported by a less expensive unit and is, therefore, not independent of it in its mode of operation and methodology. Secondly, the graduate dean has no control over budget and faculty appointments, cation. two major ways of affecting graduate edu­ There were other ways in which the dual g Grigg, op. cit., p. 1, citing Fabian Franklin, The Life of Daniel Coit Gilman, p. 196. 9 29 organization affected graduate education. The under­ graduate system of education, which had been influenced by the English universities, and the graduate level edu­ cation which was under German influence, emphasized two distinguished fields of education. The emphasis on research and scientific approach at the graduate level gave a conspicuous setback to liberal education and cur­ riculum, humanities, and social sciences. wonder," says Berelson, "It is no "that the major critics of graduate study have come from the humanities and certain parts of social sciences. The graduate school has from the start been a scientific institution."'*'*^ Berelson and Grigg present an interesting case regarding the development of American graduate education between 1862 and 1900. The gap between liberal education and scientific national studies, says Berelson, was bridged with the establishment of land-grant institutions under the Morrill Act of 1862.'*''*' Graduate education which had emphasized original research under German influence initiated a research program of public service in land-grant colleges. 12 There were two major shifts for 1(*Berelson, op. cit. , p. ■^Ibid. , p. 13. 12 Grigg, op. cit., p. 3. 12. 30 modification and reform for graduate education as a result, according to Berelson. (1) Professionalization of teaching as a career; (2) Organization of the curriculum and subjects and disciplines. The utilitarian philosophy of the land-grant institutions was added to the science and research characteristics of the graduate school. The movement became a movement as a supplier of teachers and the model of learning. 13 The graduate study and everything associated with it began to grow. Governmental support, both federal and state, was matched by private funds— Rocke­ feller at Chicago, Clark at Clark, the Stanfords at Stanford, as well as the established institutions of the East. Jobs were available in the growing educational establishment. In 1900 about 250 legitimately earned doctorates were conferred— double the number in 1890. The uni­ versities were burgeoning, not only was graduate work being established in arts and sciences but professional education was also undergoing change and development. From the founding of Johns Hopkins University in 1876 to 13 Berelson, op. cit., p. 13. 31 1900, there were some fifty institutions conferring the earned degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 14 With all this, the period marked the coming of age of professional learning in this country. No fewer than fifteen major scholarly societies were established between 1876 and 1905, or one every two years. Learned journals were established in every major discipline. In short, this period established graduate study and determined many of its enduring qualities. Its close was signalized in 1900 by the founding of the Association of American Universities.^ The change was visible. The college with a largely ministerial faculty in 1876, with a classical and tradition-centered curriculum, session, a recitative class a small student body highly selected for gen­ tility or social status, an unearned Master's given to alumni for good behavior after graduation, and serious students going abroad gave in 1900 place to the American university firmly adapted to the growing needs of the country and leading the educational parade with its pro­ fessional character, its utilitarianism, its growing attraction for scientific development and research. 14 Ibid., p. 14; Grigg, op. cit., p. 5. ■^Berelson, op. cit., p. 27. 32 Consolidation and Development 1960-19 40" The period from the founding of the AAU to World War I (1918) was of small growth and great self-evaluation and scrutiny. The question of quality and purpose of programs and personnel were more important and were discussed. There is hardly a topic active today that was not debated then— fellowships, the meaning of research, the character of the dissertation, the quality of stu­ dents, the foreign language requirements, the major-minor problem at Doctoral level, examinations, the role of the Master's preparation for college teaching, collegeuniversity relations, uniform statistics.^ "The problem was lest the 'The Ph.D. Octopus' crush the true spirit of learning in the universities." 17 "These universities were motivated by the wish to confer annually about developing among themselves uniform con­ ditions under which students might become candidates for higher degrees, about raising the 'standards of our own weaker institutions,' and to borrow a term from organized labor— about acting as the sole bargaining agent for American students seeking admission to, or advanced standing in, foreign universities." 16Ibid., p. 17. 18 18 17Ibid., p. 21. Ernest V. Hollis in Grigg, op. cit., p. 8. 33 After considerable deliberations, standards for graduate degree and requirement for admission of uni­ versities to the AAU were established. It was a period of diversification and speciali­ zation. The Doctoral program was extended to more specialized fields within the arts and sciences and far beyond to a number of professional fields, including agriculture, business, education, engineering, home economics, journalism, librarianship, nursing, social u 19 work. In the period of 1916-18, the Ph.D. was given in 149 separate fields. "The period was crucial less for growth in numbers than for growth in evaluation and selfrecognition." 20 Diversification was also reflected m the growing student body. The concern for genteel tra­ dition and social elitism shifted to a greater concern for intellectual quality— measured in a formal procedure introduced for admission— the Graduate Record Examination in 1937. 21 Following World War I, graduate education entered a period of phenomenal development and diversification. In the twenty years from 1900 to 1920, earned doctorates increased by about 250 percent; in the twenty years from 19 20 Berelson, op. cit., p. 27. Ibid., p. 25. 21 Ibid., p. 27. 34 1920 to 1940, they increased by over 500 percent. 22 The number of institutions giving the doctorate rose from about 50 in 1920 to nearly 100 in 1940 and the number giving the Master's from 200 to 300. 23 In 1916, there were approximately 149 fields in which the doctoral degree could be conferred, but by the middle '50s the doctorate was being awarded m some 550 fields. 24 The perennial questions of purpose and quality of graduate education continued to be deliberated over two questions. 1. Should there be two doctoral degrees— one for research and one for teachers? 2. The question of "huge numbers" of graduate stu­ dents and "over exhaustion" of programs. 1. Harvard decided in 1922 to give doctorates for work in education, but not the Ph.D., only the Ed.D., and that practice still prevails there today. At Chicago only the Ph.D. is awarded and in some universities such as Columbia both degrees are given. The conclusion that there is no escape from the dual character of the degree seemed to delimit the issue. ^ I b i d . , p. 25. 23 Grigg, op. cit., p. 14. ^4Ibid., p. 15; Berelson, op. cit., p. 35. 35 2. The question of numbers and over exhaustion of programs was taken up by various groups and com­ mittees approved for evaluation of graduate education beginning with H u g h e s ’ "Study of Graduate Schools of America" Programs" in 1925 to Hollis' in 19 45. "Toward Improving Ph.D. 25 After World War II— 1940-65 After World War II, 1940-65, graduate education continued to grow in training and the supply of students, the institutions offering graduate work, the body of knowledge, professionalization of graduate study, and quality. The increase in number of degrees and institutions stemmed from the pressure of staff requirements for secondary schools and increasing support for graduate study from the Federal government. In 19 40 about one hundred institutions gave the doctorate and about 300 the master's; In addition, in 1958 the figures were 175 and 569. 26 there was also an increase in the number of fields for the Ph.D. Between 1916-1918 there were 149 fields, while there were 550 fields for doctoral candidates in 1960. The professionalization of graduate 25 Berelson, op. cit., pp. ^ I b i d . , p. 35. 28-32. 36 study continued to grow. During this period over a third of all the doctoral degrees were in professional areas, and degrees in humanities fell from one-quarter of the total to about one-tenth. 27 The advent of the Russian satellite in 1957 reinforced graduate education in the next twenty years in research and research training, educational thought and academic patterns; underlying the whole enterprise of graduate education was the advancement of science and technology, business, health, and welfare. industry, Bowen states: The products of graduate study have been the ma i n ­ springs of our technological and economic achieve­ ments and guardians and builders of our culture. They are found at every strategic decision-making center in our society. They have harnessed nuclear energy, put men on the moon, regulated the economy, influenced our foreign policy, manned the uni­ versities and the upper reaches of the Civil Service, through their discoveries created great industries, formulated our philosophies and ideo­ logies, and influenced the arts through their critical and creative faculties.28 Part 2 Organization and Administration of Graduate Education The university graduate program is not entirely a function of the graduate school. 27 Berelson, op. cit., p. Spurr is of the 35. 28 Howard R. Bowen, "Stresses and Strains," in In These T i m e s , ed. Gordon Whaley (Austin, Texas: The Graduate School, The University of Texas, 1971), p. 111. 37 opinion that the graduate programs at universities may exist without such an organizational device. "A uni­ versity must have a graduate program, but it does not need to have a graduate school." 29 Graduate education is, however, organized in several ways in different universities; but the most common pattern of structure has been the graduate school. It is the result of the grafting of the German concept of post-graduate study upon undergraduate colleges which evolved from the English model. Unlike most other "schools" or "colleges," the graduate school usually has no separate faculty, and it does not have a separate instructional budget. "It is still subordinate to the undergraduate school and this is partly due to the economics of the situation; the larger and less costly undergraduate unit helps to support the smaller and more costly graduate program. One organizational consequence of all this, says Berelson, "is the relatively weak position of the graduate dean compared wi t h the undergraduate dean on 29 Stephen H. Spurr, "The American Graduate S c h o o l ," in In These T i m e s ; A Look at Graduate Education with Proposals for the F u t u r e , ed. W. Gordon Whaley (Austin, Texas: The Graduate Journal, Publisher Graduate School, The University of Texas at Austin, 1971) , p. 23. 30 Berelson, op. cit., p. 10. the one hand and the professional deans on the other." 31 His influence over the graduate p r o g r a m s , says Berelson, is less. "The graduate dean has much less control over the budget and appointments, two major ways of affecting educational programs; he is hence more dependent upon persuasion and enlightenment." 32 Corson is of the opinion that the graduate dean cultivates an educational area without direct authority for a specific faculty. He is usually, however, an educator at heart rather than an administrator. 33 Nicholos described the graduate dean as "a little more than a registrar and student counselor." 34 Berelson is of the view that "the graduate dean has an academic role although nominal. The graduate dean has a voice in academic matters but usually it is only an advisory and consultant one." 35 At a time when the graduate school became a recognized feature of graduate education, the internal 31I b i d . , p. 11. 32Ibid. 33 John J. Corson, The Governance of Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I960). 34 Roy F. Nicholos, "The Ambiguous Position of the Graduate Dean," Journal of Higher Education 30 (March 1959) : 119. 33Ibid., p. 120. 39 locale of academic administration began to shift. Adm in ­ istration of colleges in the early nineteenth century was a simple affair. The president administered and taught with the faculty fessors) (called tutors and later pr o­ and exercised together "legislative, and judicial functions." 36 executive However, when the colleges grew larger in numbers as well as in faculty, this democratic organization was not preserved. The number of administrators increased and came to include the librarian, and dean. secretary, registrar, bursar, Harvard appointed in 1870 Professor Ephrain Gurney as the first college dean. In 1890 the deanship of Harvard included the academic dean and the dean of student affairs. of deans, The median decade for the appearance say Brubacher and Rudy, was the 189 0s, with the subdivision into deans of men and deans of women coming sometime later. 37 In their evolution nearly all these offices originally included some teaching duties. duties increased, But as their less time came to be devoted to teach­ ing and even a president like David Starr Jordan insisted on keeping a hand in teaching in order to be more sensitive to the pulse of the student body. 36 38 Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit., p. 37Ibid., p. 367. 38Ibid. 368. 40 With increasing complexity of academic life as a result of expansion of graduate education, enrollments, diversity and specialization, increased the problems of authority came to rest at the presidential level as in business c o r p o r at io ns ; and university governance was administered from the central office. Simultaneously wit h specialization and compartmentalization of instruction, the importance of the departments in the university's administrative structure increased. The deans and chairpersons from 1870 until the third quarter of the century assisted the strong centralized authority of the president and in their delegated capacity held through budgetary strings substantial power over edu­ cational policy— especially in the matter of faculty appointments and curriculum. They also envisioned for themselves like President Eliot, :he role of an ed u­ cational seer, and continued with their overwhelming administrative duties a devotion to educational policy and matters. In the years following the first world war, according to Brubacher and Rudy, 39 the faculty realized encroachments on their academic freedom at the hands of the proprietary interests represented in the board; it found itself bereft of its former legislative, executive, and judicial duties and in their helpless role of a 39Ibid., p. 370. 41 purely teaching body demanded redress of the power structure. The attack was two-fold. They criticized the role of the president and his administrative hierarchy for their enhanced power as autocrats. The president and deans were acting like "masters" and not as academic leaders. They directed the faculty from above and did not seek their cooperation in formulating educational policy or defining parameters of their academic role. The forces of rapid industriali­ zation and societal change had thrust on the executives more power and they came to be regarded as autocratic. The other complaint was aimed at the trustees who continued to look upon institutions of higher learn­ ing like business corporations, interfered in the administration of their institutions, and failed to observe their proper function of a legislative body but feathered in an executive role without a portfolio for it. They hired and fired the professor like any employee in a business firm. His claim to an interest in the estate of an institution or college was substi­ tuted by his status of contract. The American Association of University Professors took up the question of academic freedom and tenure. However, the analogy that the boards of trustees were nothing short of governing boards in 42 business was not accepted for they held university properties in trust and were not its shareholders. 40 The roles of the administrator in the forties came up for discussion. "Administration properly belongs to presidents and deans," 41 said Herbert E. Hawkes. To those accepting this view, the plea "democracy in admin­ istration" made little sense. David Starr Jordan contrasted administration and instruction. The role of administration, he said, is to expedite instruction. 42 Yale had set the precedent since the colonial days that administration is best when matters are dis­ cussed and decided by the president with faculty assent received in meetings. However, Yale had set the example, which was not followed elsewhere. Various institutions including California and Michigan did make a sincere effort to improve communications between faculty and administration. The American Association of University Professors had taken up the matter after World War I. It had asked for faculty participation with the trustees 4^Ibid. , p. 371. 41Herbert E. Hawkes, Five College Plans (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931), pp. 7-28 in Brubacher and Rudy, op. c i t . , p. 374. AO David S. Jordan, "Perplexities of a College President," Atlantic Monthly 85 (April 1900): 488-89 in Brubacher and Rudy, op. c i t . , p. 374. 43 in the selection of the president and deans and for consultation on appointments, promotions, missals. and dis ­ It also recommended for supremacy of faculties in policy-making.4^ After the second world war faculties came to have greater power. promotions, They came to control appointments and academic calendars, work schedules, certification. and "The real decision-making power in the university has shifted to the faculty— faculty leaders sit on the b o a r d — they dominate internal councils." With student call for power and protest, 44 the faculty in the sixties came to share greater responsi­ bility in the administration. The contention that the intellectual interests of the professors were determined by professors inside the university and not by a board of outside lay governors 45 came to be recognized. With rise in student activism in the sixties, the demand for a participatory democracy and "Report on Role of Faculties in College and Uni­ versity Government," Bulletin of American Association of University Professors"22 (March 1936): 183-90 and 34 (Spring 1946) : 55-66 , in Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit., p. 374. 44 45 Brubacher, op. cit., p. 375. . Catherine Beecher, Educational Reminiscences (New York: J. B. Ford, 1874), p. 184, in Brubacher and Rudy, op. cit., p. 373. decentralization of administration was intensified. 46 Academic perplexities in the last twenty years increased and created a severe strain on administration. A system of responsibility and authority which was more direct and controlled centrally was replaced by a system of balances and checks introduced in a democratic and decentralized administrative structure. Authority and power were further delegated to various units in the university. The deans of the colleges and chairpersons of the departments derive their authority from the president and are responsible for all administrative operations in the college to him as staff officers. They represent the faculty and are responsible for the educational program of the college. This dual delegation of authority and responsibility to the line officer and faculty have made the roles of the deans and chairpersons unique and demanding. Issues and Problems The successes and failures of graduate education, its functional inadequacies and society's expectations of it have been the point of discussion ever since its inception. At a time when societal requirements for this system are growing, the points of view regarding 46 Brubacher, op. cit., p. 376. 45 the problems and approaches to meet them are becoming increasingly disillusioning to some scholars. Gustave 0. Arlt is of the opinion that the very manner in which American graduate education was estab­ lished gave rise to a number of problems and issues which exist today. In a brief summary of the history of graduate education, Arlt declares that the "problems that vex us today, the ills of which we complain, are not the symptoms of gerontom op h os is , not the syndrome of senescence— they are congenital." 47 Arlt emphasizes that undergraduate and graduate education are simply two different pursuits and no efforts to unify them as a common undertaking can solve graduate education problems. Samuel B. Gould 48 and Charles F. Jones 49 call for new programs to match the changing needs of the society and the changing employment market. Gould compares a past when nearly all Ph.D. students went into teaching to a present where "only 47 Gustave 0. Arlt, "Purifying the Pierian Spring," in In These Times, A Look at Graduate Education with Proposals for the F u t u r e , ed. W. Gordon Whaley (Austin, T e x a s : The Graduate Journal, publisher, The Graduate School, The University of Texas at Austin, 1971), p. 39. 48 Whaley, Samuel B. Gould, e d . , op. cit., pp. 49 Charles F. Jones, e d . , op. cit., pp. 133-40. "A New Social Role," in 123-30. "A New Mission," in Whaley, 46 an estimated 56 percent of all Ph.D.'s currently enter careers in higher education and of this 56 percent only one-half teach undergraduates." 50 Gould contends that "a new social role" for graduate work in American education wou ld "increase the number of persons in the world wh o can use their minds and sensibilities with analytical 51 and creative work — in any field of e nd ea vo r ." Jones supports a similar view when he says that the graduate school is a key instrument "in producing leaders as well as scholars . . . people who can use their advanced education to good effect in the market place and in the councils of government as well as in the library and the laboratory." Alfred C. Neal 53 52 . 54 and Louis T. Benezet stress uniformity of standards as part of preparation for success in a field. "The graduate school should just be concerned with insuring that its degree signifies a 50 Berelson, op. cit., p. 56. "^Gould, op. cit., p. 129. 52 Jones, op. cit., pp. 136-37. 53 Alfred C. Neal, "Three Suggestions for Func­ tional Reform," in Whaley, e d . , op. cit., p. 143. 54 Louis T. Benezet, "Open and Closed Systems," in Whaley, e d . , op. cit., pp. 151-58. 47 minimum level of competence sufficient to permit the degree-holder to practice his discipline in those occupations in which it is useful." 55 Further, Neal feels that "one can discern a gross mismatch between what is required for success in a field and what is judged to be excellent in the academic preparation for i t. -56 Benezet 57 . approaches the question of proliferation and of quality of education from a different viewpoint. He feels the present status of graduate education as a closed system operates more to restrict the mobility of disadvantaged potential students than to insure excellence. He indicates further that the crisis in higher education is a result of the deteriorating quality of life, and graduate education must do something to make life m e a n ­ ingful, even tolerable, and have an intrinsic quality. There is a feeling that man should strive to realize his potential in concert with others. Richard L. Predmore feels that science and tech­ nology are responsible for some of the major problems today. 55 Neal, op. cit., p. 143. 56Ibid. 57 Benezet, op. cit., pp. 151-58. 48 Today's problems require moral and humanistic approaches, assessments, and decisions. In order to prepare the graduate student for the world, instead of mechanical changes in degree r e q u i r e me nt s, basic changes in the purpose of the doctorate must be c o n s i d e r e d . 5 8 Harrington 59 is of the view that increasing costs, rising enrollments, and knowledge explosion are responsible for increasing uncertainty and disillusion­ ment. He suggests that first the graduate experience must relate to important affairs in the world of thought and action. Second, the graduate experience should pr e­ pare the student for the prospective profession, as well as inculcate the techniques of the disciplines in him. Third, the graduate school must be perceived as an integral part of the university; and fourth, the graduate faculty must rejoin the university community. Fifth, the university and the graduate school must have a changed world in which poverty and opulence stand together with need of personal security from threats of atomic warfare and poisoned world of hatred and despair. 58 Richard L. Predmore, "Graduate Education Visa-vis the World It Helped to Create," in Whaley, e d . , op. c i t . , p. 173. 59 Fred Harvey Harrington, "Improvement in the Quality of Life," in Whaley, e d . , op. cit., pp. 161-65. 49 Harvey Brooks**** and Howard R. Bowen***" both emphasize the success of graduate education but also identify the complex problems due to the unresponsiveness of government to provide adequate financial assistance to meet local needs and maintain "the purposeful development of a number of very highly specialized 'centers of e x c e l l e n c e 1." 62 Brooks maintains that there are limits to the resources that can be put into the higher levels of education and that they should not be diffused to places where, for one reason or another, success is not likely. Bowen 63 calls attention to the fact that the growing financial needs of education have tended to compromise the development of undergraduate education from which quality participants in graduate education must come. Both ask for new types of programs to address themselves to the contemporary problems in society. f)0 Harvey Brooks, "Thoughts on Graduate Education," in Whaley, e d . , op. cit., pp. 91-108. r1 Howard R. Bowen, Whaley, e d . , op. c i t . , pp. 62 "Stresses and Strains, 111-21. Brooks, op. cit., p. 99. 63 Bowen, op. cit., pp. 111-21. in 50 Alan F. Shaw 64 blames the forces and attitudes outside the universities for the problems of graduate education. He criticizes the American educational institutions for a work ethic which does not distin­ guish between intellectual work and just being busy, for a "competitive attitude" which destroys the patience, detachment, thought. and concentration indispensable for creative Gordon N. Ray 65 makes a case for a return to "disinterestedness" on the part of the intellectual com­ munity. He blames the current trend of politicizing of university campuses which is, he says, a potentially destructive way of public support to intellectual activity. Frederick W. Ness 66 showed concern for the failure of graduate schools to give adequate professional training, especially in the area of teaching. Ness 67 suggests a new graduate school, which exposes the student to high quality teachers rather than researchers. f i A in Whaley, Barnaby Alan F. Shaw, "In Search of Higher Education," e d . , op. cit., pp. 51-64. 65 Gordon N. Ray, "The Idea of Disinterestedness in the University," in Whaley, e d . , op. cit., pp. 67-81. Frederick W. Ness, "A Case of Vertical Tensions," in Whaley, e d . , op. cit., pp. 179-90. 67t, . Ibid. 51 Keeney 68 also holds the view that the Ph.D. in the humanities involves research, while these graduates do not end up being publishing scholars. What is needed is an emphasis on teaching. Howard R. Bowen 69 says there are two reasons for concern about the quality of graduate education. First, "the growth in numbers of students is exacting a heavy toll in impaired quality, especially at the master's level— but to some extent at the doctor's level as well." The second reason for concern about quality is the recent proliferation of graduate study. The result has been the establishment of many programs of questionable quality and increased competition for resources to support graduate study. . . . There is a need for national planning, because graduate study is a national, not local, e nt er p r i s e . The debate of issues and problems is exhaustive and indecisive, but the question is not a matter of unmixed blessings. Part 3 Review of the Role of the Dean of the College in Literature Since organization is in general decentralized in complex institutions, the deans and chairmen are CQ Barnaby Keeney, "The Ph.D. in the Humanities," in Whaley, e d . , op. cit., pp. 193-98. 69 Bowen, op. cit., p. 117. 70T, Ibid. 52 substantially democratic in administration. Both are in strategic positions to administer and facilitate. The role of the graduate dean has been examined in literature and identified in terms of his functions and responsibilities towards graduate education. The roles of the deans of. colleges and chairpersons have mainly been examined in person and style and job analysis. However, being in charge of graduate and under­ graduate education both, their role in graduate education has not been typically a separate subject of study in literature or research. There has been one major factor where the literary critics and researchers have all been concerned, i.e., the role of the dean and chairperson towards the improvement and development of the school or college where the major functions are instruction, research, and service. An appropriate definition of the role of the administrator within this scope is the definition of Monroe Deutsch. dean," he says, "The main function of the "should be to strengthen the academic work of his school or college, find its weaknesses and seek to remove them, and take note of the best teachers and scholars and give them help and encouragement." 71 He says nothing about the obligation to his students but that is presumably there. 7] Monroe E. Deutsch, The College from Within (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952), p. 53. 53 Woodburn's definition of the role of the dean is a consummation, "Deans are expected to have estab­ lished visions and to exercise discriminating judgment. These ideas and judgments are expected to be coordinated with faculty views and not exercised arbitrarily." 72 It is within this area that the roles of the deans and chairpersons are reviewed in literature as well as in research studies. The span of time that is covered for review is the period following the Russian satellite in 1957. This event launched a period of advancement in research, fessional education. science, Generally, technology, and p r o ­ in this period authority in American colleges and university administration has been decentralized in academic functions and is shared by faculty and administration. During this twenty-year period in particular, there has been rapid growth in college and university enrollments and subject-matter specialization. The deans and department chairpersons are, in spite of the lengthening shadow of administrative details, concerned with the health of the academics of the college. The controversies of the sixties that the faculty wanted to involve themselves in administration 72 Lloyd S . W o o d b u r n e , Principles of College and University Administration (Stanford: Stanford University P ress, 1958), p. 35^ 54 and that the administrators, just to "lay cornerstones, like the presidents, have greet visitors to the campus, raise money" have been resolved by the realization that academic administrators have some concern with the major business of the university, which is teaching and research.^ The dean who inherited from the president a multitude of academic functions at Harvard in 1870 has in the course of time presented an interesting case of "role study" students. for the literary critics as well as research McGrath was one of the earliest literary critics to notice the change in the role of the dean. Deans who had in general scholarly interests and repu­ tation, he said, and had continued to teach after becoming administrators were, in the post-war years, intellectual leaders." "ceasing to be 74 Dupont in 1956 also regretted that the deans were more and more becoming what McGrath had called "academic handymen" and giving up their educational responsibilities. "The natural function of the dean is to keep abreast of 73 Francis H. Horn, "The Dean and the President," Liberal Education 50 (December 1964): 463-76. ^ E a r l J. McGrath, "The Office of the Academic D e a n ," The Administration of Higher Institutions under Changing Conditions^ ed". Norman B u r n s , Proceedings of the Institute for Administrative Officers of Higher Insti­ tutions, Vol. 19 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947), p. 41. 55 educational development so that he may be in a position to evaluate his own institution." 75 Mayhew in 1957 likewise deplored the disappearing educational convictions of the deans as their roles became more and more administrative oriented with increasing centralization of authority in their hands. Corson in 1960 said, 76 "As the institution grows larger, the responsibility of educational leadership devolves on the dean." 77 Gould's survey of the deans in the last thirty years prior to his study in 1962 also showed that admin­ istrative pressures, chores, and activities compelled scholarly people to quit deanship or made others less responsive to the ends and means of education. "Fifty-seven percent of the academic deans believe that increasing numbers of administrative chores are drawing scholarly people out of the deanship . . . or it is more likely that the administrative chores are Gerald E. Dupont, "The Dean and His Office," in The Academic Deanship in American Colleges and Universi­ ties , ed. Arthur J. Dibden (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968), p. 15. 7 ft Lewis B. Mayhew, "Shared Responsibility of the President and the Dean," The North Central Association Quarterly 32 (October 1957): 186-92. 77 Corson, op. cit., p. 78. 56 driving scholarship out of the dean." 78 Gould's study of 163 deans concluded with an assessment note on the role, signifying the dean's concern for the faculty. "The academic dean has moved from almost sole concern with students, through a phase when students and the curriculum were his largest responsibilities, to a period when curriculum and faculty demanded the greatest part of his energies, and finally to a place where his major concern is the faculty alone." 79 The increase in faculty power, it is apparent, was noticeable in the changing role of the dean. His participation in administrative details and concern for faculty development had become a factor of overall interest by the sixties. In his foreword to Gould's survey, McGrath made his observations (1964) on the preoccupation of the dean with administrative details and the dean's changing role. He urged "that unless the dean freed himself from the routine chores of the office . . . there would be little opportunity for thoughtful and vigorous educational statesmanship," 80 in the future. 78 John W. Gould, The Academic Deanship (Columbia University: Bureau of Publications Teachers College, 1964), p. 98. 79 80 p. ix. I b i d . , p. 10. Earl J. McGrath, foreword in Gould, op. c i t . , 57 Most writers on the deanship until the sixties, it is apparent, have viewed the dean as the educational leader of the college. However, as the routine adminis­ trative duties took more of the dean's time and as enrollments and specialization increased, these nonacademic responsibilities tended to dissipate the leadership promise of deans in academic functions. Democracy and decentralization of academic functions were established facts by the sixties. Academic administration is a legislative process, said Cleveland in 1960, and the dean is "at best a majority leader, although at times he may have to settle for acting as leader of a minority." 81 "The faculty considers a dean not intelligent enough to be a professor and too intelligent to be a college president." 82 Cleveland states: The dean is in the midst of people who decide their own direction of scholarship and the confrontation of teaching load. He is a leader in search of consensus amidst a legislature whose aristocracy of tenured faculty manages the elective committees, new appointments, promotion and curriculum. . . . In this world, the term faculty democracy implies a system of voting by majority r u l e . 83 81 Harlan Cleveland, "The Dean's Dilemma: ship of Equals," in Dibden, op. c i t . , p. 233. 82Ibid. Leader­ 83Ibid., p. 238. 58 "The function of the dean in such a situation is the deferential manipulation of an essentially legislative process. ,,84 Cleveland considers the role of the dean as middle management in the academic world. As a middle manager he works with the president and the faculty. In his relations with the president or central adminis­ tration, he argues for the faculty. His position with the faculty is directly proportional to his ability to lay his hand on additional resources that are divertible to faculty purposes, travel opportunities, salary increases, research grants, consulting jobs, summer workshops, and the like. The dean in this complex situation can survive, says Cleveland, if his premium is on "casual informality rather than rigid structure," and Cleveland goes on to quote, "if his thoughts are penetrating and his way fluid, while his plans are marvelously clever— he is a strategist." 85 "Few deans are penetrating thinkers and even fewer are marvelously clever, but we all apprehend by instinct that fluid drive is the central principle of academic institutions." 84Ibid. 88I b i d . , p. 240. 86 85I b i d . , pp. 239-40. 59 "Whatever be the complexities of his office, the dean primarily," said Koch in 1962, in interaction with others." dean's position, 87 in his opinion, "is a personality The predicament of the is that the dean in order to establish orderliness and stability in his affairs, has to operate within a system of rules and regulations. It is against this background that the dean plays his role. In the same article Koch suggests three roles of the dean to examine his image in human relations: 1. In his authoritative role the dean uses his office as a disciplinary device if and when he is so minded. This image of the dean has not died out in the last quarter of the century, says Koch; it fits a few of the deans today while most of them wear it with intuitive wisdom. 2. In the role of the appellate judge, the dean sits in judgment of the equities. However, in this role, not only are the appellants on trial, so to speak, but so is he. His role thus is delicate since he has to keep his own image from blurring and thus cultivate agreement by mutual discussion and assent. o7 Harlan C. Koch, "And So You Are a Dean," The North Central Association Quarterly 36 (Winter 1962): 248. 60 3. The third role of the dean considered by Koch is as chief architect and interpreter of an educational philosophy. This role, says Koch, is the most important role of the dean. As an interpreter he occupies a strategic position. He "integrates and coordinates the various disci­ plines under a basic philosophy of education and does so without violence to the legitimate uniqueness of each of them." 88 As an architect, the dean alone provides leadership to the relative values of the humanities and the sciences. Francis H. Horn 89 in his article published m 1964 regarded the dean as the middleman whose role is determined by his participation in the policy matters of the institution. In a liberal arts college, the president is the academic leader and the dean acts as his chief assistant. But in a big institution, the dean is the educational rather than the academic leader and, in such cases, the dean is an administrator. The main function of the dean is to strengthen the work of his college or school. 8 8 89 , . - Quoting Woodburne, O C T I b i d . , p. 251. Horn, op. cit., pp. 463-76. 61 Horn says, "Deans are expected to have educational vision and to exercise discriminating judgment." 90 The dean works in three areas according to Horn. They all have a bearing on education. riculum, Regarding cur­ the dean usually does not play his role and the president has to act as a "brake." sonnel matters are concerned, As far as pe r­ the dean is the one solely responsible for making appointments. The dean must see the budget for his college, as the president sees it for the whole college. He must learn to say "no" on occasions. An open door policy must be maintained to estab­ lish good relations with students. In matters of program development, "unless deans exert positive direction and effective screening of proposals, the program of the institution becomes segmented," 91 says Horn. The dean has, his scholarly role. like the president, receded from The duties that he performs are "antithetical to the scholarly life," said DeVane in 1964. "His life is harder, more continually demanding, and full of constant crises." 92 His chief role is to look to the welfare and health of the college. 9 0I b i d . , p. 468. 92 91I b i d . , p. 473. William C. DeVane, "The Role of the Dean of the College," in Dibden, op. c i t . , p. 248. 62 DeVane discusses this role of the dean in three areas: (1) Relation to the faculty; (2) Policy regarding curriculum; and (3) Students. In his relations with the faculty the dean cannot delegate. Here the dean's personal characteristics and knowledge of the academic world are invaluable. In recruiting faculty the qualities most valuable to him are "knowledge, intuition and sometimes persuasion." 93 The prime quality required in the dean regarding his relationships with the faculty is "understanding," says DeVane. He must understand with sympathy and yet with firmness the individual in the faculty and in understanding and helping the individual the dean must always keep the good of the situation in mind his own affections toward him. faculty, says DeVane, 94 and not In dealing with the it is frequently better to be admired than loved. The dean's role regarding curriculum in this area is dependent on his policy. He must hold his leadership by "persuasion and votes," says DeVane. area in principle is assigned to the faculty. In the making and control of the curriculum, the special Q Ibid., p. 245. 94 The Ibid., p. 246. 63 qualities the dean must exercise, to me to be three: suasi on ." says DeVane, imagination, restraint, "seem and per- 95 The third area of importance in the dean's role is the relationship with the students. This area is usually delegated to associate or assistant deans, but the deans must exercise tact and judgment as discipline and standards are applied and rewards and penalties are made. Howard Troyer in 1964 explored the role of the dean in the light of his philosophy of education which is according to him, "discovery of truth. The essentials of a dean's office are, as I see them," he said, "a sound educational philosophy and a clear definition of function." cern, 96 This is because the dean's primary con­ "is not any single course or department, but rather the educational program of the entire college." 97 He goes on to suggest that the function of the dean's office is bringing together the best faculty he can secure and the ablest students seeking admission and then to leave them alone as much as possible. ^ I b i d . , p. 248. 96 Howard Troyer, "The Faith of a Dean," Liberal Education 50 (March 1964): 50. 