Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Faculty and administration perception of ideal teaching department role Robertson, William Donovan 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 R63.pdf [ 6.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055789.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055789-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055789-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055789-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055789-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055789-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055789-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055789-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055789.ris

Full Text

FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION PERCEPTION OF IDEAL TEACHING DEPARTMENT ROLE by WILLIAM DONOVAN ROBERTSON B.Ed., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER.OF ARTS THE FACULTY OF (Department of i n GRADUATE STUDIES Higher Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1979 © , W i l l iam Donovan Robertson, 1979 In presenting this thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t fre e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of this thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Higher Education The University of B r t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 November 23, 1979 i i ABSTRACT There are few s t u d i e s o f how te a c h i n g department a t t i t u d e s i n f l u e n c e l e a r n i n g i n post-secondary edu c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s . The dynamic i n t e r p l a y o f groups i n e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s has been p o o r l y documented. I f the members o f a department d i s p l a y a c o l l e c t i v e p o i n t of view toward t h e i r r o l e as a te a c h i n g u n i t , then an understanding of what elements c o n t r i b u t e to the c r e a t i o n of that view would be u s e f u l both i n the p r e v e n t i o n and r e s o l u t i o n of i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n f l i c t and i n the p r o v i s i o n of h i g h q u a l i t y i n s t r u c t i o n . Role p e r c e p t i o n s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e s the departmental o p e r a t i n g s t y l e . I f a department b e l i e v e s i t i s o p e r a t i n g i n a s p e c i f i c and ac c e p t a b l e f a s h i o n and others d i s a g r e e , misunderstandings and c o n f l i c t e v e n t u a l l y r e s u l t . I t t h e r e f o r e seems e s s e n t i a l that any departmental a p p r a i s a l should i n c l u d e an examination o f how w e l l a department's observable a c t i v i t i e s c o r r e l a t e w i t h i t s p e r c e i v e d i d e a l r o l e . However, the e v a l u a t i o n processes and instruments commonly used i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s are seldom ab l e to p r o v i d e any q u a n t i t a t i v e data on p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s . T h i s study examines one p o s s i b l e process f o r measuring group a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s . i i i 0-methodology has had increasing application i n measuring perceptions of individuals and was used to measure group perceptions i n this study. An 80 item Q-sort was constructed from selected statements of teaching department a c t i v i t i e s . Items were selected i n accordance with a three-independent-variable t h e o r e t i c a l construct — departmental attittide, departmental motivation, and i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . The f i r s t two variables each had two levels and the t h i r d had f i v e . A 2x2x5 design was used. The Q-sort was administered to a s t r a t i f i e d sample of 79 subjects drawn from a l l levels of the academic community of the B r i t i s h Columbia In s t i t u t e of Technology. The data were subjected to cluster analysis and other computational methods to i s o l a t e and describe group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Two strongly dichotomous Types, l a b e l l e d as L i b e r a l and as Conservative, were i d e n t i f i e d . Both Types accepted to varying degrees the concept of Student-centred a c t i v i t i e s over Department-centred. Most deans, Continuing Education s t a f f , Engineering and Nursing faculty, and l i b r a r i a n s were associated with the L i b e r a l Type, and department heads, Business and Health faculty, and Student Services s t a f f were associated with the Conservative Type. Those who had most di r e c t contact with students, except i v those who had f u r t h e r s t u d i e s i n education, were more Co n s e r v a t i v e i n a t t i t u d e than those who were somewhat removed from the classroom. There were no c o r r e l a t i o n s between Type and s u b j e c t age, l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e , or gender. Q-methodology was found to be u s e f u l i n i d e n t i f y i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e among both i n d i v i d u a l s and groups and, t h e r e f o r e , to have p o t e n t i a l as an i n s t i t u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s t o o l . V TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i i LIST OF FIGURES i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Study 1 1.2 Rationale for the Study 1 1.3 Statement of the Problem 5 1.4 Research Hypotheses 7 1.41 General Hypotheses 7 1.42 S p e c i f i c Hypotheses 8 1.5 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 9 1.6 Experimental Design 11 1.7 Limitations of the Study 11 1.8 Summary 12 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Organizational Theory and Departmental Role 13 2.2 Application of Q-Methodology to Evaluation 23 2.3 Q-Methodology 26 2.4 Summary 33 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction 35 v i METHODOLOGY (Continued) 3.2 Questions to be Answered 36 3.3 Study Sample 37 3.4 Design of the Study 39 3.5 O-Theory 45 3.6 The Study Instrument 51 3.7 Data C o l l e c t i o n 52 3.8 Data Analysis Techniques 55 3.9 Summary 57 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.1 Introduction .. 58 4.2 Further Steps i n Analysis 58 4.3 Results of the Analysis 60 4.4 Description of Group ;and Type Characteristics 62 4.5 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Types Within Subject Population . 71 4.6 Discrimination Among Types by Item Preference 76 4.7 Summary 80 5 DISCUSSION OF DATA 5.1 Introduction 82 5.2 Comparison of Results to Hypotheses .. 82 5.3 Interpretation of the Data 92 5.4 Implications of the Data 98 5.5 Summary 99 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 6.1 Conclusions 100 6.11 Q-Sort 100 6.12 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of C o n f l i c t Potential . 100 v i i CONCLUSIONS (Continued) 6.13 Concensus Development 101 6.14 Student Contact and Perception Differences 102 6.15 Department-Centred Attitudes . 103 6.2 Recommendations for Further Study ... 104 6.21 Impact of Studies i n Education on Role Perception 104 6.22 Transient Effects 105 6.23 Role Perception and Work Groups 105 6.24 Role Perception of Other I n s t i t u t i o n a l Members 106 6.3 Summary 106 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Organizational Development 109 7.2 Organizational Planning 110 7.3 Potential for Abuse I l l 7.4 Summary I l l BIBLIOGRAPHY 113 APPENDICES A Dominant Loadings Summary 119 B C e l l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n By Item Number 120 C Sample Population Demography 121 D Range Of A l l Items 122 E Q-Sort Items 123 F Cluster Analysis S t a t i s t i c s 129 G Z-Scores For Nineteen Cluster-Item Array . 130 H Q-Sort Instructions 134 v i i i TABLES TABLE Page 1 Subject Selection Contingency Table 38 2 Q-Sort Item Contingency Table 43 3 Q-Sort Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n 54 4 Type A Characteristic cItems 63 5 Type B Charac t e r i s t i c Items 66 6 Type C Charac t e r i s t i c Items 70 7 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By I n s t i t u t i o n a l Role 72 8 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By Educational Training 73 9 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By Length of Service 75 10 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By Gender of Subject 75 11 P r i o r i t y Comparison of Items Among Types .. 77 i x FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 Items discriminating among the three Types . 142 2 Loading patterns among Groups by independent variables 145 X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express h i s g r a t i t u d e t o : 1) h i s A d v i s o r y Committee, Dr. John D. Dennison, : . Dr. Walter B. B o l d t , and Dr. Seong-Soo Lee f o r t h e i r guidance and p a t i e n c e , 2) the f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n at the B r i t i s h Columbia I n s t i t u t e of Technology f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n and i n t e r e s t i n the study, 3) Sharon, L i s a , Cathy, and Ross f o r t h e i r good humor and support when i t seemed the study would never end. 1 ( C h a p t e r 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 P u r p o s e o f t h e S t u d y T h i s s t u d y h a s two p u r p o s e s r e l a t e d t o t h e p e r -c e i v e d r o l e o f a n i d e a l t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t i n a two-y e a r p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y : a) t o d e t e r m i n e i f d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t a l r o l e e x i s t among i d e n t -i f i a b l e g r o u p s w i t h i n t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y , b) t o d e t e r m i n e i f any i d e n t i f i e d d i f f e r e n c e s a r e r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o t h e o r g a n i z a -t i o n a l r o l e o r t o t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g o f t h e o b s e r v e r s . 1.4 R a t i o n a l e f o r t h e S t u d y E d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e b e i n g e v a l u a t e d b y i n t e r n a l a n d e x t e r n a l g r o u p s more now t h a n a t any t i m e i n t h e p a s t . W i t h t h e a d v e n t o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , 2 f a c u l t y u n i o n s , e q u a l r i g h t s l e g i s l a t i o n , low s t a f f t u r n - o v e r r a t e s , h i g h f a c u l t y s a l a r i e s , r e s t r i c t e d f u n d i n g s u p p o r t , and s t u d e n t d i s e n c h a n t m e n t w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l programmes, i n s t i t u t i o n a l a p p r a i s a l i s now b e c o m i n g common-place. C o n f l i c t s a r e i n e v i t a b l e . E a c h o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t i t u e n c i e s has a d i f f e r e n t r o l e w i t h i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n and, v e r y l i k e l y , a d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n o f what t h a t r o l e s h o u l d be and how i t s h o u l d r e l a t e t o o v e r a l l i n s t i t u t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s and o b j e c t i v e s . To c o n t i n u e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n p a t t e r n o f c o u n t i n g " t h i n g s " s u c h as p e o p l e , d o l l a r s , a r e a , d e g r e e s , e v e n t s , c o u r s e s , h o u r s , awards, and a p p l i c a t i o n s i s t o c o n t i n u e an u n j u s t i f i e d r e l i a n c e on p a r t i a l o r i r r e l e v a n t d a t a . S t a f f s t u d e n t r a t i o s o r f a c u l t y h o n o u r s a r e no more p r e d i c t i v e o f a good l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t t h a n i s g r a d e p o i n t a v e r a g e o f b e g i n n i n g s t u d e n t s p r e d i c t i v e o f t h e i r c o m p l e t i o n r a n k . T h e s e a r e a l l s t a t i c d a t a . L e a r n i n g i s a dynamic, i n t e r a c t i v e p r o c e s s t h a t i s o n l y p a r t i a l l y m e a s u r a b l e w i t h i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t c o u n t s t a t i c d a t a . The more i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t s — p e r c e p t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s , i n t e r a c t i o n s , and e x p e c t a t i o n s — t e n d t o be i g n o r e d b e c a u s e t h e y a r e d i f f i c u l t t o q u a n t i f y . T h i s 3 s t u d y f o c u s e s on d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t h o s e d i f f e r e n c e s t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e o f t h e p e r c e i v e r . D i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e p e r c e p t i o n a r e p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e s o f m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , m i s t r u s t , and c o n f l i c t . D u r i n g t i m e s o f r e l a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a f f l u e n c e and growth, i n d e p e n d -e n t a c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s and g r o u p s w i t h s h a r p l y d i f f e r e n t r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s s e l d o m l e d t o c o n f l i c t b e c a u s e t h e r e were few c o n s t r a i n t s . However, t h e r e a r e now many c o n s t r a i n t s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e r e - e x a m i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e s and a r e p l a n n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l change. F a c u l t y g r o u p s a r e s e e k i n g e q u i t y , s t u d e n t s a r e i n s i s t i n g on competent i n s t r u c t i o n , and f u n d i n g a g e n c i e s a r e demanding f i s c a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . The d a n g e r i s t h a t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s u f f i c i e n t d a t a , t h e s e f o r c e s may p u s h an i n s t i t u t i o n i n t o a u n i f o r m a p p l i c a t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s y s t e m s o r p o l i c i e s t h a t a r e u n a c c e p t a b l e t o many members o f 'the i n s t i t u t i o n . The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e s i g n may a p p e a r t o be good f r o m t h e p e r -s p e c t i v e o f t h e u s u a l q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a b u t t h e i m p l e -m e n t a t i o n o f t h a t d e s i g n may p r o d u c e a d d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s . I f t e c h n i q u e s a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r c o l l e c t i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a on t h e dynamic i n t e r a c t i o n s , on t h e p e r c e p t i o n s , 4 d i f f e r e n t o r m i x e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s y s t e m s c a n be j u s t -i f i e d and u s e d . I f t h e s y s t e m i s t o be m a t c h e d t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l t a s k s — a f u n d a m e n t a l t e n e t o f o r g a n i -z a t i o n a l t h e o r y — t h e t a s k s must be c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d . T a s k i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and r o l e p e r c e p t i o n a r e c l o s e l y l i n k e d and b o t h s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l p l a n n i n g . The b u r e a u c r a t i c m odel o f g o v e r n a n c e w i t h i t s p y r a m i d a l s t r u c t u r e , management i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s , p l a n n i n g c y c l e s , and o b j e c t i v e s i s w e l l - s u i t e d f o r c o l l e c t i n g s t a t i c d a t a . F i v e y e a r p l a n s a r e r i f e w i t h s t a t i s t i c s , p r o j e c t i o n s , and r h e t o r i c a l l a t t e m p t i n g t o p r o v e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n has done a good j o b i n t h e p a s t and w i l l be e v e n b e t t e r i n t h e f u t u r e p r o v i d i n g i t r e c e i v e s a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s o r f a c i l i t i e s . W h i l e t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c m o d e l ' s p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y l o g i c a l and b a s e d on k n o w i n g where t h e i n s t i t u t i o n h a s b e e n and where i t i s b e f o r e s t a t i n g where i t w i l l go i n t h e f u t u r e , i t s f o c u s on h i s t o r i c a l , q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a i s a c r i t i c a l f l a w . Q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t e a c h i n g q u a l i t y , d e p a r t m e n t a l a t t i t u d e s , s t u d e n t a t t r i t i o n , and g r a d i n g t e c h n i q u e s a r e s e l d o m a s k e d e x c e p t i n v e r y g e n e r a l t e r m s . C o u n t i n g o f h i s t o r i c a l d a t a i s e a s y , e v a l u a t i n g t h e 5 q u a l i t y o f t h e l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t i s n o t . F e w i n s t r u -m e n t s o r t e c h n i q u e s f o r e v a l u a t i n g q u a l i t y o r e v e n f o r p r o -d u c i n g c u e s f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r b r o a d a p p l i c a t i o n . A n o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s t u d y i s t o d e t e r -m i n e i f Q - m e t h o d o l o g y , w h i c h h a s b e e n s h o w n t o b e e f f e c t i v e i n e x a m i n i n g p e r c e p t i o n s i n i n d i v i d u a l s c a n b e e x t e n d e d t o m e a s u r e p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t g r o u p s h o l d a b o u t t h e i r o w n a c t i v i t i e s o r t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f o t h e r g r o u p s . I f s u c c e s s -f u l , Q - m e t h o d o l o g y c o u l d b e u s e d t o i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n c e s i n w h a t k e y p e r s o n n e l o r g r o u p s p e r c e i v e t o b e t h e i d e a l t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t r o l e . B y t y i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r -c e p t i o n t o g r o u p p a t t e r n s b a s e d o n s u b j e c t r o l e , b a c k g r o u n d , o r o t h e r d i s c r i m i n a t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e s o f c o n f l i c t m a y b e i d e n t i f i e d a n d s o l u t i o n s s o u g h t b e f o r e c r i s i s i n t e r v e n t i o n b e c o m e s n e c e s s a r y . 