97 Ibid. 64 In securing the best faculty, thing more than finance is involved. says Troyer, some­ It involves genuine intellectual competence, measured not only by their scholastic record and degrees, but also by their plans for subsequent study and research. It also includes liking for teaching at the undergraduate level, and an interest in discipline other than the one in which he specializes. The liking for other disciplines is ultimately helpful to the student in providing him with broader perspectives and an excellent education. In other words, there should be proliferation of courses. Interdepart­ mental courses will not only help in the growth of the student but also in the growth of the department. The teacher's mission is "to help every young person in his care grow into the broadest, deepest, most vital person possible," 98 and the dean's function is to establish this faith in the discovery of truth. In other words, it is his role to help the students have devotion and integrity and discover the truth through learning. According to Victor E. Hanzeli, ideal 'creature' "The dean is the to assume educational leadership in 9 8t, . , c Ibid., p. 57. 65 'the scheme of things.' His office is situated in the heart of the academic m ic ro co sm ." 99 In 1966 Hanzeli developed this argument by posing a triadic model of academic leadership— president, dean, chairman. In this model, the president is the uni ­ versity's representative to the outside world, the chairman represents the faculty in a particular disci­ pline, the dean constitutes the middle position. While the president looks to the university as a whole, the chairman has his loyalty to the department. The dean alone is the academic administrator whose constituency is almost entirely the institution. "His market consists of his faculty qua teachers and his students qua learners." that the deans' In spite of the fact concerns have shifted from students— to students and curriculum— to faculty and curriculum and finally to faculty, yet with his unique intra-institutional commitment, the dean could shape the educational program of his institution if he chose to do so." 100 At the heart of educational activity of an institution of higher learning, says Hanzeli, program of its liberal arts college. 99 is the There are several Victor H. Hanzeli, "The Educational Leadership of the Academic Dean," Journal of Higher Education 37 (November 1966): 421. 100 T , . , I b i d . , p. 424. 66 pressures on the program like increasing ratio of stu­ dents, decreasing quality of teaching staff, grant hopping, publish or perish requirement, and in all such areas, the dean is best qualified to make judgments. He knows through the president what material resources he can count on. He knows the distinguished teachers, student population, and student life receive his attention. Thus, he is in a position to make judgments and infuse vitality. In order to infuse life, the dean has to be the educational leader. The dean has to carry out the policies of the president and is checked by the chairperson. For effective leadership, the president should delegate substantial authority to the dean in four areas of personnel policy— appointments, promotions, tenure, research assistance. Besides his real power should be the power of knowledge: the knowledge about the state of his insti­ tution, and knowledge of higher education in g e n e r a l , so that he can lead the institution. In 1968, Dennis O'Brien 102 remarked that there is disintegration in the university. students, All groups, the the faculty, and the president defend their 101 10 2 I b i d . , p. 425. Dennis O'Brien, "D the Dean," Journal of Higher Education 37 (January 1966). 67 own points of view. The students want power, the faculty are busy in research, and the president cannot do much to re-establish harmony between faculty and students. The students, however, can only be satisfied by being offered a broad curriculum, to study and be taught not by dedicated "teachers" but dedicated "educators." this, the only person who can help is the dean. In He says: If liberal education is to continue, he (the dean) must be recognized as playing a positive edu­ cational role. It is from the administration that one can generate and maintain continuous dialogue about the aims of education. [What we need] is a sort of intellectual balance of power in the university, whereby the central adminis­ tration can act as a countervailing intellectual force against the fragmentation of the special d e p a r t m e n t s .103 Arliss D. Roaden remarked in 1970 that in business organizations middle managers have been agents for con­ trolling rather than planning, the practice in higher education has been somewhat different. Deans usually have been selected on the basis of their scholarly achievements. The task in higher education with a trend toward decentralization of authority is for deans to assume control responsi­ bilities as well as to give academic leadership.104 Roaden regards three categories of functions for the college dean: (1) giving academic leadership, 103 I b i d . , p. 37. 104 Arliss D. Roaden, "The College Deanship: A N ew Middle Management in Higher Education," Theory into Practice 9 (October 1970): 273. 68 (2) managing control of activities that have been del e­ gated to him, (3) functioning as a member of the uni­ versity policy-making body. In the area of academic leadership the dean is required to have a comprehensive knowledge of the disci­ plines under his purview. He should be a "serious and continuous student of the ends and means of higher education in a rapidly changing social order." 105 As higher education is called on to deliver knowledge for solving problems, interdisciplinary efforts are required and the dean, thus, should provide skillful and insight­ ful leadership. In the area of control, the dean should have responsibility and courage to advocate considered views on the programs and purposes, rather than simply perform routine duties. In the third category of policy-making, the deans should be delegated authority; they should make inputs and also keep their scholarly interests alive to provide intellectual leadership to the institution. "The activity that normally suffers when time pressure becomes severe are the dean's scholarly pur­ suits— when that h a p p e n s , he has lost his lease on academic leadership and the institution becomes one 105 Ibid., p. 274. 69 where everyone is harassed trying to hold it together, but the sense of mission has been forfeited." 106 In 1972 Bill D. Feltner and David R. Goodsell 107 dealt in their article with the conflict in the realms of academics which tends to occur in three areas— dis­ agreement within the administration, disagreements between faculty and administration, faculty. and disagreements within the The dean cannot do much in the first area, but in the last two areas the dean has the greatest responsi­ bility and opportunity to manage conflict situations. For many years, conflicts were either ignored by compromise or resolved by going back to policy manuals. The decade of the 1960s gave a lesson to adminis­ trators that conflict sometimes leads to change and that change is a process of education. Feltner and Goodsell emphasize that (1) academic deans must recognize institutions of higher education as changing organizations and must embrace change as funda­ mental to vital quality education; accompanied by conflict; (2) change is often (3) deans must recognize their role as academic leaders and not faculty servants; (4) as academic leader, the dean must view management of 106 I b i d . , p. 276. 107 Bill D. Feltner and David R. Goodsell, "The Academic Dean and Conflict Management," Journal of Higher Education 62 (1972): 692-701. 70 conflict through confrontation in whi ch both sides have a chance to win. The dean in their opinion can be the academic leader if he plays one of the three roles— initiator, defendent, or conciliator. As an initiator of change the dean can be the academic leader by initiating changes in areas like curriculum revisions, instructional innovation, admin­ istrative policies, and change in individual behavior. He should be prepared to abandon or postpone initiative if failure seems likely; for he can serve as a catalyst for innovation, yet he should have a complete plan of op er a t i o n . In areas like curriculum reform, selection of faculty m e m b e r s , budget a p p r o p r i a t i o n s , the dean may have to play the role of a defendant. the dean should (a) regard conflict initiated by others an opportunity, not an annoyance; read the attack; In such cases, (b) he must quickly (c) he must plan for contingencies and must keep alternate paths open for response; should be able to identify facts; and (d) he (e) he must be ready to admit when wrong. In conflicts within the faculty and in studentfaculty conflicts, the dean in his role as conciliator should instill in all members a greater sense of selffulfillment and stronger commitment to the college. 71 "Conflict which generates new data and better approaches through study and debate can produce a healthy organi­ zational climate and a more effective teaching-learning 4. environment. H 1 0 8 Conclusive Remarks The review of the literature shows that prior to 1960 the role of the dean appeared to be primarily that of an educational leader who was increasingly being involved in administrative duties. As the academic functions of deanship expanded and came to be shared between administration and faculty, the dean remained an educational leader devoted to faculty development and p a rt i c i p a t i o n . The role of the dean after the '60s has changed from that of an educational leader to include being a status member of a team participation in the educational leadership enterprise of promoting the best interests of the college or school. A review of the literature of the period suggests that the ambiguity of the dean's position is best under­ stood if his line and staff positions are considered inseparable. The academic deanship of a college or school is a pivotal position and the effectiveness of a dean's role is commensurate with his strength and ability ■^^Ibid. , p. 701. 72 to carry with him the constituents including the faculty, the students, the public, and the president and, like­ wise, in carrying out his commitments to an organized institution. The variety of American institutions of higher education is proverbial, and there is apparently no one model of deanship to fit them all. There is no single correct performance or style of deanship to fit the educational philosophy of promoting the best interests of the college or school; each will depend on the chang­ ing trends in contemporary society and the needs of the college or school and the dean's perspective to perceive his role in the college in the total educational estab­ lishment of the university. The role of the dean is to understand the situation and apply as needed the strategy of "fluidity" or skill in human relationships, demon­ strate his power over the budget, use personal influence through imagination, persuasion, or maintain intellectual restraint in a situation and manage control of a drifting academic affair. He may do all this or less, relative to the major concern of the university which is teaching, research, and service. Review of the Role of the Dean in Research Studies The role of the dean has been examined in a considerable number of research studies. Wardell D. 73 Thompson 109 investigated in 1960 the functions and responsibilities of the academic dean in twelve colleges located in North, East, South, and Central Texas. The interview technique was used to get the results. The findings showed that the functions of the academic deans varied according to the administrative structure of the institution. Deans of church-related institutions had more administrative control over their faculties than did deans of state-supported colleges. Administration was more centralized in church-related colleges and more decentralized in state-supported col­ leges . The study identified and described four types of deans: the goodfellow type, the exalted office clerk, the great white father, leader. and the professional educational The study recommended that administrative leadership and skills, as well as academic proficiency and accomplishment, should be the criteria of selection of a dean. John Wesley Gould"*"^ conducted his study on the leadership functions of the academic deans of liberal 109 Wardell D. Thompson, "An Analysis of the Fu nc ­ tions and Responsibilities of the Academic Dean of Selected Colleges and Universities in Texas" (Ed.D. dis ­ sertation, Cornell University, 1960). 110 John Wesley Gould, "The Leadership Function of the Academic Dean as Viewed by the Dean" (Ph.D. d is­ sertation, Columbia University, 1962). 74 arts colleges in 1962. A questionnaire was mailed to 268 deans in forty-nine states. The returns from 163 deans were then combined with interview findings. The study showed that the academic dean regards his leadership function to be the encouragement and stimu­ lation of the faculty to perform at the highest level of which it is capable in the pursuit of educational objec­ tives set by it. The dean regards himself not so much as a leader but rather as a catalyst. conferred upon by his colleagues' His authority is acceptance of him, and the measure of his success is related to the extent to which he can persuade the faculty to espouse his ideas and regard them as being essentially what they themselves wanted anyway. Further, the deans spend much of their time in administrative and routine matters which prevents them from maintaining their reputation as scholars. The greatest demands upon their time and skill are made by faculty consultation, work, budget work faculty recruitment, curriculum (including the evaluation of the teach­ ing s t a f f ) , committee work, routine chores, and student counseling. The deans in this study reported their satis­ faction as coming from academic standards, capable faculty, improvement of curriculum, and participating in shaping the educational enterprise. The dean's 75 performance is limited by the power and interests of the president and the competency of the chairmen upon w h o m he depends for evaluation of the staff and assis­ tance in identifying new prospects outside. In 1963 Edward E. D i B e l l a ^ 1 investigated the selection, the role, and the relationships of the graduate professional school dean. Data were supplied by sixty-seven deans in eighteen different professions. However, 70 percent of the responses came from deans of business, law, and social work graduate professional schools. The study showed that 4 8 percent of the deans were appointed from their nonprofessional schools— 52 pe r­ cent from outside. All deans had teaching experience in a professional school. The selection process lasted, on the average, a little less than eight months. The deans saw themselves primarily as adminis­ trators, and after listing other functions, teachers. they were Heading the list of functions were budget preparation and public relations. Most of the deans seemed burdened with responsi­ bilities not entirely in keeping with the roles of edu­ cational administrators and professional leaders. Edward E. DiBella, "The Graduate Professional Dea n— Selection, Role, and Relationships" (Ph.D. dis­ sertation, The Catholic University of America, 1963). 76 The major purpose of the study of the academic deanship in selected small liberal arts colleges by Jerry Lynn Walke 112 in 1966 was to discover the nature of the deanship in these colleges and their levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. A survey instrument was sent out to seventy-five liberal arts colleges. Seventy-three of the seventy-five deans responded. Among the many satisfactions of the deanship, as listed by the deans, were curricular revision, relation­ ships of various kinds with faculty and president, and shaping the pattern of their institutions. Some deans expressed disappointments (a) in not having enough time for personal life, academic pursuits, and personal creativity and with faculty and president. (53.4 percent) (b) frequent poor relations However, thirty-nine deans listed "no disappointments." Vincent Anthony Guarna in 1969 113 investigated the community college instructional dean's role. A questionnaire was developed consisting of seventy-three duties. The instructional deans rated the following 112 Jerry Lynn Walke, "A Study of the Academic Deanship in Selected Small Liberal Arts Colleges, with an Emphasis upon Actual and Ideal Duties and Responsi­ bilities as Perceived by the Dean" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1966). 113 Vincent A. Guarna, "Analysis of Duties of Com­ munity College Instructional Deans" (Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1969). 77 duties, listed in order of importance: coordinating and supervising departments and/or division of instruc­ tion; formulating educational policy; administering academic policies; interpreting and recommending or approv­ ing promotions, demotions, or dismissals of faculty members; recommending selection; assignment and salary of faculty; and providing for faculty participation in curriculum-making. In 1970 Sister Elizabeth Ann Schneider 114 examined the expectations and perceptions of the presidents, deans, and department chairmen regarding the functions of the academic dean. The study was conducted in the forty-seven private liberal arts colleges in the North Central Association with enroll­ ments above five hundred. The three groups described the academic dean as an academic leader. There are no job descriptions for the deans and this often is the cause of conflict. The study showed that the average stay of the academic dean is longer than that of the president or the chairman, but his tenure is the shortest in the current position. 114 Sister Elizabeth Ann Schneider, "A Study of the Differences in the Expectations and Perceptions of Presidents, Deans, and Department Chairmen of the Functions of the Academic Dean in Private Liberal Arts Colleges in the North Central Association" (Ph.D. dis ­ sertation, Southern Illinois University, 1970). 78 Alphonse Rene Lewis 115 examined in 1971 the role of the deans in American medical colleges. Data were gathered through a questionnaire known as "Survey Response Instrument." The instrument was mailed to 101 deans. The basic duties and responsibilities of deans in medical colleges were found to be: and morale, budget preparation, faculty relations and fund raising. A major portion of the dean's time is spent making reports to foundations and the government. Dean's would like to spend more time in informal talks with students and reflecting on their obligations. The majority of deans served on the president's administrative council and were responsible for policy­ making within the confines of the medical school. How­ ever, the major disappointment of the deanship was faculty distrust. Most deans believed that adminis­ trative pressure caused individuals to leave the medical deanship. In 19 72 Bruce Leonard Paulson 116 made an investi­ gation of the activities of the dean of instruction of selected community colleges in California. 115 Alphonse Rene Lewis, "A Study of the Deanship in American Medical Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1971). 116 Bruce Leonard Paulson, "An Investigation of the Activities to Improve Instruction by the Dean of Instruction 79 The deans of instruction reported sixty-seven effective activities and twenty-four ineffective activ­ ities. The effective activities were most often clas­ sified in the general areas of administrative style (27 p e r c e n t ) , directive actions (24 p e r c e n t ) , and p e r ­ sonnel practices Ineffective activities (24 p e r c e n t ) . were often classified in the general areas of involve­ ment of faculty (33 percent) and personnel practices (30 p e r c e n t ) . Paulson found that significant instructional activities provided inspirational leadership and established close working relationships with the faculty. In a study of the leader behavior of academic deans in the public and private four-year colleges of West Virginia in 1973, Melvin Douglas Call 117 devised a questionnaire which was responded to by 12 presidents, 13 academic deans, 43 division chairmen, and 119 department chairmen. The data from the questionnaire indicated that the most important experiences in preparation for the academic deanship were experience as a college teacher and administration experience prior to the academic deanship. in Selected California Community Colleges" (Ed.D. dis­ sertation, University of California, 1972). 117 Melvin Douglas Call, "Role-Expectations, Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Academic Deans" (Ed.D. dissertation, West Virginia University, 1973). 80 The most important responsibilities of the academic dean included curriculum development, ation, and revision. evalu­ The second most important responsi­ bility was recruitment and selection of faculty. The academic dean, the study showed, was hindered in his role by limitations of budget, from faculty, lack of cooperation lack of time, and routine administrative duties. Their confidence and support of the president, good relations with faculty, administrators, and students, their personal qualities, professional reading of the literature on higher education are some of the qualities which help them to perform their responsibilities satis­ factorily. Beatrice Burns Litherland 118 made an exploratory study in 1975 of the deans of home economics in landgrant institutions. functions, The study sought to identify their limitations obstructing effectiveness, qual i­ ties contributing to administrative development. Deans of sixty-two home economics academic units in land grant institutions constitute the population. The questionnaire was the instrument used to obtain the results. The study showed that the functions of the 118 Beatrice Burns Litherland, "Functions of the Deans of Home Economics in Land-Grant Colleges and Uni­ versities with Implications for Administrator Develop­ ment" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1975). 81 deans changed as units grew in size and complexity. Deans of large units with doctoral programs devoted more time to external relations and institutional functions. Deans of smaller units without doctoral programs to students affairs and educational program functions. The perceptions of new and old deans were very much alike. They spent their greatest time on personnel, institutional and financial functions, whereas they would prefer to devote greater time to educational programs, professional leadership and research, and personnel c at eg o r i e s . Limited planning time, excessive work loads, restrictive budgets, and insufficient time to read the literature were identified by a majority as inhibiting their maximum effectiveness. Human relations skills received a strong first place ranking as qualities important for administrative success, followed by drive and managerial a ilities. Managerial skills received precedence over leadership a b i li ti es . Management-by-objectives and accountability data production were identified as issues most likely to require future leadership and expertise. Conclusive Remarks The research studies on the deanship as evident from a review of the last two decades seem to corroborate 82 McConnell's view that so little research has been done in this area that "it is fair to say, in fact, that the field has not been touched." 119 For deans in big institutions including deans of professional schools and principal administrative officers, teaching is the least active activity. major functions of the deans, however, public relations, The include budget, selection of competent faculty, and curriculum development. Deans in decentralized administrations tend to have less control over faculties. The measure of their success depends upon their power of persuasion for a consensus of faculty opinion for their ideas or any change they may like to initiate. Their satisfaction comes from improved quality of education, competent faculty, curriculum revision, confidence and support of president, good relations with faculty, participation in shaping educational goals. Their dissatisfaction is due to little time for academic pursuits, limited planning time, excessive work loads, restrictive budget, little time for pursuing creative work, poor relations with the president or faculty. The deans spend their greatest time on personnel, institutional and financial functions. They prefer to I I Q T. R. McConnell, "Needed Research in College and University Organization," in The Study of Academic Administration, ed. Terry F. Lunsford (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963), p. 113. 83 devote greater time to educational programs, professional leadership, and research. Human relations are an important quality for administrative success. Management by obj ec ­ tives and accountability are current issues for the deans. The deans role in graduate education has not been the subject of investigation so far and it seems the present study may substantiate some of the aspects of this profile and may have some different descriptions. Review of the Role of Chairperson in Literature The role of the department chairman in American higher education has become more significant today than the chairman who first assumed the responsibilities at Harvard University in the early nineteenth century. With decentralization of authority in American colleges and increased enrollment and specialization, the academic power structure of the departments has become partici­ patory involving faculty members in the formulation of institutional policy, especially academic. Department chairmen are in a strategic position to exert their leadership and promote educational interests and devel op ­ ments. policy. "Chairmen can support or undermine institutional They can exert effective leadership in furthering educational developments and innovations. They are able to establish the character of their departments." 12 0 120 Charles H. Heimler, "The College Departmental Chairman," The Educational Record 48 (Spring 1967) : 159. 84 The roles and functions of the departmental chairperson are numerous and varied. in size and strength. different times. They have different problems at The role of the chairperson will accordingly vary with the discipline, department, tution, Departments vary the size of the its curricular importance within the insti­ and the time when he is appointed. "That is to say, there is a right man for the right time." 121 Lee states: Sometimes a chairman is appointed particularly for his ability to deal with the federal agencies and write grant proposals— in some departments the need is for the department chairman who may not be a prolific scholar but who is an excellent admin­ istrator— his task often is to plan the curricu­ lum— a fourth and very special kind of department chairman is one who is appointed for the purpose of pulling together a divided department. The task of such a department is perhaps the most difficult.122 According to Woodburn, the department chairperson occupies a strategic position. He is the key to the suc­ cessful achievement of the department's primary mission, of teaching and research. Besides, he is the basic administrative component to policy formulation and responsible for general administrative decisions of the department. He states, 121 "Probably 80% of all Calvin B. T. Lee, "Relationship of the Depart­ ment Chairman to the Academic D e a n ," in The Academic Department or Division C h a i r m a n , eds. James Brann and Thomas A. Emmet, Jr. (Detroit, M i c h . : Balamp Publishing, 1972), pp. 54-62. 122 Ibid., p. 56. 85 administrative decisions take place at the departmental level rather than at the higher levels of responsibility and policy formulation." 123 Department chairpersons may wield great influence or authority. They may be powerfully exercising executive control over the department. Others may be democratic and share participation of faculty in formulation of policy or administrative leadership. Corson is of the view that departmental chairpersons in professional schools and colleges "exercise much less influence and authority than their counterparts in liberal arts col­ leges."124 The duties and responsibilities of the chair­ persons vary from department to department and insti­ tution to institution. It is often a laundry list pulled from a number of sources and areas. description has several variations. according to Heimler, (1) 125 (2) developing and revising (3) making the semester schedule; programs; major, minor, 123 Woodburn, (4) developing state teaching credential, M.S., op. c i t . , p. 77. 124 versity pi 8'8. The chairman's job, includes these specific tasks: improving instruction; courses; The job , „ ^ n ■ John J. Corson, Governance of College and Uni­ (New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill Book C o . , I n c . , 1960), 125 Heimler, op. cit., p. 159. 86 general education; (5) recruiting faculty; ation of faculty and staff; mental budget; (9) (6) eva lu ­ (7) preparing the dep ar t­ (8) administering the departmental budget; reviewing and approving student petitions; sitioning textbooks and library materials; ing departmental records; conferences; (10) requi­ (11) maint ai n­ (12) attending meetings and (13) making faculty schedules; (14) respond­ ing to on- and off-campus inquiries regarding college programs and regulations; correspondence; (15) taking care of departmental (16) writing student recommendations for employment and graduate school. A fairly typical illustration of duties expected of a chairperson of a department in a large public uni­ versity in 1 9 7 7 ^ ® includes: (1) The recruitment, assignment, supervision, and evaluation of all personnel within the depart­ ment, both instructional and support, in accordance with the policies of the university, college, and the department; (2) Assistance to school directors in the identifi­ cation and selection of research, development, service, and instructional needs and priorities in terms of school programs and program elements; ioa Michigan State Un iv er s i t y , College of E du­ cation, Report of the Commxttee on Administrator and Graduate Assistant Work Load Formula (May 31, 197 7). 87 (3) The assignment of personnel allocations in accordance with departmental and program needs and in cooperation with school directors and the director of international studies; (4) The development, supervision, and evaluation of all program elements within the department as they relate to the research, development, or instruction programs of the respective schools; (5) Cooperative planning and management of depart­ mental program elements teaching, or service) (research, development, so that they are congruent with the total program context; (6) The cooperative coordination of departmental program elements and activities with other departments and functions of the college; (7) The initiation of new program elements and p r o ­ vision of leadership to personnel within the department for the modification and improvement of existing program elements; (8) The management of all of the logistical affairs of the department including scheduling, assign­ ments, financial affairs, reporting, and such other duties as may be required by the uni­ versity and the college; 88 (9) Student relations within the department and the development of proper procedures for hearing complaints and grievances and for the advisement of students; (10) Membership on the College Administrative Cabinet and such other committees to which they may be appointed; (11) Supervision of such research or service projects that are nonprogrammatic in nature and are totally contained with the departmental unit. Despite these exhaustive details and variations of duties and responsibilities, a department chairman has specific functions including budgeting, staffing, plan­ ning, organizing, teaching and directing or participating in research, according to Edward Doyle. Doyle's findings reported that 69 percent of the chairmen participated directly in budget formulation and in the selection, promotion, and retention of faculty members. 12 7 The Role of the Department Chairperson The role of the department chairperson has been discussed in a number of articles. The perspective has varied. 127 Rev. Edward A. Doyle, The Status and Functions of the Department Chairman (Washington, D . C . : The Catholic University of America Press, 1953). 89 Chairmen are part-time administrators, Heimler in 1967. Teaching, are their main interests. research, said and scholarship About one-fifth to one- quarter of a chairman's time is generally allocated to managing his department. 12 8 Doyle's study similarly disclosed that a major part of the department chairman's time is spent in teaching and scholarly productivity. 129 The chairmen, he said, spent a third of their time with instructional matters and another one-third with advise­ ment and student relations. The responsibilities of the chairmen, opinion, fall into three categories: in Heimler's administration, faculty leadership, and student advising. In relation to administration, he is directly responsible for the operation of his department. The crucial part of a chairman's role is as "faculty leader"— one who "exerts leadership through the power of his ideas." 130 The chairman's leadership is directly related "to his own strength as a professor: his teaching, scholarship and professional reputation." 12 8 Heimler, 129 130 op. cit., p. 159. Doyle, op. cit., p. 35. Heimler, op. cit., p. 159. 13L,., Ibid. 131 90 His effectiveness is related to his ability to work cooperatively with the faculty in developing the department's program. 132 Departmental chairpersons in the author's opinion should be elected by the members of the department or should be appointed after consultation with the members of the department. Heimler's article suggests two considerations. The role of the chairperson is identified with his pro­ fessional discipline and hence with his academic depart­ ment. His relation with administration is managerial. The qualifications for a successful department chairman, he says, are good judgment, courage of con­ victions, control of emotions, independent thought, satisfaction in promoting other's achievements. The ideal chairman, in his view, organizes his work of office very well; has a basic understanding of human skills in counseling, advising, compromise, passion, com­ and democratic processes. The management duties which are sheer adminis­ trative details are the chairman's major handicap to his performance and role as a faculty leader in program development. The appointment of a nonfaculty person as departmental executive would make it possible for the chairman to devote his full time to the improvement 91 of instruction, student counseling, policy formulation, staff relations, and program development. 133 McKeachie in 1968 believed that the chairman should have a "fanatical devotion to high standards." 134 He is of the opinion that teaching is the most important function of the faculty and "one of the important roles of the department chairman is his role as a teacher— a teacher wh o shapes the educational environment of his faculty." 135 The chairman can do this by encouraging all faculty members, including the young staff members, to participate in committees. Some spots he specially reserved for the young staff members. Their partici­ pation, in carrying out says McKeachie, would help departmental decisions, (a) (b) promote a strong commitment to the goals of the department and institution, and (c) strengthen staff morale and practice. Teaching is an important function of the uni­ versity, says McKeachie, but research should not over­ shadow teaching. Research should only be a result of and helpful to teaching. 133 I b i d . , p. 161. 134 Wilbert J. McKeachie, "Memo to New Department Chairmen," The Educational Record 49 (Spring 1968): 222. 135 Ibid., p. 223. 92 The chairman, according to the writer, scholar. is a If he has scholarly habits— the ability to analyze a problem, amass available evidence, and con­ sider the adequacy of several alternative hypotheses— such skills are as relevant and useful in solving the problems of the department as they are in scholarly research. If the chairman can transfer reasonableness from his scholarly field to academic affairs, he can be an effective chairman. However, while making decisions, he has to act like a teacher. fronted with the feelings, perceptions, of persons around him, trators and others. He is con­ and motives faculty and students, adminis­ This important factor should out­ weigh in all his decisions, says McKeachie. Dilley in 196 8 promoted the argument of Heimler and defined the role of the chairman as an "academic leader." He says that although the mantle of leadership has descended upon the chairman, neither the vision of leadership nor its tools are usually provided. The chairman, 136 as academic leader, he says, needs to know about the long-range plans of the university. He should have budgetary information and a measure of budgetary control. 136 There should be a greater Frank B. Dilley, "The Department Chairman as Academic Planner," in-The Academic Department or Division C h a i r m a n , eds. James Brann and Thomas A. Emmett, Jr. (Detroit, Mich.: Balamp Publishers, 1972), pp. 28-36. 93 decentralization of policy-making at the departmental level. Decisions regarding plans should be reached after full discussion. At the same time, the faculty should not be entrenched in their special interests. In all this, the "departmental primacy should be asserted over individual self-interest.” Dilley goes a step further. 137 He is of the opinion that the goals of the department would be more in keeping with the goals of the college or university if such planning of policies is also done in cooperation with other departments. Dilley, The chairman in this new role, says is not only an "academic leader," he is also the chief academic planner and resource allocator. The role of the chairman has obviously shifted to a new perspective with Dilley. The role of the chairman has shifted from the position in which he was primarily "a subject matter specialist to his new status as developer of departmental program and co-partners with other departments in shaping the educational missions of the college and university." 138 In 1968 Mahoney held the view that "systems" are obsolete, and the chairman's role is to avoid the 137 I b i d . , p. 29. ^■■^Ibid. , p. 32. 94 obsolescence of the manag e me nt — and thus adopt an anti-management role. 139 He can do so if he devoids "himself of suf­ ficient strings of power so that what he can accomplish is not hopelessly obliterated by mistakes." decisions should be autocratic. 140 No The chairman needs to form committees or rather let the faculty elect committees— people who do not accept every decision from the management. He needs a team of people who disagree and dissent the decision of management, and it is from here that the chairman gets his strength. However, the chairman should encourage his faculty to devise a consensus which he can support. he can even move the Dean." "With this 141 The chairman can play a very important role if he is well informed and united with the faculty. Mahoney s t a t e s : The chairmen are a ring of faculty people— knowing what they are about, they are the conscience of a school. They are also its blood, its bones, its vitality. Informed, united with their departmental faculties, they are inseparable. Uninformed, fear­ ful and "systems men" they are tools.142 139 John F. Mahoney, "Chairman as Messmaker," in The Academic Department or Division C h a i r m a n , e d s . James Brann and Thomas A. E m m e t t , Jr. (Detroit, M i c h . : Balamp Publishers, 1972), pp. 180-85. 140 Ibid., p. 181. 141 Ibid., p. 182. 95 In 1969, Ahmann said, "The departmental chairman is the man in the middle, and also the man on the firing line." 14 3 In Ahmann's opinion, the chairman should be an administrative activist. This role emerges from his position as an academic administrator the equals) (the first among combined with his capacity of a convenor and coordinator, "entrusted with an all encompassing responsibility for displaying educational leadership." 144 In order to illustrate the chairman's role as an administrative activist, Ahmann examines three situations where the chairman becomes deeply involved in his role. (1) Curriculum and program development; (2) Recruitment and evaluation of faculty; (3) Participation in faculty government. The role of the department chairman as an admin­ istrative activist regarding curriculum and program development is to check duplication of courses, help integration of courses, and, if need be, challenge the faculty to use the course offerings of other departments. Combined with an evaluation of the existing courses, he would need a vigorous vigilance on his part, which will 143 J. S. Ahmann, "The Emerging Role of the Departmental Chairman: Be an Administrative Activist," in The Academic Department or Division C h a i r m a n , e d s . James Brann and Thomas A. Emmett^ J r . (Detroit, M i c h . : Balamp Publishers, 1972), p. 195. 144 Ibid., p. 188. 96 have an economic effect on the departmental budget. "Believe it or not," says Ahmann, "the true cutting edge of budget planning is course and curriculum plan­ ning." Only the activist chairman in his role as administrator will have success here. 145 The chairman's ability to recruit faculty and evaluate their performance is the criterion of an activist administrator. While recruiting new members, he should be well aware of the manpower needs of the department and lay out a detailed job description for the vacancy. With the assistance of faculty, their chairman "searches for suitable candidates with the anticipation of employing the most qualified one." 146 Obviously, Ahmann and Mahoney have a very participatory role for the chairman. The chairman and the faculty must select a person who has the talent and potential to grow and develop in the department in a "mainstream" kind of way. 147 This is possible if the new member's competence in teaching and research interrelates with the goals of the department. Ahmann, 148 like McKeachie, maintains rigorous stan­ dards of performance. During the probationary period there should not be over-generous evaluation. 145 147 I b i d . , p. 192. Ibid. 146 148 If the Ibid. Ibid., p. 193. 97 faculty member does not show evidence of reaching the standards he should not be retained in the department. Evidently Ahmann considers the process of recruitment and performance "as a game of production" 149 and if the new faculty member does not play it well, he should be out of it. In this "arena," says Ahmann, the chairman is the leader of the department, which is an integral unit of faculty government. As chairman he has responsibili­ ties towards faculty government at all levels. He is "the communication interface between his department and all other departments and between his department and all college and university-wide committees; those dealing with curriculum, research." 150 for example, instruction and In this role, the department chairman is the first line of offense in spelling out of the institution and the department. the goals Only a forceful department chairman can have a successful budget pl an ­ ning, curriculum planning, and faculty recruitment.'^'*" The chairman is also the first line of defense and he should assert his position aggressively to the welfare of the department. 149Ibid., p. 194. 151Ibid., p. 195. with respect 150Ibid., pp. 194-95. 98 The activist chairman would serve as a subtle leader who "can conceive and articulate goals that lift people out of their petty preoccupations, a symbol for his department." says Ahmann, and serve as "The activist chairman," "creates a self-fulfilling prophesy. He is not only the key man who solves the equation, but he •4. -152 it." is also a term m Lee suggested in 1970 that the role of the chair­ man is a fine synthesis of the roles of a teacher and a dm in is tr at o r. In his own eyes, he (chairman) is still primarily a teacher who has assumed certain administrative tasks and responsibilities. He has not as it were, "sold out" completely to the other side of becoming a dean. He is both a professor and an a d m i ni st ra to r.153 Although the role of the chairman varies with the discipline, the size of the department, the stage of its growth, yet Lee outlines his role in four areas more specifically: (1) Identification of the needs of the department (2) Personnel considerations (3) The development of curriculum (4) Governance 152 153 Ibid., p. 196. Calvin B. T. Lee, "Relationship of the Depart­ m en t Chairmen to the Academic Dean," in The Academic Department or Division C h a i r m a n , eds. James Brann and Thomas A. Emmett, Jr. (Detroit, Mich.: Balamp Publishers, 1972), p. 56. 