1 . 3 S t a t e m e n t o f t h e P r o b l e m T h e r e a r e f e w s t u d i e s o f h o w t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t a t t i t u d e s o r p h i l o s o p h i e s i n f l u e n c e l e a r n i n g i n p o s t -s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s . M o s t a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n f o c u s e d o n r e a d i l y o b t a i n a b l e d a t a s u c h a s f a c u l t y c r e d e n t i a l s , r e s e a r c h g r a n t s , e n t r a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d g r a d u a t e p l a c e m e n t s a s e v i d e n c e o f d e p a r t m e n t a l a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r e n g t h o r w e a k n e s s ( C a r r t e r , 1 9 6 6 ) . T h e 6 d y n a m i c i n t e r p l a y o f g r o u p s i n e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s h a s b e e n p o o r l y d o c u m e n t e d ( D r e s s e l , 1 9 7 0 a n d E n d e r u d , 1 9 7 7 ) . U s u a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n s e x a m i n e d e p a r t m e n t s i n i s o l a t i o n o r i n s t i t u t i o n s i n t o t a l a n d i g n o r e i n t e r -d e p a r t m e n t a l a n d s t u d e n t - d e p a r t m e n t a l r e l a t i o n s . I f t h e m e m b e r s o f a d e p a r t m e n t d i s p l a y a c o l l e c t i v e p o i n t o f v i e w t o w a r d t h e i r r o l e a s a t e a c h i n g u n i t , t h e n a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h a t e l e m e n t s c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h a t p h i l o s o p h y w o u l d b e u s e f u l b o t h i n t h e p r e v e n t i o n a n d r e s o l u t i o n o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n f l i c t a n d i n t h e p r o v i s i o n o f h i g h q u a l i t y i n s t r u c t i o n . R o l e p e r c e p t i o n , b o t h o f d e p a r t m e n t m e m b e r s a n d d e p a r t m e n t o b s e r v e r s , s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e s t h e d e p a r t -m e n t a l o p e r a t i n g s t y l e . I n d i v i d u a l a n d g r o u p e x p e c t a -t i o n s a n d p r e f e r e n c e s p l a y a m a j o r p a r t i n t h e s e t t i n g o f d e p a r t m e n t a l o b j e c t i v e s a n d p r i o r i t i e s a n d i n d e t e r -m i n i n g h o w t h e d e p a r t m e n t w i l l r e a c t t o e v e n t s g e n e r a t e d b y d e p a r t m e n t - s t u d e n t , d e p a r t m e n t - d e p a r t m e n t , a n d d e p a r t -m e n t - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n t e r - a c t i o n . I f a d e p a r t m e n t b e l i e v e s i t i s o p e r a t i n g i n a s p e c i f i c a n d a c c e p t a b l e f a s h i o n a n d " i f o t h e r s w h o m u s t d r a w s e r v i c e s f r o m t h a t d e p a r t m e n t o r a r e i n v o l v e d i n i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n d i s a g r e e t h e n m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s a n d c o n f l i c t e v e n t u a l l y r e s u l t . 7 I t t h e r e f o r e s e e m s e s s e n t i a l t h a t a n y d e p a r t m e n t a l a p p r a i s a l s h o u l d i n c l u d e a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f h o w w e l l a d e p a r t m e n t ' s o b s e r v a b l e a c t i v i t i e s c o r r e l a t e w i t h i t s p e r c e i v e d i d e a l r o l e . H o w e v e r , s i n c e d e p a r t m e n t a l r o l e s v a r y w i d e l y w i t h i n a n d a m o n g i n s t i t u t i o n s a s t a n d a r d i z e d e v a l u a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t w o u l d h a v e l i t t l e a p p l i c a t i o n . W h a t i s r e q u i r e d i s a n e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s t h a t m e a s u r e s p e r c e p t i o n s a n d t h a t c a n u t i l i z e l o c a l i n f o r m a t i o n p o o l s t o c r e a t e i n s t i t u t i o n - s p e c i f i c t e s t i n s t r u m e n t s . Q -m e t h o d o l o g y h a s b e e n s u c c e s s f u l l y u s e d i n m e a s u r i n g i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t i o n s a n d s h o u l d h a v e a p p l i c a t i o n i n m e a s u r i n g g r o u p p e r c e p t i o n s o f s o m e c o m m o n a c t i v i t y — i n t h i s c a s e t h e r o l e o f a n i d e a l t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t i n a p o s t - s e c o n d a r y i n s t i t u t i o n . 1 • 4- R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s e s T h i s s t u d y h a s a s e r i e s o f g e n e r a l a n d s p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s e s : 1 . 4 1 G e n e r a l H y p o t h e s e s 1 . 4 1 1 Q - a n a l y s i s t e c h n i q u e s c a n b e u s e d i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s t o i d e n t i f y p r e f e r r e d o p e r a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r s o f t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t s . 8 1 . 4 1 2 T h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f w h i c h t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t a c t i v i t i e s a r e p r e f e r r e d w i l l v a r y a m o n g i d e n t i f i a b l e g r o u p s w i t h i n a s i n g l e i n s t i t u t i o n . 1 . 4 2 S p e c i f i c H y p o t h e s e s 1 . 4 2 1 S u b j e c t s h a v i n g s i m i l a r p e r c e p t i o n s o f p r e f e r r e d d e p a r t m e n t a l a c t i v i t i e s w i l l c l u s t e r m o r e o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e t h a n o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r g e n d e r , l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e , o r d i s c i p l i n e . 1 . 4 2 2 D i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n o f p r e -f e r r e d d e p a r t m e n t a l a c t i v i t i e s w i l l b e o b s e r v e d a m o n g s u b j e c t s w h o a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d b y t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u p s . 1 . 4 2 3 A d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i l l t e n d t o c l u s t e r m o r e t o g e t h e r i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f p r e f e r r e d d e p a r t m e n t a l a c t i v i t i e s t h a n w i t h t h e f a c u l t y i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c e n t r e s . 9 1 . 4 2 4 C l u s t e r s o f s u b j e c t s h a v i n g s i m i l a r p e r c e p t i o n s o f p r e f e r r e d d e p a r t m e n t a l a c t i v i t i e s w i l l b e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h a r e r a t e d a s b e i n g e i t h e r S t u d e n t - c e n t r e d o r D e p a r t m e n t - c e n t r e d , a n d e i t h e r L i b e r a l o r C o n s e r v a t i v e . 1 . 4 2 5 S u b j e c t s w h o h a v e l i t t l e o r n o t e a c h i n g c o n t a c t w i t h s t u d e n t s w i l l c l u s t e r i n g r o u p s t h a t p r e f e r d e p a r t m e n t a l a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d t o c h a n g e a n d o p e n -n e s s w i t h s t u d e n t s m o r e t h a n w i l l s u b j e c t s w h o a r e p r i m a r i l y i n s t r u c t o r s . 1 . 5 D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r m s B . C . T . T . - t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y , a t w o - y e a r , p o s t - s e c o n d a r y , p u b l i c l y s u p p o r t e d , D i p l o m a - g r a n t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d i n g c a r e e r - o r i e n t e d p r o g r a m m e s i n B u s i n e s s , E n g i n e e r i n g , a n d H e a l t h . C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n - t h e D i v i s i o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a r t - t i m e s t u d e n t s , i n c l u d i n g C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n ( B u s i n e s s , E n g i n e e r i n g , a n d H e a l t h ) , I n d u s t r y S e r v i c e s , 10 and Programme Development departments. An a b b r e v i a t i o n f o r the f u l l D i v i s i o n a l name. Core D i v i s i o n - an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e grouping of Chemistry, E n g l i s h , Mathematics, and P h y s i c s departments. P h i l o s o p h y - the a t t i t u d e or p o i n t - o f - v i e w o f the su b j e c t s u n d e r l y i n g t h e i r reasons f o r demonstrating t h e i r observed b e h a v i o r . Not used i n the s t r i c t e s t sense as i n the study o f ph i l o s o p h y . Q-score - a weighted score produced by grouping Z-scores from a s e r i e s o f r e l a t e d c l u s t e r s , w e i g h t i n g each c l u s t e r score by the number of s u b j e c t s i n each c l u s t e r , summing the weighted s c o r e s , and d i v i d i n g by the number of s u b j e c t s i n v o l v e d i n the r e l a t e d c l u s t e r s . Q-sort - the r a n k - o r d e r i n g i n a pre-determined p a t t e r n s o f a s e r i e s of items based on a common r e f e r e n t . Q-techniques - a systemnin p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h based on t e s t i n g s i n g u l a r p r o p o s i t i o n s w i t h s m a l l samples. F a c t o r a n a l y t i c a l methods are used and persons r a t h e r than t e s t s are c o r r e l a t e d . 11 1.6 E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n A p r o c e s s was e s t a b l i s h e d f o r g e n e r a t i n g a Q - s o r t f r o m o b s e r v a t i o n s o f B . C.I.T. t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t a c t i v i t i e s . A s t r u c t u r e d s a m p l e o f i t e m s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a b a l a n c e d b l o c k d e s i g n t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e d d e p a r t m e n t a l a t t i t u d e s , m o t i v a t i o n , a n d a c t i v i t i e s was d e v e l o p e d . T a b l e 2 p r o v i d e s a s c h e m a t i c o f t h e d e s i g n . S t a t e m e n t s b a s e d on o b s e r v a t i o n s w e r e c r e a t e d t o f i t t h e d e s i g n i n f o u r r e p l i c a t e s . A s a m p l e o f s u b j e c t s was s e l e c t e d t o p r o v i d e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a l l t e a c h i n g - r e l a t e d g r o u p s a t B . C . I . T . S u b j e c t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h i n d i v i d u a l Q-s o r t k i t s a n d r e q u i r e d t o s o r t t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n t o a mod-i f i e d n o r m a l c u r v e p a t t e r n . The s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s w e r e s c o r e d a n d a n a l y z e d b y c o m p u t e r . 1.7 L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y The p r o c e s s u s e d t o c r e a t e t h e Q - s o r t s h o u l d be t r a n s f e r r a b l e t o any t e a c h i n g i n s t i t u t i o n o r g a n i z e d on d e p a r t m e n t a l l i n e s . The Q - s o r t u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y i s s p e c i f i c t o B.C.I.T. t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t a l a c t i v i t i e s . H o w ever, t h e i n s t r u m e n t was d e s i g n e d t o be g e n e r a l e n o u g h t o a p p l y t o any B . C.I.T. t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t a n d may, 12 t h e r e f o r e , b e t r a n s f e r r a b l e , w i t h some m o d i f i c a t i o n t o o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t t e a c h s i m i l a r programmes t o B.C.I.T. 1.8 Summary Q-methodology may h a v e u s e f u l a p p l i c a t i o n s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t c a n o b t a i n d a t a on p e r c e p t i o n s o f g r o u p b e h a v i o r . S uch d a t a a r e e s s e n t i a l i f i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e t o a v o i d c o n f l i c t as t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s become i n c r e a s i n g l y f o r m a l i z e d . Q - a n a l y s i s c a n i d e n t i f y g r o u p s w h i c h h a v e d i f f e r i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f g r o u p b e h a v i o r s u c h as t h e p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t i e s o f an i d e a l t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t . The g r o u p s ' p r e f e r e n c e s w i l l r e f l e c t some common b e l i e f o f what " i d e a l " i s and w i l l l i k e l y v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p o s i t i o n r a t h e r t h a n t h e t r a i n i n g o f t h e g r o u p members. 1 3 C h a p t e r 2 R E V I E W OF T H E L I T E R A T U R E 2 . 1 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l T h e o r y a n d D e p a r t m e n t a l R o l e T h e l i t e r a t u r e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r y a n d d e s i g n i s d o m i n a t e d b y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f t h e c l a s s i c a l b u r e a u c r a t i c , h i e r a r c h i c a l m o d e l w e l l d e s c r i b e d b y M a x W e b e r ( 1 9 4 7 ) . S t u d i e s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n h a v e t e n d e d t o r e j e c t t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c m o d e l i n f a v o u r o f t h e c o l l e g i a l m o d e l i n w h i c h a u t h o r i t y i s a t t a i n e d b y t e c h n i c a l c o m p e t e n c e . " ' " I n t h e p a s t t h r e e d e c a d e s s o c i o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s o f o r g a n -i z a t i o n s b y r e s e a r c h e r s s u c h a s L i k e r t ( 1 9 6 1 ) h a v e p r o v i d e d e m p i r i c a l d a t a f o r a v a r i e t y o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m o d e l s . T h e r e s e a r c h t e n d e d t o c o n c e n t r a t e o n s u c c e s s -f u l o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t c o u l d r e a d i l y b e e x a m i n e d a n d f o r w h i c h r e s e a r c h f u n d s c o u l d b e o b t a i n e d . P r i m a r y s o u r c e s o f d a t a w e r e c o m m e r c i a l a n d g o v e r n m e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s — b o t h b a s e d o n t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c m o d e l . L i k e r t p r o p o s e d J . V i c t o r B a l d r i d g e , " I n t r o d u c t i o n : M o d e l s o f U n i v e r s i t y G o v e r n a n c e - B u r e a c r a t i c , C o l l e g i a l , a n d P o l i t i c a l , " A c a d e m i c G o v e r n a n c e , e d . J . V i c t o r B a l d r i d g e ( B e r k e l e y : M c C u t c h a n , 1 9 7 1 ) , p . 