99 The chairman as a teacher needs to identify the needs of the department, and as an administrator, he gives priority to the needs and suggests to the dean the strategy of approaching such a goal. The chairman makes the dean "conscious of the value of the discipline to the academic program of the college." 15 4 They would both make an assessment of the discipline regarding long-range planning and expectations of the students and needs of the society. The recruitment of the faculty "is a sure test of the chairman's astuteness, administrative ability and i 55 vision." ' Here once again although as a teacher he takes care of the needs of the department, as an admin­ istrator he has to examine the resources of the depart­ ment and the money which would be spent after the member is granted tenure. With regard to curriculum the department chair­ man has to assert his leadership and "not only must he be able to justify academically the addition or revision of courses, but he must be able to assess the need of such courses within the abilities of his department to i r /■ deliver." Furthermore, the chairman has to prevent proliferation and duplication of courses. 154Ibid., p. 57. ■^^Ibid. , p. 60. If the 155Ibid., p. 59. 100 chairman fails to exert his leadership, the dean has to exercise whatever discretion he has over the budget to ensure that there is no proliferation of courses. Governance is a delicate problem, says Lee. The chairman has to be autocratic sometimes, but this requires that the faculty have confidence in him. "It is evident that the department accepts some limitations to democratic p r o c e d u r e s ." 157 The role of the department chairman, Brann in 1972, nation." 15 8 said James "is entering a period of critical exami- In an era of societal change he is increas­ ingly buffeted by the pressure for academic reform, while the faculty is insecure and resistant to change. The fast-growing drive for faculty collective bargaining, the student demand for relevance, and the administration insistence on cost effectiveness make the chairman uneasy about his role. and research) The work he was trained to do (teaching seems to have little relevance to these societal pressures. He is a person caught in a serious effort to make the institution run. Like the foreman, he is the person who sees that the work gets done. "Despite the ambivalence and the vagueness of the role, ■ ^ ^ I b i d . , p . 62 . 15 8 James Brann, "The Chairman: An Impossible Job About to Become Tougher," in The Academic Department or Division C h a i r m a n , eds. James Brann and Thomas A. E m m e t t , Jr. (Detroit, M i c h . : Balamp Publishers, 1972), p. 27. 101 the department chairman is the person who makes the institution run. He really is the foreman." 159 The problem facing the department chairman, according to Brann, is how to keep the students, the faculty, and the deans happy. Some chairmen accomplish this through faculty committees. Still others make people around them happy by circumventing the regu­ lations of the central administration. For all this what you need as chairman, quotes Brann, is "energy." 160 This is the quality that any selection committee should look for in a chairman. Conclusive Remarks A review of literature shows that the role of the department chairperson has invariably been discussed as a "faculty leader," "a teacher," "academic leader," "academic activist," or "anti-management." man, The chair­ it is generally recognized, has an all-encompassing responsibility for promoting the educational goals of the university, including teaching, research, and development. In order to cope with these functions, the person has substantial control over budgets, schedules, faculty assignments, semester and program planning. In addition, he can exert leadership through his ideas, 160Ibid. 102 professional scholarship and reputation, and skills in the management chores of the department and integrity in decision-making. His effectiveness in academic leadership is related to his ability to work with the faculty in cooperation for developing academic programs and planning. His role, however, could be improved with an assistant to deal with some of these administrative details. The difficulties of the chairperson's role are compounded by increasing societal pressures and insis­ tence on cost effectiveness for optimal output and p r o ­ duction. As a result, the critics seem to argue that his role has been reduced to a foreman manager. Those who defend the system believe that he is an academic leader who affects his management role or his effective­ ness through the faculty. Review of the Role of the Chairperson in Research Studies In 196 3, Hal Reed Ramer X6X examined the depart­ mental procedures and the perceptions of the faculty, the chairmen, and the other administrative officers regarding the role of the chairmen at Ohio State Un i­ versity. *i /" *| Hal Reed Ramer, "Perceptions of University Departments and of the Role of Their Chairmen. A Study of Some Attitudes and Opinions of Selected Professors and Department Chairmen, Deans and Central Administrators of the Ohio State University" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1963). 103 The data were gathered by means of interviews with forty-one selected faculty, chairmen and four pro­ fessors from large departments, leges and the graduate school, the deans of the col­ the university president, and his cabinet officers. The study had some very practical results for the future. The profile of the best qualified chairman showed that he has the elements of academic scholarship and possesses a genuine interest for administration, committed to democratic values and procedures, is is humane and sensitive to the needs of the faculty, has leadership ability to inspire confidence and motivate them to high levels of achievement, is loyal and ethical, enjoys vibrant physical and mental health, is sensitive to the educational needs and personal welfare of students, and rises above the parochial and provincial in his personal and professional commitments. The chairman was criticized for not giving enough attention to departmental planning and long-range develop­ ment, not conducting regular faculty meetings, the faculty did not get enough feedback through him from the dean and central administration, and he is not aggressive enough in communicating departmental needs to upper university officers and does not provide enough supervision or assistance in professional development, 104 has practically no contact with students except in teaching situations. The major recommendations of the study were that the department chairman should play a pivotal role in budgetary policies, college and university policies and programs. Ramer's study is one of the earliest exhaustive studies on the role of the chairman in the department and answers the following questions: 1. Who is an able chairman? 2. What does a chairman do? 3. What does he not do? Some of the suggestions of the study have impor­ tant bearings today and it would be relevant if the study is repeated in one of the large universities again in order to find the answers to the above questions and examine the reliability of Ramer's findings. Robert Clement Davidson 162 conducted a study in the ten colleges of State University of New York in 1967. The purpose of the study was to investigate the adminis­ trative role of the department chairman in public fouryear colleges. 162 Robert Clement Davidson, "The Administrative Role of Department Chairmen in Public Four-Year Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967). 105 The investigator concluded that the principal role of the department chairmen in these colleges had increasingly become administrative. teaching and research. They did some The chairmen spent 32.7 percent of their time in teaching and the balance in adminis­ trative functions. The chairman's administrative role included manifold responsibilities of institutional objectives and programs, college-wide curricula considerations as well as departmental courses and study programs, student advisement, budget and financial responsibili­ ties, supervision, and counseling with faculty. Glenn Burnett Schroeder 16 3 in his study of leadership behavior of chairmen in selected state institutions in 1969 also came to the same conclusions. Deans and chairmen agreed that the chairman's role is becoming more administrative and will become more important in the future. Also, 6 8 percent of the deans and 62 percent of the chairmen believed that chairmen should have administrative training while 70 percent of the deans and 57 percent of the chairmen opposed rotational chairmanships. *16 3 Glen Burnett Schroeder, "Leadership Behavior of Department Chairmen in Selected State Institutions of Higher Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1969) . 106 Robert Abbott Bullen 164 examined the perceptions of the deans, chairmen, and faculty regarding the role of the departmental chairmen at the University of Alabama in 1969. The data were collected through taped structured interviews. The major findings of the study were that the chairman's role was that of a staff recruiter, p er­ sonnel director, curriculum leader, chief liaison officer. coordinator and The chairman's role in faculty- administration conflicts is one of an arbitrator and mediator of disputes. The budget was a restrictive factor in his role and because of this, he could not plan for departmental development. Jebiel Novick 165 in 1970 examined the role of the department chairman in university governance as perceived by the faculty, officers of the central administration, and the chairman himself. Data were collected from two public and two pri ­ vate midwestern universities. A separate questionnaire was developed for each of the three respondents. Robert Abbott Bullen, "A Study of the Per ­ ceptions of Selected Deans, Departmental Chairmen at the University of Alabama" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1969). Jebiel Novick, "The Role of Department Chairmen in University Governance in Large Mid-Western Universities as Perceived by Faculty, Chairmen and Administrators" (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1970). 107 The major findings of the study were that the faculty administrators and the chairmen considered staffing, planning, and organizing as important duties of the chairman. The administrators felt that the chairman's membership on university committees other than budget was not important. The chairmen felt that they are rarely consulted on all-university academic matters by the central administrators, whereas they also con­ sulted their faculty. The chairmen desired to be involved in the admissions policies and academic p r o ­ gramming. It was recommended that the department chairman be considered a resource person who can make meaningful contribution to university governance. Jacob Degania Z u k e r ^ ^ developed a model in 1973 for determining the role perceptions of department chair­ men at a large university in Florida. The role of the chairman was segmented into three parts: departmental associate, and student. administrative, The role was determined by analyzing the characteristics and the amount of influence of each of these segments on the chairman. -i (Z C. Jacob Degania Zucker, "A Model for Determining the Role-Perceptions of Department Chairmen at a Large University" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1973) . 108 The major findings of the study were that the department chairman at the University of Florida saw himself as a powerful administrator. He saw his main tasks as those of recruiting faculty, developing p r o ­ grams, improving instruction, evaluating faculty and staff, and preparing the departmental budget. He dreamed of returning to the world of professor, research and instruction; of yet he seemed satisfied with his current position. The role studies considered above show that the department chairman in the large universities are teachers whose time is increasingly being taken by administrative matters. Chairmen in community colleges are likewise giving more time to administration. Keith S. Turner's 16 7 study in Florida in 19 7 3 showed that the department chairmen in community colleges spent thirty-one hours of their work on administrative work, felt that they were administrators than teachers and they generally (53 percent) (44 percent). John Evan Matthews 16 8 had conducted a similar study in Arizona community colleges in 1969. 1 rather The / • ’i Keith S. Turner, "The Administrative Role of the Department Chairman in Florida Public Community Col­ leges" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Florida State University, 1973). 16 8 John Evan Matthews, "The Role of the Department Chairman in Arizona Community Colleges" (Ph.D. disser­ tation, Arizona State University, 1969). 109 findings had reported that the position of department chairman in community colleges was of a faculty member rather than an administrator. The chairmen in community colleges as well as in large universities it seems have moved more and more in the administrative "hierarchy" in the seventies and are shifting from their primary role as teachers to a larger interest and share in college and university administration. How do deans and faculty members perceive the role of women department chairpersons? S. Young 169 In 1974 Elizabeth . . conducted an opinion survey m universities in the "deep" south. the state The findings showed that older deans and faculty members, married and women respondents, and Ph.D. qualified deans and faculty viewed women chairpersons to be more effective whereas respon­ dents educated primarily in the "deep" south and deans and chairpersons who had taught in higher education viewed the effectiveness of women chairpersons less favorably. The purpose of the study was to inquire into the opinions of deans and faculty members in higher education toward the effectiveness of women department chairpersons. 169 Elizabeth Thompson Young, "A Study of the Opinions of Deans and Faculty Members towards the Effe c ­ tiveness of Women Department Chairmen in Higher E d u ­ cation" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1974). 110 James R. Montgomery 170 investigated the role of the department chairmen in state universities in 1974. The purpose of the study was to identify the major roles which chairmen performed and to determine the degree to which (1) perceived departmental goals, dimensions of job satisfaction, and (2) selected (3) emphasis placed upon various duties of chairmen were related to each of major chairmen roles. A questionnaire of seventy-four items was com­ pleted by 1,19 8 chairmen for thirty-two state universi­ ties. Their responses were analyzed. A review of the pattern of responses showed that there were three primary roles which chairmen perform: academic, administrative, and leadership. The two major duties associated with the chairman's academic role are student activities and graduate research activities. In terms of the time required of these duties, the chairmen reported that they spent one-half of their time teaching, advising, or performing research (about twelve hours per week in "teaching and advising" and eight hours per week in research and professional d evelopment). Chairmen expressed frustration with lack of time for research activities. 170 James R. Montgomery and others, "The Role Analysis of Department Chairmen at State Universities" (Office of Institutional Research, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1974). Ill The administrative role was associated with two types of duties. department: The first involves duties within the maintaining records, budget, managing staff employees, administering the and so on. The second type involves linking the department to other university organizations, primarily central administration. The department chairman is a liaison in the second role of duties. The primary types of duties associated with the leadership role of the chairman are two types. One is the provision of leadership for department faculty. In this role, the chairman functions as a personnel specialist, selecting supporting, developing, motivating faculty members.is program development, and The second type of activity i.e., to help the department obtain a high level of professional excellence. The chairmen liked this role as it provided them the oppor­ tunity to guide the development of the department. The study by way of recommendations suggested more autonomy and resources for the chairman, amount of administrative assistance, a greater and technical m a n ­ agement knowledge regarding their nonacademic role. these suggestions, All it was suggested, would enhance the satisfaction of the chairmen and improve effectiveness of their performance and role. 112 Does the method of selection of the department chairperson affect faculty job satisfaction? Is the job satisfaction of the faculty affected by the contrasting leadership styles of the chairpersons? Earl Melvin Washington 171 in 1975 used the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire to determine whether faculty job satisfaction was affected by the leadership style of the chairperson or his mode of selection. The conclusions of the study showed that faculty job satisfaction is highest in college academic depart­ ments where chairperson's leadership style is high in initiative structure and high in consideration. Secondly, the degree of job satisfaction is higher when faculty are allowed to select their chair­ persons . Floyd Irving Wyrick 172 in 19 72 reported that professors are more satisfied with strong rather than weak departmental leadership. 171 Earl between College as Perceived by faction" (Ph.D. 1975) . 172 However, formalization Melvin Washington, "The Relationship Department Chairperson's Leadership Style Teaching Faculty's Feelings of Job Satis­ dissertation, Western Michigan University, Floyd Irving Wyrick, "The Effect of Depart­ mental Leadership on Faculty Satisfaction and Depart­ mental Effectiveness in a Big Ten University" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Ur ba na -C h a m p a i g n , 1972). 113 and position power were not significant factors in departmental effectiveness. Conclusive Remarks The research studies show that the department chairman's role in community colleges as well as in large universities is increasingly becoming administra­ tive. He does some teaching and a little research. His major duties are staffing, planning, and organizing. In his role as faculty leader, he is a personnel specialist and also helps the faculty to acquire a high type of professional excellence. The department chairman does much to determine the general climate of the department by his partici­ pation and the emphasis he places on teaching, research, and administration and the type of leadership he offers to the faculty and his ability to act as an arbitrator or mediator. The budget is a restrictive factor and prevents him from planning for departmental development. A successful chairperson is sensitive to the academic needs and personal welfare of students and faculty, is committed to democratic values, and inspires scholarship and professional commitments. The research studies obviously do not throw any light on the chairperson's role in graduate education or his problems regarding its development and quality. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES This chapter has six parts. The purpose of the study is presented in the first part. The second part described the construction and development of the instruments— (1) The Role of the Chairperson in Graduate Education; (2) The Role of the Dean of the College in Graduate Education. The population and sample of the study are presented in part three. mailing procedures and returns, data processing, The other parts are: initial steps used in and methods of data analysis. Purpose The prevailing theme of the study is to receive administrative opinion on the growth and quality of graduate education at M.S.U. and assess the contributions of the deans and chairpersons to the strength and we a k ­ nesses of the graduate programs and their suggestions for enrichment and development. The implied support of the study is to determine whether in the opinion of the deans and chairpersons, they feel there is need for 114 115 a change in their roles and what they have to say about their roles regarding graduate education. The study also intends to solicit the views and opinions of deans and chairpersons on a number of issues and problems regarding graduate education. Specifically, the study is designed to examine: (1) The role of dean of college and chairperson in graduate education; (2) Their perceptions of graduate education in their colleges and departments; (3) Alternatives and additions to their roles; (4) Discussion of some related issues raised in open-ended questions. The nature and scope of the study prompted that an instrument was needed which would yield information through consistent classification of data regarding (1) the major aspects of the role of the dean of college and the chairpersons, their earlier experiences basically relevant to their present position, role and position, style of their present assets and limitations of their role; (2) their perceptions of the major areas of graduate education in their colleges and departments; lations about their role and contribution; (3) specu­ (4) a survey opinion of certain issues regarding graduate education. 116 The researcher felt that any questionnaire designed to study the role of administrators should have the following characteristics: 1. It should, in the first place, be a reaction study within the range of administrative exper­ ience and behavior. 2. The reaction and variance in it should be limited to the size of the sample and the time with the administrators to respond to it. 3. The questionnaire should be categorized into specific areas relating to the format of the study. 4. The questionnaire could be in checklist form to study reaction. The study began with a review of literature and research on the roles of the dean and chairpersons and graduate education. Since the study was directed to Michigan State University, literature and research studies on graduate education, research on administra­ tive personnel, and updated information on these factors were perused through presidential reports, recommendations, committee administrative material and other relevant literature from the Provost's office, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs, the Graduate Dean's office, and other available material on higher education 117 at Michigan State. In addition, the reports of the series of interviews of the State News staff writers with the deans of colleges at M.S.U. in November, 1976 also provided useful information on the areas most seriously affected by budget cuts and reduced State A p p r o pr i at io ns .^ An extensive review of the literature and research studies on "Deans," "Chairpersons," and "Graduate Education" showed that most of them were general analyses of the respective roles in a "laundry list" of duties and responsibilities. The role studies had not been examined with reference to graduate e d u ­ cation. The studies on "graduate education" were also not related to administrative behavior or functions of the deans and chairpersons. The review indicated that while there had been a few studies conducted on the role of the graduate dean, there had been no study on the role of the deans of colleges and chairpersons regarding graduate education. Also, no study was found which related to issues in graduate education. There were no studies regarding the assessment of graduate education or expectations and perceptions of graduate education in the colleges and departments, its strengths and weaknesses, and ''"The interviews were reported in the State N e w s , November, 19 76. 118 suggestions for relative change and improvement in the roles of deans and chairpersons. There was, therefore, no existing instrument in the research or literature to serve the purpose of this study. Two instruments, "The Role of the Dean in Graduate Education" and "The Role of the Chairperson in Graduate Education," were, there­ fore, constructed to obtain data for the study. Construction of the Instrument In the course of the study, the researcher came across two questionnaires which provided some useful information for the background of this study. The questionnaires were "Faculty Satisfaction and Dissatisfactions" by John Dale Russell 2 and "The Role and Bac k ­ ground of Graduate Deans in American Colleges" by Gary Harlan Roseman. 3 Russell administered his questionnaire to 580 faculty members of the New York University in 1959. Russell's questionnaire was long, consisting of fifteen pages of items, in checklist form, to which faculty reaction was sought to conditions affecting them at the University. Roseman's questionnaire was 2 Received through the good offices of John Dale Russell from Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri. 3 Gary Harlan Roseman, "The Role and Background of Graduate Deans in American Colleges and Universities" (Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Mississippi, 1972). 119 responded to by 188 Graduate Deans in 1971. His study was an analysis of the role of the graduate dean. In general, the findings tended to corroborate the ambiguity of his position. Russell's questionnaire and Roseman's study provided useful information on the academic and nonacademic areas in an institution, but the two question­ naires could not be adapted for the purpose of the presefFE-FEudy. The researcher felt there was need of updating information on the activities and performances of the administrative officers regarding graduate edu­ cation and research. The researcher, therefore, sequent to the readings and the studies, sub­ referred to above discussed and talked to several administrative officers and faculty members on campus, her major advisor, and the committee members. The interviews and discussions related to the duties and activities of the dean of the college and department chairpersons, their problems and concerns regarding graduate programs on campus, influences relative to the areas in graduate education, changes and innovations required for enrich­ ment of graduate programs and quality education and research, resources for development, organization, organization. administrative pressures and role conflicts in graduate 120 The information from all these sources was col­ lated into the following areas: (1) Graduate programs and curriculum content; (2) Research and instruction; (3) Faculty and personnel services; (4) Resources and budget; (5) Graduate students and education; (6) Administrative organization and practices. Some two hundred statements were constructed relative to the role of the dean and chairperson regard­ ing graduate education, assets of their role and limi­ tations. These statements were refined for content and thought and submitted to the researcher's dissertation committee for approval. Their comments and criticisms were used for further changes and, subsequently, developed into forty-nine items of the instrument in the chairperson's questionnaire and forty in the dean's questionnaire, regarding their perspective roles in graduate education. Copies of these questionnaires are found in Appendix C. Description of the Questionnaire The two instruments developed and administered in this study were entitled "The Role of the Dean of College in Graduate Education" and "The Role of the 121 Chairperson in Graduate Education." The instruments were divided into three p a r t s : Part I seeks factual information about the college/department, previous experience of the dean/ chairperson, style of their present role and position, and assets of the role. Part II deals with six areas of graduate edu­ cation: Curriculum content and change, research and instruction, faculty and personnel services, and budget, graduate students and education, trative organization and practices. resources adminis­ Each area considers: (1) The perception of the deans/chairpersons regarding graduate education; (2) The role of the deans/chairpersons in graduate education; (3) The alternatives and additions desired by them in their roles; (4) Open-ended questions to round up their views on some major issues in graduate education. Part III deals with major responsibilities of the role and/or limitations of the role. The responses to the questions were sought in direct answers and in checklists. The deans and chairpersons were free to make comments on the questions and the items. There were forty questions for the deans and forty-nine for 122 the chairpersons. The open-ended questions are state­ ments for approval or disapproval with comments on an issue. Population and Sample Michigan State University has eleven colleges offering graduate programs. More than five hundred areas of study are offered by the seventy-six departments of these colleges, which are authorized to give the master's 4 and/or the doctoral degree. a dean. Each college is headed by The colleges offering graduate programs are: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Arts and Letters, Business, Communication Arts and Sciences, Education, Engineering, Human Ecology, Human Medicine, Natural Science, Social Science, and Veterinary Medicine. The total strength of graduate students in these colleges in the spring of 1977 was 6,868.^ Five of the eleven colleges, namely Arts and Letters, Business, Human Ecology, Natural Science, and Education, which offer graduate programs, were selected for the study. The choice of the colleges represented 4 This is Michigan State University, 1977 Facts Book (Department of Information Services, November 1976). Also consulted "Facts in Brief," 1977. ^Enrollment report, Michigan State University, Spring Term 1977 Total Students, p. 1. 123 colleges offering professional and nonprofessional p r o ­ grams. Three colleges that were selected were profes­ sional colleges and two were academic colleges. The colleges were selected as being representative of the graduate work being carried on in the graduate programs of the university within the dimensions of arts and sciences and professional education at the graduate level. The total number of deans and chairpersons in the eleven colleges is eighty-seven: seventy-six chairpersons. eleven deans and The sample of the study con­ sisted of all the forty chairpersons and five deans of the five colleges. Thus, the sample represented 52 p er­ cent of the total population of deans and chairpersons of the eleven colleges offering graduate programs. The total enrollment of graduate students in the five col­ leges in Spring 1977 was 6,527, i.e., 65 percent of the total number of graduate students enrolled in the g eleven colleges at that time. The decision to select the five colleges which were to be studied was arrived at with consultation of the members of the researcher's guidance committee. sample, though small, is a representative purposive sample. "Purposive sampling," says Mouley, "can be considered a form of stratified sampling in that the ^Ibid. The 124 selection of the cases is governed by some criterion 7 acting as a secondary control." Another form of purposive sampling is quota sampling, which is also a form of stratified sampling except that as commonly used, the term refers to a nonprobability design in which the investigator, after having stratified his population, uses his judgment rather than randomness in selecting the cases. Generally, such sampling is best used where the object is not to get precise sta­ tistics but rather to collect typical opinions on a given issue or, perhaps, in an exploratory study where the purpose is to develop insight so that later on more accurate study can be conducted with probability sampling. The researcher's study is an exploratory effort designed to obtain opinions on graduate education and the respective roles of those involved in adminis­ tering it. The researcher's view that the sample, though small, is a good representative sample for the study is also strengthened from the fact that the respondents to the questionnaires are persons who are in charge of graduate programs on campus, and in their capacity are required to have intense comprehensive understanding, knowledge, and information of graduate programs and 7 George J. M o u l e y , "Purposive Sampling," in The Science of Educational Research (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhart Company, 1970) , pi! 193. 125 research development. The questionnaires administered to them are indepth inquiries into the roles vis-a-vis graduate education and seek responses to some highly complex issues and policy matters regarding adminis­ tration of graduate education and the relative relation­ ship of the respondents to them. The researcher sent out the questionnaires in the summer term in an effort to get the maximum response. This was based on the assumption that the deans and chairpersons have a better and more complete view of the progress and development of graduate education in their colleges at this time and are in a better position to evaluate this development and progress over the previous years. The lists of graduate colleges and the other information regarding courses and departments were derived from 1977 Facts Book, Enrollment in Spring 1977, Faculty and Staff Directory, September 1976, and Academic Programs 19 76-77. Mailing Procedures and Returns The questionnaires were mailed out to the chair­ persons and deans of the five selected colleges at the beginning of the summer session in June. Each mailing consisted of a cover letter from the researcher explain­ ing the purpose of the study and the importance of the study to her back home as an administrator, and also the possible value to Michigan State University in the future. 126 The mailing package also contained a memo from the researcher's major professor and chairman of the guidance committee, Dr. Walter F. Johnson. It was pointed out specifically by the major professor and also on behalf of Dr. John Useem, a member of her committee, that the cooperation of the deans and chairpersons would be reciprocating courteous cooperation and goodwill exhibited to the research visitors from this country when they are abroad. It was further mentioned that the information supplied in the questionnaire would remain confidential and not be identified with any college or department. The questionnaire took approximately forty minutes to be completed. A self-addressed envelope was enclosed with the questionnaire and was sent through campus mail and likewise received back by campus mail in care of the major professor. The follow-up after two weeks was done by telephone and follow-up memo (Appendix D ) . The total response from the chairpersons was 77 percent. Ninety-three point three percent chairpersons responded from the professional colleges and 6 8 percent from the nonprofessional. 80 percent. The response of the deans was 127 TABLE 1.— Number of responses to the questionnaire to "The Role of Chairpersons/Deans in Graduate Education" Group Deans Chairpersons Number Sent Number Received Percentage 5 40 4 31 80 77 TABLE 2.— Number of returns from professional and nonprofessional colleges to the questionnaire "The Role of the Chairperson in Graduate Education II Colleges Number Sent Number Received Percentage 15 25 14 17 93.3 68 Professional Nonprofessional Analysis of Data As indicated previously, this is an appraisal study of certain aspects of graduate education, issues in graduate education, progress and development of graduate education as perceived by the chairpersons and deans of colleges offering graduate programs. is an appraisal of their roles as well. It Survey appraisal studies lean more heavily on the human element than surveys of other types. This study, therefore, relies on the judgment of the respondents and the information derived has been analyzed and pooled into the areas into which the questionnaires were subdivided. The 128 open-ended questions were analyzed on the basis of the contents and classified into categories. The data were analyzed in terras of percentage, rank order, and frequencies. Since it is a descriptive nonstatistical study, the analysis is based on the assumption that percentage, rank order, and frequencies are adequate forms of reporting responses concerning practices, procedures, general tendencies, and trends. Tables and graphs have been developed to supplement descriptive data and information. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The study included five colleges sional and two nonprofessional) offering graduate programs. (three profes­ out of the eleven colleges Each college is administered by a dean and the academic units or departments, which has a chairperson. each of Two questionnaires were sent out separately to five deans and forty chairpersons. Four deans and thirty chairpersons responded. The response was 80 percent from the deans and 77 percent from the c h a i r p e r s o n s . The analyzed data have been arranged in the same order and sequence as in the questionnaires, for deans and c h a i r p e r s o n s . separately The analysis is presented in percentage and rank order. Rank order has generally been used where the respondents were asked to check indefinite choices, e.g., "as many as applicable," to show the relative importance or significance of factors or aspects that are of more or less value in their con­ tribution to graduate education. 129 In open-ended questions 130 responses were collated and categorized into content classifications. The important issues were discussed. The multiple responses in the checklists and open-ended questions have been put into tables. In case of small numbers of responses as for the deans, they were identified; and their responses were converted into percentages and discussed. There was no need for tables. The data analysis is reported separately for deans and chairpersons as follows: Part 1— previous experience, style or role, and assets of the position; Part 2— appraisal of graduate education role, (areawise), alternatives and changes, open-ended questions; Part 3— limitations of the role. Data Analysis with Respect to the Deans Part 1 The data analyzed under Part 1 are devoted to graduate experience of the deans prior to their present position, the perception of the roles by the deans, and separately by the deans of "professional" and "nonpro­ fessional" colleges and also the assets of the roles to them. 131 Previous Graduate Experience of the Deans (Item #1) TABLE 3.--Graduate experience of deans in the study n = 4 m ,. Teaching Subjects J Number of Deans Percentage Research Administration 4 4 3 100 100 75 All the deans in the study had graduate experience in teaching and research prior to their present position while 75 percent had previous administrative experience at graduate level. Role Perceptions by the Deans (Item #2) TABLE 4.— Role perceptions by deans Categories n = 4 Number of Deans Percentage Facilitators 4 100 Conciliators 2 50 Managerial Middleman 3 75 Academic Leader 4 100 Controller Executive 2 50 132 The administrative style of the deans has a singular pattern. They are "academic leaders" and "facilitators" and to a great extent "managerial middlemen" as well (75 percent). However, their role as "conciliators" and "controller executives" is moderate in agreement. TABLE 5.— Role perceptions by deans of "professional co l­ leges" and "nonprofessional colleges" (Arts and Sciences) (Item #2) Categories Number of Deans (Profes­ sional) ^ Per. centage ^ Number of Deans £ (Nonprofes­ sional) 2 100 2 100 2 100 Facilitator Conciliator — Per­ centage Managerial Middleman 1 50 2 100 Academic Leader 2 100 2 100 ControllerExecutive 2 100 NOTE: — n = 2 (professional); n = 2 (nonprofes- sional) The deans of "professional" are "academic leaders," colleges perceive that they "facilitators," "controller e x e c u t i v e s ," and moderately "managerial middlemen." They are not "conciliators." The deans of "nonprofes­ sional" colleges perceive that they are "academic leaders," "facilitators," gerial middlemen." "conciliators," and "mana­ They did not see themselves as "controller-executives." 133 Assets of the Role of the Dean (Item #3l Regarding "satisfaction" derived from their role, the deans indicated it came primarily from "academic leadership" (100 percent). Seventy-five percent indicated their satisfaction to "experience and knowledge." Other areas of satisfaction as reported by the deans w e r e : (1) the opportunity to affect the future of the field of education; (2) opportunity to expand knowledge and understand­ ing in the profession; (3) work satisfaction. Part 2 The data analysis under Part 2 includes: (I) appraisal of graduate education in the six following a r e a s : (1) Graduate Program and Curriculum (2) Research and Instruction (3) Faculty and Personnel Services (4) Resources and Budget (5) Graduate Students and Education (6) Administrative Organization and Practices (II) role of the deans in each specific area; 134 (III) alternatives and additions they desire in their role regarding each area; (IV) issues they confront in each area of graduate e du ca ti on . Graduate Programs and Curriculum— Area I The appraisal of graduate programs and curriculum includes items such as the importance of graduate pro­ grams, their quality, and changes in graduate programs. Importance of Graduate Programs (Item #4) TABLE 6.— Importance of graduate programs Objectives Number of Deans Training research scholars 4 100 Training college teachers 4 100 Training professional practitioners 2 50 Doing basic research 4 100 Doing applied research 3 75 NOTE: Percentage n = 4 In the opinion of the deans the importance of graduate programs is primarily in the training of col­ lege teachers and research scholars. As far as research is concerned, the deans indicated basic research to be more important than applied research for graduate programs. 135 The data for the "professional" and "nonprofes­ sional" colleges showed that the deans of "professional colleges" considered basic research and applied research equally important for their graduate programs; of "nonprofessional" colleges, however, the deans indicated that basic research is more important than applied research for their graduate programs. Quality of Graduate Programs (Item &5) Fifty percent of the deans indicated that they were "satisfied" with the quality of graduate programs at the masters and doctoral levels. Fifty percent were "not satisfied" in either case. Innovations/Experiments/Changes in Graduate Programs (Item #6) All the deans (100 percent) reported that there have been innovations, experiments, or changes in graduate programs in their colleges in the last five years. In some cases they have specified the area of development. The Dean's Role in Formulation of Graduate Curricula (item #7A ) Regarding their role in the formulation of graduate curricula, 2 5 percent admitted that they played 136 a "very modest" role. However, 75 percent of the deans identified their role as either: (1) Evaluation (2) Supportive funding (3) Identification of needs (4) Help to initiate new programs in specified areas. Evaluation of Graduate Curricula (item #7B) Regarding their role in the evaluation of graduate curricula, the deans indicated that they evaluated graduate curricula mainly through allocation of resources and supportive funding. "However, this is done either in terms of cost effectiveness and resource utility items or with the help of an associate dean in the office of the dean of the college." The associate dean has a college graduate committee and takes care when changes occur in the curriculum. There was 100 percent response to this item. Alterations and Additions to the Role (Item #8) If the deans had their say with respect to graduate curriculum and were entrusted with the charge of maintaining high quality curricula and graduate pro ­ grams, 75 percent of the deans indicated that they would 137 as administrators like to make one or more of the following alternatives and additions: Alternatives: (1) Have more emphasis on competencies and knowledge expected of graduates; (2) Involvement of students in research and service; (3) Provide more funds for assistance to graduate students; (4) Need more university money to operate programs currently in operation; (5) Improved recruiting of students; (6) Curricula revisions in some areas; (7) Replacement of equipment for research. Additions: (1) Environmental science program; (2) Addition to equipment for research. Twenty-five percent of the deans had "no answer" to this item. Research and Instruction— Area II The appraisal of graduate research and instruction included two questions related to this area: 1. (a) What is the relationship of research to graduate instruction in your college? 