6 . 1 4 a f o u r - s y s t e m m o d e l c o n t a i n i n g a r a n g e f r o m t h e c l a s s i c b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n t o a h i g h l y d e m o c r a t i c , 2 c o l l e g i a l s t r u c t u r e . L i k e r t ' s m o d e l p r o v i d e d e n o u g h v a r i a t i o n s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n t y p e t o c o v e r t h e v a r i e t y o f f o r m s f o u n d i n m o s t o r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d t h e i r s u b - u n i t s . O t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n t o r e s p o n d t o o p e r a t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e s t h r o u g h f u n c t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s . C o n t i n g e n c y t h e o r i s t s a n d " f o r m - f i t s - f u n c t i o n " a d v o c a t e s m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e s t r u c t u r a l d e s i g n f o r o n e o r g a n i z a t i o n m a y b e l a r g e l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e o r e v e n d e s t r u c t i v e f o r 3 a n o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n . M a y h e w s p e c u l a t e d i n 1 9 7 2 t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s w o u l d c h a n g e , p e r h a p s r a d i c a l l y , a s a r e s u l t o f g r o w t h a n d e x t e r n a l f o r c e s . N o t o n l y t h e f o r m b u t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f a d m i n -i s t r a t i o n a n d g o v e r n a n c e i s c h a n g i n g . H i s t o r -i c a l l y , i n s t i t u t i o n s h a v e u s e d r a t h e r p r i m i t i v e t e c h n i q u e s o f b u d g e t i n g , p l a n n i n g , a n d d e c i s i o n -m a k i n g . P l a n s r a r e l y e x t e n d e d b e y o n d a y e a r , a n d b u d g e t i n g c o n s i s t e d o f e s t i m a t i n g i n c o m e a n d d i v i d i n g i t a m o n g c o m p e t i n g d e p a r t m e n t s a n d d i v i s i o n s . O n c e a g a i n , s i z e a n d r a p i d g r o w t h b r o k e t h e s y s t e m , a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e R e n s i s L i k e r t , N e w P a t t e r n s o f M a n a g e m e n t ( N e w Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 2 2 2 - 2 3 6 . ' L i k e r t , p . 9 . 1 5 s e a r c h i n g f o r b e t t e r m a n a g e m e n t p r o c e d u r e s . P r o g r a m , p l a n n i n g , a n d b u d g e t i n g s y s t e m s h a v e b e e n r e c o m m e n d e d , a s h a v e c o m p u t e r - b a s e d s i m u l a t i o n m o d e l s . T h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r y a n d h o p e t h a t l e s s o n s f r o m o t h e r l a r g e e n t e r p r i s e s c a n b e a p p l i e d t o e d u c a t i o n . ^ R i l e y a n d B a l d r i d g e ( 1 9 7 7 ) h a v e p o s t u l a t e d a p o l i t i c a l m o d e l o f o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e c o n c e p t o f p o w e r g r o u p b a r g a i n i n g o p e r -a t e s . B u r n s a n d S t a l k e r ( 1 9 6 1 ) a r g u e t h a t t h e r e i s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n i n c r e a s e d i n s t a b i l i t y o f t h e t a s k e n v i r o n m e n t a n d i n c r e a s e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e d e m o c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e . ~* I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e n a t u r a l e v o l u t i o n f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s i s t o g r o w r a p i d l y f r o m a s m a l l g r o u p o f t a s k - o r i e n t e d c o l l e a g u e s t o a l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n w h i c h f u n c t i o n s a r e w e l l d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . M a t u r e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s h a v e s e p a r a t e d t h e s e r v i c e f u n c t i o n s o f p l a n n i n g , c o m p u t e r s e r v i c e s , p u r c h a s i n g , b u d g e t i n g , a n d p e r s o n n e l f r o m t h e a c a d e m i c f u n c t i o n s o f t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t s . T h e t w o t y p e s o f o p e r a t i n g g r o u p s h a v e d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l n e e d s b e c a u s e o f t h e i r d i f f e r e n t L e w i s B . M a y h e w , " H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n - T o w a r d 1 9 8 4 , " E d u c a t i o n a l R e c o r d , S u m m e r , 1 9 7 2 , p . 2 1 8 . ^ T o m B u r n s a n d G . M . S t a l k e r , T h e M a n a g e m e n t o f I n n o v a t i o n ( L o n d o n : T a v i s t o c k , 196lT~ p p . 1 2 1 - 1 2 5 . 1 6 o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . T h e p r o b l e m f a c i n g o r g a n i z a -t i o n a l d e s i g n e r s i s h o w t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e t w o p l u s v a r i a t i o n s o n e a c h f o r m i n o n e o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e a n d s t i l l m a i n t a i n a c o h e s i v e w h o l e . A m a j o r p r o b l e m i s t h e d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s a n d p h i l o s o p h i e s o f t h e p e o p l e a t t r a c t e d t o e a c h t y p e o f o p e r a t i o n a n d t h e a t t e n d a n t c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o b l e m s t h a t o f t e n e x i s t . B o t h L i k e r t a n d B a l d r i d g e r e c o g n i z e t h e i r m o d e l s d o n o t a d e q u a t e l y d e s c r i b e a c o m p l e t e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n . L i k e r t c o n c e n t r a t e s o n t h e f o r m a l o r o f f i c i a l s t r u c t u r e . B a l d r i d g e e x a m i n e s t h e o p e r a t i n g o r i n v i s i b l e s t r u c t u r e . A c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e t w o m o d e l s c a n b e u s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a t e a c h -i n g d e p a r t m e n t a s a c o l l e g i a l g r o u p i n t e r a c t i n g p o l i t i -c a l l y w i t h o t h e r t e a c h i n g a n d s e r v i c e d e p a r t m e n t s w i t h i n a f o r m a l b u r e a u c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e i n w h i c h s e r v i c e d e p a r t m e n t s h a v e k e y p o s i t i o n s . T h e c o r e o f a n y t e a c h i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n i s t h e t e a c h i n g f a c u l t y . T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t e a c h i n g f a c u l t y i n t o f u n c t i o n a l g r o u p s h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y b e e n b y d i s -c i p l i n e - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d d e p a r t m e n t s . T w o m a j o r s t u d i e s P e t e r M . B l a u , O n t h e N a t u r e o f O r g a n i z a t i o n s ( N e w Y o r k : W i l e y , 1 9 7 4 ) , p . 1 6 . 1 7 b y D r e s s e l ( 1 9 7 0 ) a n d M c H e n r y ( 1 9 7 7 ) e x a m i n e d t h e r o l e o f t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t s i n A m e r i c a n u n i v e r s i t i e s a n d q u e s t i o n e d t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l w i s d o m o f o r g a n i z i n g a l o n g d e p a r t m e n t a l l i n e s . T h e y b o t h i d e n t i f i e d t h e l a c k o f e m p i r i c a l d a t a o n h o w d e p a r t m e n t s o p e r a t e d a n d w h a t p r o c e s s e s o r p r o c e d u r e s d i s t i n g u i s h e d g o o d d e p a r t m e n t s f r o m b a d d e p a r t m e n t s . A c o m m o n b e l i e f e x p r e s s e d t o t h e r e s e a r c h e r s w a s t h a t t h e d e p a r t m e n t w a s t h e k e y f o c u s f o r a c t i v i t i e s a n d a l l e g i a n c e s o f a c a d e m i c s . G o o d a c a d e m i c s m a k e g o o d d e p a r t m e n t s . T h e d e p a r t m e n t i s b o t h t h e r e f u g e a n d s u p p o r t o f t h e p r o f e s s o r . T h e d e p a r t m e n t p r o v i d e s h i s w o r k i n g s p a c e : a n o f f i c e , a n a d j a c e n t c l a s s -r o o m o r s e m i n a r , a n d ( f o r t h e s c i e n t i s t ) a w e l l - e q u i p p e d l a b o r a t o r y . T h e d e p a r t m e n t a l s o s a n c t i o n s h i s c o u r s e o r s e m i n a r , a n d m a y p r o -v i d e t h e f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t f o r h i s r e s e a r c h a n d d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e s . T h e p r o f e s s o r l o o k s t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y f o r h i s r e s e a r c h a n d d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e s . T h e p r o f e s s o r l o o k s t o t h e u n i v e r -s i t y f o r a p a r k i n g p l a c e , a l t h o u g h h e b e l i e v e s t h a t i f u n i v e r s i t i e s w e r e w e l l r u n e a c h d e p a r t -m e n t w o u l d h a v e i t s o w n f a c i l i t i e s s u r r o u n d e d b y p a r k i n g p l a c e s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e d e p a r t m e n t a l s t a f f . T h e d e p a r t m e n t e x i s t s t o n u r t u r e t h e p r o -f e s s o r , a n d t h e u n i v e r s i t y e x i s t s p r i m a r i l y t o n u r t u r e t h e d e p a r t m e n t s . C o l l e g e s a n d t h e i r d e a n s s c r e e n t h e d e p a r t m e n t s , i n t h e n a m e o f a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m , f r o m t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e o f c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a n d m a y e v e n b e h e l p f u l i n a c q u i r i n g m o r e r e s o u r c e s a n d g r e a t e r a u t o -n o m y f o r t h e d e p a r t m e n t . P a u l L . D r e s s e l , F . C r a i g J o h n s o n , a n d P h i l i p M . M a r c u s , T h e C o n f i d e n c e C r i s i s : A n A n a l y s i s o f U n i v e r - s i t y D e p a r t m e n t s ( S a n F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1 9 7 0 ) , p p . 4 - 5 . 1 8 T h e d a t a s u g g e s t o t h e r w i s e . P e r c e p t i o n s o f d e p a r t m e n t a l r o l e a n d ' i m p o r t a n c e a s r e l a t e d t o f a c u l t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h d e p a r t m e n t s w e r e e x t r e m e l y v a r i e d . D r e s s e l f o u n d t h a t f a c u l t y m e m b e r s p o l l e d o n h o w t h e y i d e n t i f i e d t h e m s e l v e s — b y d i s c i p l i n e , u n i v e r s i t y , o r d e p a r t m e n t — s e l e c t e d d i s c i p l i n e a n d d e p a r t m e n t a b o u t e q u a l l y w i t h a b o u t 1 5 % s e l e c t i n g u n i v e r s i t y . S e n i o r , t e n u r e d f a c u l t y w e r e m o r e c l o s e l y o r i e n t e d t o w a r d t h e u n i v e r s i t y a n d y o u n g e r f a c u l t y t o w a r d t h e i r g d i s c i p l i n e . M a j o r v a r i a t i o n s w e r e f o u n d w i t h i n d i s -c i p l i n e s . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e m a t h e m a t i c s f a c u l t i e s c h o s e t h e u n i v e r s i t y a s a r e f e r e n c e g r o u p w h e r e a s 3 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e b u s i n e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s t a f f d i d s o . P s y c h o l o g y h a d t h e h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f s t a f f s e l e c t i n g d i s c i p l i n e a s a r e f e r e n c e g r o u p , w i t h a p p r o x -i m a t e l y 5 5 p e r c e n t d o i n g s o ; o n l y 3 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e e l e c t r i c a l e n g i n e e r s c h o s e t h e d e p a r t -m e n t a s t h e i r r e f e r e n c e g r o u p , w h e r e a s o n l y 1 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t a f f o f b u s i n e s s a d m i n i -s t r a t i o n d i d s o . T h e s e s a m e d a t a c a n b e e x a m i n e d i n a n o t h e r f a s h i o n , t h a t i s , t h e a m o u n t o f d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h i n e a c h d i s c i p l i n e . H e r e w e f o u n d t h a t h i s t o r y a n d c h e m i s t r y s e e m e d l e a s t a g r e e d o n t h e i r p r o p e r o r i e n t a t i o n , w h e r e a s p s y c h o l o g y a n d b u s i n e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n h a d t h e m o s t i n t e r n a l a g r e e m e n t . 9 8 9 D r e s s e l , p . 7 8 . D r e s s e l , p . 7 8 . 19 F a c u l t y w i t h t h e h i g h e s t d i s c i p l i n e o r i e n t a -t i o n t e n d e d t o be f o u n d i n d e p a r t m e n t s w h i c h h a v e b o t h a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f new a p p o i n t m e n t s and a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f r e s i g n a t i o n s o f t e n u r e t r a c k f a c u l t y . The p r o p o r t i o n o f f a c u l t y members i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e d i s c i p l i n e was t h e i r m a j o r r e f e r e n c e g r o u p was c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h t h e p r o p o r t i o n who r e p o r t e d t h e p r e s t i g e o f p r o -s p e c t i v e d e p a r t m e n t s as a p r i m a r y r e a s o n f o r a c c e p t i n g a n o t h e r p o s i t i o n . No r e l a t i o n s h i p was f o u n d b e t w e e n " h a v i n g more t i m e t o p u r s u e my own i n t e r e s t s " o r " m a k i n g more money" a n d t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y o r i e n t a t i o n . The o r i e n t a t i o n t o t h e d i s c i p l i n e was n e g a t i v e -l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e amount o f e m p h a s i s t h a t t h e s e d e p a r t m e n t s p l a c e d u p o n u n d e r g r a d u a t e i n s t r u c t i o n , u n d e r g r a d u a t e a d v i s i n g , i n s t r u c t i o n o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e n o n m a j o r s , e x p r e s s i n g d e p a r t -m e n t a l v i e w s t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y , a n d f u r t h e r i n g t h e c a r e e r s o f y o u n g e r s t a f f . T h e r e was a l s o a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e d i s c i p l i n e o r i e n t a t i o n a n d t h e f e e l i n g t h a t u n d e r g r a d u a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d be e m p h a s i z e d b u t b o t h g r a d u a t e i n s t r u c t i o n a n d b a s i c r e s e a r c h w e r e p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d . 1 0 The d a t a c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t r a n k o r l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e a n d d i s c i p l i n e a r e m a j o r i n d i c a t o r s o f g r o u p i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A l s o , r o l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a p p e a r s t o b e s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d t o g r o u p o r d i s c i p l i n e i d e n t i f i c a -t i o n . The l a c k o f s e r i o u s d i s a g r e e m e n t s w i t h i n d e p a r t -m e n t s a n d t h e p a t t e r n s o f g r o u p i d e n t i f i c a t i o n f o u n d b y D r e s s e l s u p p o r t t h e c o n t e n t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y t h a t D r e s s e l , p. 79. 