138 (b) In what ways do you contribute to the development of this relationship? 2. How does external funding, (Item #9) including government- sponsored research affect graduate instruction in your college? (Item #10) Regarding Item #9, there was 75 percent response of the deans to the question #1 (a). The relationship of research to graduate instruction was indicated in the following responses of the deans: 1. Research is a part of all graduate programs. 2. Relationship is positive and strong. Regarding question #1 (b), the deans indicated that they strengthened the relationship between research and instruction by: (1) reviewing programs; (2) allocating funds for specific purposes; (3) providing enough faculty for close supervision of laboratory research of students working toward the completion of a thesis. As regards external funding, sponsored research including government- (Item #10), question #2, 75 percent of the deans indicated that there was a positive effect 139 on the teaching faculty and the students. The specifics of support w e r e : 1. Provides more opportunities for support of graduate students. 2. Provides graduate students with opportunities to work with faculty on significant projects. 3. Strengthens instruction, supports GRA's and program operation. 4. Supports instruction with hiring faculty. 5. Influences direction of thesis research. However, 25 percent of the deans indicated that graduate instruction is "very little" affected by external funding including government-sponsored research. The Dean's Role in Educational and Research Policy (item #11A) There was 100 percent response to the question. The deans stated that they were involved with the faculty in research and instruction in the following ways: (1) Faculty committee actions have to be opposed; (2) Work through college committees to strengthen policy; (3) The standing committees chaired by associate deans to review curricular and research policy; (4) Faculty advising dean's office. 140 Budget Provisions (Item #11B) The deans indicated that they were involved in the budget provisions in the following ways: (1) Budget allocations to departments; (2) Work with department chairperson and provost; (3) Prepare budget request for graduate programs; (4) Faculty advising the dean's office. Managerial Affairs of Research and Instruction (Item #11C) The deans indicated that they were involved in the managerial affairs of research and instruction in the following w a y s : (1) Administrators in charge report to the Dean; (2) Work with budget office to facilitate operation; (3) Indirect effect in managing research and i n s t r u ct io n; (4) Faculty advising the dean's office. Alternatives and Additions (item #12) The deans were asked to suggest changes and alternatives to their roles as administrators of graduate programs if, in their opinion, such a change could pro­ mote quality research and instruction. Seventy-five pe r­ cent of the deans either had "no changes to suggest" or 141 they wanted "no significant change" operation is working." and believed "the Twenty-five percent of the deans did not respond. Faculty and Personnel Services— Area III The role of the deans with respect to several aspects of faculty development and personnel services was the subject of appraisal in this section of graduate education. morale, The appraisal included facets like faculty faculty academic and professional development, recruitment of high quality faculty, understaffing of research and instructional faculty. salary maximums, Recruitment, tenure, and nonrenewal of faculty contracts were aspects of personnel services considered for appraisal. Graduate level courses require specially compe­ tent faculty to contribute to the success of graduate education. The deans as administrators of graduate p ro­ grams in their colleges in addition to providing service benefits to the faculty may be undertaking a number of steps to promote faculty development. An appraisal of the role of the deans regarding faculty morale indi­ cated that 75 percent of the deans take the following steps to: Promote Faculty Morale (Item #13A) (1) Promote resources; 142 (2) Provide recognition, merit increase, (3) rewards, credit when d u e , thanks; Review faculty projects; (4) Keep salaries competitive; (5) Provide needed equipment; (6) Provide attractive adequate facilities. Help the Faculty Academically and ProfessTonally (Item #I3B) Seventy-five percent of the deans indicated that they help the faculty academically and professionally in the following ways: (1) Opportunities for study and travel; (2) Provide graduate assistants and resources for research n e e d s ; (3) Extend sabbaticals, fund professors' encourage participation in seminars, trips, e t c .; (4) Frequently recommend for awards and committee positions at national level. Responsibility with Faculty (Item #1 4) The rank order (Table 7) shows that the responsi­ bilities of the deans with the faculty descend in the following manner: "participatory," "supervisory and advisory," "facil it o ry ," "controlling and advisory." 143 The deans indicated that "participatory" and "facilitory" types of responsibilities are better ways of working with their faculty. TABLE 7.— Rank order of the types of responsibilities deans share with faculty (Item #14) Types of Responsibilities Frequency Percentage Rank Order Participatory 4 100 Supervisory 2 50 3.5 Controlling 1 25 5.5 Facilitory 3 75 2 Advisory 2 50 3.5 Other 1 25 5.5 (Funding) 1 The Dean's Role in Employing Additional Faculty (Item #15A) Seventy-five percent of the deans : r esponded to the question. Twenty-five percent took no s t e p s . were concerned with reducing staff. They Fifty percent indi- cated that they take the following steps to employ addi­ tional faculty for new graduate p r o g r a m s : (1) Seek funds to support additional faculty; (2) Send recommendations and justifications for new positions to the provost. 144 Promoting High Quality Education (Item #l5§l Seventy-five percent of the deans responded to the question. They indicated that they take the follow­ ing steps to promote high quality education: (1) Appoint and implement funding of study committees; (2) Maintain and hold to highest standards; (3) Assist the faculty in changes in instructional mode; (4) Assist in improving teaching facilities. Retaining High Quality Faculty (Item #15C) There was a 75 percent response of the deans to this question. They indicated that they take the follow­ ing steps to retain high quality faculty. (1) Promotion and salary benefits; (2) Competitive salaries; (3) Maintain stimulating and sound intellectual e n v i r o n me nt ; (4) Reduce barriers to do job; (5) Assist in promotion and tenure actions. Preventing Understaffing (Item #15D) Seventy-five percent of the deans responded to the question. Twenty-five percent indicated that they 145 are overstaffed. Fifty percent prevent understaffing in the following manner: (1) Reallocate funds if possible; (2) Request and justify additional faculty and supporting personnel. Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that under­ staffing is indigenous at Michigan State University. Item #16 in the Dean's questionnaire was designed to study the authority of the deans of colleges regarding: Recruitment of Faculty (Item #16A) There was a 75 percent response to the item. One dean (25 percent) indicated that they have final authority to recruit faculty. One dean (25 percent) stated that their college used the M.S.U. facilities. Another dean (2 5 percent) recruitment indicated that the following steps were employed when recruiting faculty: (1) Approve a search; (2) Consult with department chairman or candidate to be made the offer; (3) Approve recommendation of appointment. 146 Tenure of Faculty (Item #16 B) Seventy-five percent of the deans responded to this part of the question. Regarding tenure of faculty, 25 percent indicated that they respond to recommendations of department chairman but make the final collegiate level recommendation. Another 25 percent indicated that they have final authorization regarding tenure. Again, 25 percent indicated that they must approve a tenure action. It is apparent that all three of the responding deans were indicating essentially the same practice regarding granting tenure. Salary Maximums for Faculty (item #16C) There was a 7 5 percent response. Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that they have authori­ zation of salaries. Twenty-five percent responded to recommendations of department chairmen— make final col­ legiate level recommendations. Twenty-five percent indicated they consult with provost on guidelines for salary increases. Nonrenewal of Faculty Contracts (Item #16D ) There was a 75 percent response. Twenty-five percent of the deans made the final decision regarding nonrenewal of faculty contracts. Another 2 5 percent 147 responded to recommendations of department chairman— make final collegiate level recommendations. Again, 25 percent indicated that they approve department recommendations. The footnote for one of the dean's responses regarding question #16 indicated that regarding tenure, salary m a x i m u m s , and nonrenewal of faculty contracts, the deans never made decisions in isolation nor without as much information and advice as available. These were indicated to be critical decisions. The footnote for another dean's response indi­ cated that departmental recommendations were reviewed before submitting them to the provost's office. Resources and Bud ge t— Area IV The appraisal of the resources and budget for graduate education included analysis of several concerns like the effect of cuts in budgets and reduced appropri­ ations on graduate education, responsibility and role of the deans in increasing resources for the units of the college and budget allocations for the departments, the use made by the deans of strategies of budgetary control for promoting graduate education, changes desired by them to relate budget allocations to quality programs and education, and prospective steps they desire for academic planning. 148 The analysis of Item #17 indicated the aspects of graduate education which have been affected severely by inadequate budgets. Effects of Inadequate Budgets Tltem #17) TABLE 8.— Rank order of aspects affected by inadequate budgets Frequency Percentage Rank Order Quality of graduate education 1 25 6 Diversity of graduate programs 2 50 3.5 Student enrollment 4 100 Faculty work load 2 50 3.5 — — Aspects Recruitment of faculty — 1 Student-facuity ratio 1 25 6 Faculty mobility 1 25 6 Auxiliary services 4 100 1 The declining effects of inadequate budgets were reported by 100 percent of the deans in the following order: auxiliary services and student enrollment (100 p e r c e n t ) , diversity of graduate programs and faculty work load education, (50 p er c e n t ) , quality of graduate student faculty ratio, and faculty mobility (25 p e r c e n t ) . 149 The Dean's Responsibility in Preparation of the Budget (Item #18A) There was 100 percent response. The deans indi­ cated that they had the following types of responsibili­ ties regarding the preparation of the budget of the college: (1) Final approval for submission to provost; (2) Full responsibility with help of faculty and department chairmen; (3) Deans allocate funds to units and approve budgets; (4) Full responsibility for developing details of budget and deciding allocations to various units in the college. The Dean's Efforts in Increasing the Resources of Income (Item #18B) Although 100 percent of the deans responded to the question, they did not specify the efforts they make to increase the resources of income for their colleges. The responses were generally "Everything imaginable," "every effort known to mankind," "considerable— both internally and outside the campus," and "anything I can do." 150 Bases of Resource Allocations to the Departments (item #19) TABLE 9.— Data distribution showing dean's bases of resource allocations to the departments Number of Deans Percentage faculty in the departments 3 75 2. Change in productivity 3 75 3. Efficiency of performance of program 3 75 4. Other: program development 1 25 5. Other: quality of programs 1 25 Bases 1 . Work load variations of NOTE: n = 4 The data use bases #1, 2, indicated that 75 percent of the deans 3; while 25 percent allocate resources on the basis of program development and quality of programs, respectively. Strategies of Budgetary Control (Item #20) The data (Table 10) indicated that 75 percent of the deans, respectively, use the following strategies of budgetary control to promote graduate education in the college: (1) Priority spending; (2) Judging merits of academic programs; (3) Budgetary analysis of work load. 151 Twenty-five percent "authorize expenditure of unused funds before the end of the fiscal year." TABLE 10. Data distribution of budgetary control; order of strategies used by deans Strategies 1 . 2. rank Number of Deans Percentage Rank Order 1 25 4 -- -- 75 2 Authorize expenditure of unused funds before end of fiscal year Reduction of next year's allocations 3. Priority spending 4. Keeping positions unfilled 5. Judging merits of academic programs 3 75 2 Budgetary analysis of work load 3 75 2 6. 7. Requiring certain p r o ­ grams to be selfsupporting 3 — — — — — — Options for Budget Allocations (Item #21 ) The deans were of the opinion (Table 11) that the bases of budget allocations should be in the order of program p r i o r i t i e s , academic success of graduate programs, protection of new or experimental programs, and maintenance of quality. 152 TABLE 11.— Budget allocations— Rank order of options for budget allocations Number of Deans Percentage Rank Order Academic success of graduate programs 3 75 2 Protect new or experi­ mental programs 2 50 3 Resource allocations should be based on program priorities 4 100 1 Others: quality 1 25 4 Bases 1. 2. 3. 4. maintenance of Graduate Education and Prospective Planning (item #22) In view of the changing conditions regarding financing of higher education (Table 12), 100 percent of the deans recommended focus on more careful planning of programs of graduate education. One hundred percent recommended more attention on establishing priorities for graduate programs and related activities in the department. Seventy-five percent recommended a policy and planning committee for reviewing financial priori­ ties and resource allocations. Graduate Students and Education— Area V The analysis of the area "graduate students and education" includes an appraisal of the dean's role with respect to quality of graduate student performance, 153 competency, and promise of graduate students, graduate student enrollments, students. and relationships with graduate The dean's concern for issues in graduate education and his involvement in activities and achieve­ ments of graduate education are some other facets of analysis. TABLE 12.— Graduate education and financing Recommendations Number of Deans Percentage 1. Careful planning 4 100 2. Establishing priorities 4 100 3. Policy and Planning Committee 3 75 The Dean's Role in Graduate Student Enrollments (Item #23A) There was a 7 5 percent response of the deans. Fifty percent of the deans indicated that graduate stu­ dent enrollments were not decreasing in their colleges. Twenty-five percent among them said they were working in a market of competition and the dean had no role. Another 25 percent were concerned with the problem of handling the number of graduate students who wanted to be in. The remaining 25 percent indicated that they allocated funds for teaching graduate assist an ts hi ps . 154 General Competency (Item #2 3B) The role of the deans in improving the general competency and promise of graduate students was responded to by 75 percent of the deans. Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that they evaluated programs— identified needs for faculty study. Another 25 percent stated that the issue was not a problem with them for they could take the "cream of the crop" if they wished. Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that they worked with departments on methods of recruiting graduate students and worked to keep stipends competitive. Decreasing Dropouts (Item #2 3C ) There was a 50 percent response. Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that they had no role regailing graduate student dropouts from the programs of graduate study. Twenty-five percent stated dropouts was not a problem in their college; matter of concern, and if it became a they usually related it to a lack of financial assistance and they tried to extend help when possible. Inquiring and Reviewing Standards (item #23D) There was a 75 percent response. Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that they examined the reports and implemented findings of the committee that 155 reviewed standards of education in their colleges. Twenty-five percent indicated that they initiated and supported help to students. Twenty-five percent reported that the associate deans approved guidance committees composition and reports and certified degree. Relationships with Students (Itern #24) There was a 100 percent response. The data indi­ cated that 25 percent of the deans have informal contacts with students. Fifty percent meet graduate advisory com­ mittees of graduate students and graduate student repre­ sentatives on committees. Twenty-five percent have associate deans to chair advisory committees composed of graduate students. Twenty-five percent have personal meetings through many teaching graduate courses on a regular basis. Twenty-five percent give seminars to advisory groups in m e e t i n g s . Improvement in Quality of Graduate Student Performance (Item #25A) There was a 100 percent response from the deans. Twenty-five percent of the deans suggested closer facultystudent relations. not an issue. Twenty-five percent indicated it is Twenty-five percent suggested attracting better quality students to improve quality of performance. Twenty-five percent gave no definite suggestions. 156 Evaluate Quality of Graduate Student Performance (Item #25B) There was a 100 percent response of the deans. Twenty-five percent indicated "very little" evaluation is done at the dean's level. Twenty-five percent developed specific definitions of expected outcomes. Twenty-five percent supported work of evaluative com­ mittees; act on recommendations. Twenty-five percent have associate deans working with graduate committees which review testing processes in the department. It is obvious that 75 percent of the deans have definite evaluation programs in their colleges. Issues and Problems (Item #26) There was a 100 percent response. The deans indicated that the key issues in graduate education which concerned them w e r e : (1 ) Quality diversity; (2 ) R e l e v a n c e ; (3) Number of students being trained; (4) P r i o r i t i e s ; (5) Level of research; (6 ) P ub l i c a t i o n s ; (7) Support dollars; (8 ) Recruiting high quality students; (9) Quality of programs; (1 0 ) Support of graduate students. 157 Participation in Activities/Achievements Regarding Graduate Education (Item #27) TABLE 13.— Rank order of activities/achievements of deans in graduate education Frequency Percentage Rank Order Research on graduate students, graduate education 1 25 4.5 Research in a discipline representative of the college 3 75 1 Research in graduate administration 1 25 4.5 4. Professional reading 3 75 1 5. Participation in confer­ ences/meetings related to graduate study 3 75 1 Activities/Achievements 1. 2. 3. Seventy-five percent of the deans responded. They indicated that since their appointments they had been involved in graduate activities/achievements in the following order: (1) Research in a discipline (2) Professional reading (rank order 1); (rank order 1); (3) Participation in conferences/meetings related to graduate study (rank order 1 ); 158 Only 25 percent of the deans participated in the other two a c t i v i t i e s : (1) Research on graduate students/graduate education (rank order 4.5); (2) Research in graduate administration (rank order 4.5). Administrative Organization and Practices— Area VI The analysis of this area of graduate education contains an appraisal of the role of the administrative personnel and administrative committees in graduate edu­ cation. It also includes decision-making, selection, relationships, and responsibilities of deans with the provost and graduate dean. Administrative Personnel (Item #28) The deans of the colleges are in charge and responsible for the administration of graduate programs in the college. The chairpersons administer graduate programs at the department level. The deans of the colleges had assistant deans, associate deans, or a director who is concerned with the general overseeing of graduate programs or their m a n ­ agement in the college. There is a graduate matters committee delegated with curricular and other matters and responsible to assistant dean and faculty. 159 TABLE 14.— Title, role, and responsibility of administra­ tive personnel in the colleges Title A) 1. Nature of Work Responsible to: Director, school for teaching support p e r ­ sonnel Management of graduate programs Dean 2. Asst. Dean for student p e r ­ sonnel Personnel functions Dean 3. Dept. Chairman Administration of dept, programs Directors of schools and deputy dean B) 1. Asst. Administrator in charge Dean and faculty Dean 2. Graduate Matters Committee Delegated authority on curricular and on other matters Asst, dean and faculty 3. Dept. Chairman Administers at dept, level Asst, dean C) Assoc. All aspects of graduate education and research Dean General overseeing of graduate program Dean D) Asst. Dean Dean 160 A part of the dean's responsibility for administration of graduate programs is shared with faculty. The rest of the responsibility is shouldered by the deans. Faculty/Administrative Committees (item #29) The data indicated that operations of graduate programs in the colleges are assisted by graduate com­ mittees and dean's administrative group. All the colleges under study have a graduate committee for the college. It bears a different name in each col ­ lege— "Committee on graduate policy," committee," Committee "Graduate matters "Graduate Advisory Committee," and "Graduate (college)." Three colleges among the five colleges under study have "departmental graduate com­ mittees" also and one college has "dean's council" and "dean's cabinet." Authority over Committees (item #30) Seventy-five percent of the deans responded. They indicated that they have almost all authority (1, 2, 3, 4) over administrative/faculty committees which assist in the operations of graduate programs in the college. 161 TABLE 15.— The dean's authority over faculty/administrative committees ... , r; , ., •. Nature of Authority Number of Percentage 1. Accept recommendations 3 75 2. Suggest changes and refer back for discussion to the committee 3 75 3. Reject the recommendations 3 75 4. Veto the recommendations over split of opinion 3 75 Refer to the administrative committee — — 5. NOTE: n = 4 "The authority," says one of the deans, delegatory or advisory. authority, consult, "may be On matters of delegated accept recommendations, on advisory, refer, and accept or reject." The Dean's Mode of Feedback with the Chairpersons of the Departments (Item #3'lA) The response was 75 percent. The mode of feed­ back of the dean with the chairpersons is generally direct and personal or by memo. The department chair­ persons and the director's groups also meet the dean every two weeks and frequently discuss graduate edu­ cation. In other cases the dean has regular meetings with the chairperson group and also individually confers with the chairpersons. 162 The Faculty Member (Item # 3 1 B ) There was a 75 percent response. The mode of dean's feedback with faculty is either in "individual conference," "direct where possible through department chairman," or through the "college faculty advisory council which meets once or twice per term and fre­ quently discusses graduate issues," said the deans. The Graduate Students of the College (Item #31C) ___ The feedback of the deans with graduate students is about at the same level as with the faculty. The dean may confer with the individual graduate student, through the department chairperson and college house organization, or the graduate advisory committee meets with the associate dean. The response was 75 percent. The Role of the Dean Regarding Admission of Graduate Students (Item #32A) The admission of students is a matter of depart­ mental authority. The dean is a referral of grievances. The response was 75 percent. Review of Academic Achievement of the Graduate Students (item #32B)~ Seventy-five percent of the deans responded. role of the dean in this case w a s : (1) Referral of grievances; The 163 (2) Evaluative/supervisory/support study when needed; (3) Associate dean reviews programs and certifies completion of degrees. Retention or Dismissal of Graduate Students (Item #32C) The response was 50 percent. The dean's role is: (1) Referral of grievances; (2) Departmental authority supervised by associate dean. Award of Graduate Degree (Item #32 D) The response was 100 percent. The dean's office monitors all the functions regarding completion of the program for the degree; direct responsibility is given to the assistant dean who is responsible to the dean. Relationships with the Chair­ persons (item #33) TABLE 16.— Relationship as dean with chairpersons Nature of Relationship Participatory Recommendatory Advisory Consultative Informative Other-Decisional N U Deans°^ 3 3 3 4 3 1 Percentage 75 75 75 100 75 25 164 Regarding relationships with the deans, cent of the deans reported "consultative." Seventy-five percent indicated that they were "participatory, mendatory, advisory, and informative." 100 per ­ recom­ Only 25 percent indicated that they were "decisional." Bases of Administrative Decisions (Item #34) TABLE 17.— Rank order of bases of administrative decisions of deans Frequency Percentage Rank Order Faculty participation in decision making 3 75 4 Advice of chairpersons and staff administrators 4 100 1 Recommendations of standing/ ad hoc committees 4 100 1 Advice of senior faculty 1 25 6.5 Advice of informal agencies 1 25 6.5 Your judgment and discretion 4 100 1 Advice of your immediate supervisors 2 50 5 Bases The major bases of deans' decisions are in the following order: (1) Their judgment and discretion; (2) Advice of chairpersons and staff administrators; (3) Recommendations of standing/ad hoc committees. 165 The Deans' Opinion about Their Role (Item #35) Should the dean be an effective administrator or an outstanding scholar or both? All the deans are of the opinion that the role of the dean of the college should be a combination of both. "Besides being an effective administrator and an outstanding scholar," said one of the deans, "he should be able to meet public/practical/know budgeting/ have some characteristics similar to God/retain sense of humor despite all/be reasonably intelligent. Being a scholar does not necessarily mean being intelligent." Selection of the Dean (Item #36) The best method of selection of the dean in the opinion of 50 percent of the deans is by the selection committee consisting of administrative/academic per ­ sonnel from the college recommending to the president. Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that the best method of selection is academic/administrative personnel committee— un i v e r s i t y - w i d e . Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that one of the above methods with members on committee from alumni and related university units would be the best method. 166 The Deans' Responsibilities Regarding Graduate Education with the Provost and the Graduate Dean (Items #37 " and 38) There was a 75 percent response in either case. Regarding the provost, the deans observed that they are generally responsible to him for all graduate education as well as other areas. As far as the graduate dean is concerned, he is advisory to the deans in most matters; but he has some regulating responsibilities. He generally represents colleges in graduate education. He reviews and approves new degree programs and awards a modest number of fellow sh ip s. Part 3 The analysis of Part 3 of the questionnaire includes the limitations of the role of the deans and their major responsibilities regarding graduate education. Limitations of the Dean's Role (Item #3~9~) The order of factors limiting the role of the deans is lack of funding and appropriations for quality programs (rank order 1) scholarly activity (Table 18), little time for (rank order 2 ), little time for coordination of teaching and research lack of authority in decision-making (rank order 3), (rank order 4). 167 TABLE 18.— Factors that limit the role of the dean Factors Number Percentage Rank Order Lack of authority in decision making 1 25 4 Little time for scholarly activity 3 75 2 Lack of funding and appropriations for quality programs 4 100 1 Administrative details too heavy for coordi­ nation of teaching and research 2 50 3 — — — Frustrations from external and internal pressures Major Responsibilities of Deans Regarding Graduate Education (Item #40) The deans indicated that the major responsibili­ ties regarding graduate education were: (1) Leadership, direction, management; (2) Work with colleagues and administration to achieve best graduate educational programs possible with given resources a v a i l a b l e ; (3) To see that a teaching research program of high quality is maintained. There was a 75 percent response. 168 Analysis with Respect to the Chairpersons Part 1 The analysis under Part 1 is devoted to the previous graduate experience of the c ha i r p e r s o n s , their perceptions of their roles, and separately by the chair­ persons of "professional" and "nonprofessional" colleges; also the assets of their roles which contribute to their satisfaction. Previous Graduate Experience of the Chairpersons (item #1 ) TABLE 19.— Previous experience of chairpersons Subjects Teaching Research Administration Number of chair­ persons 28 23 16 74.1% 51.6% 90.3% Percentage NOTE: n = 31 The data indicated that 90.3 percent of the chairpersons had experience in graduate teaching prior to their present position; research experience; 74.1 percent had graduate and 51.6 percent had experience in administration of graduate experience before they assumed the role of the chairpersons. 169 TABLE 20.— Previous experience of chairpersons of profes­ sional and nonprofessional colleges Experience Number of Chair­ persons Teaching 14 Research 10 5 Adminis­ tration sional) NOTE: = 17 n P ro­ fessional 100% Number of Chair­ persons Non­ professional 14 82.3% 71.4% 13 76.4% 35.7% 11 64.7% (Professional) = 14; n (Nonprofes­ The data regarding experience of chairpersons of professional colleges indicated that 100 percent of the chairpersons had experience in graduate teaching prior to their present position; 71.4 percent had exper­ ience in graduate level research while five chairpersons (35.7 percent) had experience in administration of graduate education and programs. Regarding chairpersons of Arts and Science colleges (nonprofessional), 82.3 percent had experience in graduate teaching prior to their present position; 76.4 percent were experienced in graduate research pre­ viously; and 64.7 percent had administrative experience of graduate education prior to their present role as ch a i r p e r s o n s . 170 Role Perception of Chairpersons (Item #2) TABLE 21.— Distribution of data for role perception of chairperson Types of Roles Subjects Facilitators Conciliators Managerial Middlemen Academic Leader Controller Executive Number of Chair­ persons 30 16 23 30 12 P er­ centage 96.8 51.6 74.2 96.8 38.7 NOTE: n = 31 The data indicated that 97 percent of the chair­ persons perceived their roles as "academic leaders" and "facilitators." Seventy-four percent of them indi­ cated that they are managerial middlemen; 39 percent perceived themselves as controller executives. The chairpersons of "professional colleges" indicated that 100 percent perceived their role as "facilitators"; 85.7 percent considered it as "mana­ gerial middlemen"; leaders"; 7 8.5 percent stated they are "academic and 57.1 percent indicated that they are "con- troller-executives" and "conciliators." (See Table 22.) The chairpersons of "nonprofessional colleges" indicated that 94.1 percent perceived their roles as 171 "academic leaders" and "facilitators"; 74.7 percent p e r ­ ceived it as "managerial middlemen"; cated they are "conciliators"; 47.5 percent indi­ and 2 3.5 percent stated they perceived themselves as "controller-executives." TABLE 22.— Role perception of chairpersons of professional and nonprofessional colleges Roles Professional Nonprofessional 100% 94.1% Facilitators Conciliators 57.1% 47.5% Managerial middlemen 85.7% 64.7% Academic leader 78.5% 94.1% ControllerExecutive 57.1% 23.5% NOTE: n = 14 (professional); n = 17 (nonprofes­ sional) Assets of the Role of the Chairpersons (item # 3) The data in Table 2 3 indicate that 7 3.3 percent of the chairpersons consider "academic leader" as the most satisfying asset of their role; 72.4 percent p e r ­ ceive "experience and knowledge" as being the next important asset of their role. (rank order 3), "Public relations" "status and prestige" "future prospects" (rank order 5), (rank order 4), "power and influence" (rank order 6 ), "travel opportunities" (rank order 7) are assets which give them satisfaction in a declining order. 172 TABLE 23 .— Rank order of assets which contribute to the satisfaction of the role of the chairpersons Frequency Percentage Rank Order Status and prestige 9 31 4 Experience and knowledge 21 72. 4 2 Public relations 13 44 .8 3 1 3.4 7 — — Assets Travel opportunities Publicity and recognition — Future prospects 6 20.7 5 Power and influence 4 13.8 6 Academic leadership 23 79 .3 1 NOTE: n = 29 173 TABLE 24.— Rank order of assets which contribute to the satisfaction of the role of the chairpersons of the "pro­ fessional" and the "nonprofessional" colleges Professional Nonprofessional Assets Frequency Rank Order Frequency Status and Prestige 8 3 1 Experience and Knowledge 9 2 12 Public Relations 6 4 7 3 Travel Oppor­ tunities 1 7 — — Publicity and Recognition — — — — Future Prospects 2 5.5 4 4 Power and Influence 2 5.5 2 5 Academic Leadership sional) NOTE: = 17 11 n (Professional) Nonprofes­ sional 12 1 = 14; n (Nonprofes­ 6 1.5 1.5 174 The data show that the chairpersons of the "pro­ fessional colleges" considered "academic leadership," "experience and knowledge," "status and prestige," and "public relations" as the order of assets which give them satisfaction and contribute to their role. The chairpersons of the "nonprofessional colleges" indicated that "academic leadership," "public relations," of the role. "experience and knowledge," "future prospects" are the assets "Academic leadership" and "experience and knowledge" are the common major assets of satisfaction to both. Part 2 The data analysis under Part 2 includes: (I) appraisal of graduate education in the six following areas: (1) Curriculum Content and Change (2) Research and Instruction (3) Faculty and Personnel Services (4) Resources and Budget (5) Graduate Students and Education (6 ) Administrative Organization and Practices (II) role of the chairpersons in each specific area; (III) alternatives and additions they desire in their role regarding each area; (IV) open-ended questions regarding issues they con­ front in each area. 175 Curriculum Content and Change— Area I The analysis of the area contains appraisal of the changes or innovations in curriculum content, the role of the chairpersons in formulation of graduate curriculum and evaluation, curriculum content, supervision and planning alternatives and additions in their administrative role regarding curriculum, and the open- ended question with respect to high quality curricula. Changes in the Content of Graduate Curricula (item #4) The department chairpersons were asked to give their observations on the changes in graduate curricula in the last five years. The checklist responses indi­ cated the following data. TABLE 25.— Changes in content of graduate curricula Category Yes No Some Number of Chairpersons 11 8 11 Percentage 35.4 25.8 35. 4 NOTE: n = 31 The data show that 35.4 percent of the chair­ persons were of the view that there have been considerable changes in the content of curricula in the last five years. Twenty-six percent indicated there have been no changes. Thirty-five percent indicated there have been some changes. 176 Role in Formulation of Graduate Curricula (Item #5) TABLE 26.— Rank order of perceptions of chairpersons in formulation of graduate curricula Perceptions Frequency Percentage Rank Order Propose/initiate new programs 20 64.5 2 Suggest changes in current courses 23 74 .2 1 Question the continuation of inactive courses 19 61.2 3 Approve/disapprove new courses 17 54.8 4 Chair a committee or council which brings about any of the above mentioned changes 7 22.5 5 NOTE: n = 31 The data indicated that the chairpersons perceived their contribution to formulation of graduate curricula in the order as given below: (1) Suggest changes in current curricula; (2) Propose/initiate new programs; (3) Question inactive c o u r s e s ; (4) Approve/disapprove new courses; (5) Chair committee for changes. 177 Among other perceptions listed by the chair­ persons were : (1) Encourage faculty to develop ideas they have; (2) Initiate review courses/programs; (3) Encourage faculty to question, review, and develop course programs. Participation in Graduate Level Courses (Item #6 ) Eighty-two percent of the chairpersons indicated that they participate in evaluating graduate level courses. Seventy-nine percent shared in planning courses and 57 percent supervised graduate courses. Alternatives/Additions in Graduate Curriculum (Item #7) TABLE 27.— Rank order of changes in graduate curricula as suggested by chairpersons Items 1 . 2. 3. 4. More control of the con­ tent of graduate c u r ­ riculum Share views and impart information regarding change or reform in graduate curricula Facilitate a helpful cli­ mate for gradual changes - in the content of graduate programs Maintain the status quo NOTE: n = 31 Number of Chair­ persons Percentage Rank Order 2 6.4 4 15 48.4 2 23 74.2 1 3 9.7 3 178 The chairpersons indicated that if they had a choice they would like to make the following changes in graduate curriculum in order of rank: 1. Facilitate a helpful climate for gradual changes in the content of graduate programs 2. (rank order 1). Share views and impart information regarding changes or reform in graduate curricula (rank order 2). 3. A very nominal percentage of chairpersons like to maintain the status quo 4. (9.7) (rank order 3). Only 6.4 percent want more control of the content of graduate curriculum (rank order 4). Factors Which Maintain a High Quality Curricula and Graduate Programs (Item #8) TABLE 28.— Rank order of factors which help to maintain a high quality curricula and graduate programs Categories 1 . Quality faculty Frequency Percentage Rank Order 17 54.8 1 2. Improvement in curricula 3 9.7 6 3. Quality research and support 6 19.3 4 Quality students and research 8 25.8 2.5 5. Top quality library 5 16.1 5 6. No answer 8 25.8 2.5 4. NOTE: n = 31 179 The rank order of factors which maintain a high quality curricula and graduate programs is in the order: faculty quality (rank order 1), quality students and research (rank order 2.5), quality research and support order 4), top quality library improvement in curricula (rank (rank order 5), and (rank order 6). Twenty-six percent of the chairpersons had "no answer" to this openended question. Research and Instruction— Area II Analysis of Area II, "Research and Instruction," includes appraisal of research and instruction regarding two q u e s t i o n s : (1) Relationship of teaching and research; (2) Effect of external funding including governmentsponsored research on research and instruction. The role of the chairpersons regarding research and instruction, the alternatives and additions to their administrative roles, and issues facing them regarding research and instruction are other subjects of analysis in this area. Relationship of Teaching and Research (item #£) The data indicated that the faculty engaged in teaching and research is in the ratio of 3:2. Table 29.) (See 180 TABLE 29.— Data distribution of teaching and research Teaching Research 100% 0% IIIL 7 5 - 4 5 4 1 - - 2 10 1 - 25 **” 2 25 50 75 30 40 75 50 25 60 60 90 50 NOTE: Frequencies Ratio: 11 10 4 1 2 1 2 T e a c h i n g :Research 3 : 2 Effect of External Funding on Instruction and Research (Item #10) The effects of external funding including govern­ ment-sponsored research are in order of rank: content of research (rank order 1 ), assisting pro fe s­ sional development of faculty content of instruction student scholarship promoting (rank order 2 ), promoting (rank order 3), and assisting (rank order 4). (See Table 30.) The least effect of external funding seems to be diverting attention from teaching (rank order 5). Participation in Research and Instructional Activities (item # 1 1 ) The data (Table 31) indicated that 93.5 percent of the chairpersons confer with faculty on "educational and research policy." Eighty-eight percent of the chair­ persons confer on "budget provisions" and 74.2 percent confer regarding "managerial affairs." 181 TABLE 30.— Rank order of effects of external funding Effects 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Frequency Diverts attention from teaching Rank Order Percentage 3 9.6 5 Diverts attention from internal research — Promotes content of research 25 80 .6 1 Promotes content of instruction 22 70.9 3 Assists student scholarship 20 64.5 4 Assists professional development of faculty 24 77.4 2 NOTE: — -- n = 31 TABLE 31.— Research and instructional activities with faculty Activities Frequency Percentage 1. Educational and research policy 29 93.5 2. Budget provisions for b r o ad en ­ ing the research and educa­ tional bases of graduate programs 27 87.1 Managerial affairs of research and instruction 23 74. 2 3. NOTE: n = 31 182 The Chairperson's Role in Maintaining Standards of Graduate Instruction (item #12A) TABLE 32.— Chairman's role in maintaining standards of graduate instruction Aspects Frequency Pcrcentiige Review academic achievements of students 22 70.9 2. Evaluate faculty performance 27 87.1 3. Supervise programs 9 29.0 4. Recommend rewards and incentives 28 90.3 1. 5. Others NOTE: n = 31 The data indicated that 90.3 percent of the chair­ persons recommend rewards and incentives to maintain standards of graduate instruction; faculty performance; 87.1 percent evaluate and 70.9 percent review academic achievement of students. Only 29.0 3 percent like to supervise programs. Some of the other measures taken by the chair­ person a r e : 1. Set up review procedures for all student research and intern experiences. 2. Review academic programs and changes in programs. 3. Review assignments of professors. 183 4. Employ outside evaluation of faculty and doctoral g ra d u a t e s . 5. Review program standards with faculty. 6. Work with faculty on quality control. 7. Initiate curriculum review. 8. Seek interdepartmental cooperation for graduate instruction and research. The C h ai r pe rs on 1s Role in Facilitating Scholarship (Item #12B) TABLE 33.— Chairman's role in facilitating scholarship Aspects Number Percentage 1. Raise funds for the department 19 61.3 2. Recruit competent faculty 26 83.9 3. Admit promising scholars 22 70. 9 4. Recommend distinguished faculty awards 23 74.2 Award assistantships to deserving scholars 26 83.9 5. NOTE: n = 31 The data indicated that 83.9 percent of the chairpersons maintain standards of scholarship by facilitating assistantships to deserving scholars and recruiting competent faculty; 74.2 percent help by recommending distinguished faculty awards. Another 184 70.9 percent maintain standards by admitting promising scholars and 61.3 percent raise funds for the department to facilitate scholarship. Other aspects of maintaining standards mentioned by the chairpersons were: 1. Encourage individual faculty development. 2. Fight off outside offers with every resource available. 3. Encourage publication of results. 4. Schedule faculty research time. Participation in Instructional/ Research Projects (Item #13l Eighty-four percent of the chairpersons are engaged in instructional/research projects on their own. Sixteen percent indicated that they are not engaged in these activities. Alternatives and Additions to Role (item #14l TABLE 34.— Changes in role Aspects 1. 2. 3. 4. Number Percentage Supervision of advanced research 4 12.9 Involvement in one or more research programs 9 22.1 Development of graduate programs of research 12 38.7 Development of graduate p r o ­ grams of instruction 12 38.7 NOTE: n = 31 185 Thirty-nine percent of the chairpersons indicated that they would like to be more involved in the develop­ ment of graduate programs of research and development of graduate programs of instruction. Twenty-two percent would like to be involved in one or more research pro ­ grams. Thirteen percent would like to supervise advanced research. Structural Changes and Alternatives (Item #15) TABLE 35.— Structural changes and alternatives Categories Frequency Percentage Admission procedures of graduate students 5 16.1 2. Flexibility of programs 4 12.9 3. Change in the mode of class­ room instruction 4 12.9 Administrative flexibility in allocation of resources 5 16.1 5. Reduce faculty work load 6 19. 3 6. No answer 7 22 .6 1. 4. NOTE: n = 31 Nineteen percent of the chairpersons indicated that they wanted to reduce faculty work load. Sixteen percent of the chairpersons suggested that there should be changes in the admission procedures of graduate stu­ dents and that there should be more administrative flexibility in allocation of resources. Thirteen percent 186 indicated flexibility of programs and changes in the mode of classroom instruction. Twenty-three percent of the chairpersons had "no answer." Contributions of Research to Instruction (Item #16) TABLE 36.— Rank order of contributions of research to instruction Frequency Categories 32 o2 1 Develop theories and content 6 19 .3 3.5 National recognition of faculty 4 12.9 5 Research and graduate faculty 2 6.4 7 Involvement of students in research 3 9.7 6 Improves quality of instruction 6 19. 3 3.5 No answer 7 2 2.6 2 Updating knowledge 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. Rank Order 10 1. 3. Percen tage NOTE: n = 31 The rank order of contributions of research in instruction are in the following order: edge updating knowl­ (rank order 1 ), develop theories and content and improves quality of instruction (rank order 3.5, national recognition of faculty (rank order 5), involve­ ment of students in research and graduate faculty 3.5), (rank order 6 ), and research (rank order 7). Twenty-three per­ cent of the chairpersons had "no answer." 187 Faculty and Personnel Services— Area III Analysis of the area "Faculty and Personnel Services" includes appraisal of faculty competency and support for additional faculty. The analysis is also devoted to the role of the chairperson regarding pers on ­ nel services and faculty, the changes in administration desired by the chairpersons, and the open-ended question regarding faculty development. Competency of Faculty (Item #17) TABLE 37.— Competency of faculty Competency 1. Comparable with other faculty members in their fields Number Percentage 9 29.0 2. Better than others 12 38.7 3. Decidedly good 14 45.2 4. Distinguished 10 32.3 NOTE: n = 31 Thirty-two percent of the chairpersons indicated that the faculty in their departments are distinguished. Forty-five percent stated that it was decidedly good. Thirty-nine percent indicated that it was better than others. Twenty-nine percent perceived the faculty to be comparable. 188 Support for Additional Faculty (item #18) TABLE 38.— Funds for additional faculty Aspects 1. Number Percentage Additional faculty for new programs of graduate education and research 1 3.2 2. Promote higher quality education 3 9.7 3. Retain quality faculty members 7 2 2.6 4. Prevent understaffing of instruction research faculty 1 3.2 Promote and maintain quality education 7 2 2.6 Others "negative support" 8 25. 8 5. 6. NOTE: n = 31 Twenty-six percent of the chairpersons indi­ cated that the university funds for additional faculty were "negative." Twenty-three percent indicated that university funds helped to retain high quality faculty and education. There are very few funds for additional faculty for new programs and recruitment of new faculty. Chairman's Authority Regarding Personnel Services (Item #19) As shown in Table 39, 61.3 percent of the chair­ persons indicated that they have the authority to initiate recruitment of faculty. Eighty-seven percent stated that they have the authority to recommend/reject appointment of prospective faculty members. Eighty-four 189 percent indicated that they can approve/disapprove tenure of faculty. for faculty. Thirty-five percent can set salary maximums Twenty-three percent indicated that they can keep the faculty position open on retirement/death and/or allocate the activities of the position to other faculty members. TABLE 39.— Chairman's authority regarding personnel services Aspects Number Percentage 1. Initiate recruitment of faculty 19 61.3 2. Recommend/reject appointment of a prospective faculty member 27 87.1 Approve/disapprove tenure of faculty 26 83.8 4. Set salary maximums for faculty 11 35.5 5. Keep the faculty position open on retirement/death and/or allocate the activities of the position to other faculty members 7 22.6 3. NOTE: n = 31 Change in Role since Appointment (Item #201 As shown in Table 40, 71.4 percent of the chair­ persons indicated that they have become more facilitory since their initial appointment. Forty-one percent have become more participatory and advisory. have become more supervisory. become more controlling. Thirty percent Twenty-two percent have 190 TABLE 40.— Change in the role of chairpersons since their initial appointment Subjects Partici­ patory Number of Chairpersons 11 Percentage 40.7 NOTE: Super­ visory Con­ trolling 8 6 29.6 22.2 Facilitory Advisory 20 11 71.4 40.7 n = 27 Faculty Salaries as Incentives (item #211 To the question whether the chairpersons con­ sidered current salaries and operational expenses to the faculty sufficient inducements to discourage them from moving to other institutions, 33.3 percent of the chair­ persons indicated that they were sufficient inducements. Sixty-seven percent indicated they were not sufficient. Helping Faculty Academically and Professionally (Item #22) Fifty-two percent (Table 41) of the chairpersons indicated "no answer" to the open-ended question to suggest ways of helping faculty academically and p r o ­ fessionally; this category has rank order 1. The priority in other cases in the rank order identify more resources for research and teaching programs (rank order 2 ), more release time for research and preparation, and reassignment of research services and instruction, 191 TABLE 41.— Rank order of ways of helping faculty academi­ cally and professionally Categories 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Frequency Percentage Rank Order Encouragement and moral support 2 6.4 More release time for research and preparation 6 19. 3 3.5 Travel support for pr o­ fessional development 4 12 .9 6 Identify more resources for research and teaching programs 8 25.8 2 Reassignment of research services and instruction, technical support 6 19. 3 3.5 Work with the faculty in improving teaching and teaching techniques 5 16.1 5 Reduction in administra­ tive chores 3 9.7 7 16 51.6 1 No answer NOTE: n = 31 8 192 technical support (rank order 3.5), work with the faculty in improving teaching and teaching techniques (rank order 5), travel support for professional development (rank order 6 ), reduction in administrative chores (rank order 7), and encouragement and moral support (rank order 8 ). Resources and Bud ge t— Area IV This area includes an appraisal of faculty salaries, inadequate budgets, education. and the effect on graduate The role of the chairpersons has been analyzed with respect to the extent of their responsibility in the preparation of the budget, the bases of resource allo­ cations to the departments, uses of strategies of b u d ­ getary control; the changes and issues confronting them in this area are separately taken up in additions and alternatives of the role and in the analysis of the openended questions. Faculty Salaries (Item #2 3 ) Ninety-seven percent of the chairpersons reported that faculty salaries are an item of high priority in the budget. One chairperson indicated "no budget." chairperson indicated in a note "account for 95% of department budget." One ,193 Effects of Inadequate Budgets (Item #24) TABLE 42.— Rank order of aspects affected by inadequate budget Frequency Aspects Quality of graduate education Percentage Rank Order 14 45.3 3 Diversity of graduate programs 9 22.1 7 Student enrollment 4 12.9 8 Faculty work load 20 64.5 1 Recruitment of faculty 12 38.7 4.5 Student faculty ratio 12 38.7 4.5 8 25.8 6 15 48.4 2 Faculty mobility Auxiliary services NOTE: n = 31 The rank order of aspects affected by inadequate budgets in recent years is in the order as follows. (1) Faculty work load (rank order 1); (2) Auxiliary services (rank order 2); (3) Quality of graduate education (rank order 3); (4) Recruitment of faculty and student faculty ratio (rank order 4.5, 4.5); (5) Diversity of graduate programs (6 ) Faculty mobility (rank order 7); (rank order 6 ); (7) Student enrollment (rank order 8 ). 194 Chairperson's Responsibility Regarding Preparation of the Budget (Item #25 ) There was a 100 percent response to the question. There is a variety of responses. Twenty-nine percent of the chairpersons indicated that they had sole responsi­ bility for the preparation of the budget. Seventy-one percent shared responsibility either with deans, deans, advisory committee, assistants, selected faculty, or assistant director. associate administrative The practice at the departmental level obviously varies. Chairperson's Role in Increasing Resources of Income (Item #26) TABLE 43.— Chairperson's role in increasing resources of income 1. 2. 3. 4. Aspects Number Percentage Encourage the preparation of research or other appropriate proposal for external funding 29 96.7 Attend meetings/communicate with appropriate officers (federal/ state/foundations) 18 60.0 Solicit funds from individual donors or private business/ industry 12 40.0 Others NOTE: n = 30 Ninety-seven percent of the chairpersons indi­ cated that they encourage research or other appropriate proposals for external funding in order to increase resources of income for their departments. Sixty percent 195 attend meetings/communicate with appropriate officers (federal/state/foundations). Forty percent solicit funds from individual donors or private business/industry. Among the other measures listed by the chairpersons to increase resources of income are: 1. Work with college administration and with faculty to optimize bargaining position. 2. Solicit funds from institution. 3. Document needs to upper university administration. 4. Discuss their problems with dean. 5. Close contact with administration. Bases of Resources (Item #27) TABLE 44.— Bases of resources to the department Bases Number Percentage Work load variations among faculty members in the department 7 22.5 2. Change in productivity 8 25.5 3. Efficiency or performance of programs/faculty 14 45.2 2 6.4 1. 4. Others The bases of allocations of resources within the department are as follows: 45 percent of the chairpersons indicated that they considered efficiency or performance of programs/faculty when appropriating resources. 196 Twenty-five percent indicated that change in productivity is the basis with them. Twenty-two percent took into consideration the work load variations among faculty members for allocation of resources within the unit or department. Strategies of Budgetary Control (Item #28) TABLE 45.— Rank order of strategies of budgetary control Strategies 1. 2. Percentage Rank Order 22 75. 8 2 2 6.9 7 26 89 .6 1 Frequency Authorize expenditure of unneeded funds before end of fiscal role Reduction of next year's allocations 3. Priority spending 4. Keeping positions unfilled 3 10. 3 6 5. Judging merits of academic programs 16 55.1 3 Budgetary analysis of work load 12 41.1 4 Requiring certain programs to be self-supporting 9 31.0 5 6. 7. NOTE: n = 29 The sequence of strategies used by the chair­ persons for budgetary control i s : (1) Priority spending (rank order 1); (2) Authorize the expenditure of unused funds before the end of the fiscal year (rank order 2 ); 197 (3) Judging merits of academic programs (4) Budgetary analysis of work load (rank order 3); (rank order 4); (5) Requiring certain programs to be self-supporting (rank order 5); (6 ) Keeping positions unfilled (rank order 6 ); (7) Reduction of next year's allocations (rank order 7). Options for Budget Allocations (item 129) TABLE 46.— Chairperson's options for budget allocations Options 1. 2. 3. Frequency Percentage Rank Order Academic success of graduate programs 19 61.2 2 Protect new or exp er i­ mental programs 14 45.2 3 The resource allocation be based on program priorities 21 67.7 1 NOTE: n = 31 The chairpersons were of the view that options for budget allocations should be in the following order: (1) Program priorities (rank order 1); (2) Academic success of graduate programs order 2 ); (rank 198 (3) Protection of new or experimental programs (rank order 3). Preparing Budget Plans (Item # 3 0 ) Twenty-three percent of the chairpersons stated that they prepared budget plans and projections for graduate programs whenever the need arose. Seventy- three percent indicated that they prepared them annually but reviewed frequently during the year as there are also sporadic demands for budgetary projections. Three percent work on them every five years. Financing of Graduate Education (Item #31) TABLE 47.— Graduate education and financing Recommendations Frequency Percentage Careful planning 19 63.3 Establishing priorities 21 70.0 8 26 .7 A policy and planning committee NOTE: n = 30 In view of the changing conditions regarding financing of higher education, mended as follows: the chairpersons recom­ 70 percent recommended more attention on establishing priorities for graduate programs and related activities in the department. Sixty-four percent recommended focus on more careful planning of programs of graduate education. Twenty-seven percent recommended 199 a policy and planning committee for reviewing financial priorities and resource allocations. Issues in Graduate Education (Item #32) TABLE 48.— Rank order of issues in graduate education as perceived by the chairpersons Categories Frequency Percentage Rank Order Revision of university goals 2 6.4 6 2. Low enrollments 4 12.9 5 3. Inadequate financial support for quality programs 6 19. 3 2.5 Inadequate staffing for quality graduate pro ­ grams 5 16.1 4 Prospective employment opportunity 6 19. 3 2.5 Recruitment of quality students 7 22.6 1 1. 4. 5. 6. NOTE: n = 31 The importance of issues in graduate education as indicated by the chairpersons is in the rank order: recruitment of quality students (rank order 1 ), inadequate financial support for quality programs and prospective employment opportunity (rank order 2.5), low enrollments (rank order 5), and revision of university goals order 6 ). (rank 200 Graduate Students and Education— Area V The analysis of the area "Graduate Students and Education" includes appraisal of graduate student enrollments, students, the competence and promise of graduate and graduate student dropouts. The role of the chairpersons regarding various activities and achievements in graduate education, improvement, suggestions for and issues are also subjects of analysis. Graduate Student Enrollment of 1976-77 (Item #33) Regarding graduate student enrollments, cent indicated a decrease over the previous year 76). 42 per­ (1975- Forty-two percent observed no change over the previous year (1975-76). Thirteen percent indicated that enrollments have increased over the previous year (1975-76). Competence and Promise of Graduate Students (Item #34) In the opinion of 41.9 percent of the chairpersons the competence and promise of graduate students has improved over previous years. Thirty-nine percent indi­ cated that it has remained the same. Thirteen percent stated competence and promise has declined over the previous years. Three percent viewed that competence and promise vary by area. 201 Principal Reasons for Graduate Dropouts (Item #35) The rank order of reasons for graduate dropouts is in the order (Table 49): family circumstances economic difficulties or (rank order 1 ), deficient academic achievement— failure of comprehensives 2.5), (rank order 2.5, frustrations during dissertation stage order 4), poor relations with advisor heavy program requirements areas in doctoral study specialization (rank (rank order 5.5), (rank order 5.5), stress (rank order 7), and over­ (rank order 8 ). Among the other reasons listed for graduate dropouts by chairpersons are: (1) Finances; (2) Employment pattern; (3) Preoccupations with other things, family, j o b , e t c .; (4) Discouragement about professional prospects. Participation in Graduate Activities/Achievements (Item #36) The data (Table 50) indicated that 96.7 percent of the chairpersons participate in conferences/meetings. Eighty-one percent do professional reading. Sixty-five percent do research in the discipline representative of 202 TABLE 49.— Rank order of the principal reasons for graduate dropouts Reasons 1. Frequency Percentage Rank Order 5 16 .7 5.5 Heavy program require­ ments 2. Routine nature of work — — — 3. Lack of faculty interest — — — 4. Poor relationships with advisor 5. 6. Lack of appreciation for intellectual competence of student Frustration during di s­ sertation stage 5 — 16.7 5.5 __ — 12 40.0 4 1 3.3 8 7. Over-specialization 8. Deficient academic achievement— failure of comprehensives 18 60.0 2.5 Economic difficulties/ or family circumstances 19 63.3 1 8 26.7 7 18 60.0 2.5 9. 10. 11. 12 . Stress areas in doctoral study Change of career or personal goals Others NOTE: n = 30 203 TABLE 50.— Participation in graduate activities/achieve­ ments Activities Frequency Percentage Rank Order Research on graduate students/graduate education 10 32.2 4 Research in the disci­ pline representative of graduate administration 20 64.5 3 Research on graduate administration 3 9.7 5 4. Professional reading 25 80.6 2 5. Participation in con­ ferences/meetings 30 96.7 1 1. 2. 3. NOTE: n = 31 204 the department. Thirty-two percent participate in research on graduate students/graduate education. Quality of Graduate Student Performance (Item #37) TABLE 51.— Rank order of aspects that can improve quality of graduate student performance Frequency Aspects Rank Order 1. Financial assistantships 18 2 2. Advising 11 5 3. Academic assistantships 14 3 4. Instruction 12 4 5. Selection 19 1 6. Participation of students in interdisciplinary academic programs 8 6.5 7. Restructuring of courses 8 6.5 8. Flexibility in planning indi­ vidual programs 5 8 The factors that can help to improve quality of graduate student performance, in the opinion of the chairpersons, was indicated in the importance of rank order: (1) Selection (rank order 1) (2) Financial assistance (rank order 2) (3) Academic assistantships (4) Instruction (rank order 3) (rank order 4) 205 (5) Advising (rank order 5) (6 ) Restructuring of courses and participation of students in interdisciplinary academic programs (rank order 6.5, 6.5) (7) Flexibility in planning individual programs (rank order 8 ) Problems of Graduate Students of Concern to Chairpersons (Item # 38) The chairpersons indicated (Table 52) the problems of graduate students of concern to them in the rank order: financial problems (rank order 1 ), employment trends (rank order 3), relevancy of course work to career goals, poor selection of students for graduate work, and morale, dissertation research expenses, anxiety and stress areas in (rank order 6 ), lack of writing skills, development of high level competence and intellectual curiosity, quality guidance and advising (rank order 1 0 ). Nineteen percent of the chairpersons had "no answer." Problems of Evaluating Graduate Programs (Item #39) The principal problems of evaluating graduate programs indicated by the chairpersons were in the order: lack of time and resources formity in course standards (rank order 2 ), lack of u n i ­ (rank order 3), subjectivity, faculty agreement on criteria (rank order 4.5, 4.5) , 206 TABLE 52.— Rank order of problems of graduate students of concern to chairpersons Categories Frequency Percentage Rank Order 1. Financial problems 9 29.03 1 2. Employment trends 4 12.9 3 3. Lack of writing skills 2 6.4 10 4. Relevancy of course work to career goals 3 9.7 6 Poor selection of students for graduate work 3 9.7 6 6. Anxiety and morale 3 9.7 6 7. Research expenses 3 9.7 6 8. Development of high level competence and intel­ lectual curiosity 2 6.4 10 Quality guidance and advising 2 6.4 10 Stress areas in diss e r­ tation and selection of a satisfactory problem 3 9.7 6 No answer 6 19.3 2 5. 9. 10. 11. NOTE: n = 31 207 TABLE 53.— Rank order of problems of evaluating graduate programs Categories Frequency Percentage Rank Order 1. Relevancy to needs 2 6.4 7 2. Time and resources 5 16.1 2 3. Subjectivity 3 9.7 4. Lack of uniformity in course standards 4 12. 9 3 Evaluation of thesis research 2 6.4 7 Faculty agreement on criteria 3 9.7 4.5 Interdisciplinary courses 2 6.4 7 14 45.2 1 5. 6. 7. 8. No answer NOTE: n = 31 4.5 208 evaluation of thesis research, courses (rank order 7, 7). and interdisciplinary There was "no answer" by 45 percent of the chairpersons (rank order 1). Administrative Organization and Practices— Area VI The analysis of the area "Administrative Organi­ zation and Practices" includes a description of the departmental personnel who assist in administration of graduate programs and the faculty committees in the departments which assist in the operation of graduate programs. The analysis of the role of the chairpersons includes the process of inquiry and review of scholarly standards, administrative relations with faculty, and administrative decisions; it also includes alternatives and additions to their administrative role and issues confronting the chairpersons in the area. Administrative Personnel in the Departments (item #40) The department chairpersons share their adminis­ tration of graduate programs with the designate adminis­ trators, either an associate chairperson, assistant chairperson or graduate chairperson, director of graduate programs, who generally gets 50 percent release time for sharing in advising and administration. Coordi­ nators in the departments generally take care of the staffing and assigning of courses in the program area 209 and graduate program. They get from 15 percent to 25 percent release time for administrative assignments. A great many chairpersons have professors or associate professors who get between 10 percent to 25 percent release time for a variety of administrative duties they perform. The responsibilities listed are varied including the following: (1 ) Assistance in administration (2 ) Advising and administration (3) Administering of teaching programs (4) Administering extern programs (5) Admissions of doctoral students (6 ) Managing secretary pool (7) Admissions and budget (8 ) Advisement and research design (9) Admissions and examination (1 0 ) Chair graduate committee (1 1 ) Admissions and advisement Some chairpersons have interest area representatives and administrative assistants. The administrative assistant gets 10 percent release time, whereas interest area representatives, who are counselors get no release time for the administrative help they give, including answering inquiries, suggesting program, interest group meetings, conducting arranging for data collection. 210 The secretary is a clerical assistant. The administra­ tive personnel are responsible to the chairpersons of the departments and in a few cases the chairperson and faculty or chairperson and graduate affairs committee or director. The response to the question was 100 pe r­ cent and the information was collated under the clas­ sified pattern as in the question. Faculty Committees (Item #41) The chairpersons have various faculty committees which assist them in the operations of the graduate programs. Some of them generally are: (1) Faculty advisory committee— advising on all controversial and advisory matters; (2) Curriculum committee— review and when necessary change curriculum; (3) Admissions committee— doctoral/masters; (4) Graduate affairs committee; (5) Comprehensive or preliminary examination committee; (6 ) Graduate instruction/education c om m it te e; (7) Graduate program committee; (8 ) Promotion, salary, and tenure committee; (9) Judiciary committee— student grievances; 211 (10) Budget committee; (11) Seminar committee; (12) Guidance committee. The authority to these committees is generally delegated and their role is advisory or recommendatory. Responsibility Regarding Graduate Education Committees (Item #42) TABLE 54.- -C ha i r p e r s o n 's responsibility regarding graduate education committees Number of Chairpersons Percentage Accept recommendations 17 54.8 Suggest changes and refer back to the committee 19 61.2 8 25.8 Responsibilities 1 . 2. 3. Reject the recommendations 4. Refer to the faculty assembly/council with changes 10 32.2 Refer to the faculty for discussion 17 54.8 1 3.2 5. 6. Veto the recommendations in the faculty assembly/council over a split of opinion NOTE: n = 31 The chairpersons have a wide range of responsi­ bilities regarding graduate education committees. Sixty- one percent indicated that they can suggest changes and refer back to the committee. Fifty-five percent stated they accept recommendations and refer to the faculty for 212 discussion. Twenty-six percent reject recommendations. Three percent indicated they veto recommendations over a split of opinion. Chairperson's Role Regarding Scholarly Standards (Item~~ff4 3A) The role of chairpersons in maintaining high scholarly standards is covered under "Regarding the Admissions Application." Fifty-eight percent of the chairpersons indicated that they accept the recommen­ dations of the faculty committee for admissions as final authority. Thirty-two percent process the applications. Other chairpersons (28.5 percent) take the following steps: 1. Appoint the review board. 2. Review over a disagreement. 3. Participate in review as a faculty member. 4. Contribute to establishment of administrative stan da rd s. 5. Evaluate faculty recommendations. Consult with assistant dean on special cases. 6. Review the quality with faculty. 7. Consult with faculty committee on difficult cases. 213 8. Consult with graduate chairpersons with appli­ cations that are special. 9. Regular review, i.e., by the large graduate committee. 10. Use faculty recommendations as information in making decisions. Academic Achievement of the Graduate Student (Item #4 3B) Seventy-seven percent of the chairpersons indi­ cated that the academic achievement of the graduate student is monitored by regular review in the department. Fifty-eight percent stated that individual advisors have this responsibility. Nine percent indicated that moni ­ toring is done from reports received from application offices outside the department. Monitoring is also done by coordinators of the departments. Retention or Dismissal of Graduate Students (Item T4 3C) Regarding retention or dismissal of graduate students, 41.0 percent of the chairpersons indicated that the procedure involves appropriate action both within the department and in the college. Thirty-nine percent indicated the matter is their final responsi­ bility. Thirty-five percent indicated it is the responsibility of the department. Twenty-two percent 214 reported it is the responsibility of the major advisor and s t u d e n t 'advising committee. The Award of Graduate Degree (item #4~3D) Regarding the award of graduate degrees, 80.6 per ­ cent of the chairpersons indicated that they certify the c a n d i d a t e s ’ completion of requirement. no direct responsibility. cent) Ten percent have Other chairpersons (6.4 pe r­ stated their responsibility i s : (1) Delegated to associate chairperson; (2) None as far as master's degree is concerned; indirectly as a faculty member. Role with Faculty (Item #44) TABLE 55.— Rank order of steps for academic reforms or change Steps 1. 2. 3. 4. Frequency Rank Order Stimulate faculty thinking and action 29 1 Initiate action for faculty study and review 21 3 Persuade faculty to accept new modes of action 20 4 Remove obstacles in the way of changes 28 2 NOTE: n = 29 215 The chairpersons indicated that their role regarding academic reforms or change in relation to the department faculty is in the following order of measures they t a k e : 1. Stimulate faculty thinking and action. 2. Remove obstacles in the way of change. 3. Initiate action for faculty study and review. 4. Persuade faculty to accept new modes of action. Role with the Administrators of the Office of the Dean (Item #45) Regarding the chairperson's role with the admin­ istrators of the office of the dean of the college, 87.1 percent indicated it as recommendatory. one percent indicated it as informative. percent stated it as consultative. indicated it as advisory. Eighty- Seventy-seven Sixty-four percent Fifty-five percent reported it as participatory. Administrative Decisions (Item #46) Data regarding administrative decisions made by the chairpersons (Table 56) indicated that 90.3 percent have faculty participation and the same percentage seek advice of the immediate supervisor in decision making (rank order 1, 1). Eighty-one percent decided on recom­ mendations of standing and ad hoc committees order 3). (rank Seventy-seven percent decided on advice of 216 faculty (rank order 4). Seventy-four percent depended on their judgment and discretion (rank order 5). Twenty- two percent decided on the advice of staff administrators (rank order 6 ); 16.1 percent decided on the advice of informal agencies (rank order 7). TABLE 56.— Rank order of factors affecting administrative decisions of chairpersons Number of Chair­ persons Percentage Rank Order decision-making 28 90. 3 1 Recommendations of stand­ ing/ad hoc committees 25 80.6 3 9 22.1 6 24 77.4 4 5 16.1 7 Chairperson's judgment and discretion 23 74.2 5 Advice of your immediate supervisor 28 90 .3 1 Aspects 1 . Faculty participation in 2. 3. Advice of staff adminis­ trators 4. Advice of faculty 5. Advice of informal agencies 6. 7. NOTE: n = 31 The Chairpersons' Opinions about Their Role (Item #47] The department chairperson in the opinion of 80.6 percent of the chairpersons should be an effective administrator and an outstanding scholar of b o t h ) . (a combination Nineteen percent of the chairpersons indicated that the chairperson should be an effective administrator. 217 In the opinion of 3.2 percent of the chairpersons "out­ standing scholars are wasted in administrative roles." Selection of the Chairperson (Item #48) The best method of selection of chairpersons in the opinion of 90.3 percent of the chairpersons is by the selection committee from the department recommending to the dean. Ten percent of the chairpersons suggested: (1) Selection varies with the situation in a p a r ­ ticular department; (2) Committee from faculty and with departmental representatives to recommend to the dean; (3) Varies with the situation but largely depart­ mental . Interdepartmental Relationships of the Chairpersons (Item #49) Twenty-five percent of the chairpersons indicated "no answer" to the open-ended question regarding inter­ departmental relationships of the chairpersons within the college and with chairpersons from other colleges. Another 25 percent indicated a wide variety of satis­ factory relationships ranging from excellent to informal consultation. Fifty percent of the chairpersons identi­ fied specific relationships through the dean's council, 218 as members of the dean's cabinet, in some areas, joint programs, chairmen in the college, education. sharing responsibility regular meetings between interdisciplinary research and The relationships of chairpersons of depart­ ments on outside were generally indicated as being "solid within variables." The variety of activity between the chairpersons is as follows: (1) Interdisciplinary teaching and research (2) Joint appointments (3) Interaction through meetings at various levels Part 3 Analysis of Part 3 is devoted to the factors which limit the role of the chairperson. Factors Limiting the Chairperson's Role The rank order of factors limiting the role of the chairpersons (Table 57) scholarly activities is: little time for (rank order 1 ), little academic planning and opportunity for coordination (rank order 2 ), lack of funding and appropriations for quality programs (rank order 3), lack of authority in decision-making (rank order 4.5), role conflict with basic commitments (rank order 4.5), pressures frustrations from external and internal (rank order 6 ), management concept (rank order 7), strong colleagues prevent constructive leadership (rank order 8 ). 219 TABLE 57.— Rank order of factors limiting the chairperson's role Frequency Percentage Rank Order Heavy administrative responsibility without commensurate authority in decision-making 9 29.0 4.5 Role conflict with basic commitments to values 9 29.0 4.5 27 87.1 1 3 9.7 8 21 67.7 3 Factors 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Administrative tasks leave little time for scholarly inquiry Strong colleagues in the department prevent co n­ structive leadership Lack of funding and appropriations for quality programs 6. Management concept 5 16.1 7 7. Mode of selection 1 3.2 9 8. Little academic planning and opportunity for coordination 23 74.2 2 8 25.8 6 9. Frustrations from external pressures within/outside NOTE: n = 31 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of this study was to examine: (1) The role of the dean of college and chairpersons in graduate education; (2) Their perceptions of graduate education in their colleges and departments; (3) Alternatives and additions to their roles; (4) Discussion of related issues raised in openended questions. The role of the deans and chairpersons was studied in six specific areas of graduate education. These were: (1) Graduate programs and curriculum content (2) Research and instruction (3) Faculty and personnel services 220 221 (4) Graduate students and education (5) Resources and budget (6 ) Administrative organization and practices Two questionnaires, "The Role of the Dean of the College in Graduate E d u c a t i o n , and "The Role of the Chairperson in Graduate Education," for the purpose of the study. 2 were developed The responses to the questions were desired in direct answers and in check­ lists. Comments were solicited. Five colleges were selected for the study— three professional and two nonprofessional. The questionnaires were sent out to five deans and forty chairpersons. Four deans and thirty-one chairpersons participated in the study. The responses were 80 percent for the deans and 77 percent for the chairpersons. The data were analyzed in percentage, and frequencies. rank order, The content analysis of the open-ended questions was based on the frequency of response and classified. Since it is a pilot study, the findings are exploratory and descriptive. the study are limited. However, The implications of inferences may be con­ sidered somewhat more broadly for the university. Appendix C. ^Ibid. 222 The analysis reported about the deans and chair­ persons in Chapter IV leads to the following findings with emphasis on their role as academic leader and f acili ta to r. Findings Part 1 The Role of the Dean and Chairperson in Graduate Education Defining the Role Style A comparison of the role of the deans and chair­ persons in graduate education in the selected colleges under study conformed to a spherical pattern descriptive in the order of an academic leader, agerial middleman, conciliator, facilitator, m a n ­ and controller executive. The role it seems is a multifacet functional phenomenon interacting with varying degrees of emphasis on other factors in graduate education in an important but deter­ mining manner. The deans and chairpersons, it may be inferred, play no single role in graduate education that may be considered "ideal" for an academic admin­ istrator. The "ideal" dean or chairperson in this sense is virtually impossible. The viable dean involves himself in graduate education to facilitate and lead the development of the academic situation. The deans of "professional" colleges emphasize their roles of controller-executives while chairpersons 223 are more "facilitators" and "managerial middlemen." The deans of "nonprofessional" colleges are more of "middlemanagers" while chairpersons are inclined to be more academic leaders and "facilitators." The findings seem to support Corson's view that the dean of the "professional" school has a relatively close-knit relationship with several disciplines represented in the faculty and is more powerful than the dean of an "arts and science" college m a big university. 3 It also corresponds to the view that the dean's position in the college is relative to the chairperson's status in the department. 4 Role in Graduate C u rriculum and Change While curriculum is basically admitted to be the domain of the faculty or faculty committees, the deans and chairpersons in the study observe that they have a positive role in the development of graduate curriculum, its content, and change. This is borne out by the fact that 75 percent of the deans specify their role as evalu­ ation of curricula, allocation of resources for curriculum development, identification of needs for new courses, 3 and John J. Corson, The Governance of Colleges and Universities, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1975), p. 80. ^Ibid., p. 84. 224 supportive funding for new programs in specified areas. Evaluation is considered chiefly in terms of cost e ff e c ­ tiveness and resource utility items. The chairperson's role in curriculum content and change seems to be more direct, patory. controlling, and partici­ Seventy-four percent of the chairpersons reported that they suggest changes in current courses; propose and initiate new programs; 61 percent question the continuation of inactive courses; and disapprove new courses; 6 4.5 percent 54.8 percent approve and 22.5 percent chair a committee initiating change in curriculum. In addition, 82 percent of the chairpersons participate in evaluating curriculum, 75.9 percent in planning curriculum and 48.3 percent supervise curriculum. Horn's observations and fears regarding the role of the deans and chairpersons in curriculum seem to have no correspondence with these findings. "The dean lets the departmental chairmen pour on new courses; he keeps low enrollment courses going year after year instead of alternating them, and he provides too few large classes 5 to bring about some balance," says Horn. The chaxrperson and dean's role in curriculum in the present study seem to be well defined. The dean provides financial Francis H. Horn, Challenge and Perspective in Higher Education (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1971), p. 117. 225 assistance for curriculum development and identifies needs for new courses in new areas while the chairperson guides the growth and development of academic programs, effects changes in the curriculum, and prevents prolifer­ ation of courses. Alternatives and Additions In order to maintain high quality curricula and graduate programs, the deans stress more on competencies and knowledge of graduate students, their involvement in quality research and service, revision of curricula in certain areas, more funds by the university for pro­ grams currently in operation, and equipment for research and replacement. The chairpersons want to facilitate a more help­ ful climate for changes in the content of graduate pro ­ grams and graduate curricula. They do not desire more control of the content of curriculum; nor do they want to maintain the status quo. They desire more opportuni­ ties with faculty for sharing views or imparting infor­ mation on changes or reform in graduate programs and curricula. Role in Research and Instruction The role of the deans and chairpersons as evident from the study is to strengthen the relationship between teaching and research and improve the graduate programs 226 by their participation in these activities or facilitate their operation through concern for meeting requirements and understanding for their development. The relation­ ship as indicated in the study is positive and strong. The analysis indicates that the deans are involved in broadening the research and instructional basis of graduate programs in their colleges through budget allocations to the departments, preparing budget requests for graduate programs, including new programs and courses, working with department chairpersons and provost over possibilities and limitations of expansion, and faculty advising the dean's office regarding edu­ cational and research programs. The success of the deans in broadening the basis of research and instruction depends on the budget allocations they can requisition for their colleges for new programs and courses, and also the amount of external aid they can get for their college. The chairpersons in research and instruction at the graduate level have a more personal involvement. A great majority of them are engaged in some instruc­ tional or research project on their own. They confer with faculty on a great range of subjects ranging from policy matters about research and instruction to budget provisions and managerial affairs connected with edu­ cational and research matters. 227 The analysis indicates that the special qualifi­ cation of the chairpersons is to promote quality edu­ cation and research. In maintaining standards of graduate instruction, the chairpersons depend largely on recommending rewards and incentives for faculty, evaluate faculty performance, ments of graduate students, review academic achieve­ and supervise programs. In promoting scholarship, faculty, they recruit competent recommend distinguished faculty awards, promising scholars to the school, admit and award assistant- ships to deserving graduate students. Contrary to the deans the chairpersons desire a greater degree of involvement in the development of graduate programs. Alternatives/Additions It is interesting to note that while the deans seem to be satisfied with their role as administrators of graduate programs, and do not seek any change or alternatives in it, the chairpersons seek a greater role in planning for the development of graduate pro ­ grams and involvement in research. They also desire a kind of supervisory role of advanced research in their department. 