20 t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t s t e n d t o be i n t e r n a l l y c o h e s i v e and t o h ave d i s t i n c t i v e o p e r a t i n g s t y l e s . D r e s s e l was u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o r t h e d i s c i p l i n e was t h e p r i m e f a c t o r i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a t t i t u d e s a l t h o u g h b o t h were c l e a r l y i n f l u e n t i a l . A l l t h e s t u d i e s c i t e d b y D r e s s e l and o t h e r s who h a v e examined t h e b e h a v i o r o f d e p a r t m e n t s l i m i t t h e i r e x a m i n a t i o n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t s . T h e r e i s a g r o w i n g l i t e r a t u r e on t h e p r o b l e m s o f o r g a n i z i n g and a d m i n i s t e r -i n g h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s . However, most p u b l i c -a t i o n s a r e b a s e d on o p i n i o n and p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e and n o t on q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s . D r e s s e l and B a l d r i d g e a r e n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n s . However, e v e n D r e s s e l ' s s t u d y i s l i m i t e d , c i t i n g s t a t i s t i c s t h a t show t h e i m p o r t -a nce o f g r a d u a t e and u n d e r g r a d u a t e t e a c h i n g r e l a t i v e t o r e s e a r c h , p u b l i c s e r v i c e , a d v a n c i n g t h e d i s c i p l i n e , and o t h e r d e p a r t m e n t a l a c t i v i t i e s . ' ' " ' ' " T h e r e i s an a b s e n c e o f any b r o a d r e s e a r c h on t h e i m p a c t o f t e a c h i n g d e p a r t -ment o p e r a t i n g s t y l e s on t h e t e a c h i n g / l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s . The s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n , t h e c l a s s r o o m a r e c o n t i n u a l l y c i t e d as b e i n g w i t h i n t h e s o l e j u r i s d i c t i o n D r e s s e l , p. 71. 2 1 o f t h e i n s t r u c t o r a n d n o t o p e n t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l e x a m i n a t i o n . T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n a c c e p t e d p r i o r t o 1 9 7 0 b u t t h e r a p i d r i s e o f e d u c a t i o n a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y a n d c o n s u m e r r i g h t s m a k e s i t i m p e r a t i v e t h a t e d u c a -t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s k n o w w h a t a c t i v i t i e s a r e a s s o c -i a t e d w i t h g o o d t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t s . I f t h e d a t a o n p e r c e p t i o n s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r o l e c i t e d e a r l i e r a r e v a l i d , s i m i l a r v a r i a t i o n s i n p e r c e i v e d i d e a l a c t i v i t i e s o f t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t s c a n b e e x p e c t e d t o b e f o u n d . S t u d e n t s a n d s t a f f o f a c i v i l e n g i n e e r i n g d e p a r t m e n t m a y h a v e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t p e r -c e p t i o n s o f w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a g o o d d e p a r t m e n t t h a n w o u l d t h e s t a f f a n d s t u d e n t s o f a h i s t o r y o r E n g l i s h d e p a r t m e n t . S e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a n d d e p a r t m e n t m e m b e r s m a y w e l l h a v e s h a r p d i f f e r e n c e s o v e r w h i c h t e a c h i n g - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s s h o u l d b e e n c o u r a g e d t o a c h i e v e a g o o d e v a l u a t i o n . I n s t u d i e s o f p r e f e r e n c e s , p e r c e p t i o n s b e c o m e a l l i m p o r t a n t . W h a t i s p e r c e i v e d m a y b e m o r e r e a l t o t h e o b s e r v e r t h a n w h a t a c t u a l l y e x i s t s . H o w t o m e a s u r e p e r c e p t i o n s i s c r i t i c a l t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n - b a s e d c o n f l i c t . J e n k s ( 1 9 7 0 ) u s e d S t e p h e n s o n ' s Q - m e t h o d o l o g y i n a s t u d y o f r o l e - p e r c e p t i o n - b a s e d p r o b l e m s i n a p e r s o n n e l 22 department of a manufacturing c o r p o r a t i o n . He found Q-sort instruments to be more u s e f u l than more common research instruments such as questionnaires i n 12 d e a l i n g w i t h s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a l problems . Rinn (1961) t e s t e d Q-methodology i n a study of perceptions i n group behavior. Subjects observed and described the i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior of the members of t h e i r groups. "The operating assumption was that what was perceived and what was r e a l were the same f o r the members i n the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . At i s s u e was the question of how much members would agree on the ' r e a l i t y ' of the s i t u a t i o n . Since they were d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r group r a t h e r than themselves i t was assumed that the 13 b i a s of ' s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ' would be minimal." Rinn s t r u c t u r e d the study along the experimentally rigourous and t h e o r e t i c a l l i n e s expounded by Stephenson. The study t e s t e d "whether c e r t a i n t h e o r e t i c a l l y defined dimensions of group behavior would be v e r i f i e d by means of Q-tech-nique operation'.'^ He found that Q-methodology had -Stephen R. Jenks, "An Action-Research Approach to O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Change," Jo u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l Science, 6:2:135, 1970. 13 John L. Rinn, "Q-Methodology: An A p p l i c a t i o n to Group Phenomena," Educational and' P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measure-ment, 11:2:316, 1961": Rinn, p. 317. 23 a p p l i c a t i o n s to the study of group behavior p r o v i d i n g the i n v e s t i g a t o r proceeded from a theory s t a t e d i n terms of a f a c t o r i a l design and a p p l i e d appropriate f a c t o r a n a l y t i c procedures to the data."^ Rinn supported Stephenson's p o s i t i o n that c l o s e adherence to F i s h e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of balanced f a c t o r i a l designs can y i e l d use-f u l r e s u l t s . ^ While Stephenson's and Rinn's procedures may not conform to formal experimental design c r i t e r i a s t a t e d by Campbell and Stanley (1963), there i s c l e a r l y an experimental methodology based on l o g i c , s t r u c t u r e , and t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . 2.2 A p p l i c a t i o n of Q-Methodology to E v a l u a t i o n Stufflebeam (1971) reviewed the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the Campbell and Stanley model of experimental design to the CIPP E v a l u a t i o n Model. He argued that "the general p r i n c i p l e of experimental design can and should be used i n c e r t a i n kinds of input and product e v a l u a t i o n situations".''"'' He a l s o c i t e d "common measuring devices Rinn, p. 328. W i l l i a m Stephenson, The Study of Behavior: Q- Technique and I t s Methodology (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 103. 17 D a n i e l L. Stufflebeam, "The Use of Experimental Design i n E d u c a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n , " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Measurement, 8:4:272, Winter, 1971. 2 4 a n d c o m m o n s u c c e s s s t a n d a r d s " - 1 " 0 a s o f t e n b e i n g i n a d e q u a t e f o r i d e n t i f y i n g s i g n i f i c a n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e e v a l u a t o r . " E x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n s t u d i e s m a y b e s a i d t o y i e l d c o r r e c t 1 9 a n s w e r s t o t h e w r o n g q u e s t i o n s . " H e p r o p o s e d t o e x a m i n e t h e r e s u l t s o f e a c h i n d i v i d u a l a g a i n s t o b j e c t -i v e s s e t f o r t h o s e p e r s o n s r a t h e r t h a n d e a l i n g w i t h l a r g e g r o u p s t h r o u g h s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . T h i s i s s i m i l a r i n p h i l o s o p h y t o S t e p h e n s o n ' s c o n c e p t o f t e s t i n g s i n g u l a r p r o p o s i t i o n s t h r o u g h m a n y t e s t s w i t h o n e p e r s o n . W o o d ( 1 9 7 7 ) u s e d t h e Q - s o r t t e c h n i q u e t o e v a l u a t e t h e " k n o w -l e d g e a n d a b i l i t y c o m p e t e n c i e s o f t e a c h e r s o f g r a d u a t e 2 0 l e v e l c o u r s e s " . T h e Q - s o r t t e c h n i q u e a l l o w e d h i m t o e s t a b l i s h p e r f o r m a n c e c r i t e r i a , t o c o m p a r e a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e w i t h t h e c r i t e r i a , a n d t o m a k e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r c h a n g e i n b o t h c u r r i c u l a a n d p r o c e d u r e s . S c r i v e n h a s a r g u e d f o r i n c r e a s e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e q u a l i t a t i v e a s p e c t s o f e v a l u a t i o n d e s i g n w i t h o u t r e j e c t i n g t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e m e t h o d s d r a w n f r o m c o n v e n t i o n a l r e s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e s . H e n o t e d t h a t w h i l e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n e v a l u a t i o n r e s e a r c h a n d s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h i s b e i n g e l i m i n a t e d , a b a s i c d i s t i n c t i o n r e m a i n s . " E v a l u a t i o n 1 8 S t u f f l e b e a m , p . 2 7 1 . 1 9 S t u f f l e b e a m , p . 2 7 1 . 2 0 R a n d y W o o d , A U s e o f t h e Q - S o r t T e c h n i q u e i n  E d u c a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n ( E R I C D o c u m e n t E D 1 2 8 3 6 0 , J a n u a r y 1 9 7 7 ) , p . 4 . 2 5 r e s e a r c h m u s t , t y p i c a l l y , p r o d u c e a s a c o n c l u s i o n e x a c t l y t h e k i n d o f s t a t e m e n t t h a t s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s h a v e f o r y e a r s b e e n t a u g h t i s i l l e g i t i m a t e , a j u d g e m e n t 2 1 o f v a l u e , w o r t h , o r m e r i t , " Q - m e t h o d o l o g y i s b a s e d o n a n a n a l y s i s o f m a n y s u c h j u d g e m e n t s m a d e b y t h e s u b j e c t s . E v a l u a t i o n i s n o t o n l y c e n t r a l t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f Q - m e t h o d o l o g y , b u t a l s o , w h e n a p p r o p r i a t e , d r a w s o n Q - a n a l y s i s f o r j u d g e m e n t a l d a t a . S c r i v e n ' s c o n c e p t o f g o a l - f r e e e v a l u a t i o n i s e c h o e d b y R e d b u r n ( 1 9 7 5 ) w h o d e s c r i b e d t h e u s e o f Q - m e t h o d o l o g y i n e d u c a -t i o n a l t e s t i n g a n d p r o g r a m m e e v a l u a t i o n . Q - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . . . i s m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u s e i n c l i n i c a l o r e d u c a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e a v a i l a b l e t o p o l o g i e s a n d s c a l e s s e e m i n a d e q u a t e , w h e r e t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l d y n a m i c s o f l e a r n i n g o r t r e a t m e n t a r e n o t w e l l u n d e r s t o o d , o r w h e r e i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o a v o i d a n t i c i p a t i n g t h e p r e c i s e d i r e c t i o n a n d c h a r a c t e r o f p r o g r a m i m p a c t . I n s h o r t , t h i s m e a s u r e m e n t a p p r o a c h i s i n v i t e d i n m o s t i f n o t a l l s m a l l g r o u p 9 9 c l i n i c a l a n d e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m c a t e g o r i e s . R e d b u r n ( 1 9 7 5 ) l i s t s s i x p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n s o f Q -m e t h o d o l o g y t o e d u c a t i o n a l t e s t i n g a n d p r o g r a m m e e v a l u a -t i o n . O n e o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o t h i s s t u d y i s : M i c h a e l S c r i v e n , " E v a l u a t i o n P e r s p e c t i v e s a n d P r o c e d u r e s ' : ' ( d r a f t f o r a v o l u m e i n A E R A s e r i e s o n e d u c a -t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n , N o v e m b e r , 1 9 7 3 ) 2 2 F . S t e v e n s R e d b u r n , " Q F a c t o r A n a l y s i s : A p p l i c a -t i o n s T o E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g a n d P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n , " E d u c a t i o n a l a n d P s y c h o l o g i c a l M e a s u r e m e n t , 3 5 : 7 6 8 , 1 9 7 5 . 26 To s p e c i f y c o n f l i c t s of viewpoint among  i n s t r u c t o r s or other program personnel f o r the purpose of assessing the impacts of these c o n f l i c t s , or simply to c l a r i f y the nature of such c o n f l i c t s so they can be taken i n t o account or c a l l e d to the a t t e n t i o n of students or c l i e n t s . 2 3 While not extensive, the l i t e r a t u r e c l e a r l y shows there i s a place i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n f o r Q-methodology p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the e v a l u a t i o n design i s based both on some t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and a formal s t r u c t u r e such as advocated by F i s h e r . 2.3 Q-Methodology Although some references to Q-methodology appear as e a r l y as 1935, the d e f i n i t i v e document on Q-method-25 ology i s Stephenson's 1953 p u b l i c a t i o n "The Study of 23 Redburn, p. 776. 2 A-C y r i l Burt, "The R e c i p r o c i t y P r i n c i p l e , " Science, Psy- chology, and Communication, ed. Steven R. Brown and Donald J . Brenner (New York: Teachers College Press, 1972), p.43. 25 C y r i l Burt i n the " R e c i p r o c i t y P r i n c i p l e " described how Q-technique was named. Stephenson was one of a number of p s y c h o l o g i s t s who worked w i t h Burt during the 1930's i n a study of delinquents over a 10 year p e r i o d . P a r t of the study i n v o l v e d e s t i m a t i n g a r t i s t i c a p p r e c i a t i o n s of the sub-j e c t s . Various forms of rank order techniques were used. C o r r e l a t i o n s among persons were made and normal f a c t o r i a l procedures were a p p l i e d . "In our l a b o r a t o r y slang we r e -f e r r e d to Miss Watson's s t u d i e s of s i n g l e persons t e s t e d on successive occasions as instances of '0 technique,' and to the studi e s of a e s t h e t i c preferences i n which persons were c o r r e l a t e d as instances of 'P technique.' To d i s t i n g u i s h h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n of the method of c o r r e l a t i n g persons, Dr. Stephenson introduced the u s e f u l phrase 'Q technique.' (p.., 44) . 27 Behavior: Q-Technique and i t s Methodology".^ 0 His proposals were a major departure from conventional psychological measurement practices based on the work of Thurstone, Pearson, C a t t e l l , and Spearman. Stephen-son's techniques have been challenged as n o n - s c i e n t i f i c ( C a t t e l l , 1951) or s t a t i s t i c a l l y suspect (Cronbach and Gleser, 1954). Despite early c r i t i c i s m s , Q-methodology has gained wider acceptance i n psychological measurement and has been used i n communication studies (MacLean, 1972; Freeman, 1974; Stephenson, 1967), educational evaluation (Redburn, 1975; Wood, 1977), attitude measurement (Huff, 1964; Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1967), psychotherapy (Cartwright, 1972; Rogers, 1972), and perception i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (Whetstone, 1967; Housego and Boldt, 1978). Brown's extensive bibliography (1968) on Q-methodology i s a p a r t i a l i n d i c a t i o n of i t s growing acceptance as a legitimate methodology. Q-methodology i s based on a form of multivariate 27 analysis c a l l e d dependency analysis. I t involves test items, subjects, data matrices, and s t a t i s t i c a l analysis as does the more commonly used form of multi-variate analysis, interdependency analysis. In i n t e r -Stephenson, pp. 30-46. Stephenson, p. 30. 