228 Role in Faculty and Personnel Services "There is no justification for the existence of a college or a university except to enable the faculty g to carry on its instructional and research activities." The various deans seem to take strong and effec­ tive steps for overall faculty development. They provide resources, attractive adequate facilities, needs equip­ ment to the faculty to make the climate stimulating and interesting; nition, morale. they review their projects, provide recog­ rewards and merit increases to boost faculty They also act fairly by keeping salaries com­ petitive . The deans help the competent faculty academically and professionally by providing opportunities for travel and study, encouraging participation in seminars, extending sabbaticals, funding professional trips, providing graduate assistants and resources for research needs. They frequently recommend them for awards and committee positions at national levels. In their effort to retain high quality faculty, the deans indicated that they help in promotion and salary benefits, observe competitive salaries, tenure action, York: take and reduce job barriers. ^John D. Millett, The Academic Community McGraw Hill Book C o ~ I n c . , 1962), p. 657 (New 229 Regarding quality education, the deans indicated that they hold to high standards and do not yield on them, assist the faculty in changes in instructional mode, help in improving teaching facilities, and appoint study committees. Regarding recruitment of faculty, tenure, salary m a x i m u m s , and nonrenewal of c o nt r a c t s , the deans make the final collegiate level recommendations. size that tenure of faculty, They empha­ salary maximums, renewal of contract are critical questions; and non­ and they seldom make decisions in isolation of as much information or advice as available. The deans generally share "par­ ticipatory" and "facilitory" responsibilities with the faculty, descending to "advisory," "supervisory," and "controlling." Department chairpersons are more concerned with effective functioning of individual faculty members. By increasing flexibility of practices and structures, they help to make the best of the diverse competencies and skills of faculty members to maximize the individual development of each member. The chairpersons indicated that their relations with the faculty are primarily "facilitory" descending to "participatory," "controlling." "advisory," "supervisory," and 230 The role of the chairpersons regarding recruit­ ment, salary maximums, flexible. tenure, and contracts is more They can initiate recruitment of faculty, recommend or reject appointment of a prospective faculty member, approve and disapprove recommendations for tenure, recommend salary maximums, keep the faculty position open on retirement and death, or allocate the activities of the position to other faculty members. Alternatives and Additions The chairpersons are of the view that the current salaries and operational expenses to the faculty are not sufficient inducements to discourage them from moving to other institutions. Resources and Budget The dean must see the budget for his college as the president sees it for the whole institution. He must maintain balance among his departments, using the budget to bring strength where it is needed, and to curb departmental empire-building where it is evident, and so o n . 7 The deans indicated that they have full responsi­ bility for developing details of budget and deciding allocation to various units in the college. They use three criteria for budget allocations to the departments, change in productivity, 7 and efficiency of performance of Horn, op. cit ., p. 122. 231 programs. Program development and quality of programs are less frequently used devices. Priority spending, programs, judging merits of academic and budgetary analysis of work load have been equated equally as devices used by the deans for develop­ ing and promoting graduate education in the colleges. They authorize expenditure of unused funds before the end of the fiscal year to a very limited extent. Keep­ ing position unfilled and requiring certain programs to be self-supporting are rarely used as strategies for budgetary control by the deans. The analysis indicates that chairpersons like the dean have special responsibility in operating the budget for the department to meet the academic and nonacademic needs including supply requirements and physical requirements. They have, therefore, a major role in evaluating performance and output and recommending pecuniary benefits like salary increases, related rewards. tenure, or All this is normal budget routine in the colleges. A major concern of the chairpersons in operating the budget is to achieve faculty participation in budget making as well as resource allocations. The statistics in the current study showed that there is no uniform practice regarding sharing responsibility for budget preparations by the chairpersons. Twenty-nine percent 232 of the chairpersons indicated that they share the sole responsibility for the preparation of the budget. The rest share it with the dean, with the associate dean, the advisory committee, and some selected members of the faculty. Since salaries include a high priority of the budget, it seems from the analysis that the chairpersons make a lot of personal effort to augment their resources of the department. Besides, they optimize their barg ai n­ ing position with the college administration, solicit funds from the institution, document their needs to upper administration, discuss their problems with the dean, and keep close contact with administration. Regarding the strategies for budgetary control, the chairpersons like the deans give equal importance to priority spending, judging merits of academic p r o ­ grams, and budgetary analysis of work load. persons, in addition, self-supporting. The chair­ also require the programs to be A majority of chairpersons authorize expenditure of unused funds before the end of the fiscal year. Regarding the basis of resource allocations to units within the departments, the chairpersons make their decisions in the order of priority of: (1 ) efficiency or performance of programs and faculty, (2 ) change in pro ­ ductivity, and (3) work load variations among faculty 233 members. It may be inferred that while making decisions on allocation of resources, the deans are more concerned with fairness and equity, the chairpersons, on the other hand, keep efficiency and quality of performance in mind while deciding on allocations to units within the depart­ ment. Alternatives and Additions The deans made a number of suggestions regarding budget allocations. There was a 100 percent opinion that budget allocations should be based on program priorities. There was a 75 percent opinion that resource allocations should be based on the academic success of graduate pro ­ grams. Twenty-five percent think budget allocations should be based on maintenance of quality. In view of the changing conditions regarding financing for higher education, 100 percent of the deans recommend focus on careful planning of graduate education. Again, the same percentage recommend more attention on establishing priorities for graduate programs and related activities in the department. Seventy-five percent recommended a policy and planning committee for review­ ing financial priorities and resource allocations. Role Regarding Graduate Students and Education "If the premise is to be supported that doctoral education represents both a generative and a regenerative 234 process, continual renewal and evaluation of the ends and means of the process must be practiced both by its designers and by those who will, presumably, reflect its g impact as they assume their various careers," says Heiss. The analysis shows that deans and chairpersons are aware of the problems of enrollment of graduate stu­ dents, their financial uncertainties, ing them better programs, faculty, the need for offer­ competent and understanding appreciation for their intellectual promise, providing the departmental atmosphere, and helping in facilitating the student's interest for scholarly p u r ­ suits . Regarding their role in improving the general competency and promise of graduate students, indicated that they evaluate programs, crop" if they wish, the deans take "cream of as well as work with departments on methods of recruiting graduate students and work to keep stipends competitive. The dean's role in evaluating the quality of graduate student performance is indicated in terms of developing specific definitions of expected outcomes, support work of evaluative committees, dations. act on recommen­ The associate dean in the college working O Ann M. Heiss, Challenges to Graduate Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), p. 163. 235 with graduate committee reviews testing processes in the departments. The deans do not keep as much in touch with the graduate students as do the chairpersons who teach and advise. Only 2 5 percent of the deans, therefore, had informal contacts. However, 50 percent have advisory committees of student representatives and the deans meet with these advisory groups and give seminars. The contact is also through the associate dean who chairs a graduate advisory committee of graduate students. Since their appointment to the position, the great majority of deans have been involved in research in a discipline representative of their college, par­ ticipated in professional reading and attended con­ ferences and meetings related to graduate study. The most important activities in which the chairpersons have been involved since their appointment are in a different priority order. The majority of them have participated in conferences and meetings related to graduate study, done professional reading, and have been involved in research in the discipline representa­ tive of their department. Thirty-two percent have been busy with research on graduate students and graduate education. Ten percent have been involved in research on graduate administration. 236 Alternatives and Additions The deans suggest that in order to improve the quality of graduate student performance, there should be closer faculty-student relations— more efforts should be made to attract better quality students to improve quality of performance. Role in Administrative Organi­ zation and Practices The dean of the college is in charge and responsible for the administration of graduate programs in the college. The chairpersons administer graduate programs at the departmental level. The deans of the colleges have associate deans, assistant deans, or directors who are concerned either with the general overseeing of graduate programs or their management in the college. The operations of graduate programs in the col­ lege are assisted by a graduate committee at the college level, a number of administrative and faculty committees, and the dean's administrative group. The authority of the dean over the committees varies between accepting the recommendations, for discussion, suggesting changes, refering back rejecting the recommendations, or vetoing the recommendations over a split of opinion. authority," says one of the deans, or advisory. "The "may be delegatory On matters of delegated authority, the 237 deans accept recommendations; on advisory matters, he m ay refer, consult and accept or reject." Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that they share administration of graduate programs with faculty. Seventy-five percent shared it with the admin­ istrative group assistants or the administrative units in the college. The dean's mode of feedback regarding adminis­ tration of graduate education with the chairpersons is generally direct or by memo. The mode of dean's feedback regarding graduate education with the faculty is either in "individual conference," "direct where possible through department chairman," or through the "college faculty advisory council" which meets once or twice every term and frequently discussed graduate issues. The feedback of the deans with the graduate students is almost at the same level as with the faculty. The dean may confer with the individual graduate student through the department chairperson and college house organization or through the graduate advisory committee which meets with the associate dean. The office of the dean has also developed a regular system of inquiry and review on a variety of important operations. The admission of graduate students is a matter of departmental authority. The dean is a referral of grievances regarding admissions, academic 238 achievements of graduate students, their dismissal or retention. The departmental inquiry in such a case may be supervised by an associate dean. The dean's role in review of academic achievement of graduate students is evaluative, supervisory, and supportive when needed. The associate dean reviews programs and certifies com­ pletion of degree. The deans' relationships with the chairpersons are primarily consultative but also participatory, recommendatory, advisory, and informative. The administrative decisions of the deans are mainly based on the advice of chairpersons and staff administrators (100 p e r c e n t ) , recommendations of stand­ ing/ad hoc committees (100 percent), judgment and discretion and on the dean's (100 p e r c e n t ) . Seventy-five percent of the decisions are also made on the basis of faculty participation in decision-making. Fifty per ­ cent consideration is also given to the immediate super­ visor's advice, and only 25 percent to advice of senior faculty or advice of informal agencies. It may be inferred that administrative decisions are critical matters and although the deans use their own judgment and discretion in almost all matters, decisions are never made in isolation or without sufficient consul- . tation and information. One dean remarks, "Depends on decision— use all systems depending on decision to be 239 made; staff, also use advice of budget officer, CT and AP janitors, etc., if needed." The organization of administration at the unit level is almost parallel to the system at the dean's level. The chairpersons may have a designated associate chairperson, assistant chairperson, or a director of graduate programs. graduate chairperson, They have coordi­ nators , professors, and associate professors who assist in graduate programs and share administrative duties with them. The chairpersons have various faculty committees which assist them in the operation of the graduate pro­ grams. The authority vested in them is either del e­ gatory, advisory, or recommendatory depending on their function and assignment. The responsibilities of the chairpersons with these committees vary widely in the departments. The chairpersons indicated that they can suggest changes and refer back to the committees, accept recommendations to the faculty for discussion, reject recommendations, if necessary. A very few said they veto recommendations over a split of opinion. The office of the chairperson has also developed a system of inquiry and review for important matters. Regarding admission, 58 percent of the chairpersons accept the recommendations of the faculty committee. 240 Thirty-two percent of the chairpersons process the applications. The chairperson may review over a d i s ­ agreement, participate in review as a faculty member, consult with faculty committee, graduate chairman, assistant dean on difficult cases, or appoint a review board. With regard to academic achievement of the graduate students, monitoring is done by regular review in the department or by individual advisors. is also done by coordinators. Monitoring The procedure for retention or dismissal of graduate students involves appropriate action both within the department and in the college. Within the department, it is either a matter of the chairperson's responsibility, responsibility of the major professor, or student advising committee. The practice seems to vary with the departments. Regarding the award of the graduate d e g r e e , the majority of chairpersons certify the candidates' pletion of requirements; co m­ others indicated they have dele­ gated the responsibility to associate chairpersons. The chairpersons' relations with the adminis­ trators of the office of the dean are primarily recom­ mendatory and informative and consultative, and participatory in a lesser way. advisory, 241 By and large, the administrative decisions of the chairpersons are made with faculty participation on the advice of their immediate supervisor and recommen­ dations of standing/ad hoc committees; administrators, advice of staff and advice of informal agencies matter less in decision-making. It may be inferred that the chairperson is a coordinator who involves all portions of the departmental community— faculty and administra­ tors, dean or assistant dean as the case may be in the examination process of decision-making. He does not hold a lever to tilt on the more powerful side but is the centripetal point where the most crucial and critical problems of graduate education and administration are considered and decided in a comprehensive manner to reflect consistency and continuity of internal governance at the unit level between faculty and administration. Limitations of the Role The deans observe that the factors that limit their role are lack of funding and appropriations, administrative details leave little time for scholarly activity and coordination of teaching and research, and lack of authority in decision-making. The chairpersons view lack of financial resources as the major limitation of their role; they consider administrative responsibilities as the most important 242 factor which leave them with little time for scholarly activities, academic planning, coordination. and opportunity for The deans and chairpersons both observe that their authority is not commensurate with their responsibilities. Part 2 Appraisal of Graduate Education and Research Graduate Programs and Cu r­ riculum Content In the opinion of the deans, the graduate p r o ­ grams in their colleges emphasize primarily on training research scholars, college teachers, and basic research. The "professional" colleges give equal importance to applied research while the "nonprofessional" colleges give emphasis to basic research rather than to applied research. The scope for development of applied research in Arts and Science colleges appears to be considerably there. Berelson's observations that "more than in any other profession . . . present practices are perpetuated precisely because the judges of the product are themselves the producers," 9 have often been cited to identify faculty interest in preserving the status quo regarding changes in curriculum. 9 Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960), p~. 2 1 8 . 243 This does not, however, seem to be the fact with the graduate curricula of the colleges under study. The deans and chairpersons in their observations to the question, "if they feel there have been considerable changes in the content of graduate curricula in the last five years?" have indicated a viable ferment in the disciplines in some departments. In an equal number of departments there is reportedly some change in the content of curriculum while in about one-fourth there seems to be a stalemate. Thirty-five percent of the chairpersons indicated considerable change; 35 percent perceived some change; however, another 25.8 percent indicated no change in the last five years in the content of curricula. The deans of the four colleges who responded to their questionnaire ascertain the changes. All of them reported that there have been innovations, experiments and changes in graduate curricula and programs in the past five years. In some cases they have specified the area of development. It may be inferred that faculty teaching graduate courses at Michigan State University have stimulated and initiated changes in graduate curricula in about 75 percent of the depart­ ments, but the change is not a homogeneous development. However, Berelson's observations regarding faculty 244 disinclination to "academic change" is not substantiated by the deans and the chairpersons in this study. Teaching and Research The controversy over the role of teaching and research in a complex institution seems to stem over two issues. 1. What should be the relationship of teaching and research within a university? 2. Should university participation in research be subsidized by external agencies at the stake of institutional interests? The two questions that were designed to examine these two issues were: 1. Please indicate the approximate proportion of teaching and research for the faculty engaged in graduate education in your department (Chairperson). What is the relationship of research to graduate instruction in your college? 2. (Dean) How does external funding including governmental sponsored research affect your department? (Chairperson) Affect your college? (Dean) 245 The analysis for the chairpersons regarding question #1 indicated that the proportion of faculty engaged in teaching and research in graduate education in the five colleges under study is in the ratio of 3:2. The comments of the deans indicated "a positive and strong relationship between teaching and research at the graduate level." It may be inferred, therefore, that graduate study in the colleges under study is increasingly oriented towards teaching. The research program, however, in graduate education is also considerably strong although more faculty are engaged in teaching than in research. Regarding question #2 with respect to the effects of external funding on institutional research and teach­ ing, the reports of the chairpersons do not in any way indicate a derogatory effect. External funding including sponsored research in the opinion of the chairpersons promotes primarily content of research and also assists in professional development of the faculty. To a lesser degree it promotes content of instruction and assists student scholarship. These findings seem to be supported by the observations of the deans. Seventy-five percent of the deans indicated that external funding including sponsored research affects instruction. The specifics of support 246 according to the deans are more help to the graduate students who are provided with opportunities to work with the faculty on significant projects and support the program operations of the departments. It seems proper to infer that in the opinion of the chairpersons and deans of the colleges under study, external financial help to graduate education is an intellectual advantage serving internal interests along with whatever benefits the external agencies may derive from funding and subsidizing in research in the insti­ tution. Faculty and Personnel Services "And it is well if the dean knows where to look for that priceless man or woman who is both scholar and teacher and has the extra virtues of personality and the capability of becoming a loyal member of the col­ lege community— loyal not to himself, but to the enterprise. ,,10 The truism that the quality of education rests on the quality of faculty seems to be confirmed by the chairpersons who rank the faculty in the following order. (1) Forty-five percent rank the faculty as "decidedly good" (rank order 1) ; ■^William C. Devane, "The Role of the Dean of the College," in The Academic Deanship in American Colleges and Universities (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968), p. 244. 247 (2) Thirty-nine percent as "better than others" (rank order 2); (3) Thirty-two percent as "distinguished" (rank order 3); (4) Twenty-two percent as "comparable with others in their field" (rank order 4). As regards understaffing and recruitment of addi­ tional faculty for new programs, the deans and the chair­ persons point to the acute shortage as being indigenous to the university. Ninety-seven percent of the chair­ persons perceive the disability due to insufficient funds. Fifty percent of the deans stated that they try to prevent understaffing either by reallocating funds, if possible, or requesting and justifying additional faculty and supportive personnel. Twenty-five percent of the deans indicated that their departments are defi­ nitely understaffed for want of funds and alternatives. Funding for quality programs and quality faculty is in a better form. Ten percent of the chairpersons stated that they get funding from the university to p ro­ mote higher quality education and 22 percent indicated that they are helped to retain high quality faculty members. The university it seems is guided by the policy that in a state of uncertainty of resources, preservation of quality education and maintenance of quality faculty 248 is a generative factor rather than seeking quantitative growth at the expense of quality education. Resources and Budget One of the initial concerns in operating a budget is to share the effects of decreasing appropriations with concern and equanimity. Inadequate budgets and resources seem to have affected the various aspects of graduate education and services. The deans view student enrollments and auxiliary services as the most affected aspects (rank order 1, 1). Diversity of graduate pro­ grams and faculty work load are the next affected factors (rank order 3.5, 3.5). Quality of graduate education, student faculty ratio, and faculty mobility are equally affected (rank order 6, 6, 6). Recruitment of faculty is the least affected aspect in their opinion (rank order 7). The chairpersons rank faculty work load as rank order 1, auxiliary services (rank order 2), and quality of education as rank order 3. Recruitment of faculty and student-facuity ratio bear the same 4.5), diversity of graduate programs faculty mobility (rank order 4.5, (rank order 7 ), (rank order 6), and student enrollment (rank order 8). Irrespective of the effects of funding on auxiliary services which have been equally recorded by the deans and the chairpersons as the most affected, 249 and in spite of the differences of emphasis as regards the effects on other factors, the deans and chairpersons indicated that graduate education has been affected in terms of diversity of graduate programs, faculty work load, student faculty ratio, and recruitment of faculty. Student enrollments, according to the chairpersons, have been seriously affected by lack of adequate funding (rank order 1). Faculty mobility has been the least affected in the opinion of the deans and the chair­ persons. It seems proper to infer, therefore, that the resources are not sufficient to meet the academic needs of the departments and the colleges and that the inade­ quacy of budgetary provisions is affecting the graduate programs as well as the quality of graduate education. Graduate Students and Education The graduate student enrollments over the previous year (1975-76) showed an overall decrease of graduate students in thirteen departments out of thirty-one departments under study. Regarding competence and promise of graduate students, the chairpersons of fourteen departments out of thirty-one reported an improvement in competence and promise over the previous years; indicated "no change"; twelve chairpersons four chairpersons mentioned that competence and promise had declined. One chairperson viewed the competence and promise to vary by area. 250 The four main reasons for graduate dropouts in the opinion of the chairpersons are: economic difficul­ ties or family circumstances, deficient academic achievement-failure of comprehe ns iv e s, change of career or personal goals, and frustration during dissertation stage. Administrative Organization and Practices The decentralized system of administration in the colleges and departments is rooted in the system, in the sharing of administrative duties with the teach­ ing and research personnel for varied percentage of release time. There are also in each department and college a couple of "faculty" and "administrative" committees at graduate level which are generally "advisory" or "recommendatory" bodies to the dean, chairperson, or the graduate council and assist in the operations of graduate matters and programs. The deans of the colleges and the chairpersons who administer graduate programs also exercise the right to review and inquire into the working of the system to maintain and insure quality education and programs in the respective fields. The system which has a decen­ tralized administrative operation working down to the professor is also responsible for its decisions and actions to the line officers in a hierarchy. 251 "The basic concern of administration in graduate schools must be for quality and how quality can be sus­ tained and nurtured despite problems associated with the explosion of new knowledge and formidable increases in graduate e n r o l l m e n t s a i d Allan Tucker in 196 4. The quality of graduate programs as reported by the deans needs to be improved and supported at the graduate level. The deans reported 50 percent satis­ faction to the question, "Are you satisfied with the quality of the graduate programs in your college?" Part 3 Issues and Problems in Graduate Education A number of open-ended questions were designed to seek observations of the chairpersons. The issues and problems that were raised in a few of them were: (1) Important factors which will help to maintain high quality curricula; (2) Principal problems of graduate students; (3) Problems of evaluating graduate programs and research; Allan Tucker, "Decentralized Graduate A d m in i s­ tration with Centralized Accountability," College and University 40 (Winter 1965) : 132 . 252 (4) Issues in graduate education; (5) Structural changes/alternatives desired in the administration of graduate programs. The findings are reported separately for each issue. ■ • Important Factors Which Will Help To Maintain High Quality Curricula and’ Graduate Programs The chairpersons considered the following factors as important: (1) Quality faculty (2) Improvement in curricula (3) Quality research and support (4) Quality students and research (5) Top quality library Quality f a c ul t y.— Fifty-five percent of the chairpersons indicated all-out support for quality faculty. "Higher quality programs are basically depen­ dent upon the faculty members. In order to get high quality faculty members, good salaries are necessary," said one chairperson. This inducement is renewed. "I think the opportunity to recruit high quality faculty and freedom to encourage and reward their contributions are important." "There must also be an opportunity to release faculty members for study both by sabbatical leaves and by a given assignment of time for committee 253 work involved in curricula change," said another chair­ person. "There is a need for additional quality faculty to handle enrollment overload," is the viewpoint of other chairpersons who record similar opinions. "Hire more faculty with proven research skills," and "reduce undergraduate teaching and advising loads to allow larger blocks of time for faculty research and graduate level education," were persistently emphasized for quality graduate programs and curricula. Quality research and s u p p o r t .— Nineteen percent of the department chairpersons viewed research as an important factor for quality education and quality cur­ ricula. "All faculty in graduate education must be involved in action research with graduate students," was the opinion expressed by these chairpersons. "Action research in the areas diagnosed prescriptive requirements and changes in order to explore pathways to excellence," said another chairperson. Faculty support for research and facility support regarding research and post-doctoral opportunities for research including adequate financial resources are suggested means for promoting quality education and curricula. The intellectual stimulation and the challenge posed by these recommendations is accompanied by con­ siderable emphasis placed on maintaining physical environment for laboratory research. Planning high 254 quality vigorous graduate programs of research or edu­ cation would continually demand updating of equipment and refueling the operational machinery and medium of interaction and communication. Quality students and re s e a r c h .— Twenty-six per­ cent of the chairpersons were of the opinion that growth in research function of the university will considerably strengthen research opportunities for graduate students. The research assistantships are experiences for them leading to or promoting their own research project or ability. Their preference for teaching at the graduate level or participating in faculty research at the graduate level contributes to student morale who receive considerable incentive and motivation for high level achievements and accomplishments. Recruitment of high quality students and providing adequate financial support to them would be factors promoting high quality produc­ tivity and output in graduate programs. Top quality l i b ra r y.— Some chairpersons in their responses to this category recommended "cooperation of library resources" as a maintaining factor to high quality curricula and graduate programs. The view was expressed that general deployment of funds for library purposes does not alone enable distinguished students to be attracted to library resources. Adequate facilities 255 of service and response to make them available with least loss of time also attribute to quality output and proficiency. Maintaining a top quality library with high ranking service facilities was described as an additional fulfilling factor toward high quality curricula and graduate programs. Graduate c u r r i c u l a .— Ten percent of the chair­ persons viewed that there is scope of improvement in graduate curricula and graduate programs. They recom­ mended open discussions of objectives of curricula, mechanisms of achieving those objectives, and setting up criteria for assessing their achievement. The chairpersons also indicated that in their effort to promote quality, there is need of intensive application by graduate faculty and close adherence to existing standards and faculty evaluation. person expressed, One chair­ "Evaluation of quality curricula and quality graduate program will help to modify those aspects in them, which meet resistance or are less applicable to perceived ends and goals, or to changing needs and developing interests." A few chairpersons have supported the need for a graduate faculty for high quality curricula and graduate programs presumably because they have a sep­ arate identity to pursue their objectives more vigorously. 256 Problems of Graduate Students of Concern to Chairpersons The following problems were of concern to the c ha ir pe rs on s : (1) Financial problems; (2) Employment trends; (3) Lack of writing skills; (4) Relevancy of course work to career goals; (5) Poor selection of students for graduate work; (6) Anxiety and morale; (7) Research expenses; (8) Development of high level competence and intel­ lectual curiosity; (9) Quality guidance and advising; (10) Stress areas in dissertation and selection of a satisfactory problem. There was a variety of concerns. The major problem of concern was financial support for the graduate student. Twenty-nine percent of the chair­ persons showed concern for it. Thirteen percent of the chairpersons foresaw declining prospects for academic employment. Ten percent found inadequate relevancy of 257 course preparation to career plans. "Our provisions for this is severely restricted by budget," reported the chairperson. Ten percent of the chairpersons felt that poor selection of students for graduate work makes interface to uneven work requirements and grading difficult for them. The problem is more specifically stated by one chairperson, "lack of recognition by students that the field is highly competitive and that pursuit of a graduate degree is a commitment requiring vigorous intellectual effort." Another 9.7 percent of the chairpersons expressed that the graduate students lack research experience with the result that selection of a research problem either takes a long time or creates difficulties. Sometimes graduate students are required to revise or change their research problems for want of sufficient knowledge and experience in research. Ten percent of the chairpersons were of the view that stress areas in dissertation and selection of a satisfactory problem are matters of concern for them as well as the faculty. Six percent of the chairpersons expressed the opinion that there is need of exposure of the graduate students to a variety of faculty members. This is essential to establish the intellectual climate among 258 the graduate students that may lead to a development of high level competence. They suggest that graduate stu­ dents should attend seminars and get involved in satis­ factory research. Lack of writing skills in graduate students, need for quality advising, and guidance are other problems regarding graduate students. Problems of Evaluating Graduate Programs The principal problems of evaluating graduate programs in the department, in the opinion of the chair­ persons , a r e : (1) Relevancy to needs; (2) Time and resources; (3) Subjectivity; (4) Lack of uniformity in course standards; (5) Evaluation of thesis research; (6) Faculty agreement on criteria; (7) Interdisciplinary courses The major problem in the opinion of 16.1 percent of the chairpersons regarding evaluation of graduate programs is lack of time and inadequate financial resources. Thirteen percent of the chairpersons were of the view that diversity causes some i n c o m pa ta bi l it y. There can be no uniform standard of evaluation from course to course. Ten percent of the chairpersons 259 considered it difficult for the faculty to have agree­ ments on criteria. Again, faculty are sometimes unwilling to discharge students wh o perform at a mediocre level. Ten percent of the chairpersons considered sub­ jectivity to meet the differing philosophical positions of instructor as a problem in evaluation. Six percent of the chairpersons stated that stu­ dents in interdisciplinary courses have a variety of previous backgrounds. "Again departments are mul ti ­ disciplinary— all faculty do not understand all programs equally well. They do not have direct contact with each program and student." Six percent find it hard to relate to the rele­ vancy of courses to needs today, especially because of changes^in funding (i.e., collect negoati a ti on s) . dents too enter with a variety of needs and goals. StuPro­ grams must be flexible and changing to meet these needs. Evaluation of thesis research is difficult in the view of 6.4 percent of the chairpersons. Issues in Graduate Education The chairpersons were asked to indicate the issues in graduate education which, questions to them. in their view, posed The responses to the open-ended question were summarized in the following issues: (1) Revision of university goals; (2) Low enrollments; 260 (3) Inadequate financial support for quality p ro g r a m s ; (4) Inadequate staffing for quality graduate p ro g r a m s ; (5) Prospective employment opportunity; (6) Recruitment of quality students. Recruitment of graduate s t u de nt s.— The need for competent students in the graduate programs was indi­ cated by 22.6 percent of the department chairpersons who indicated that there was severe competition for these students. "The faculty members who teach off-campus courses have an extra opportunity of identifying excep­ tional graduate students and putting them in a program on the campus by planning certain advantages for them which would attract competent students to the university," said one chairperson. There should be more specialized programs and interdisciplinary courses for quality ed u­ cation, said another chairperson. The chairpersons, however, indicated that there should be modifications in the admission of quality students to these programs so that they may attract the superior intellect to these programs to cope with market conditions. Prospective employment oppor tu ni t y.— Nineteen percent of the department chairpersons indicated that 261 they were concerned with the production of doctorates and shortage of positions in higher education. The declining prospects of academic employment in humanities and the problem of escablishing relationships between students being trained and prospective career oppor­ tunities in professional colleges, certainly deserve development of extra-territorial relationships between the industrial and business groups outside and the paraprofessional inside the campus. Low e n r o l l m e n t s .— The issue of low enrollments is stated by 12.9 percent of the chairpersons. There is the problem of justification of programs that have low enrollments but are offered by highly competent faculty. The students who take these courses are also highly capable and their degree does maintain graduate standards both inside the university and also meets the demand of industry and business, services outside the campus. In other c a s e s , problems related to low enrollment in certain selected courses have no parallel justification either as judged by the demand for their graduates or quality standards of the university. It is almost impossible to retain high quality level in either case when measured on the same administrative continuum. "Administration hesitates to take from the weak and give to those on the move," wrote one chairperson. The 262 question is, "Making program cost effective . . . low student-facuity ratio make it high cost programs," sug­ gested the chairperson. Inadequate financial support for quality pro ­ grams .— The inadequacy of financial support for academic programs and ways to generate adequate financial resources for quality education and research was indicated by 19 percent of the chairpersons. The problem deserved consideration either through long-range planning or setting priorities. The resources from the university, in their opinion, should support teaching and basic research. Inadequate staffing for quality graduate pro­ grams .— Sixteen percent of the chairpersons viewed inadequate staffing for quality graduate programs as an issue that posed problems to them. In certain co l­ leges there is unrealistic work load of faculty and some criteria regarding distinction of work between research, teaching, and service should, in their opinion, be set up after a preliminary assessment by some faculty committee or at the administrative level. Revision of university g o a l s .