2 8 d e p e n d e n c y a n a l y s i s , m a n y s u b j e c t s a r e u s e d t o c o l l e c t d a t a f r o m a s m a l l n u m b e r o f t e s t s a n d i n t h e r e s u l t i n g d a t a m a t r i x c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e s o u g h t a m o n g t h e t e s t s . T h a t i s , i f t h e m a t r i x i s s e t u p i n c o n v e n t i o n a l f o r m w i t h e a c h r o w r e p r e s e n t i n g o n e s u b j e c t a n d t h e s u b j e c t ' s t e s t i t e m s c o r e s , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e s o u g h t i n t h e c o l u m n s o f t h e m a t r i x . T h e t e s t i t e m s a r e c o r r e l a t e d . T h i s f o r m o f a n a l y s i s i s o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o a s R - t e c h n i q u e . I n Q - a n a l y s i s , t h e d a t a m a t r i x n o r m a l l y h a s a s m a l l n u m b e r o f s u b j e c t s a n d t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e s o u g h t i n t h e r o w s . S u b j e c t s , n o t t e s t i t e m s , a r e c o r r e l a t e d . A l s o , t h e d a t a i n t h e m a t r i c e s a r e c o l l e c t e d i n q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f a s h i o n s . I n R - a n a l y s i s t h e t e s t i t e m s a r e c a r e f u l l y k e p t s e p a r a t e a n d a r e d e a l t w i t h i n d e p e n d e n t l y . I n Q - a n a l y s i s , a l l i t e m s a r e c o m p a r e d , s o r t e d , r a n k e d a c c o r d i n g t o a p r e - d e t e r m i n e d p a t t e r n a n d c l u s t e r a n a l -y z e d . " I n R , t h e f o c u s i s o n h o w t h e p e r s o n d e v i a t e s o n a g i v e n i t e m f r o m t h e m e a n o f a l l p e r s o n s o n t h a t i t e m . I n Q , t h e f o c u s i s o n h o w a g i v e n i t e m o f a g i v e n p e r s o n d e v i a t e s f r o m t h e m e a n o f a l l o t h e r i t e m s f o r t h a t p e r s o n . I n s u m m a r y : R i s n o r m a t i v e ; Q i s „ 2 8 i p s a t i v e . A l b e r t D . T a l b o t t , " Q T e c h n i q u e A n d I t s M e t h o d o l o g y : A B r i e f I n t r o d u c t i o n A n d C o n s i d e r a t i o n ' " ' ( p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e A E R A , N e w Y o r k , 1 9 7 1 ) , p . 4 . 2 9 M u c h o f t h e d e b a t e a b o u t t h e Q - m e t h o d o l o g y h a s b e e n o n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f i t e m s , t h e i t e m s o r t i n g p r o -c e s s , a n d t h e s t a t i s t i c a l m e t h o d s u s e d . S t e p h e n s o n s t a t e s t h a t t h e p o p u l a t i o n s i n Q - m e t h o d o l o g y a r e t h e i t e m s a s u b j e c t s o r t s i n t o r a n k o r d e r . I t e m s h a v e c o n s i s t e d o f s t a t e m e n t s , s i n g l e w o r d s , p h o t o g r a p h s , 2 9 d e s c r i p t i o n s , a r t o b j e c t s , a n d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . Q u a r t e r , K e n n e d y , a n d L a x e r ( 1 9 6 7 ) e x a m i n e d t h e e f f e c t o f o r d e r a n d f o r m o f i t e m s i n Q - s o r t i n g , u s i n g b o t h s t a t e m e n t s a n d a d j e c t i v e s . S u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d t o s o r t t h e i t e m s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r s e l f - i m a g e ( s e l f -s o r t ) a n d t h e i r i d e a l - i m a g e ( i d e a l - s o r t ) . T h e o r d e r o f s e l f - s o r t a n d i d e a l - s o r t w a s a l t e r n a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s . T h e y f o u n d t h a t o r d e r w a s n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h e s o r t i n g r e s u l t s b u t t h a t a d j e c t i v e s p r o -d u c e d a h i g h e r s e l f - i d e a l c o r r e l a t i o n t h a n d i d s t a t e m e n t s . I t w a s p o s t u l a t e d t h a t s t a t e m e n t s w e r e m o r e p r e c i s e a n d a l l o w e d f i n e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s t o b e m a d e t h a n d i d a d j e c t i v e s . B o t h K e r l i n g e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) a n d T a l b o t t ( 1 9 7 1 ) c o n f i r m t h a t c a r e s h o u l d b e t a k e n n o t t o i n t r o d u c e a u t h o r o r c o n s t r u c t i o n b i a s i n t o s t a t e m e n t s . S t e p h e n ' s o n , p . 6 3 . 3 0 B r o w n ( 1 9 7 1 ) r e v i e w e d t h e d e b a t e r e g a r d i n g t h e f o r c i n g o f t h e i t e m s o r t i n g i n t o a p r e d e t e r m i n e d d i s -t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n . H e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e i t e m s a p p e a r i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n i s m u c h m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s h a p e i n d e t e r m i n i n g 3 0 f a c t o r t y p e s . K e r l i n g e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) n o t e d t h a t B l o c k ( 1 9 5 6 ) c o m p a r e d f o r c e d v e r s u s f r e e s o r t i n g a n d r e p o r t e d " t h e f o r c e d p r o c e d u r e w i t h a q u a s i - n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n p r o v i d e d g r e a t e r s t a b i l i t y a n d m o r e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n " a n d t h a t i t w a s " e q u a l o r s u p e r i o r t o t h e u n f o r c e d p r o c e d u r e " T h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e n o f i r m e v i d e n c e t o r e c o m m e n d o n e f o r m o f f o r c e d c h o i c e d i s t r i b u t i o n o v e r a n o t h e r a n d 3 2 T a l b o t t ' s a d v i c e t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c m e t h o d s o f c o l l e c t i n d a t a s h o u l d g r o w o u t o f t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e p r o j e c t i s a s u s e f u l a s a n y t h a t c a n b e f o u n d . A q u e s t i o n o f s o m e c o n c e r n t o r e s e a r c h e r s w h o J U S t e v e n R . B r o w n , " T h e F o r c e d - F r e e D i s t i n c t i o n i n Q - T e c h n i q u e , " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l M e a s u r e m e n t , 8 : 4 : 2 8 6 , W i n t e r , 1 9 7 1 . 3 1 F r e d R . K e r l i n g e r , " Q M e t h o d o l o g y i n B e h a v i o r a l R e s e a r c h , " S c i e n c e , P s y c h o l o g y , a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n , e d . S t e v e n R . B r o w n a n d D o n a l d J . B r e n n e r ( N e w Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1 9 7 2 ) , p . 1 8 . T a l b o t t , p . 6 . 3 1 w i s h t o u s e a s i n g l e Q - i n s t r u m e n t w i t h a g r o u p o f s u b -j e c t s o r s e v e r a l t i m e s w i t h o n e s u b j e c t , i s t h e t e s t -r e t e s t s t a b i l i t y o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t . K e r l i n g e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) , H i l d e n ( 1 9 5 8 ) a n d H o u s e g o a n d B o l d t ( 1 9 7 8 ) , a l l r e p o r t e d a c c e p t a b l e s t a b i l i t y o f Q - i n s t r u m e n t s u s e d i n t h e i r s t u d i e s . H a s k e l l ( 1 9 7 9 ) u s e d s t a b i l i t y a s a m e t h o d o f m e a s u r i n g b e h a v i o r c h a n g e w i t h t i m e i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f c h i l d r e n w i t h e m o t i o n a l p r o b l e m s . R o g e r s ( 1 9 7 2 ) r e p o r t e d m a k i n g e x t e n s i v e u s e o f Q - i n s t r u m e n t s i n t e s t - r e t e s t s i t u a t i o n s o v e r a n 1 8 m o n t h p e r i o d o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y . I n e a c h r e p o r t e d m e a s u r e m e n t o f s t a b i l i t y o r u s e o f s t a b i l i t y a s a c r i t e r i o n t o m e a s u r e c h a n g e , a n i n s t r u m e n t w a s a d a p t e d o r c r e a t e d f o r t h e u n i q u e n e e d s o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r . T h e e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s o p e r a t i n g w h e n s u b j e c t s s o r t t h e i t e m s i n a Q - i n s t r u m e n t p r o d u c e g o o d t e s t - r e t e s t r e s u l t s w i t h c o m p e t e n t l y a s s e m b l e d i n s t r u m e n t s . N o l a r g e s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n t r i a l s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o c r e a t e a c c e p t a b l e r e l i a b i l i t y i n d i c e s . G o r d o n a n d K i k u c h i ( 1 9 7 0 ) m a d e u s e o f t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f Q - i n s t r u m e n t s i n c r o s s -c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h . T h e y c o m p a r e d t h e r e s u l t s o f a J a p a n e s e f o r m o f t h e S u r v e y o f I n t e r p e r s o n a l V a l u e s ( a f o r c e d c h o i c e , s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t i n w h i c h e a c h i t e m i s c o n s i d e r e d i n d i v i d u a l l y ) a n d t h e s a m e t e s t i t e m s u s e d a s a Q - i n s t r u m e n t . T h e y f o u n d t h e r e s u l t s t o b e i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e b u t f a v o u r e d 32 the Q-sort because i t permitted "the easy a d d i t i o n , d e l e t i o n , or s u b s t i t u t i o n of scales without the n e c e s s i t y 33 of r e c o n s t i t u t i n g the e n t i r e instrument". In a review of the main ob j e c t i o n s to s t a t i s t i c a l procedures used i n Q-methodology, K e r l i n g e r (1972) noted that Q i s a form of rank ordering a n a l y s i s , and, there-f o r e , cannot be subjected to s t a t i s t i c a l methods commonly used w i t h normative data. Q-sorting, along with"ranking and forced choice methods, are c l a s s i f i e d as i p s a t i v e methods and have the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of a l l 3 A-subjects of the same. Conventional t e s t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e based on v a r i a t i o n s of means cannot be a p p l i e d . S i m i l a r l y , the l a c k of independence of each item a f f e c t s the degrees of freedom that are assumed i n a n a l y s i s of variance c a l c u l a t i o n s . K e r l i n g e r (1972) suggested that w h i l e the s t a t i s t i c a l o b j e c t i o n s have some v a l i d i t y , the l a r g e number of p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n the t y p i c a l Q-sort of 60 to J Leonard V. Gordon and Akio K i k u c h i , "The Compar-a b i l i t y of the Forced-Choice and Q-Sort Measurement Approaches: An O t h e r - C u l t u r a l Study," The J o u r n a l of  S o c i a l Psychology, 81:138, 1970. This provides a ready check on the accuracy of the t r a n s c r i p t i o n of data from o r i g i n a l sources to computer cards or memory. Unless p e r f e c t l y balanced by another e r r o r i n e x a c t l y the c o r r e c t l o c a t i o n and of e x a c t l y the c o r r e c t magnitude, any t r a n s c r i p t i o n e r r o r s produce changes i n subject score means and standard d e v i a t i o n s . 33 8 0 i t e m s m a k e s t h e e r r o r i n t r o d u c e d s l i g h t . H e r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h e p o s s i b l e e r r o r b e r e c o g n i z e d , a c c e p t e d , a n d a n t i c i p a t e d b y r e d u c i n g t h e l e v e l f o r t h e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e t o 0 . 0 1 f r o m t h e c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d 0 . 0 5 l e v e l . 2 . 4 S u m m a r y C o n v e n t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r y w h i c h f o c u s e s o n s t r u c t u r e s m o r e t h a n p r o c e s s e s d o e s n o t a p p l y w e l l t o c o l l e g i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A l t h o u g h c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f t h e p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s e s w h i c h o c c u r i n a n a c a d e m i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a s s i s t i n e x p l a i n i n g w h a t o c c u r s , o n l y a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f u n d e r l y i n g p h i l o s o p h i e s w i l l e x p l a i n w h y m a n y e v e n t s o c c u r . S t u d i e s o f u n i v e r s i t y d e p a r t m e n t s r e v e a l e d m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e a n d r o l e i d e n t i f i -c a t i o n o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t m e m b e r s . Q - m e t h o d o l o g y c a n b e a p p l i e d t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f r o l e p e r c e p t i o n . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l i n s m a l l g r o u p s w h e n e x p l o r a t o r y s t u d i e s a r e i n v o l v e d . W h i l e t h e Q - s o r t K e r l i n g e r , p . 1 4 . 34 process has produced c o n s i d e r a b l e debate, Q - s o r t i n g has been used s u c c e s s f u l l y i n many p e r c e p t i o n , communication, and psychotherapy s t u d i e s . 3 5 C h a p t e r 3 M E T H O D O L O G Y 3 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s s t u d y i s b a s e d o n a n a l y s i s o f p e r c e p t i o n s . M e m b e r s o f t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t s h a v e v a r y i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f w h i c h t e a c h i n g - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s s h o u l d b e a s s o c i a -t e d w i t h t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t s c l a s s i f i e d b y t h e m a s " i d e a l " . P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , s u c h a s D r e s s e l ' s s u r v e y ( 1 9 7 0 ) o f s i x t e e n u n i v e r s i t i e s , r e p o r t t h e i n d e p e n d e n t e v a l u a t o r ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t m e m b e r s ' p e r -c e p t i o n o f r e a l i t y w i t h i n t h e i r d e p a r t m e n t s . T h e r e s u l t s , w h i l e i n t e r e s t i n g a r e s u b j e c t i v e a n d n o t v e r y u s e f u l f o r t h o s e i n s t i t u t i o n s w i s h i n g t o i m p r o v e d e p a r t m e n t a l t e a c h i n g p e r f o r m a n c e . T h e Q - m e t h o d o l o g y o f S t e p h e n s o n c a n b e u s e d t o d e v e l o p r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t a r e s p e c i f i c t o a n i n s t i t u t i o n o r d e p a r t m e n t . T h e i n s t r u m e n t s c a n p r o d u c e q u a n t i t a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n o n a w i d e v a r i e t y o f q u e s t i o n s b a s e d o n b e h a v i o r o f i n d i v i d u a l s o r g r o u p s . B y a p p l y i n g F i s h e r ' s t h e o r i e s o f r e s e a r c h d e s i g n a n d s e l e c t i n g p r o p e r s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s , b e h a v i o r p e r c e p t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n c a n b e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y c o l l e c t e d a n d a n a l y z e d . 3 6 3 . 2 Q u e s t i o n s t o b e A n s w e r e d D r e s s e l ' s d a t a s h o w s t r o n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i f f e r -e n c e s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s e m p l o y e d b y d e p a r t m e n t s h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e o r i g i n s . D e p a r t m e n t s i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s c h o o l s t e n d e d m o r e t o w a r d t h e a u t o c r a t i c a n d p a t e r n a l i s t i c p a t t e r n , t h o s e i n c h e m i s t r y , h i s t o r y , a n d p s y c h o l o g y p r e f e r r i n g t h e d e m o c r a t i c b u r e a u c r a c y , a n d m a t h e m a t i c s a n d E n g l i s h d e p a r t m e n t s r e p r e s e n t i n g a m i x t u r e b e t w e e n a n o l i g a r c h y a n d d e m o c r a c y . 3 6 T h e r e w a s n o i n d i c a t i o n o f h o w t h o s e p r e f e r e n c e s t r a n s l a t e i n t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e s t u d e n t s o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e t y p e s o f d e p a r t m e n t s . D o s t u d e n t s r e -c e i v e a d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t y o r t y p e o f e d u c a t i o n f r o m a " p a t e r n a l i s t i c " d e p a r t m e n t t h a n f r o m a n " o l i g a r c h i c " d e p a r t m e n t ? A r e D r e s s e l ' s f i n d i n g s i n u n i v e r s i t i e s w i t h t h e i r d u a l e m p h a s i s o n r e s e a r c h a n d t e a c h i n g a p p l i c a b l e t o t w o - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h h a v e a l m o s t n o r e s e a r c h r o l e a n d h a v e s t a f f w i t h s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t b a c k g r o u n d s t h a n u n i v e r s i t i e s ? W h a t a r e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a n i d e a l t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t f r o m t h e v i e w p o i n t o f i n s t r u c t o r s , d e p a r t m e n t h e a d s , a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ? A r e t h e r e a n y d e m o -g r a p h i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o v a r i a t i o n s i n p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e i d e a l t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t ? W h i c h a c t i v i t i e s a r e c o n s e n s u s a c t i v i t i e s ? T h e s e a r e b u t a f e w o f t h e p o s s i b l e q u e s t i o n s D r e s s e l , p . 