— A small percentage of chairpersons (6.4 percent) indicated the need for revision of university goals and subsequently a more 263 precise description in the role of graduate education. Despite separate provisions for their development and expansion in graduate programs and courses, goals of research, teaching, the previous and community service have a new dimension in "continuing" and "life-long" edu­ cation. The extent to which education is to be school related as opposed to life-long and life-wide education are matters which have given a new importance to graduate as opposed to undergraduate education. Structural Changes/Alternatives in Administration of Graduate Programs Structural changes/alternatives in administration of graduate programs were suggested by the chairpersons in the following areas: (1) Admission procedures of graduate students; (2) Flexibility of programs; (3) Change in the mode of classroom instruction; (4) Administrative flexibility in allocation of r es o u r c e s ; (5) Reduce faculty work load; The responses represented a diversity of p at­ terns in the professional and humanities, physical science areas. natural, and The recommendations ranged from changes in the administration of graduate programs related to admission procedures of graduate students to 264 flexibility of programs, change in the mode of clas s­ room instruction, administrative flexibility in allo­ cation of resources, and reducing faculty work loads. One general fact emerged from the analysis of the responses. The department chairmen believed that the administrative structure of the department and organization of graduate programs must be flexible, and the dynamics of change must move in the direction of needs and requirements rather than be controlled by either the bureaucratic machinery of management or by the "myth" generality of discipline. Implications of the Study The survey which was designed to be exploratory has many suggestive implications for graduate education and research, academic administrators of the colleges, and departments under study. The implications may be inferred for generalization within the limitations of the findings and interpretations of a pilot study and a selected sample which is representative of professional and nonprofessional colleges on campus. In spite of the rigors and expanse of the role of the deans and chairpersons, together with the inherent frustrations of the job, the findings indicated that the academic administrators of the colleges and departments under study are rendering a valuable service to 265 graduate education at Michigan State University in a rational, scholarly, and dedicated manner. The administrative role of the deans and chair­ persons suggests that they regulate the direction of graduate education in their colleges and departments not by imposing one pattern of authority or another, but by adopting a behavior pattern which is responsive and facilitative to the needs and desirabilities of the components of an academic situation, subject to the provisions made available for its growth and development and the constraints within and outside the institution. The deans and chairpersons in graduate education are involved in developing academic programs of teaching and research within the limitations of institutional structure and the competencies and adequacies of the factors associated with it. Their roles are complemen­ tary to each other in as much as it is coordinative for effectiveness, sustenance, and productivity. The effectiveness of their role is marked by their scholarship and potential for interaction; their sustenance is a matter of direction and guidance, while the productivity depends on their resourcefulness, understanding, however, and organizational ability. in strategic positions, climate of the institution, Both are, determining the general emphasizing teaching, research and service, coordinating, planning, and 266 evaluating the quality of education, initiating experi­ ments in new areas of disciplines' to enrich educational programs and academic projects, including research. While the dean is primarily an administrator and executive concerned with broadening the basis of instruction and research, the chairman is a coordinator whose administrative role is to develop graduate edu­ cation and research through cooperation and partici­ pation with faculty, while the dean promotes it by the quality of his perception and insight into the problems and prospects and his dexterity and ability to draw resources for its development and growth. Regarding graduate education, although most graduate departments have responded to changes in cur­ riculum in their fields, a limited number have not reorganized their curriculum to the needs of the society and students. Obviously the format of graduate edu­ cation in these areas includes few new ideas and remains t r a d i t io na l. It is rare that a university submits to a review of its programs as a whole; however, the need for periodic reassessment of academic programs and research projects is required for priorities of budget allocations and d e te rm i n a t i o n s . Within the broad framework of budget allocations and negotiated academic priorities, there is need for 267 more flexibility for allocation of resources, which will best allow the departments to carry out their academic missions. The deans and chairpersons must have the status for academic priorities and administrative convenience for quality education and development. Dependence on external grants including sponsored research is an important factor of the academic life and operation of graduate education in these colleges. The effect of the practice on the graduate students and faculty's instructional and research program is defensible. However, the nonprofessional colleges have limited applied research activity and obviously less financial support from outside agencies. Regarding financing of graduate education, there is in view of the inadequate resources need to focus on more careful planning of programs of graduate edu­ cation, establishing priorities for graduate programs and related activities in the departments and setting up policy and planning committees for reviewing financial priorities and resource allocations. The quality of graduate education for masters and doctoral programs has scope for improvement and a large pool of graduate talent and additional quality faculty require funds to support them in addition to finances for existing programs. 268 The high praise for the academic competence of the faculties needs to be compensated with a reward system which may make them less disenchanted with the academic life of the institution. A reward system for administrators will be most deserving to attract them to administrative responsibilities, though it can rarely compensate them for the loss of authority which the deans and chairpersons feel is a frustrating factor and puts them to undeserving hazards in administration. The effort to maintain the quality of graduate education in the face of increased costs and shortage of additional qualified faculty for programs already in operation suggests consolidation, reciprocity, and programming of instructional experiences and research. The deans and chairpersons are assisted in administrative work; however, there is further need to relieve them of some of the administrative chores to provide them with opportunity and time for scholarly activity and research relevant to their levels of administration, in addition to coordination of research and teaching and academic planning. The experiment of decentralized administration is most evident in decision-making of the deans and chairpersons and policy procedures through a network of committees in the colleges and departments. However, while the deans perceive no change in their role to 269 improve the quality of graduate education and research, the chairpersons evince interest in a more facilitative climate for change and quality development. The p r o ­ cedure of quality control through inquiry and review, reward and incentives is not enough to improve the standard of graduate education without parallel incen­ tives of recruitment of additional quality faculty and more financial assistance to quality programs and selected admissions of graduate students. Recommendations for Further Research This was a small attempt to appraise graduate education in some selected colleges at Michigan State University. It also examined the role of the deans and chairpersons in graduate education and directed attention to some of the issues and problems they face regarding its development and growth. The administrators' evaluation of graduate accomplishments needs to be supported by faculty assessment of their role in graduate education and their opinion about its quality, accomplishments, problems, and issues. Likewise, an opinion survey b y graduate students may be more relevant and signifi­ cant for a coordinated effort in deciding how individual colleges and departments should revise curricula, pr o­ vide support to graduate students, stimulate quality 270 programs and research, or make other substantial changes. The graduate dean's role in graduate education has its own orbit and relative position to graduate education and his assessment of academic programs and research at the graduate level, and his responsibility and authority which accompany his position would be sig­ nificant and serve as a guideline for graduate reform and change. It is recommended that prospective research on graduate education or the role of administrators regarding it may take into account the contribution and assessment of these personnel, the graduate dean, the faculty, including the provost and and the graduate student. A university-wide committee representing the adminis­ trators, the faculty, and the graduate students may participate as a team and provide the incentive for appraisal of graduate education and research and may well consider review of graduate operations and programs under the aegis of the university in the future. The matter of quality education and development of graduate programs and research cannot be disassociated from the institutional obligations and responsibilities toward undergraduate education; however, undergraduate work load on faculty teaching graduate courses, paucity of training in teaching or research for graduate stu­ dents, inadequate funds, heavy administrative responsi­ bilities on deans and chairpersons without commensurate 271 authority in decision-making or relief time for concerted planning and programming with faculty are concerns which were brought to the surface in the findings of this study but which will require consideration and exami­ nation by future researchers or the office of insti­ tutional research on campus. APPENDIX A LETTERS TO THE DEANS A PPENDIX A LETTERS TO THE DEANS MICHIGAN STATE UNI VERSI TY COLLEGE OF ED UCA TION EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824 DEPAR TM ENT OF AD M IN ISTRA TIO N AN D H IG H ER EDUCATION ERICKSON HALL June 10, 1977 Dr. , Dean Campus Dear Dr. Miss Swaran AaClah Is on leave from her position as Principal of a government college in India to complete her studies for the Ph.D. degree in Higher Education Administration. In preparation for duties she expects to resume when she returns home she is studying the roles of deans and chairpersons in graduate education in their respective colleges. She is limiting the study to selected colleges here at Michigan State University. An important aspect of the study is information to be obtained from a questionnaire/check list of modest length which she is submitting to you and your administrative colleagues. We realize that this is a busy time of the year and are well aware of the number of such forms you are requested to complete during the course of a year. At the same time, as Dr. John Useem, a member of her committee, pointed out to me, we travel to many foreign countries making similar requests for our research, and we always receive courteous cooperation. It would be very much appreciated if you could take a few minutes to complete this instrument for Miss Aatish. She would appreciate it very much and I would be grateful for your help. The information received from you will, of course, remain anonymous and thus will not be associated with any department or college. Sincerely, Walter F. Johnson1 Professor. WFJ/rw P.S. If you do not complete the questionnaire personally would you please indicate the name of the person who does. Thank you! W.F.J. 272 273 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Department of Administration and Higher Education College of Education June 10, 1977 Memorandum to: From: Deans of the Colleges at Michigan State University Swaran Aatish, Doctoral Student, Department of Administration and Higher Education Respected Sir: I am a doctoral student working on my thesis study designed to assess the role of the deans of colleges and chairpersons regarding graduate education at Michigan State University. As Dean of the College, you are in charge of undergraduate, graduate instruc­ tion, research and service projects. This study is only directed to your role regarding graduate education, including research and consultation con­ nected with graduate programs. You are requested to complete the questionnaire. However, if you prefer to have certain parts of the questionnaire completed by the administrator in charge of graduate education in your office, please ask that person to do it. I am assuming in these questions that the role of the dean includes not only your personal role, but also activities, responsibilities, etc., which are carried as part of the office of the dean--this would then include some of the responsibilities assigned to your administrative assistants. I have sent a separate form of the questionnaire to the chairpersons in your College. It would be very much appreciated if the questionnaire is returned within a fortnight. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed. It may be added that the graduate student is an administrator back home and this study would help her in her future undertakings. It is also hoped that your review of your role vis-a-vis graduate education would be helpful to Michigan State University in the future. With thanks and regards, Swaran Aatish mrg APPENDIX B LETTERS TO THE CHAIRPERSONS M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y EAST LANSING • M ICHIGA N • 4KH24 COLLF.GF. O F ED U C A TIO N D E PA R T M E N T O F A D M IN ISTR A TIO N A N D H IG H E R ED U C A TIO N ERICKSON HALL June 10, 1977 Dr Chairman Campus Dear Dr Miss Swaran Aatish Is on leave from her position as Principal of a government college In India to complete her studies for the Ph.D. degree in Higher Education Administration. In preparation for duties she expects to resume whe n she returns home she is studying the roles of deans and chairpersons in graduate education in their respective colleges. She is limiting the study to selected colleges here at Michigan State University. A n important aspect of the study is information to be obtained from a questionnaire/check list of forty-seven items which she is submitting to you and your administrative colleagues. W e realize that this is a busy time of the year and are well aware of the number of such forms you are requested to complete during the course of a year. At the same time, as Dr. John Useem, a member of her committee, pointed out to me, we travel to many foreign countries making similar requests for our research, and we always receive courteous cooperation. It would be very much appreciated if you could take a few minutes to complete this instrument for Miss Aatish. She would appreciate it very much and I would be grateful for your help. The information received from you will, of course, remain anonymous and thus will not be associated with any department or college. Walter F. Johnson, Professor. WFJ/rw 274 APPENDIX B LETTERS TO THE CHAIRPERSONS 275 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, East Lansing, Michigan Department of Higher Administration and Education College of Education 48824 June 2, 1977 Memorandum to: From: Department Chairperson Swaran Aatish, Doctoral Student, Department of Higher Administration and Education Respected Sir: I am a doctoral student working on my thesis study designed to assess the role of the chairpersons and deans regarding graduate education at M.S.U. Michigan State University has quality programs, some of which enjoy distin­ guished reputation all over the world. While we are encouraged with this development, there are reasons to check the scope of graduate education which is more expensive than undergraduate education and is exposed to greater limitations and pressures. In order to retain the effectiveness of instruction and preserve quality education and research, it seems important to review graduate education from time to time and more parti­ cularly at a time when priorities are being planned for the university. It is of considerable importance to analyze the problems and issues in graduate education to maintain its high quality. It is also important to review the role of academic administrators relative to graduate education in the departments and receive their critical and frank opinions and assess their contribution to graduate education and their administrative relation to it. The opinion of the faculty, public and students is likewise important in this respect. However, this would entail a comprehensive campus wide survey, which is not the purpose of this study. This study is concerned with examining the roles of the chairpersons and deans re­ garding graduate education and, therefore, your help is kindly solicited for the completion of this questionnaire, at the latest within a fortnight. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed. It may be added that the solicitor is an administrator back home and this study would greatly help her in her future undertakings. It is also hoped that your appraisal and assessment of your role vis-a-vis graduate education would help Michigan State University in the future. With thanks and regards, Swaran Aatish mrg APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRES APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE The Role of th e D e a n of the C o l l e g e in G r a d u a t e Education Introduction This s t u d y i n t e n d s to a s s e s s y o u r p e r c e p t i o n of g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n and r e s e a r c h in y o u r c o l l e g e . It a l s o i n t e n d s to a s c e r t a i n y o u r c o n t r i b u t i o n to six s p e c i f i c a r e a s o f g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n , viz.: graduate programs and c u r r i ­ culum c o n t e n t , r e s e a r c h and i n s t r u c t i o n , f a c u l t y a n d p e r ­ s o n n e l s e r v i c e s , g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t and e d u c a t i o n , r e s o u r c e s and b u d g e t , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n and p r a c t i c e s . It is a g a i n s t thi s b a c k g r o u n d t h a t y o u r role as D e a n of the C o l l e g e w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d an d e x a m i n e d w i t h y o u r s u g g e s ­ tions for a l t e r n a t i v e s a n d a d d i t i o n s to y o u r role. Finally, y o u r v i e w s r e g a r d i n g issues in g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n w i l l h e l p to r e v i e w y o u r c o n c e r n for them. Outline Th e of the Questionnaire questionnaire has three parts: Pa r t 1: seeks factual information your previous experience, role and position. Part 2: d e a l s w i t h six t i o n e d above. Part 3: deals wi th major responsib il it ie s l i m i t a t i o n s o f the role. areas of about your college, s t y l e of p r e s e n t graduate education of the men­ role and Directions T h e r e s p o n s e s to the q u e s t i o n s are d e s i r e d in d i r e c t a n s w e r s a n d in c h e c k lists. P l e a s e feel free to m a k e any c o m m e n t s e i t h e r n e x t to the i t e m or on the b a c k o f the page. 276 277 PART I Name of Name o f the D e a n __________ 1. the C o l l e g e _________________________________________________ W h a t wa s y o u r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n p r i o r to y o u r p r e s e n t r o l e ? ( P l e a s e c h e c k the a r e a / a r e a s as m a y be a p p l i c a b l e ) teaching research a d m i n i s trat ion 2. W h a t do y o u p e r c e i v e D e a n of the C o l l e g e ? to be y o u r p r i n c i p a l r o l e s as (C h e c k as m a n y as a p p l i c a b l e ) facilitator conciliator managerial middleman academic leader controller - executive o t h e r s (ple a s e s p e c i f y ) 3. C h e c k t h r e e o f the f o l l o w i n g a s s e t s w h i c h y o u c o n s i d e r c o n t r i b u t e m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of y o u r role. status and p re st ig e experience and knowledge public relations travel opportunities p u b l i c i t y and r e c o g n i t i o n future prospects p o w e r and i n f l u e n c e academic leadership o t h e r (ple a s e s p e c i f y ) 278 PART II Graduate 4. C h e c k the college. Programs importance and of Curriculum Content the graduate programs in y o u r tra in ing r e s e a rch schoi ars t r a i n i n g c o l l e ge t e a c h e rs t r a i n i n g pro fe s s i o n a l p rac t i t ioners (e.g., cl i n i c a 1 p s y c h o l o g i s t s , i n d u s t r i a l c h e m i s t s , etc .) d o i n g bas ic re s e a r c h d o i n g a p p l i e d r e s e a r c h , c o n s u l ting, etc. s a t i s f i e d w i t h the in y o u r c o l l e ge? qual i ty of At the m a s t e r ' s l evel At the s p e c i a l i s t l evel At the d o c t o r a l level Comments 6. Yes Yes Yes the graduate No No No H a v e t h e r e b e e n s o m e / a n y i m p o r t a n t i n n o v a t i o n s or e x p e r i m e n t s / c h a n g e s in g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s in y o u r c o l l e g e in the last five y e a r s ? Yes No P l e a s e s p e c i f y t h e m a n d i n d i c a t e y o u r c o n t r i b u t i o n as D e a n in t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t . _________________________________ 7. A c c e p t i n g that the g r a d u a t e c u r r i c u l u m is p r i m a r i l y the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of f a c u l t y , w h o h a v e the k n o w l e d g e and e x p e r t i s e for it, w h a t r o l e do y o u p l a y in the: A. formulation B. evaluation of of graduate graduate curricula? curricula? 279 8. If y o u h a d y o u r say w i t h r e s p e c t to g r a d u a t e c u r r i c u l u m , w h a t a l t e r a t i o n s / a d d i t i o n s w o u l d y o u s u g g e s t in y o u r r o l e as a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s to m a i n t a i n h i g h q u a l i t y c u r r i c u l a a n d g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s in y o u r college? Alterations 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. Research 9. 10. 11. Additions and Instruction W h a t is the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f r e s e a r c h to g r a d u a t e i n s t r u c t i o n in y o u r c o l l e g e ? In w h a t w a y s do y o u c o n t r i b u t e to the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this r e l a t i o n s h i p ? H o w does e x t e r n a l f u n d i n g , sponsored research, affect your college? including government graduate instruction H o w are y o u i n v o l v e d w i t h the f a c u l t y in the a c t i v i t i e s of r e s e a r c h a n d i n s t r u c t i o n ? Educational and research affairs of following policy B u d g e t p r o v i s i o n s for b r o a d e n i n g the tional basis of graduate programs Managerial in research and research instruction an d educa­ 280 12. In y o u r o p i n i o n , w h a t s t r u c t u r a l c h a n g e s / a l t e r a t i o n s w o u l d y o u s u g g e s t in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s of the c o l l e g e to p r o m o t e q u a l i t y r e s e a r c h and instruction? Faculty 13. Personnel Grad u at e level courses require f a c u l t y to c o n t r i b u t e to t h e i r do y o u g e n e r a l l y t a k e to: promote help 14. and the m o r a l e the faculty the specially success. competent What steps faculty? academically an d p r o f e s s i o n a l l y ? As Dean, w h a t t y p e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y do y o u h a v e w i t h the f a c u l t y of t h e c o l l e g e ? (Check as m a n y as a p p l i ­ cable) participatory supervisory controlling facilitory advisory other (please 15. of Services What s teps do y o u tak e s p e cify) as employ additional faculty e d u c a t i o n an d r e s e a r c h ? promote retain higher high quality quality Dean to: for n e w p r o g r a m s education? faculty members? of graduate 281 15. 16. (Cont.) prevent understaffing promote and main t a i n As Dean, what of of instruction/research quality authority recruitment tenure of faculty? education? do y o u h a v e regarding: faculty faculty s a l a r y m a x i m s for f a c u l t y non-renewal of faculty Resources 17. contracts an d B u d g e t B u d g e t s in s u p p o r t o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n h a v e b e e n i n a d e ­ q u a t e in r e c e n t years. W h i c h of the f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s h a v e b e e n a f f e c t e d m o s t s e v e r e l y in y o u r c o l l e g e ? quality of graduate education d i v e r s i t y of g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s student enrollment f a c u l t y w o r k loa d r e c r u i t m e n t of f a c u l t y s t u d e n t - f a c u l t y ratio faculty mobility auxiliary services o t h e r s (ple a s e s p e cify) 18. A. W h a t t ype o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y do y o u h a v e p a r a t i o n of the b u d g e t o f the c o l l e g e ? B. W h a t e f f o r t s do y o u u n d e r t a k e o f . i n c o m e of y o u r c o l l e g e ? to in the p r e ­ increase th e resources 282 19. W h a t are the b a s e s o f y o u r r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n s departments? (C h e c k as m a n y as a p p l i c a b l e ) to the w o r k l o a d v a r i a t i o n s o f f a c u l t y in the d e p a r t ­ ments c h a n g e in p r o d u c t i v i t y e f f i c i e n c y or p e r f o r m a n c e of p r o g r a m s / f a c u l t y o t h e r s (please s p e c i f y ) 20. W h a t s t r a t e g i e s of b u d g e t a r y c o n t r o l to p r o m o t e g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n in the as m a n y as a p p l i c a b l e ) do y o u u s u a l l y use college? (Check a u t h o r i z e e x p e n d i t u r e o f u n u s e d funds the e n d of the f i s c a l y e a r red u c t i o n of next year's allocations priority spending keeping positions unfilled before judging merits of academic programs b u d g e t a r y a n a l y s i s of w o r k requiring certain programs supporting 21. load to be self In y o u r o p i n i o n , s h o u l d b u d g e t a l l o c a t i o n s be r e l a t e d to o n e o r m o r e o f the f o l l o w i n g o p t i o n s ? (Check as applicable) academic success of graduate programs p r o t e c t n e w or e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o g r a m s r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n s h o u l d be b a s e d on p r o g r a m priorities o t h e r s (ple a s e s p e c i f y ) 22. In v i e w of the c h a n g i n g c o n d i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g f i n a n c i n g of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , w o u l d y o u r e c o m m e n d : (C h e c k as m a y apply) focus on m o r e c a r e f u l p l a n n i n g of p r o g r a m s of graduate education m o r e a t t e n t i o n on e s t a b l i s h i n g p r i o r i t i e s for g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s a n d r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s in the d e p a r t m e n t a p o l i c y an d p l a n n i n g c o m m i t t e e for r e v i e w i n g f i n a n c i a l p r i o r i t i e s an d r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n s 283 Graduate 23. What role do yo u prevent Students p lay decrease as and Dean 24. As Dean, graduate 25. What review student competency decrease graduate student of g r a d u a t e s t u d y ? an d to: in g r a d u a t e i m p r o v e the g e n e r a l graduate students? inquire Education dropouts standards do y o u A. i m p r o v e the q u a l i t y in y o u r c o l l e g e ? B. evaluate the q u a l i t y offer from do y o u of the p r o g r a m s achievement? have with the to: of graduate of promise of grad ua te what direct r el at io ns hi ps s t u d e n t s in y o u r c o l l e g e ? suggestions and enrollment? graduate student student performance performance? 26. W h a t are the key is s u e s in g r a d u a t e c o n c e r n y o u as D e a n o f the c o l l e g e ? education which 27. In h o w m a n y of the f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s / a c h i e v e m e n t s regarding graduate education have you been involved s i n c e y o u b e c a m e the D e a n of the c o l l e g e ? r e s e a r c h on g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s / g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n r e s e a r c h in a d i s c i p l i n e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of y o u r college r e s e a r c h in g r a d u a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n professional reading p a r t i c i p a t i o n in c o n f e r e n c e s / m e e t i n g s r e l a t e d to graduate study 284 Administrative 28. Organization an d Practices P l e a s e i n d i c a t e the t i t l e o f the p e r s o n n e l wh o a s s i s t y o u in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s in the college. A l s o i n d i c a t e the n a t u r e o f w o r k e n l i s t e d to t h e m a n d the t i t l e o f the p e r s o n to w h o m the y are r e ­ s p o n s i b l e for it. R e s p o n s ihle Title N a t u r e of W o r k _____to :_____ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 29. P l e a s e list f a c u l t y / a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m m i t t e e s in the c o l l e g e w h i c h a s s i s t y o u in c a r r y i n g out the o p e r a t i o n s o f g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s in the c o l l e g e : Name of faculty/ Administrative Committees 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 30. W h a t k i n d o f a u t h o r i t y do y o u h a v e r e g a r d i n g c o l l e g e wide faculty/administrative committees? (Check as applicable) accept r e co mm en da ti on s s u g g e s t c h a n g e s a n d r e f e r b a c k for d i s c u s s i o n to the c o m m i t t e e r e j e c t the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s v e t o the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o v e r s p l i t o f o p i n i o n r e f e r to the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m m i t t e e 31. A s D e a n o f the C o l l e g e , w h a t is y o u r m o d e of f e e d b a c k r e g a r d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n with: the chairpersons of the faculty members the of departments? the college? 285 31. (Continued) the 32. graduate of the college? W h a t is y o u r r o l e as D e a n r e g a r d i n g the f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s o f g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n in y o u r c o l l e g e ? Admission of graduate Review of students academic Retention or A w a r d of 33. students the students achievement dismissal graduate or of graduate the graduate students degree W h a t are y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p s as D e a n w i t h o f the c o l l e g e ? (Check as a p p l i c a b l e ) the chairpersons participatory recommendatory advisory consultative informative o t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e cify) 34. As D e a n of the C o l l e g e , h o w are y o u r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e decisions made generally? (Check as a p p l i c a b l e ) f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g advice of c h a irpersons and staff a d m i n i s t r at or s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f s t a n d i n g / a d hoc c o m m i t t e e s a d v i c e of s e n i o r f a c u l t y advice of informal agencies y o u r j u d g m e n t and d i s c r e t i o n advice of your immediate supervisor 286 35. In y o u r o p i n i o n , ( C h e c k one) what should the college d e a n be? an e f f e c t i v e a d m i n i s t r a t o r an o u t s t a n d i n g s c h o l a r a c o m b i n a t i o n o f the two o t h e r (please s p e cify) 36. In y o u r o p i n i o n , w h a t is the b e s t m e t h o d of s e l e c t i o n o f the d e a n in o r d e r to p l a y a m o r e v i a b l e rol e r e g a r ­ d i n g g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n in the c o l l e g e ? s e l e c t i o n c o m m i t t e e c o n s i s t i n g of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e / a c a d e m i c p e r s o n n e l f r o m the c o l l e g e r e c o m m e n d i n g to the P r e s i d e n t i n d e p e n d e n t s e l e c t i o n by the P r e s i d e n t of the u n i v e r s i t y r e c o m m e n d i n g to the B o a r d of T r u s t e e s a c a d e m i c / a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e r s o n n e l c o m m i t t e e -university-wide o t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e cify) 37. As D e a n o f the C o l l e g e , w h a t are y o u r r e g a r d i n g g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n w i t h the responsibilities Provost? 38. As D e a n o f the C o l l e g e , w i t h the G r a d u a t e D e a n ? responsibilities what are your 287 PART Til Limitations 39. of the R o l e W h a t ar e the f a c t o r s tha t p o s e p r o b l e m s b a s i c to y o u r f u n c t i o n i n g as D e a n of the C o l l e g e ? ( c h e c k as m a n y as are a p p l i c a b l e ) heavy admin is tr at iv e r e s p on s ib i li t y w it h ou t c o m m e n s u r a t e a u t h o r i t y in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g the n a t u r e of y o u r p o s i t i o n b r i n g s y o u into rol e c o n f l i c t w i t h y o u r b a s i c c o m m i t m e n t s to y o u r v a l u e s , s e l f - c o n c e p t of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , te a c h e r , s c h o l a r the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t asks l e a v e l i t t l e time for s c h o l a r l y i n q u i r y n e c e s s a r y to be e f f e c ­ tiv e in t e a c h i n g a n d r e s e a r c h s t r o n g c o l l e a g u e s in the d e p a r t m e n t o b s t r u c t / pervert constructive leadership lack of f u n d i n g a n d a p p r o p r i a t i o n s for q u a l i t y programs the n e w c o n c e p t of m a n a g e m e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n emphasizes a conflict between management concept of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n an d h u m a n r e l a t i o n s c o n c e p t of administration the m o d e of s e l e c t i o n o f the D e a n p r e v e n t s f u n c ­ t i o n i n g in an a c a d e m i c a l l y p r o d u c t i v e m a n n e r the d e t a i l s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r o v i d e too l i t t l e t ime an d o p p o r t u n i t y for a c a d e m i c p l a n n i n g an d c o o r d i n a t i o n of t e a c h i n g a n d r e s e a r c h frustrations from external p r es su re s both w ithin an d o u t s i d e the u n i v e r s i t y 40. With regard to graduate education in your college, what do you consider to be your major responsibilities as Dean? Please return the questionnaire to: Swaran Aatish c/o Dr. Walter F. Johnson Department of Administration and Higher Education 429 Erickson Hall 288 QUESTIONNAIRE Th e Role of the Chairperson in G r a d u a t e Education Introduction This s t u d y i n t e n d s to a s s e s s y o u r p e r c e p t i o n of g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n a n d r e s e a r c h in y o u r d e p a r t m e n t . It als o i n t e n d s to a s c e r t a i n y o u r c o n t r i b u t i o n to six s p e c i f i c a r e a s of g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n , viz: c u r r ic ul um content and change, research and instruction, faculty and p ersonnel services, graduate education, resources and budget, a d mi n is tr at iv e o rg an iz at i on and practices. It is a g a i n s t this b a c k g r o u n d t hat y o u r r o l e as C h a i r p e r s o n w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d an d e x a ­ m i n e d w i t h y o u r s u g g e s t i o n s for a l t e r n a t i v e s and a d d i t i o n s to y o u r role. F i n a l l y , y o u r v i e w s r e g a r d i n g the is s u e s r a i s e d in o p e n - e n d e d q u e s t i o n s w i l l h e l p to r e v i e w y o u r c o n c e r n for them. Outline of the Questionnaire The que st io n na ir e has t h r e e parts: Part 1: seeks factual your previous an d p o s i t i o n . Part 2: d e a l s w i t h six t i o n e d above. Ea c h area 1. considered areas of under four about your department, s t y l e o f p r e s e n t r ole graduate education m e n ­ sub-heads: 4. Y o u r p e r c e p t i o n a b o u t the a r e a of g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n in y o u r d e p a r t m e n t . R o l e as c h a i r p e r s o n . Your suggestions regarding alt ernatives and a d d i ­ t i o n s to y o u r role. O pe n - e n d e d question. 3: deals 2. 3. Par t is information experience, with the limitations of y o u r role. T h e d i r e c t i o n s for the r e s p o n s e s are g i v e n w i t h the l e a d i n g statements. P l e a s e feel fre e to m a k e any c o m m e n t e i t h e r n e x t to the i t e m or on the b a c k of the page. 289 PART I Name of Th e D e p a r t m e n t _____________________________________________ Name of C h a i r p e r s o n ____________________________________________ the N u m b e r o f f a c u l t y m e m b e r s t e a c h i n g g r a d u a t e c o u r s e s in the d e p a r t m e n t ____________________________________________________________ Number of g r a d u a t e Number of 1. graduate courses offered by the D e p a r t m e n t _______ degrees offered by the C o l l e g e ___________ W h a t was y o u r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n p r i o r to y o u r p r e s e n t r o l e ? ( P l e a s e c h e c k a r e a / a r e a s as m a y be a p p l i c a b l e ) ______ t e a c h i n g research ______ a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 2. W h a t do y o u p e r c e i v e Chairperson? (Check to be y o u r p r i n c i p a l as m a n y as apply) r oles as fac i l i t a t o r ______ c o n e i 1 i a t o r ______ m a n a g e r i a l m i d d l e m a n ______ a c a d e m i c l e a d e r ______ c h a n g e a g e n t ______ o t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) 3. C h e c k t h r e e o f the f o l l o w i n g a s s e t s w h i c h y o u c o n s i d e r c o n t r i b u t e m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of y o u r role: status and prestige ______ e x p e r i e n c e a n d k n o w l e d g e ______ p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s travel opportunities p u b l i c i t y and r ec og nition future prospects power and influence academic leadership 290 PART II Curriculum Content an d C h a n g e Perception 4. Do y o u feel y o u r d e p a r t m e n t has m a d e c o n s i d e r a b l e c h a n g e s in the c o n t e n t o f g r a d u a t e c u r r i c u l a in the las t five y e a r s ? Y e s ________ N o ________ S o m e ______ Role 5. part do you play in the formulation of graduate curriculum? (Check as many as applicable) What ______ p r o p o s e / i n i t i a t e n e w p r o g r a m s ______ s u g g e s t c h a n g e s in c u r r e n t c o u r s e s q u e s t i o n the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f i n a c t i v e courses ______ a p p r o v e / d i s a p p r o v e n e w c o u r s e s ______ c h a i r a c o m m i t t e e or c o u n c i l w h i c h b r i n g s a b o u t any o f the a b o v e m e n t i o n e d c h a n g e s ______ o t h e r s ( p l e a s e specify) 6. W i t h r e s p e c t to g r a d u a t e level c o u r s e s , c i p a t e in: (check as a p p l i c a b l e ) do y o u p a r t i ­ ______ e v a l u a t i n g c u r r i c u l u m ______ s u p e r v i s ing planning A l t e r n a t i v e s / A d d i tions 7. If y o u h a d y o u r w a y w i t h w h a t m o r e w o u l d y o u like as a p p l i c a b l e ) r e s p e c t to g r a d u a t e c u r r i c u l u m , to do as c h a i r p e r s o n ? (check ______ m o r e c o n t r o l o f the c o n t e n t o f g r a d u a t e curriculum s h a r e v i e w s and im p a r t i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g c h a n g e or r e f o r m in g r a d u a t e c u r r i c u l a ______ f a c i l i t a t e a h e l p f u l c l i m a t e for g r a d u a t e c h a n g e s in the c o n t e n t of g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s ______ m a i n t a i n the sta t u s quo ______ o t h e r s (ple a s e s p e cify) 291 Open-Ended Question 8. What important factors would you consider to maintain a high quality curricula and graduate programs in your department? Research and Instruction Perception 9. Please indicate the approximate proportion of teaching to research for the faculty engaged in graduate education in your department. Teaching Research 0% 25% 50% 75% 100 % 75% 50% 2 5% 10. H o w d oes research a pply) external funding including government sponsored affect your department? (Check as m a n y as ______ d i v e r t s a t t e n t i o n f r o m t e a c h i n g ______ d i v e r t s a t t e n t i o n f r o m i n t e r n a l r e s e a r c h ______ p r o m o t e s c o n t e n t of r e s e a r c h ______ p r o m o t e s c o n t e n t of i n s t r u c t i o n ______ a s s i s t s s t u d e n t s c h o l a r s h i p ______ a s s i s t s p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f f a c u l t y Role 11. Do y o u c o n f e r w i t h vities of research the and f a c u l t y on the f o l l o w i n g a c t i ­ instruction? (Check as m a n y as apply) ______ e d u c a t i o n a l an d r e s e a r c h p o l i c y ______ b u d g e t p r o v i s i o n s for b r o a d e n i n g the r e s e a r c h and educational basis of graduate programs ______ m a n a g e r i a l a f f a i r s o f r e s e a r c h and i n s t r u c ­ tion 12. As C h a i r m a n w h a t role do y o u p l a y to m a i n t a i n s t a n d a r d s of g r a d u a t e i n s t r u c t i o n ? (Check as m a n y as a p p l i c a b l e ) a. r e v i e w a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t of the ______ e v a l u a t e f a c u l t y p e r f o r m a n c e ______ s u p e r v i s e p r o g r a m s ______ r e c o m m e n d r e w a r d a n d i n c e n t i v e s ______ an y o t h e r (ple a s e s p e c i f y ) students 292 b. facilitate scholarship r aise funds for the D e p a r t m e n t ______ r e c r u i t c o m p e t e n t f a c u l t y admit pro mi si ng scholars ______ r e c o m m e n d d i s t i n g u i s h e d f a c u l t y a w a r d s a w a r d a s s i s t a n t s h i p s to d e s e r v i n g s c h o l a r s any o t h e r (ple a s e s p e c i f y ) 13. Are you engaged on y o u r own? in some Yes Alternatives 14. instructional/research project N o ______ and A d d i t i o n s Do y o u feel that y o u r p r e s e n t r o l e as a d m i n i s t r a t o r t e a c h i n g and r e s e a r c h s h o u l d i n c l u d e to a g r e a t e r degree: (Check as m a y apply) supervision involvement ______ d e v e l o p m e n t development Open-Ended of of a d v a n c e d r e s e a r c h in one or m o r e r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m s of g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s of r e s e a r c h of graduate programs of instru ct io n Question 15. In y o u r o p i n i o n , w h a t s t r u c t u r a l c h a n g e s / a l t e r a t i o n s do y o u s u g g e s t in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of g r a d u a t e p r o ­ g r a m s o f the d e p a r t m e n t to p r o m o t e q u a l i t y r e s e a r c h and instruction? 