4 1 . 37 t h a t c a n be a s k e d b e f o r e t h e d a t a a r e c o l l e c t e d . O t h e r q u e s t i o n s a r e a l m o s t c e r t a i n t o be s u g g e s t e d as t h e d a t a p o i n t t o o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s . 3 . 3 S t u d y Sample S t e p h e n s o n c o n s i d e r e d t h e p o p u l a t i o n t o be t h e i t e m s t h a t made up t h e r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t . I n t h i s s t u d y , p o p u l a t i o n and sample w i l l b e u s e d i n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l s e n s e t o r e f e r t o s u b j e c t s . The s u b j e c t s were a l l i n s t r u c t o r s , a c a d e m i c s e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l , o r a c a d e m i c a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t t h e B.C.I.T. i n B u rnaby, Canada. They were drawn s y s t e m a t i c a l l y f r o m t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n t o c o n f o r m t o a s t r u c t u r e d r e p r e s e n t -a t i v e sample o f a l l p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n s o f t y p e s o f p e r s o n n e l . B a s e d on a. h y p o t h e s i s t h a t some d e m o g r a p h i c f a c t o r s m i g h t be r e l a t e d t o p e r c e p t i o n s h e l d b y i n d i v i d u a l s , a s u b j e c t s e l e c t i o n c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e was c r e a t e d . 38 Table 1 Subject Selection Contingency Table Educational Background Di v i s i o n Gender Business Commerce Law Education Arts Health B i o l o g i c a l Sciences Engineer Physical Science Business Male Female n i l n i l n i l Core Male Female n i l Enginr 1g Male Female n i l n i l n i l Health Male n i l Female n i l The purpose of the contingency table was to ensure that a l l possible combinations of factors were considered when selecting the members of the sample. I t became obvious very quickly that there were some c e l l s i n the table that were not represented i n the t o t a l population. There were, for instance, no instructors i n the Health D i v i s i o n whose credentials showed formal t r a i n i n g i n business subjects. There were no female business instructors with t r a i n i n g i n the physical sciences. Of the 32 possible c e l l s 9 were empty and are noted as " n i l " i n Table 1. 3 9 U s i n g c u r r e n t s t a f f l i s t s , a t e n t a t i v e g r o u p o f 6 3 s u b j e c t s w a s d r a w n f r o m t h e i n s t r u c t o r r a n k s . F r o m t h i s g r o u p a f i n a l l i s t o f s u b j e c t s w a s d r a w n . ' T h e y r e p r e s e n t e d e v e r y e l e m e n t o r c a t e g o r y i n t h e d e s i g n b u t o n l y 1 6 o f t h e 2 3 p o s s i b l e c e l l s . T h e m i s s i n g 7 c e l l s e a c h h a d o n l y o n e p e r s o n i d e n t i f i e d a n d i n e a c h c a s e t h e p e r s o n w a s i l l , o n l e a v e , o r u n a v a i l a b l e . T o t h i s g r o u p o f i n s t r u c t o r s w a s a d d e d 2 1 d e p a r t m e n t h e a d s d r a w n f r o m t h e l a r g e s t t o t h e s m a l l e s t d e p a r t m e n t s w i t h i n a l l f i v e D i v i s i o n s , a l l 7 D e a n s , 6 C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n f a c u l t y , 9 l i b r a r y a n d c o u n s e l l i n g s t a f f a n d 5 s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n c l u d i n g t h e p r i n c i p a l a n d v i c e - p r i n c i p a l ( e d u c a t i o n ) . T h e t o t a l s a m p l e w a s 7 9 . O t h e r f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d w e r e r a n k a n d l e n g t h o f t i m e a t B . C . I . T . F o r t y s i x w e r e i n t h e f a c u l t y c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n a n d 3 3 i n a v a r i e t y o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s . T w e n t y t w o h a d b e e n a t B . C . I . T . f o r f i v e y e a r s o r l e s s a n d r a n g e d i n r a n k f r o m D e a n t o i n s t r u c t o r . A c o m p l e t e b r e a k -d o w n o f t h e s a m p l e i s p r o v i d e d i n A p p e n d i x C . 3 . 4 D e s i g n o f t h e S t u d y T h e d e s i g n u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y h a s r o o t s b o t h i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r y a n d F i s h e r i a n f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n s . 40 Stephenson's Q-methodology i s used to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e the design. Many models have been proposed to e x p l a i n the s o c i o l o g y of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The m a j o r i t y of the models are based on government and corporate o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 37 L i k e r t ' s four system model c o n s i s t i n g of E x p l o i t i v e A u t h o r i t a t i v e , Benevolent A u t h o r i t a t i v e , C o n s u l t a t i v e , and P a r t i c i p a t i v e systems i s w e l l known. He suggested another system — L a i s s e z F a i r e — but leaves i t out of h i s model p o s s i b l y because i t i s unorganized and, there-f o r e , by d e f i n i t i o n , outside c o n s i d e r a t i o n of organiza-t i o n s . Blau (1974) maintains the type of o r g a n i z a t i o n seen i s a f u n c t i o n of s t r u c t u r e and s i z e and not of person-a l i t i e s or conscious decision-making of those i n the 38 operating l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Neither of these two views i s w e l l accepted by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o c i o l o g i s t s studying academic o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Baldridge (1971) proposed a three element model f o r u n i v e r s i t i e s — B u r e a u c r a t i c , C o l l e g i a l , and P o l i t i c a l . He noted that the u n i v e r s i t y may be a l l of these depending on time, a c t i v i t i e s , and p e r s o n a l i t i e s . Enderud (1977) b u i l t on the Baldridge 3 7 L i k e r t , p. 223 3 8 Blau, p. 325. 4 1 m o d e l t o p r o d u c e a p h a s e m o d e l w i t h f o u r p h a s e s o r e l e m e n t s — O r g a n i z e d A n a r c h y , P o l i t i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n , C o l l e g i u m , a n d B u r e a u c r a c y . E n d e r u d s t a t e d t h a t w h i l e u n i v e r s i t y 3 9 o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e a r c h a i c t h e y f u n c t i o n w e l l e n o u g h t o s u r v i v e . T h e p h a s e m o d e l a t t e m p t s t o s h o w h o w d e c i s i o n m a k i n g p a t t e r n s m o v e t h r o u g h e a c h o f t h e f o u r p h a s e s . P r e -s u m a b l y s o m e p a r t s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n e x h i b i t s t r o n g e r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r o n e o r m o r e p h a s e s b a s e d o n s o m e o b s e r v a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u c h a s d i s c i p l i n e o r s t r e n g t h o f a d o m i n a n t m e m b e r o r c l i q u e w i t h i n t h e g r o u p . D r e s s e l ( 1 9 7 0 ) c h a r a c t e r i s e d t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t s a s A u t o c r a t i c - P a t e r n a l i s t i c , O l i g a r c h i c , D e m o c r a t i c -B u r e a u c r a t i c , a n d L a i s s e z - F a i r e w i t h o u t a n y a p p a r e n t t h e o r -e t i c a l b a s i s o t h e r t h a n t h a t a r a n g e o f s t y l e s h a d b e e n o b s e r v e d a n d t h o s e f a m i l i a r t i t l e s a p p r o x i m a t e d t h e b e h a v i o r s s e e n . ^ A l l t h e m o d e l s o b s e r v e d i n v o k e t h e r a n g e c o n c e p t , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s h a v e s o m e f r e e d o m o f a c t i o n i n s e l e c t i n g o r d i r e c t i n g t h e s h a p e o f t h e i r o r g a n -i z a t i o n . T h i s s t u d y a l s o u t i l i z e s a m o d e l w i t h f o u r H a r a l d G j e s s i n g E n d e r u d , F o u r F a c e s o f L e a d e r s h i p  I n A n A c a d e m i c O r g a n i z a t i o n ( C o p e n h a g e n : A r n o l d B u s c k , 1 9 7 7 ) , p . 6 6 . D r e s s e l , p . 4 2 . 42 e l e m e n t s . They c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h terms s u c h as L a i s s e z - F a i r e , O l i g a r c h i c , P a t e r n a l i s t i c , and A u t o c r a t i c t o d e s c r i b e t h e t y p e o f b e h a v i o r t h e d e p a r t m e n t s e x h i b i t . However, t h e l a b e l s o b s c u r e an u n d e r l y i n g t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t t h a t r e l a t e s t o b a s i c d e p a r t m e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y — L i b e r a l ( E x p e r i m e n t a l ) o r C o n s e r v a t i v e ( A u t h o r i t a r i a n ) — and t e a c h i n g emphasis o r m o t i v a t i o n — S t u d e n t - C e n t r e d o r D e p a r t m e n t - C e n t r e d . The m o t i v a t i o n e l e m e n t s a r e s i m i l a r t o t h o s e i m p l i e d when t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t o u s e l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s o r t e a c h i n g o b j e c t i v e s i s d e b a t e d . By c o m b i n i n g p h i l o s o p h y and m o t i v a t i o n a 2 x 2 d e s i g n i s c r e a t e d and f o u r e l e m e n t s a p p r o x i m a t i n g L a i s s e z - F a i r e , O l i g a r c h i c , P a t e r n a l i s t i c , and A u t o c r a t i c a r e g e n e r a t e d . The two p h i l o s o p h i e s , L i b e r a l and C o n s e r v a t i v e , c o u l d be g i v e n a l t e r n a t e l a b e l s o f E x p e r i m e n t a l and A u t h o r i t a r i a n r e s p e c t i v e l y . The a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e L i b e r a l / E x p e r i m e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y a r e a w i l l i n g n e s s t o s h a r e w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s , an o p e n n e s s t o new t e a c h i n g methods, and an a c c e p t a n c e t h a t l e a r n i n g i s an i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v i t y . The C o n s e r v a t i v e / A u t h o r i t a r i a n p h i l o s o p h y a g r e e s w i t h m a i n t a i n i n g a r e l i a n c e on t h e i n s t r u c t o r f o r l e a r n i n g , u s i n g o n l y t e s t e d p r o c e d u r e s , e v a l u a t i n g t o e x t e r n a l o r g r o u p s t a n d a r d s , and t e a c h i n g t o a p r e - d e t e r m i n e d o u t l i n e and s c h e d u l e . N e i t h e r p h i l o -sophy i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be " b e t t e r " o r "more c o r r e c t " t h a n t h e o t h e r . They a r e d e s c r i p t i v e o n l y . 43 The elements are d i f f i c u l t to examine q u a n t i t a t i v e l y without some a c t i v i t i e s to observe. F i v e t e a c h i n g - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s — P l a n , Research, I n s t r u c t , E v a l u a t e , and Revise — are b u i l t i n t o the design to produce a 2 x 2 x 5 balanced f a c t o r i a l d e s ign as recommended by Stephenson and F i s h e r . Using Philosophy, • M o t i v a t i o n , a r i d " A c t i v i t i e s -as independent v a r i a b l e s and p r o v i d i n g a s e r i e s of l e v e l s f o r each v a r i a b l e , the design takes the form g i v e n i n the contingency t a b l e below. Table 2 Q-Sort Item Contingency Table Philosophy M o t i v a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s P l a n " S " •Research" I I £n I n s t r u c t • E v i r a t e -Revise L i b e r a l Student c e n t r e d " c " ace a c f acg ach a c i "a" Department ce n t r e d "d" ade adf adg adh a d i Conserva-t i v e "b" Student c e n t r e d " c " bee b e f beg bch b c i Department ce n t r e d "d" bde bdf bdg bdh b d i 44 This design produced twenty combinations of independent v a r i a b l e s one l e v e l at a time. Four statements were s e l e c t e d f o r each of the twenty c e l l s i n the design u s i n g the procedure d e t a i l e d i n 3.6. The design corresponds c l o s e l y w i t h the models recommended by Stephenson. That i s , i t i s composed " a r t i f i c i a l l y , i n s t e a d of s e l e c t i n g i t at random from a p a r e n t - u n i v e r s e " . 1 ^ The theory s t a t e d i n the design i s only one of many that could be created to examine depart-mental perceptions. From Stephenson's viewpoint the important f a c t o r i s not how v a l i d the theory might be but that some t h e o r e t i c a l construct based on l o g i c a l consider-ations was used i n the research. The design provides a framework that ensures "that each e f f e c t f o r any l e v e l ... i s represented e q u a l l y " i n the research instrument. By f o l l o w i n g Stephenson's model c l o s e l y the Q-sorting and a n a l y s i s can f o l l o w Stephenson's recommendations w i t h only minor v a r i a t i o n s to accommodate instrument s i z e , subject p o p u l a t i o n , and computer programmes. Stephenson, p. 66. Stephenson, p. 67. 45 The a s s u m p t i o n s made i n t h e d e s i g n a r e t h a t t h e r e i s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h y o f d e p a r t m e n t s o r t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e a n d t h e i r a t t i t u d e s a n d p e r c e p t i o n s t o w a r d s t h e i r r o l e i n t e a c h i n g , and t h a t t h e Q - i n s t r u m e n t d e r i v e d f r o m t h e d e s i g n i s c a p a b l e o f i d e n t i f y i n g v a r i a t i o n s i n d e p a r t m e n t a l o r g r o u p p h i l o s o p h i e s and t h e i r r e l a t e d p e r c e p t i o n s . The m a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s o f t h e d e s i g n a r e more i n t h e i t e m s t h a t c l o t h e t h e d e s i g n t h a n i n t h e d e s i g n i t s e l f . The d e s i g n c o u l d a p p l y t o a l m o s t any t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t b u t t h e i t e m s , s i n c e t h e y w e r e d r a w n f r o m a p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n , may make t h e i n s t r u m e n t i n p a r t u n a c c e p t a b l e i n o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s . 3.5 Q-Theory S t e p h e n s o n d e s c r i b e s Q - m e t h o d o l o g y a s : "a m e t h o d b y w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l c a n m o d e l f o r h i m s e l f w h a t h i s a t t i t u d e o f m i n d i s a b o u t c o m p l i c a t e d t o p i c s , i s s u e s , o r s i t u a t i o n s . I t s p r i m a r y c o n c e r n t h e r e f o r e i s w i t h a p e r s o n ' s s u b j e c t i v i t y as he d e s c r i b e s i t , n o t as we ( p s y c h o l o g i s t s o r o n l o o k e r s ) i n f e r i t . A T I m e a s u r e m e n t s i n Q a r e c e n t r a l t o t h e p e r s o n — t h e s c a l e s , s o t o s p e a k , a r e i n t h e p e r s o n ' s own m i n d . The m e t h o d b e g i n s w i t h d a t a f o r a s i n g l e c a s e a n d t h e n p r o c e e d s b y c o m p a r i n g i t w i t h d a t a f r o m o t h e r s . I t b e g i n s w i t h w h a t one p e r s o n m o d e l s a b o u t h i m s e l f a n d co m p a r e s 46 this with models provided by others. These ^~ models are then subjected to factor analysis." In o p e r a t i o n a l terms, Q-methodology employs a process of rank-ordering a s e r i e s of t h e o r y - r e l a t e d s t a t e -ments or items. Subjects s o r t the items according to one or more r e f e r e n t s such as s e l f - i d e a l , s e l f - p r e s e n t , or group-perception. Factor a n a l y s i s i s used to explore the data c o l l e c t e d and to i d e n t i f y c l u s t e r s of subjects w i t h s i m i l a r perceptions. Because the s o r t i n g process r e q u i r e s that the subjects make i n t e r - i t e m comparisons w h i l e rank-ordering the items, an instrument w i t h even a few items can produce u s e f u l data f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e comparison i n a r e l a t i v e l y short time. Redburn (1975) noted the subject "performing a Q-sort of 'n' statements w i l l make, i n e f f e c t , % [ n ( n - l ) ] comparisons between p a i r s of statements i n l i t t l e more time than i s r e q u i r e d to respond to 'n 1 independent s c a l e i t e m s " . 4 4 For an 80 item instrument such as used i n t h i s study, the number of d e c i s i o n s r e q u i r e d of the subject, c o n s c i o u s l y and unconsciously, could 4 3 W i l l i a m Stephenson, The P l a y Theory of Mass  Communication (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 5. (This p u b l i c a t i o n i s h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as Play  Theory.) 4 4 Redburn, p. 769. 47 approach the t h e o r e t i c a l maximum of 3,160. In a non-Q use of the same instrument, i n which each item would be considered independently, only 80 d e c i s i o n s would be re q u i r e d and much l e s s data could be obtained. As noted i n Chapter One, Q-methodology u t i l i z e s F i s h e r ' s concept of using balanced f a c t o r i a l designs to s t r u c t u r e samples and instruments. Although s t r u c t u r e d instruments are not always found i n reported Q-research, the s t r u c t u r i n g has s e v e r a l advantages. I t r e q u i r e s a l o g i c a l approach be taken to s t a t i n g the theory u n d e r l y i n g the study and the instrument, ensures that the biases and e r r o r s introduced during the c r e a t i o n of the items are recognized and accounted f o r , provides the necessary balance of p o s i t i v e , n e u t r a l , and negative items i n the instrument, and gives a p a t t e r n f o r e n l a r g i n g or modifying the i n s t r u -ment. Stephenson s t a t e d t h a t the theory i s more important as an a i d to c r e a t i n g the instrument than as a hypothesis to be p r o v e n . S i n c e the subjects are unaware of the under-l y i n g theory or the form of the instrument design, they are able only to re a c t to the instrument items according to pre-determined i n s t r u c t i o n s . The r e s u l t a n t p a t t e r n of rank-ordered choices may provide the researcher w i t h some i n s i g h t i n t o the t h i n k i n g , p h i l o s o p h i e s , perceptions, and other ^ Stephenson, Play Theory, p. 20. 48 psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the subject that are only pa r t l y r e l a t e d to the theory. During the sorting process subjects "are apt to project, to displace a f f e c t , to r a t i o n a l i z e , and to do much else i n a dynamic manner, in r e l a t i o n to effects which are quite d i f f e r e n t from those of the Q-sample structure. We want to be free, i n analysis of Q-sorts to make use of what the in d i v i d u a l 46 actually does i n those respects". The use of factor analysis techniques to a s s i s t i n the data analysis i s a l o g i c a l extension of Stephenson's philosophy of structuring'instruments and measuring subject understanding. He argues for the use of abductive inference rather than deductive reasoning i n analyzing Q-sort r e s u l t s . ^ Proper s t a t i s t i c a l treatment of the Q-sort data using a combination of factor analysis or cluster analysis and specia l i z e d Q-analysis programmes yiel d s groupings i n which are coll e c t e d subjects who have made similar sorting decisions. Each grouping or cluster represents a hypothetical person whose sorting decisions correlate exactly with the decisions c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of that cluster. A co r r e l a t i o n matrix i s then produced. Ih 46 Stephenson, Play Theory, p. 20. ^ Stephenson, Play Theory, p. 20. 49 most situations, subjects correlate well with one or more clusters although there i s normally some degree of cor r e l a t i o n , usually quite low, with a l l clusters found by the computer. The clusters' loadings are converted to standard scores and examined for discriminating and concensus items. Clusters are interpreted by considering which items score highest and lowest i n each clu s t e r and i f any patterns of item choice are present. The patterns can be related back to the o r i g i n a l , underlying theory or to some new int e r p r e t a t i o n that has become obvious from the sorting patterns. Stephenson's use of factor analysis employs a pro-cedure at the c o r r e l a t i o n stage that has generated the major amount of c r i t i c i s m and debate i n the psychological measurement community about Q-methodology. T r a d i t i o n a l factor analysis correlates test items that, i n the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix, normally occupy the columns. Stephenson correlates persons or the rows of the matrix. With the loadings converted to standard scores, a l l scores i n the matrix are comparable because they a l l have a mean of zero, a standard deviation of 1.0, and are pure numbers. Stephenson argued that the "zero on a l l scales i s the same absolute value for everyone" and that a l l the information i n the 50 s c o r e s " b u l g e s o u t o r d i s t e n d s f r o m i t — i t i s a l l c o n -t a i n e d i n t h e d i s p e r s i o n a b o u t z e r o , t h a t i s , i n t h e v a r i a n c e " . ^ He r e f e r s t o t h i s e f f e c t as t h e d i s t e n s i v e z e r o . The z e r o p o i n t and t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d i s p e r s i o n a r e d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e s e l e c t i o n o f i t e m s and t o t h e s h a p e o f t h e s o r t i n g p a t t e r n . The i t e m s a r e c a r e f u l l y c h o s e n so t h a t e a c h s u b j e c t w i l l be a b l e t o r a n k them w i t h a d e c i s i o n r e f e r e n t s u c h as a g r e e , n e u t r a l , d i s a g r e e . D i s c r i m i n a t i o n s a r e t h e n p o s s i b l e . I f a l l i t e m s h a d a n i n h e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t t h e s u b j e c t e i t h e r a g r e e d o r d i s a g r e e d w i t h , f e w d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s w o u l d be p o s s i b l e , o r i f f o r c e d , w o u l d h a v e l i t t l e v a l i d i t y . The s t a n d a r d s c o r e s w o u l d h a v e l i t t l e m e a n i n g a n d c o m p a r i s o n s c o u l d n o t be made. By r e q u i r i n g a l l s u b j e c t s t o s o r t t o a p r e d e t e r m i n e d p a t t e r n , u s u a l l y a f l a t t e n e d n o r m a l c u r v e , a z e r o p o i n t a n d i n t e r v a l d a t a a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y g e n e r a t e d . The f l a t t e n e d c u r v e a p p e a r s t o i n c r e a s e i n t e r - i t e m d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d t h e t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e S t e p h e n s o n , p. 196. 51 instrument p r o v i d i n g that at l e a s t ten categories are 49 s p e c i f i e d i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n . 3.6 The Study Instrument — Q-Sort Items Items were based on the theory d i s p l a y e d i n the 2 x 2 x 5 design discussed i n 3.4. Statements such as " I n s t r u c t o r s schedule t e s t s at r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s " were w r i t t e n to r e f l e c t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each of the 20 c e l l s . A minimum of s i x statements was generated f o r each c e l l . Statements were w r i t t e n from'knowledge of the type of a c t i v i t y p o s s i b l e i n most teaching departments at B.C.I.T. Each statement was examined f o r b i a s cues or language p e c u l i a r i t i e s that would introduce s o r t i n g e r r o r s . The p o p u l a t i o n of items was presented to a j u r y of 12 B.C.I.T. s t a f f members known to have a good under-standing of departmental a c t i v i t i e s at B.C.I.T. and to be p r e c i s e i n t h e i r use of language. The j u r y members were asked to i d e n t i f y any ambiguous or misleading statements and to suggest wording improvements. Based on t h e i r recommendations, the items were modified and four s t a t e -ments per c e l l were s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the f i n a l 49 Norman H. Liveson and Thomas F. N i c h o l s , "Dis-c r i m i n a t i o n and R e l i a b i l i t y i n Q-Sort P e r s o n a l i t y D e s c r i p t i o n s , " J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 52:2:163, 1956; Leonard Freeman, Q-Method 20 Years L a t e r :  I t s Use's and Abuses In Communications Research (ERIC Document ED 095 580, January 1975), pp. 16-17; Stephenson, p. 60. 5 2 i n s t r u m e n t o f 8 0 i t e m s . T h e s t a t e m e n t s w e r e g i v e n a f i n a l c h e c k f o r u n i f o r m i t y o f l a n g u a g e a n d t o r e m o v e a n y p o t -e n t i a l l y c h a r g e d t e r m i n o l o g y o r c u e w o r d s . T h e s t a t e m e n t s w e r e t y p e d i n O r a t o r ( I B M ) c a p i t a l s i n t o r e c t a n g l e s 7 x 5 . 5 c m i n h o r i z o n t a l f o r m a t . T h e s t a t e m e n t s w e r e r e p r o d u c e d o n t o c a r d w e i g h t p a p e r a n d t h e n c u t i n t o i n d i v i d u a l c a r d s f o r s o r t i n g . E a c h c a r d h a d a r a n d o m l y g e n e r a t e d r e f e r e n c e n u m b e r o n i t s b a c k . T h e s t a t e m e n t s a r e l i s t e d i n A p p e n d i x E . T h e c a r d s w e r e s h u f f l e d a n d p l a c e d i n t o a n e n v e l o p e f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n t o t h e s u b j e c t s a s p a r t o f a Q - s o r t k i t . 3 . 7 D a t a C o l l e c t i o n I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s e a r c h t h a t c a n b e s e e n a s h a v i n g a p o t e n t i a l f o r e v a l u a t i o n i s u s u a l l y v i e w e d b y m a n y s u b j e c t s w i t h s o m e s u s p i c i o n . T h o s e g r o u p s t h a t f e e l t h e y m a y b e a f f e c t e d b y t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e r e s e a r c h m a y r e s i s t d a t a c o l l e c t i o n u n l e s s t h e y h a v e b e e n c o n s u l t e d o r h a v e a s s e n t e d t o t h e r e s e a r c h . C o n s e q u e n t l y , s p e c i a l c a r e w a s t a k e n t o s e c u r e b r o a d i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n a n d s u p p o r t f o r t h i s s t u d y . P r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n s w e r e h e l d w i t h s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s t a f f o f B . C . I . T . a n d w i t h m e m b e r s o f t h e 5 3 e x e c u t i v e o f t h e B . C . I . T . S t a f f S o c i e t y ( t h e l e g a l b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t f o r t h e f a c u l t y a n d t e c h n i c a l s t a f f ) . L e t t e r s r e q u e s t i n g t h e i r s u p p o r t w e r e s e n t w e l l b e f o r e t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n w a s s c h e d u l e d t o b e g i n . L e t t e r s o f s u p p o r t f o r t h e s t u d y w e r e r e c e i v e d a n d r e t a i n e d . T h e a g r e e m e n t f r o m t h e S t a f f S o c i e t y w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c a l b e c a u s e t h e d e p a r t m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s i s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e s t a f f C o l l e c t i v e A g r e e m e n t a n d c o u l d h a v e b e e n u s e d a s a m e a n s e i t h e r o f o p p o s i n g t h e s t u d y o r o f l a u n c h i n g a g r i e v a n c e . D e a n s a n d d e p a r t m e n t h e a d s w e r e b r i e f e d o n t h e s t u d y i n t e n t a n d p r o c e s s a n d t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n w a s r e q u e s t e d . I n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e s t r a t i f i e d s a m p l e d i s c u s s e d i n 3 . 3 w e r e v i s i t e d s e p a r a t e l y a n d t h e s t u d y a n d s o r t i n g p r o c e s s w e r e o u t l i n e d . E a c h p e r s o n w h o a g r e e d t o b e c o m e a s u b j e c t w a s g i v e n a Q - s o r t k i t c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e 8 0 s t a t e m e n t c a r d s a n d a s e t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s ( A p p e n d i x H) . T h e y w e r e g i v e n a t i m e l i m i t o f 1 0 d a y s t o c o m p l e t e t h e s o r t i n g a t t h e i r c o n v e n i e n c e a n d t o r e t u r n t h e k i t w i t h t h e s o r t e d c a r d s . A l l s u b j e c t s w e r e g u a r a n t e e d a n o n y m i t y . O n l y t w o p e r s o n s o n t h e p o t e n t i a l s u b j e c t l i s t d e c l i n e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s t u d y a n d s i x a p p a r e n t l y i n t e r e s t e d s u b j e c t s r e t a i n e d t h e i r k i t s o r r e t u r n e d t h e m u n s o r t e d . F o u r o f t h e s i x 5 4 t h o u g h t t h e y h a d m i s s e d t h e d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e d a t a t o t h e c o m p u t i n g c e n t r e . Q - s o r t s w e r e s u p p l i e d b y 7 9 s u b j e c t s . T h i s g r o u p w a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a l l t h e d e m o g r a p h i c a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g r o u p s i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l p a r t o f B . C . I . T . T h e 8 0 s t a t e m e n t s w e r e s o r t e d o v e r a 1 3 p o i n t s c a l e s h o w n b e l o w . T a b l e 3 Q - S o r t F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y A g r e e N e u t r a l D i s a g r e e S c o r e 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 F r e q u e n c y 1 2 4 7 9 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 7 4 2 1 ( n = 8 0 ) S u b j e c t s w e r e i n s t r u c t e d - t o s o r t t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n r e f e r e n c e t o " W h a t y o u b e l i e v e t o b e t h e o p e r a t i o n a l s t y l e o f a n i d e a l t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t a t B . C . I . T . " D e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e p r o v i d e d i n A p p e n d i x H . 55 3.8 D a t a A n a l y s i s T e c h n i q u e s S u b j e c t s ' s e l e c t i o n s were s c o r e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s c a l e i n T a b l e 3 and t r a n s f e r r e d t o comp-u t e r c a r d s . A s e t o f t h r e e c a r d s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e w e i g h t e d i t e m s e l e c t i o n s f o r e a c h s u b j e c t . The d a t a f r o m a l l 79 s u b j e c t s were a n a l y z e d u s i n g two f a c t o r a n a l y s i s computer programmes — UBC FACTO and UBC FAN. Use o f t h e two programmes p r o v i d e d a c h e c k on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e compu-t a t i o n s s i n c e t h e two programmes a p p r o a c h e d t h e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s f r o m two d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . C o r r e l a t i o n s among s u b j e c t s ' s o r t i n g p a t t e r n s were c a l -c u l a t e d and an i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x - w a s p r e p a r e d . The d i a g o n a l o f t h e m a t r i x was s e t a t 1.0's. E i g e n v a l u e s and e i g e n v e c t o r s were c a l c u l a t e d w i t h a c u t o f f p o i n t s e t a t an e i g e n v a l u e o f 1.0. F a c t o r a n a l y s i s was u s e d t o e x t r a c t f r o m t h e many v a r i a b l e s i n t h e m a t r i x a s m a l l e r number o f f a c t o r s o r c l u s t e r s o f v a r i a b l e s t h a t c o u l d be u s e d t o e x p l a i n s u b j e c t s o r t i n g p a t t e r n r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The p r o c e d u r e i d e n t i f i e d f a c t o r s w h i c h were u n r e l a t e d t o e a c h o t h e r — d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g o r t h o g o n a l . The p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r s o l u t i o n method was u s e d . The n o r m a l v a r i m a x method o f r o t a t i o n was t h e n u s e d t o r o t a t e t h e r e f e r e n c e axes i n f a c t o r s p a c e t o r e v e a l 56 any b a s i c s t r u c t u r e hidden i n the p a t t e r n produced by the p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r method. The r o t a t e d c l u s t e r m a t r i x was reduced to a "one-loading-per-subject" r o t a t e d c l u s t e r m a t r i x by d e l e t i n g a l l but the dominant loading f o r each subject. Each subject was then associated w i t h only one c l u s t e r . Each c l u s t e r e x t r a c t e d by the a n a l y s i s was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each item i n an array of weighted item responses so that the item preferences could be observed f o r each c l u s t e r of s u b j e c t s . T h e item weightings were converted to Z-scores. Those items w i t h Z-scores above 1.0 or below -1.0 were analyzed c l u s t e r by c l u s t e r i n r e l a t i o n to the experimental design (Table3). Those c l u s t e r s that were u A weighting constant (W) was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each subject from the subject's highest f a c t o r l o a d i n g and the formula: Si W = 2" where a = highest f a c t o r l o a d i n g 1 - a The weighting constant was a p p l i e d to each item score f o r a l l persons h i g h l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each f a c t o r or c l u s t e r and a l l the weighted s o l u t i o n s f o r each item were summed. WS^ = (Score-^ ^ x W^ ) + (Score-^ ^ x Mi^) + (Score^ x x Wx) where: Score ^ ^ = score on item 1 f o r subject 1 Score i x = score on item 1 f o r subject x = weighting constant f o r person 1 WS1 = weighted score f o r item 1 57 found to have similar scores i n r e l a t i o n to the design were combined into a small number of groups and t h e i r Z-scores weighted again on the basis of the number of subjects from each cluster were combined into the new groups. 