16. In w h a t ways, in y o u r o p i n i o n , do y o u feel that can c o n t r i b u t e m o r e e f f e c t i v e l y to i n s t r u c t i o n g r a d u a t e le v e l ? Faculty and Personnel research at the Services Perception 17. Is the c o m p e t e n c y of in y o u r d e p a r t m e n t : faculty teaching graduate (check as a p p l i c a b l e ) comparable with other t h e i r fie l d s better than others ______ d e c i d e d l y g o o d distinguished faculty members classes in 293 18. A r e the cient? f u n d s f r o m the u n i v e r s i t y ( C h e c k as a p p l i c a b l e ) to y o u r u n i t suffi­ ______ to e m p l o y a d d i t i o n a l f a c u l t y for n e w p r o g r a m s of graduate e d u c a ti o n and research ______ to p r o m o t e h i g h e r q u a l i t y e d u c a t i o n ______ to r e t a i n h i g h q u a l i t y f a c u l t y m e m b e r s ______ to p r e v e n t u n d e r s t a f f i n g o f i n s t r u c t i o n / research faculty ______ to p r o m o t e a n d m a i n t a i n q u a l i t y e d u c a t i o n R ol e 19. Do y o u have the authority to: (Check as m a n y as apply) ______ i n i t i a t e r e c r u i t m e n t o f f a c u l t y r e c o m m e n d / r e j e c t a p p o i n t m e n t of a p r o s p e c t i v e faculty member a p p r o v e / d i s a p p r o v e t e n u r e of f a c u l t y set s a l a r y m a x i m u m s for f a c u l t y k e e p the f a c u l t y p o s i t i o n o p e n on r e t i r e m e n t / d e a t h a n d / o r a l l o c a t e the a c t i v i t i e s of the p o s i t i o n to o t h e r f a c u l t y m e m b e r s 20. S i n c e y o u r i n i t i a l a p p o i n t m e n t as C h a i r p e r s o n b e c o m e more: (C h e c k as m a n y as a p p l i c a b l e ) have you ______ p a r t i c i p a t o r y ______ s u p e r v i s o r y ______ c o n t r o l 1 ing ______ f a c i l i t a t o r y ______ a d v i s o r y Alternatives 21. and A dditions Do y ou consider e x p e n s e s to the discourage them Yes Open-Ended 22. t h a t the c u r r e n t s a l a r i e s a n d o p e r a t i o n a l f a c u l t y a r e s u f f i c i e n t i n d u c e m e n t s to f r o m m o v i n g to o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s ? ____________ N o ______ Question A r e t h e r e w a y s in w h i c h y o u feel y o u c o u l d be m o r e h e l p f u l to the f a c u l t y a c a d e m i c a l l y a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l l y ? (Please specify) 294 Resources and Budget P e r c e p t ion 23. Are faculty budget? salaries an item of high Y e s ______ 24. priority in the N o ______ B u d g e t s in s u p p o r t of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n h a v e b e e n i n a d e ­ q u a t e in r e c e n t ye a r s . W h i c h o f the f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s h a v e b e e n a f f e c t e d m o s t s e v e r e l y in y o u r d e p a r t m e n t ? q u a l i t y of g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n di ve rs it y of graduate programs student enrollment f a c u l t y w o r k load ______ r e c r u i t m e n t o f f a c u l t y student faculty ratio ______ f a c u l t y m o b i l i t y ______ a u x i l i a r y s e r v i c e s o t h e r s (ple a s e s p e c i f y ) Role 25. W h a t e x t e n t of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y do y o u h a v e in the p r e ­ p a r a t i o n of the b u d g e t o f y o u r d e p a r t m e n t ? (Check one) sole ______ s h a r e d w i t h 26. What come _______ s t e p s do y o u take to of your d e p a r t m en t? i n c r e a s e the r e s o u r c e s o f (Ch e c k as m a n y as apply) in­ ______ e n c o u r a g e the p r e p a r a t i o n of r e s e a r c h or o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e p r o p o s a l for e x t e r n a l f u n d i n g attend meetings/communicate with appropriate officers (federal/state/foundations) s o l i c i t f u n d s f r o m i n d i v i d u a l d o n o r s or p r i v a t e business/industry o t h e r s (please s p e c i f y ) 27. W h a t are th e b a s e s o f y o u r ( C h e c k as a p p l i c a b l e ) resources to the department? w o r k load v a r i a t i o n s a m o n g f a c u l t y m e m b e r s in the d e p a r t m e n t c h a n g e in p r o d u c t i v i t y ______ e f f i c i e n c y or p e r f o r m a n c e of p r o g r a m s / faculty o t h e r s (ple a s e s p e c i f y ) 295 28. Wha t .strategies of b u d g e t a r y c o n t r o l do y o u usually us e for y o u r d e p a r t m e n t ? (Check as m a y apply) ______ A u t h o r i z e the e x p e n d i t u r e of u n u s e d funds the end of the fiscal y e a r ______ r e d u c t i o n of n ext y e a r ' s a l l o c a t i o n priority spending ______ k e e p i n g positions unfilled ______ j u d g i n g m e r i t s o f a c a d e m i c p r o g r a m s ______ b u d g e t a r y a n a l y s i s o f w o r k load ______ r e q u i r i n g c e r t a i n p r o g r a m s to be s e l f supporting Alternatives 29. and A d ditions Do y o u t h i n k t h a t b u d g e t a l l o c a t i o n s to o n e before or m o r e of the following s h o u l d be options? related ______ a c a d e m i c s u c c e s s o f g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s p r o t e c t n e w or e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o g r a m s ______ the r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n be b a s e d on p r o g r a m priorities 30. H o w f r e q u e n t l y do y o u p r e p a r e b u d g e t p l a n s a n d p r o j e c t i o n s for g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s an d o t h e r a c a d e m i c p u r p o s e s ? _ w h e n e v e r the n e e d a r i s e s ______ a n n u a l l y ______ e v e r y fiv e y e a r s ______ o t h e r s (ple a s e s p e cify) 31. In view of the c hanging conditions r egarding financing of h i g h e r education, w o u l d you recommend: (Check as ma n y as apply) ______focus on more careful plann i n g of programs of gr ad u a t e education ______more a t t e n t i o n on e s t ablis hing priorit ies for gr ad u a t e pro grams and related activities in the d e p a r tment a p o l i c y and plan n i n g committee for reviewing financial prior ities and resource allocations O p e n - E n d e d Ques t i o n 32. What are the issues in graduate educati on wh ich pose question s to y ou as C h airp erson? (Please specify) 296 Graduate Students and Education Perception 33. Has graduate student enrollment of 1976-77 ______ i n c r e a s e d o v e r p r e v i o u s y e a r d e creased over previous year ______ no c h a n g e o v e r p r e v i o u s y e a r 34. Has the g e n e r a l c o m p e t e n c e s t u d e n t d u r i n g the c u r r e n t previous years ______ i m p r o v e d remained ______ d e c l i n e d 35. the (1975- 76) (1975- 76) (1975- 76) and p r o m i s e of the y e a r as c o m p a r e d to graduate the same In y o u r o p i n i o n , wha t are the f our p r i n c i p a l r e a s o n s for g r a d u a t e d r o p o u t s from the p r o g r a m s of g r a d u a t e s t u d y in y o u r d e p a r t m e n t ? heavy program requirements r o u t i n e n a t u r e of w o r k ______ la c k of f a c u l t y i n t e r e s t ______ p o o r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the a d v i s o r l a c k of a p p r e c i a t i o n for i n t e l l e c t u a l c o m p e ­ t e n c e of the s t u d e n t frustration during dis se rt at io n stage ______ o v e r - s p e c i a l i z a t i o n ______ d e f i c i e n t a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t - f a i l u r e of c o m p r e h e n s ives economic d i ff ic ul ti es /o r family c ir cu ms ta nc es s t r e s s a reas in d o c t o r a l s t u d y ______ c h a n g e o f c a r e e r or p e r s o n a l g o a l s ______ o t h e r s (please specify) 36. In how many of the following a c t i v i t i e s / a c h i e v e m e n t s you been involved since you became c h airpe rson? have re search on graduate s t u d e n t s / g r a d u a t e ed ucation resea rch in the discipline r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of your department research on graduate a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ______pr ofes sional reading p a r t i c i p a t i o n in c o n f e r e n c e s / m e e t i n g s 297 Alternatives 37. and A d d i t i o n s Do y o u t h i n k that q u a l i t y of g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t p e r f o r ­ m a n c e in a c a d e m i c p r o g r a m s in y o u r d e p a r t m e n t w i l l i m ­ p r o v e if g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n Is g i v e n to: (Check as m a n y as apply) ______ f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n t s h i p s advising academic assistantships i n s t r u e t ion selection ______ p a r t i c i p a t i n g o f s t u d e n t s in i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y academic programs ______ r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f c o u r s e s ______ f l e x i b i l i t y in p l a n n i n g i n d i v i d u a l p r o g r a m s an y o t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) Open-Ended Question 38. P l e a s e i n d i c a t e two or t h r e e p r i n c i p a l p r o b l e m s of g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s w h i c h c o n c e r n y o u m o s t as c h a i r p e r s o n o f the d p e a r t m e n t . 39. P l e a s e i n d i c a t e two or of evaluating graduate Administrative t h r e e of programs Organization the p r i n c i p a l p r o b l e m s in y o u r d e p a r t m e n t . and Practices Perception 40. P l e a s e i n d i c a t e by t i t l e a n d p e r c e n t a g e of r e l e a s e time the p e r s o n n e l wh o a s s i s t y o u in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s in the d e p a r t m e n t . A l s o i n d i c a t e the n a t u r e o f w o r k e n l i s t e d to t h e m a n d the t i t l e o f the p e r ­ son to w h o m the y are r e s p o n s i b l e for it. Title 3. 5. Percentage of Release Time Nature of Work Responsible to 298 41. P l e a s e list the f a c u l t y c o m m i t t e e s in the d e p a r t m e n t w h i c h a s s i s t y o u in c a r r y i n g out the o p e r a t i o n o f g r a ­ d u a t e p r o g r a m s , e.g., c u r r i c u l u m c o m m i t t e e s , etc. N a m e of Faculty Committees Nature of A u t h o ri t y You Have With Them 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 42. W h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y do y o u h a v e r e g a r d i n g c o l l e g e - w i d e g r a d u a t e e d u c a t i o n c o m m i t t e e s in y o u r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e unit? (C h e c k as ma y apply) _ _ _ accept recommendations s u g g e s t c h a n g e s an d r e f e r b a c k to the c o m m i t t e e r e j e c t the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s _ r e f e r to the f a c u l t y a s s e m b l y / c o u n c i l w i t h changes r e f e r to the f a c u l t y for d i s c u s s i o n v e t o the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s in the f a c u l t y a s s e m b l y / council over a split of opinion Role 43. As c h a i r p e r s o n w h a t r o l e do y o u p l a y to e n s u r e tha t h i g h s c h o l a r l y s t a n d a r d s are m a i n t a i n e d in the d e p a r t m e n t ? (Check as a p p r o p r i a t e ) A. B. R e g a r d i n g the a d m i s s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n p r o c e s s the a p p l i c a t i o n accept faculty committee r ec om me ndations final a u t h o r i t y o t h e r (please s p e c i f y ) as A c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t o f the g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t is m o n i t o r e d by: r e g u l a r r e v i e w in the d e p a r t m e n t reports received from a p pl ic at io n offices o u t s i d e the d e p a r t m e n t individual advisors have resp on si bi li ty 299 44. C. R e t e n t i o n or d i s m i s s a l of g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s is y o u r final r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e s o n s i b i 1 ity of m a j o r a d v i s o r and s t u d e n t advising committee r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the d e p a r t m e n t i n v o l v e s a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n b o t h w i t h i n the d e p a r t m e n t a n d in the c o l l e g e D. For the a w a r d of g r a d u a t e d e g r e e y o u h a v e no d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y y o u c e r t i f y the c a n d i d a t e s c o m p l e t i o n requirement others (please specify) of W h a t is y o u r role r e g a r d i n g a c a d e m i c r e f o r m s or c h a n g e in r e l a t i o n to the d e p a r t m e n t f a c u l t y ? (Check as m a y apply) s t i m u l a t e t h e i r t h i n k i n g an d a c t i o n i n i t i a t e a c t i o n for t h e i r s t u d y an d r e v i e w p e r s u a d e t h e m to a c c e p t n e w m o d e s o f a c t i o n r e m o v e o b s t a c l e s in the w a y o f c h a n g e s others (please specify) 45. W h a t are y o u r o f f i c e o f the r o l e s w i t h the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f the d e a n o f the c o l l e g e ? (Check as m a y apply) participatory recommendatory advisory consultative informative other (please specify 46. G e n e r a l l y ho w are (Check as m a n y as your administrative apply) decisions made? f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e c om m e n d a t i o n s of s t a n d i n g / a d hoc committees advice of staff admin i s t r a t o r s advice of faculty a d v i c e of i n f o r m a l a g e n c i e s your judgment and de s c r e t i o n advice of your immediate s u p ervisor 300 Alternatives 47. and A d d i t i o n s In y o u r o p i n i o n w h a t b e? (Check one) should the department chairperson an e f f e c t i v e a d m i n i s t r a t o r an o u t s t a n d i n g s c h o l a r a c o m b i n a t i o n of the two o t h e r (ple a s e s p e cify) 48. In y o u r o p i n i o n w h a t is the b e s t the c h a i r p e r s o n ? (Check one) method s e l e c t i o n c o m m i t t e e f r o m the c o m m e n d i n g to the Dean. _ _ i n d e p e n d e n t s e l e c t i o n by the to his s u p e r i o r academic personnel committee o t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e cify) Open-Ended 49. of selecting department d ean re­ recommending - university wide Question Wha t are y o u r i n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the c o l l e g e and w i t h c h a i r p e r s o n s f r o m o t h e r c o l l e g e s ? PART Limitations III o f the Role W h a t are the f a c t o r s that p o s e p r o b l e m s b a s i c to y o u r f u n c ­ t i o n i n g as D e p a r t m e n t C h a i r m a n ? (Check as m a n y as a p p l i ­ c able) heavy administrative responsibility without c o m ­ m e n s u r a t e a u t h o r i t y in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g the n a t u r e of y o u r p o s i t i o n b r i n g s y o u into role c o n f l i c t w i t h y o u r b a s i c c o m m i t m e n t s to y o u r v a l u e s , s e l f - c o n c e p t of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t e a c h e r , s c h o l a r the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t asks l eave l i t t l e tim e for s c h o l a r l y i n q u i r y n e c e s s a r y to be e f f e c t i v e in teaching and research s t r o n g c o l l e a g u e s in the d e p a r t m e n t o b s t r u c t / pervert constructive leadership lack of f u n d i n g and a p p r o p r i a t i o n s for q u a l i t y programs 301 the n e w c o n c e p t of m a n a g e m e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n e m p h a ­ s i z e s a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n m a n a g e m e n t c o n c e p t of a d ­ m i n i s t r a t i o n an d h u m a n r e l a t i o n s c o n c e p t o f a d m i n i s ­ tration the m o d e o f s e l e c t i o n of c h a i r m a n p r e v e n t s f u n c t i o n ­ ing in an a c a d e m i c a l l y p r o d u c t i v e m a n n e r th e d e t a i l s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r o v i d e too l i t t l e t i m e a n d o p p o r t u n i t y for a c a d e m i c p l a n n i n g and c o o r d i n a t i o n of teaching and research f r u s t r a t i o n s f r o m e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e b o t h w i t h i n and ou t side the uni v e r s i t y Please return t o ; Swaran Aatish c/o Professor Walter F. Johnson Department of Administration and Higher Education 429 Erickson Hall APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP LETTERS APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP LETTERS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY College of Education Department of Administration and Higher Education Erickson Hall East Lansing • Michigan 48824 July 10, 1977 Respected Sir: I sent a questionnaire on the "Role of Dean of the College in Graduate Education" and I request you to please help me with it. I know this is a busy time of the year for you, but your response means a lot for the success of my doctoral degree. I will appreciate very much if I can have the completed questionnaire latest by July 25, 1977. With regards and thanks. Sincerely yours, Swaran Aatish c/o Prof. Walter F. Johnson Department of Administration and Higher Education 429 Erickson 302 303 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY College of Education Department of Administration and Higher Education Erickson Hall East Lansing * Michigan 48824 July 10, 1977 Respected Sir: I sent a questionnaire on the "Role of the Chairperson in Graduate Education" and I request you to please help me with it. I know this is a busy time of the year for you, but your response means a lot for the success of my doctoral degree. I will appreciate very much if I can have the completed questionnaire latest by July 25, 1977. With regards and thanks. Sincerely yours, Swaran Aatish c/o Prof. Walter F. Johnson Department of Administration and Higher Education 429 Erickson SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Balderston, Fredrick E. Managing Today's U n iv er si ti es . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1974. Beecher, Catherine. Educational R em iniscences. York: J. B. Ford, 1874. New Ben-David, Joseph. Trends in Higher E d u c a t i o n . The University of Chxcago Press, 1972. Chicago: Best, John W. N.J.: Research in E d u c a t i o n . Prentice Hall, 1961. Englewood Cliffs, Berelson, Bernard. Graduate Education in United S t a t e s . New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. Bosely, Howard E. The Administration of Faculty Personnel in State Teachers Colleges^ New York: American Association of Teachers Colleges, 1946. Brann, James, and Emmet, Thomas A. ment of Division C h a i r m a n . Balamp Publishing, 1972. The Academic Depart­ Detroit, M i c h . : Breneman, David W. Graduate School Adjustments to the "New Depression in Higher E d u c a t i o n .1' Washington, D . C . : The National Board on Graduate Education. Brickman, William W . , ed. A Century of Higher E d uc a t i o n . New Y o r k : Society for the Advancement of Edu­ cation, 1962. Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in T r a n s i t i o n . New York: Harper and R o w , P u b l i s h e r s , 1958; reprint ed., 1976. Brumbaugh, A. J. Problems in College A d m i n i st ra ti on . Nashville, T e n n . : Division of Educational Institutions, Board of Education, 1956. 304 305 Budig, Gene A., ed. Perceptions in Public Higher Ed ucation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970. Budig, Gene A., and Rives, Stanley G. Academic Q u i c k s a n d . Lincoln, Nebraska: Professional Educators Pub­ lishers, 1973. Burn, Barbara B. Higher Education and the Current C r i s i s . New York: International Council for Educational Development, 1975. Burns, Gerald P. Administrators in Higher E d u c a t i o n : Their Functions and C o o r d i n a t i o n . New York: Harper and Brothers, P u b l i s h e r s , 1962. Burroughs, G. E. R. Design and Analysis of Educational R e s ea rc h. Oxford: Alden and Mowbray Ltd., 1971. Campbell, Roald F., and Lipham, James H. Administrative Theory as a Guide to A c t i o n . C h i c a g o : Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago, 1960. Campbell, Roald F . ; Corbally, John F.; and Ramseyer, John A. Introduction to Educational Adminis­ t r a ti on . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1958. Caplow, Theodore, and McGee, Reece J. The Academic Market P l a c e . New York: Doubleday and Company, I n c ., 1965. Carmichael, Oliver C. Graduate E d u c a t i o n . New Harper & B r o t h e r s , P u b l i s h e r s , TSMd I. York: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Reform on Campus. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1972 . Cartter, Allan M. An Assessment of Quality in Graduate E d u c a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .: American Council on Education, 1966. _________ . Higher Education in United S t a t e s . Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1965. Clark, Burton R . , and Youn, Ted I. K. Academic Power in the United States: Comparative"Historic and Structural P er s p e c t i v e s . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : The American Association for Higher Education, 1976 . 306 Corson, John J. The Governance of Colleges and Univ er si ­ ties . 2d ecL New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1960. Council of Graduate Schools in the United S t a t e s . Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting, Vols. 1214. New Orleans, Louisiana, December 1, 1972. Deferrari, Roy J. Functions of the Dean of Students in Higher E d u c a t i o n . Washington, D . C . : The Catholic University of America Press, 1957. Dibden, Arthur J. The Academic Deanship in American Colleges and Univer si ti es . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968. Dobbins, Charles G., and Lee, Calvin B. T., e d s . Whose Goals for American Higher E du c a t i o n . Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 196 8 . Doyle, Edward A., Rev. The Status and Functions of the Departmental Chairm an . W a s h i n g t o n , D .C .: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953. Dressel, Paul L. Handbook of Academic Ev a lu a t i o n . Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1976. San Dressel, Paul L.; Johnson, F. Craig; and Marcus, Philip M. The Confidence Crisis. San Francisco: JosseyBass^ I n c . , P ub li s h e r s , 1970. Dressel, Paul L . , and associates. Institutional Research in the Un iv e rs it y. San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , I n c . , 1971. Dressel, Paul L., and Faricy, William H. Return to R esponsi bi li ty . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1972. Dressel, Paul L . , and Pratt, Sally B. The World of Higher E d u c a t i o n . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass P u b l i s h e r s , 1971. Duetsch, Monroe E. The College from W i t h i n . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952. Dykes, Archie R. Faculty Participation in Academic Decision M a k i n g . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : American Council on Education, 1968. 307 Eble, Kenneth E. Professors as T e a c h e r s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass^ I n c . , P u b l i s h e r s , T 9 7 2 . Ebel, Robert L. Essentials of Educational M e a s u re me n t. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972 . Eurich, Alvin C. Campus 19 8 0 . Press, 1968. New York: Delacorte Finnegan, Darrell F. X., Rev. The Function of the Ac a­ demic Dean in American Catholic Higher E d u c a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : The Catholic University of America Press, 1951. Folger, John K . ; Astin, Helen S.; and Bayer, Alan E. Human Resources and Higher E d u c a t i o n . New Y o r k : Russell Sage Foundations, 1970. Gaff, Jerry G. Towards Faculty R e n e w a l . Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1975. San Francisco: Goldhammer, Keith, and others. Issues and Problems in Contemporary Educational A d m i n is tr at io n. Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Edu­ cational Administration. University of Oregon, 1967. Good, Carter V. Dictionary of E d u c a t i o n . McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959. New York: Gould, John W. The Academic D e a n s h i p . Columbia Uni­ versity: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, 1964. Grable, John R . , ed. Role of the Department and Division Chairman in the Community C o l l e g e . Huntsville, Texas: Community Junior College Graduate Program, 1973. G r e e n e , Robert E . Administrative Appraisal; A Step to Improved Leadership^ W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1972. Grigg, Charles M. Graduate E d u c a t i o n . New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1965. The Inc., Gross, Edward, and Grambsch, Paul V. Changes in University Organization, 1 96 4 - 1 9 7 1 . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974. 308 Gross, Edward, and Grambsch, Paul V. University Goals and Academic P o w e r . Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 196 8 . H a l p i n , Andrew W. New York: Administrative Theory in E d u c a t i o n . MacMillian Company, 1958. Hartman, Lawton M. Graduate Education Parameters for Public Policy^ W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1969. Harvey, James. The Student in Graduate S c h o o l . Washi n g­ ton, D.C.: The American Association for Higher Education, January 1972. Hawkes, Herbert E., and others. Through a Dean's Open Door. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1945. Heiss, Ann M. Challenges to Graduate S c h o o l s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.^ P u b l i s h e r s , 1970. Hodgkinson, Harold L . , and Meeth, L. Richard. Power and A u t h o r i t y . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1971. Horn, Francis H. Challenge and Perspective in Higher E du c a t i o n . C a r b o n d a l e : Southern Illinois Uni­ versity Press, 1971. Ingraham, Mark H., and King, Francis P. The Mirror of Brass, The Compensation and Working Conditions of College and University A dm in i s t r a t o r s . M a d i s o n , M i l w a u k e e : The University of Wisconsin Press, 1968. Irwin, Mary, ed. Higher Education in the United S t a t e s . Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1961. Issac, Stephen, and Michael, William B. Handbook in Research and E v a l u a t i o n . San Diego, C a l i f . : Robert R. Knapp, Publishers, 1972. Kent, Leonard J . , and Springer, George P. Graduate Education Today and T o m o r r o w . A l b u q u e r q u e : University of New Mexico Press, 1972. K n o r r , Owen A . , ed. Long-Range Planning in Higher Ed u ­ c a t i o n . Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1965. 309 Lazarsfeld, Paul F . , and Thieleus, Wagner. The Academic M i n d . Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1958. Lester, Richard A. Antibias-Regulations of Un iversities: Faculty Problems and Their S ol ut i on s. New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974. L e w i s - A l p h o n s e , Rene. A Study of the Deanship in American Medical C o l l e g e s . Columbus: Ohio State University, 19 71. Lins, L. Joseph. The Role of the Institutional Research in Plannings Proceedings of the Third Annual National Institutional Research Forum. Madison: Office of Institutional Studies, The University of Wisconsin, 1963. _________ , ed. Basis for D e c i s i o n . Wisconsin: Educational Research Services, 1963. Dembar Lunsford, Terry F. A Study of Academic Administration. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963. Maurer, George J . , ed. Crisis in Campus Management Case Studies in the Administration of Colleges and U ni v e r s i t i e s . New York: Proeger P u bl i sh er s, 1976. Mayhew, Lewis B. Graduate and Professional E d uc a t i o n , 1 9 8 0 . New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, T970. _________ . Reforms in Graduate E du ca ti on . Atlanta, G e o r g i a : Southern Regional Education Board, 1972. Mayhew, Lewis B., and Ford, Patrick J. Reform in Graduate and Professional Ed uc a t i o n . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, T5 7 4 . McGrath, Earl James. The Evolution of Administrative Offices in Institutions of Higher Education in the United States from I860 to 19 3 3 . C h i c a g o : Private edition, distributed by the University of Chicago Libraries, 1938. _________ . The Graduate School and the Decline of Liberal E d u c a t i o n . Columbia University: Bureau of Pu b­ lications , Teachers College, 1959. Selected Issues in College Administration. Yorkl Teachers College, Columbia University, New 1967. 310 McVey, Frank L. , and Hughes, Raymond M. Problems of College and University-Administratio n. A m e s , Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1952. Michigan State University. Bylaws of the F a c u l t y . Lansing: Michigan State University, 1968. East _________ . Enrollment Report-Summer Term 19 7 4 . East L a n s i n g : Michigan State University, Office of the Registrar, Evaluation and Research, 1974. _________ . Enrollment Report Spring, 1 9 7 7 . East Lansing: Office of the Registrar, Evaluation and Research, Spring, 1977. _________ . Graduate S t u d y . U n i v e r s i t y , I960". East Lansing: Michigan State _________ . In Support of R e s e a r c h . Publication No. 5. East Lansing: Office of Research Development and the Graduate School, Michigan State University, 1962. _________ . The Michigan State University Educational Development Program— A Decade of Educational Pioneering, 19 63-19 7 3 . East Lansing: Michigan State University, Office of the Provost, October, 1963. This Is Michigan State University 1970 Facts B o o k . East Lansing: Compiled by the Department of Information Services, Michigan State Uni ­ versity, 1970. _________ . This Is Michigan State University, 1977 Fact Booki East Lansing: MSU Department of Infor­ mation Services, 1977. _________ . MSU Omnibus Survey-Winter 1 9 7 0 . East Lansing: Michigan State University, Bureau of Social Science Research, July 1970. _________ . A Report to the President of Michigan State University from the Committee on the Future of the Un iv e r s i t y . East Lansing: Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , T§"59. _________ . Research in Progress 1 9 5 9 - 6 0 . East Lansing: Michigan State University, Office of Research Development and the Graduate School, Publication No. 2, 1961. 311 Michigan State University. Sponsored Rese ar ch . East Lansing: Michigan State University Office of Research Development and the Graduate School, Publication No. 1, 1961. _________ . The System of Administration of Graduate Studies at M S U . East Lansing: Michigan State University Office of Research Development and the Graduate School, Publication No. 3, 1962. Miller, James L . , Jr. State Budgeting for Higher E d u ­ cation . Ann A r b o r : Institute of Public A d m in ­ istration , the University of Michigan, 1964. Millett, John D. The Academic C om m u n i t y . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Mobberley, David G . , and Wicke, Myron F. The D e a n s h i p . Nashville, T e n n . : Division of Higher Education, Board of Education, the Methodist Church, 1962. Montgomery, James R . , and others. The Role Analysis of Department Chairmen at State U ni v e r s i t i e s . B l a c k b u r g : Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Office of Institutional Research, 1974. Moses, Henry C . , ed. Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Twenty-fourth Annual Conference of the Association of Graduate Schools in the Ass oc i­ ation of American Unive rs it ie s. Princeton, N . J . : The Graduate School, Princeton University, 1972. Mouley, George J. New York: The Science of Educational R e s e a r c h . Van Nostrand Reinhart Company, 1970. Niblett, W. Roy. Universities between Two W o r l d s . L o n d o n : University of London Press, 1974. Noll, Victor H. The Preparation of Teachers at Michigan State U ni ve r s i t y . East Lansing: College of E d u c a t i o n , Michigan State University, 1968. Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude M e a s u r e m e n t ! New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1966. Pace, Robert L. An Evaluation of Higher E d u c a t i o n . Plans and Perspec ti ve s . Los Angeles, Calif.: Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA Graduate School of Education, 1969. 312 Perkins, James A., ed. Higher Education from Autonomy to S y s t e m s . New York: International Council for Educational Development, 1972. Pfnister, Allan 0. Planning for Higher E du c a t i o n . Boulder, C o l o r a d o : Westview Press, 1976. Phillips, Ellis L . , Jr. A New Approach to Academic A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1969. Pierce, Wendell H. The States and Graduate Education-— Report of the Task Force on Graduate E d uc at i on . Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 1975. R a m s e y e r , John A.; Harris; Pond; and Wakefield. F actors Affecting Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The School Community Development Study Monograph Series No. 2. Columbus, Ohio: College of Ed u­ cation, Ohio State University, 1955. R e d m a n , David N . Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Twenty-sixth Annual Conference of the Association of Graduate Schools in the Associ­ ation of American U n i v er si ti es . P r i n c e t o n , N.J.: The Graduate School, Princeton University, 1974. Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of the Twenty-fifth Annual Conference of the Association of Graduate Schools in the Associ­ ation of American U ni v er si ti es . Princeton, N.J.: The Graduate School, Princeton University, 1973. , ed. Journal of the Proceedings and Addresses of the Twenty-seventh Annual Conference of the Association of American Universities I W a s h i n g t o n , D .C .: Association of Graduate S c h o o l s , One Dupont Circle, 1975. _ _ , ed. Retzlaff, Bernice R. Higher Education A d m i n i st ra ti on , An Annotated Bibliography of Research Reports Funded by the Cooperative Research Act, 19561 9 7 0 . Washington, D.C.: Government Printing o T F T c e , 1971. Robinson, Edward J., Chm. Report of the Special Committee on Faculty-Administration Relationships at Central Michigan University, May 1966. 313 R o o s e , Kenneth D. A Rating of Graduate P ro g r a m s . W a s h ­ ington, D. c TI American Council on Education, 1970. Ross, Robert. Research— An Introduction. Barnes and Noble Books, 19 74. New York: Rourke, Francis E . , and Brooks, Glenn E. T he Managerial Revolution in Higher Ed uc a t i o n . Baltimore, M a r y l a n d : The John Hopkins Press, 1966. Scarangello, Anthony, ed. The Role of the College of Education Within the University' N e w a r k , D e l a w a r e : University of Delaware, 1969. Smith, Harold T. State Plan for Higher Education in M i c h i g a n . L a n s i n g , M i c h . : Department of Ed u­ cation , September 1968. Thackrey, Russel I. The Future of the State U n i v e r s i t y . Urbana, C h i c a g o : University of Illinois Press, 1971. Tucker, Allan. Factors Related to Attrition among Doc­ toral S t u d e n t s . East Lansing: Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , 196 4. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. An Evaluation of Educational Development Programs in Higher Education" W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : Office of Education, Bureau of Research, 196 8. Walters, Everett. Graduate Education T o d a y . Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1965. Whaley, W. Gordon. Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the A ss o c i ­ ation of American Universities. Austin, Texas: Office of the Dean of the Graduate School, the University of Texas, 1968. _________ . In These T i m e s . A Look at Graduate Education with Proposals for the F u t u r e . A u s t i n , T e x a s : The Graduate Journal P ub li s h e r s , The Graduate School, The University of Texas at Austin, 1971. , ed. Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the A s s oc i ­ ation of Graduate Schools in the Association of American U niversities^ A u s t i n , T e x a s : Office of the Dean of the Graduate School, The University of Texas, 1967. 314 Wharton, Clifton R . , Jr., President. Continuity and Change; Academic Greatness under S t r e s s . East Lansing: Michigan State University, State of the University Address, February 15, 1971. _________ . Michigan State University Yesterday, T o d a y , and 2000 A . D . East Lansing: Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , State of the University Address, February 19, 1976. Williams, Robert L. The Administration of Academic Affairs in Higher E d u c a t i o n . Ann A r b o r : The University of Michigan Press, 1965. Wilson, Logan. Emerging Patterns in American Higher E d u c a t i o n . Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. Woodburne, Lloyd S. Principles of College and University AdministrationT S t a n f o r d : Stanford University P r e s s , 1’9 5 8 . Journals and Periodicals Edel, Wilbur. "Taking a New Look at College Adminis­ tration." Educational Record 55 (Summer 1974). Ennes, F. "Rating Teacher Effectiveness: The Function of the Principal." The Journal of Educational Administration 3 (October 1965). Feltner, Bill D. "Training Programs for College Adminis­ trators: Impact on Governance." Educational Record 56 (Summer 1975): 156-59. Feltner, Bill D . , and Goodsell, David R. "The Academic Dean and Conflict Management." Journal of Higher Education 62 (1972) . French, Arden 0. "The Dean of Men as a Counselor and as a Disciplinary Official." College and University 26 (October 1950). Fuller, Bruce. "A Framework for Academic Planning." Journal of Higher Education 4 7 (January / February 19 76): 65-77. Hanzeli, Victor E. "The Educational Leadership of the Academic Dean." Journal of Higher Education 37 (November 1966). 315 Heimler, Charles H. "The College Departmental Chairman." Educational Record 48 (Spring 1967). Hill, Winston W . , and French, Wendell L. "Perceptions of the Power of Department Chairmen by Pro­ fessors." Administrative Science Q u a r t e r l y , March 1967, pp. 548-74. Hollenbach, John W. "The Administrator's Role in Faculty Development." Liberal Education 50 (December 1964) . Horn, Francis H. "The Dean and the President." Education 50 (December 1964) . Liberal Johnson, Eldon L. "Planning for Educational Planning." Liberal Education 50 (December 1964). Jordan, David S. "Perplexities of a College President." Atlantic Monthly 85 (April 1900): 488-89. Katz, Michael B. "The Theory to Survey in Graduate Schools of Education." Journal of Higher Edu­ cation 37 (June 1966) . Kerr, Clark. "Administration in an Era of Change and Conflict." Educational Record 54 (Winter 1973): 38-46. Koch, Harlan C. "And So You Are a Dean." The North Central Association Quarterly 36 (Winter 1962). Mayhew, Lewis B. "Shared Responsibility of the President and the Dean." The North Central Association Quarterly 32 (October 1957). Nicholos, Roy F. "The Ambiguous Position of the Graduate Dean." Journal of Higher Education 30 (March 1959). O'Brien, Dennis. "D The Dean." Journal of Higher Education 37 (January 1966) . Ping, Charles J. "Unionization and Institutional Pla n­ ning." Educational Record 54 (Spring 1973): 100-06. "Report on the Role of Faculties in College and U n i ­ versity Government." Bulletin of American Association of University Professors 22 (March 1936) : 183-200". 316 "Report on the Role of Faculties in College and University Government." Bulletin of American Association of University Professors 34 (Spring 1946): 55-56. Roach, James H. L. "The Academic Department Chairperson: Functions and Responsibilities." Educational Record 57 (Winter 1976). Roaden, Arliss D. "The College Deanship. A New Middle Management in Higher Education." Theory into Practice 9 (October 1970). R o m i n e , Stephen. "Perceptions of an Effective Community College Instructional Climate." Journal of Higher Education 4 5 (June 19 74). S e r g i o v a n n i , Thomas. "Factors which Affect Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Teachers." Journal of Educational Administration 5 (1967) . Simpson, William A. "Tenure: A Perspective of Past, Present, and Future." Educational Record 56 (Winter 1975): 48-54. Stuhr, Robert L. "Developing an Academic Blueprint." College and University 38 (Spring 1963) : 284-88. Troyer, Howard. "The Faith of a Dean." cation 50 (March 1964) . Liberal Edu­ Tucker, Allan. "Decentralized Graduate Administration with Centralized Accountability." College and University 40 (Winter 1965): 132-39. Vaccaro, Louis C. "Planning in Higher Education." lege and University 51 (Winter 1976)„ Col­ Vaccaro, Louis C . , and Petersen, Richard. "Two Approaches to Planning that Small Colleges Can Afford and Large Ones Can Adapt." College and University Business 45 (November 1968): 38-39. Varner, D. B. "Planning the New College of the 60's." Current Issues in Higher Education (1960). Unpublished Material Bullen, Robert Abbot. "A Study of the Perceptions of Selected Deans, Departmental Chairmen at the University of Alabama." Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, 1969. 317 Call, Melvin Douglas. "Role Expectations, Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Academic Deans." Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 1973. Davidson, Robert Clement. "The Administrative Role of Department Chairmen in Public Four-year Col­ leges." Doctoral dissertation, Columbia Uni­ versity, 1967. DiBella, Edward E. "The Graduate Professional Dean— Selection Role, and Relationships." Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1973. Gould, John Wesley. "The Leadership Functions of the Academic Dean as Viewed by the Dean." Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1962. Guarna, Vincent A. "Analysis of Duties of Community College Instructional Deans." Doctoral d is­ sertation, The University of Michigan, 1969. Litherland, Beatrice Burns. "Functions of the Deans of Home Economics in Land-Grant Colleges and Uni­ versities with Implications for Administration Development." Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1975. Matthews, John Ivan. "The Role of the Department Chairman in Arizona Community Colleges." Ph.D. disser­ tation, Arizona State University, 1969. Novick, Jehiel. "The Role of Department Chairmen in University Governance in Large Midwestern Uni­ versities as Perceived by Faculty, Chairmen, and Administrators." Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Illinois, 1970. Paulson, Bruce Leonard. "An Investigation ties to Improve Instruction by the Instruction in Selected California Colleges." Doctoral dissertation, California, 1972. of the Acti vi ­ Dean of Community University of Ramer, Hal Reed. "Perceptions of University Departments and of the Role of Their Chairman. A Study of Some Attitudes and Opinions of Selected Pr o­ fessors, Department Chairmen, Deans, and Central Administrators of the Ohio State University." Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1963. 318 Schneider, Sr. Elizabeth Ann. "A Study of the Differences in the Expectations and Perceptions of Presidents, Deans, and Department Chairmen of the Functions of the Academic Dean in Private Liberal Arts Col­ leges in the North Central Association." Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1970. Schroeder, Glen Burnett. "Leadership Behavior of Depart­ ment Chairmen in Selected State Institutions of Higher Education." Doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico, 1969. Thompson, Wardell D. "An Analysis of the Functions and Responsibilities of the Academic Dean of Selected Colleges and Universities in Texas." Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1960. W a l k e , Jerry Lynn. "A Study of the Academic Deanship in Selected Small Liberal Arts Colleges with an Emphasis upon Actual and Ideal Duties and Responsibilities as Perceived by the Dean." Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1966 . Washington, Earl Melvin. "The Relationship between College Department Chairpersons Leadership Style as Perceived by Teaching Faculty and that Faculty's Feelings of Job Satisfaction." Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1975. Wyrick, Floyd Irving. "The Effect of Departmental Leader­ ship on Faculty Satisfaction and Departmental Effectiveness in a Big Ten University." Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1972. Young, Elizabeth Thompson. "A Study of the Opinions of Deans and Faculty Members toward the Effectiveness of Women Department Chairmen in Higher Education." Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1974. Zucker, Jacob DeGania. "A Model for Determining the Role Perceptions of Department Chairmen at a Large University." Doctoral dissertation, The Un i­ versity of Florida, 1973.