3.9 Summary The subjects i n this study were selected from members of the B.C.I.T. s t a f f so that a l l groups i n the academic l i n e would be represented. Gender, d i s -c i p l i n e , experience, r o l e , and department were a l l considered i n the structuring of the population sample. Seventy nine subjects were chosen. The Q-sort was created to conform to a t h e o r e t i c a l construct based on independent variables of Philosophy, Motivation, and A c t i v i t i e s , a l l applied to a teaching department. A 20 c e l l design was created and fo€r test items per c e l l generated i n accordance with the theory. The Q-sorting was done over a 13 point scale using as a referent the subjects' perception of the a c t i v i t i e s of an i d e a l teaching department at B.C.I.T. The r e s u l t s were subjected to factor analysis to produce clusters of subjects with similar sorting patterns. 58 Chapter 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n The computer was programmed to s e l e c t a l l c l u s t e r s having eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater. Nineteen c l u s t e r s were produced. Although a smaller number of clus.ters could have been s p e c i f i e d , the i n t e n t was to i d e n t i f y as many c l u s t e r s as p o s s i b l e , to determine what item s e l e c t i o n patterns were produced, and then to i n t e g r a t e the c l u s t e r r e s u l t s w i t h the experimental design. Because no c e l l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was provided w i t h each item, the programme could not provide the necessary design to c l u s t e r c o r r e l a t i o n and extensive hand c a l c u l a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d . Based on c o r r e l a t i o n s r e l a t e d to the design, c l u s t e r s were combined i n t o a smaller number of groups and the groups i n t o Types. 4.2 Further Steps i n A n a l y s i s The f i n a l steps of the computer a n a l y s i s produced Z-scores f o r a l l items and d u s t e r s , rank-ordered Z-scores f o r a l l Z-scores above 0.30 or below -0.30, and d i f f e r e n c e scores f o r p a i r s of items taken from opposite ends of rank-ordered Z-score l i s t s f o r a l l p a i r s of c l u s t e r s . For each of the 19 c l u s t e r s , l i s t s were prepared of a l l items having 59 Z-scores greater than 1.0 and less than -1.0. The c e l l references for a l l of these selected items were i d e n t i -f i e d . For example, item 10 was one of the four items allocated to the "bee" c e l l i n the experimental design. Z-scores were then correlated with the c e l l s . C e l l by c e l l c a l c u l a t i o n of Z-scores proved to be a non-productive method of extracting useful information from the data. Z-scores were then summed for each of the following le v e l s and pairs of levels i n the design: ac, ad, be, bd, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i . The results of that summation are noted i n Appendix A. Patterns of loadings were i d e n t i f i e d and clusters with similar Z-score patterns were combined on a weighted basis with the weighting being determined by the number of subjects i n the combined clusters. Patterns were sought in the design l e v e l s : a, b, c, d, ac, ad, be, bd. while the a c t i v i t y levels were temporarily ignored. S u f f i c i e n t s i m i l a r i t i e s among the 19 clusters were found within the 8 levels above that the 19 clusters were reduced to 6 groups. The 6 groups are described i n Appendix A. New Q-scores 60 were produced for each group by selecting from each cluster those items having weighted Z-scores above 1.0 and below -1.0. Those scores were re-weighted on the basis of the number of subjects i n each of the clusters combined into the new groups. As a r e s u l t of the new combinations and weightings, some items had t h e i r scores move to between 1.0 and -1.0. Those items were removed from the l i s t of those considered to be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the group. 4.3 Results of the Analysis The computer analysis produced 19 clusters which represented a cummulated proportion of eigenvalues of 0.945. The factor solution accounted for 78.9 percent of the t o t a l variance i n factor space. Appendix F records the r e s u l t s of various s t a t i s t i c a l tests conducted as part of the analysis. Further examination of the six groups formed from the 19 clusters revealed that three Types could be extracted. The Types were based on variations i n loading patterns within departmental philosophy ("a" and "b") and motivation C'c" and "d") . 61 Two of the three Types contained groups distinguished by differences i n a c t i v i t y l e v e l s — "e", " f " , "g", "h", and " i " . Type A contained groups 1 and 2 which contain clusters 9, 18, 3, and 8, and 10, 1, 5, and 17 respectively. Both groups had strong p o s i t i v e Q-scores on "be" and "b" and strong negative scores on "ac", "a", and "h". They were distinguishable from each other by having group 1 with a large score on "e" but not "g" and group 2 having the reverse on "e" and "g" to group 1. The basic philosophies and motivations of the two groups were found to be similar but the a c t i v i t i e s each group rated highest were d i f f e r e n t . In a similar fashion, groups 3, 4 and 5 were combined to form Type B and group 6 alone formed Type C. Q-analysis normally makes use of concensus items to show s i m i l a r i t y and difference patterns among the factors and types. An analysis of the ranges of item Z-score loadings showed that there were no concensus items i f concensus items are defined as those having a range of less than 1.0 i n Z-score across a l l clusters. The range for a l l items i s given i n Appendix D. Another form of con-census d e f i n i t i o n could be to i d e n t i f y those items which were s i g n i f i c a n t items (above 1.0 or below -1.0) for a l l groups. Only two items f i t t e d that c r i t e r i o n . Item 57, "Course objectives are given to students at the s t a r t of the 62 term" appears i n a l l s i x groups above Z-score of 1.0 and item 65, "Student grades are used as a gauge of i n s t r u c t i o n a l success", appears i n a l l s i x groups below -1.0. Twenty three other items w i t h both p o s i t i v e and negative s i g n i f i c a n t loadings were unique to only one group. They are i d e n t i f i e d i n the group a n a l y s i s s e c t i o n 4.3 as unique items and are summarized i n Table 4. A l l s i x groups contain at l e a s t two unique items w i t h group 4 c o n t a i n i n g 10. 4,4 D e s c r i p t i o n of Group and Type C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s As noted i n 4.2, Type A loaded s t r o n g l y p o s i t i v e l y on "be" and n e g a t i v e l y on "ac". Dominant a c t i v i t y loadings were p o s i t i v e on "e" f o r group 1 and "g" f o r group 2 and n e g a t i v e l y on "h" f o r both groups. Related to the e x p e r i -mental design i n Table 2, these loadings i n d i c a t e a type that i s conservative and student-centred i n outlook. This combination could be termed p a t e r n a l i s t i c . The items c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s type r e f l e c t the a t t i t u d e of a department that wants to be i n c o n t r o l of a c a r e f u l l y organized program that w i l l guide the students to goals pre-determined by the department. Nineteen of the 31 subjects which c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s Type had h i g h p o s i t i v e Q-scores f o r 63 planning as a departmental a c t i v i t y and negative Q-scores for evaluation. The other 12-retained the very negative 0-scores f o r evaluation but were p o s i t i v e to i n s t r u c t i o n and ignored planning; Table -4- compares the:differences i n items selected by the two groups within Type A. Table 4 Type A Chara c t e r i s t i c Items A. Pos i t i v e Q-Scores (Items Agreed With) 1. Common Items 21 Course standards are set high enough to guarantee that graduates w i l l be of high quality 56 Department plans course changes when i t can i d e n t i f y new employment oppor-t u n i t i e s for graduates 57 Course objectives are given to students at the s t a r t of each term 2. Planners 60 Available job openings for graduates are used to determine enrolment l e v e l targets 38 Industry surveys are used to aid i n curriculum design 27 Planning i s based on long-term depart-mental objectives 64 3. I n s t r u c t o r s 42 I n s t r u c t i o n i s c a r e f u l l y scheduled so a l l t o p i c s can be taught by the end of term 59 I n s t r u c t o r s provide a model f o r students to f o l l o w 32 I n s t r u c t i o n i s c a r e f u l l y paced so students can complete the e s s e n t i a l course o b j e c t i v e s by term end 46 Course o b j e c t i v e s are based h e a v i l y on the experience of the i n s t r u c t o r s B. Negative Q-Scores (Items Disagreed With) 1. Common Items 2 Class marks are adjusted i f they are e i t h e r lower or higher than expected 63 Students are graded by comparing t h e i r work against that of t h e i r classmates 72 Students can s e l e c t a v a r i e t y of s t a r t i n g l e v e l s i n t h e i r courses 65 Student grades are used as a gauge of i n s t r u c t i o n a l success 2. Planners 41 Students c o l l e c t data f o r i n s t r u c t o r ' s research p r o j e c t s 80 A l l students can achieve a f i r s t c l a s s standing i f they master st a t e d l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s 9 Course o b j e c t i v e s are j o i n t l y set by i n s t r u c t o r and students 3. I n s t r u c t o r s 68 Any proposed course changes are checked i n p i l o t groups 65 51 Instructors and students cooperatively seek new methods of reaching course obj ectives 8 Quiz marks are expected to range from very low to very high with an average of about 65 percent. Type B contained groups 3, 4, and 5.having 15, 17, and 12 subjects respectively. The dominant philosophy and motivation loadings were reversed compared with those of Type A. Subjects i n Type B were p o s i t i v e to L i b e r a l and Planning and negative to both Conservative and Evaluation. Group 4 was notable i n having the highest Q-scores of a l l six groups and having the only large Q-score on "ac", L i b e r a l and Student-centred. Group 3 was distinguishable from group 4 by having a negative Q-score on "ac" and a higher Q-score on "ad". Group 5 Q-scores, i n most cases, were found to l i e somewhat between those of groups 3 and 4. Group 5 had the largest Q-score of a l l 6 groups on "be" — Conservative and 'Student-centred. However, the single l e v e l Q-score patterns were p a r a l l e l i f variable i n size of the scores. Group 4 also had the largest number, 10, of s i g n i f i c a n t items that were unique to any group. Type B could be described as having marked l i b e r a l attitudes, supporting planning, and d i s l i k i n g 66 evaluation. Also, about two thirds of the subjects were strong supporters of a student-centred philosophy while the other t h i r d had no strong tendencies toward either student-centred or department-centred attitudes. Table 5 compares the differences i n items selected by the three groups within Type B. Table 5 Type B Characteristic Items A. Po s i t i v e Q-Scores (Items Agreed With) 1. Common Items 57 Course objectives are given to students at the st a r t of each term 69 Tests are based on stated course obj ectives 38 Industry surveys are used to aid in curriculum design 2. L i b e r a l — somewhat Department-centred 29 Department members c o l l e c t i v e l y plan programme changes 27 Planning i s based on long-term departmental objectives 25 Instructional goals are set to meet work-place requirements 56 Department plans course changes when i t can i d e n t i f y new employment oppor-t u n i t i e s for graduates 79 Laboratory exercises are well i n t e -grated into lecture materials. 67 3. L i b e r a l — strongly Student-centred 80 A l l students can achieve a f i r s t class standing i f they master stated learning objectives 55 Instructional a c t i v i t i e s are designed to meet a wide range of student needs 51 Instructors and students cooperatively seek new methods of reaching course obj ectives 72 Students can select a v a r i e t y of s t a r t -ing levels i n th e i r courses 54 Several d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l tech-niques are used i n each course 1 Student suggestions for course changes are c a r e f u l l y considered by instructors 4. L i b e r a l — Student-centred — P a t e r n a l i s t i c 32 Instruction i s c a r e f u l l y p'acedJ so students can complete the e s s e n t i a l course objectives by term end 27 Planning i s based on long-term depart-mental objectives 25 Instructional goals are set to meet work-place requirements 61 Student evaluation of instructors i s an accepted departmental practice 59 Instructors provide a model for students to follow B. Negative Q-Scores (Items Disagreed With)_ 1. Common Items 63 Students are graded by comparing t h e i r work against that of their classmates 8 Quiz marks are expected to range from very low to very high with an average of about 65 percent 41 Students c o l l e c t data for instructor's research project 68 10 Early term tests have high enough standards that poor students are convinced to drop out quickly 2 Class marks are adjusted i f they are either lower or higher than expected 4 Students are required to submit at least one assignment per course each week 15 Students are required to attend a l l classes unless i l l 2. L i b e r a l — somewhat Department-centred 9 Course objectives are j o i n t l y set by instructors and students 22 Student grades are analyzed to determine the effectiveness of instructor teaching methods 53 Second year enrolment targets are set to be lower than f i r s t year enrolment targets 3. L i b e r a l — strongly Student-centred 64 Changes i n curriculum are authorized by the department head 36 Topics for student projects are chosen by the department 34 New i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods are implemented when a majority of the department agrees 65 Student grades are used as a gauge of i n s t r u c t i o n a l success 4. L i b e r a l — Student-centred — P a t e r n a l i s t i c 12 F i n a l grades contain provision for some discretionary marks for student attitude 71 Instructors i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l jobs for the i r best students 23 Teaching assistants are used i n some classes to reduce instructor load 69 Type C contained group 6 and had only 4 subjects. This group could have been discarded except i t contained one key subject and had several features that were d i s t i n c t from the other 5 groups. The Q-score pattern was similar to that of group 2 i n Type A but with several d i s t i n c t differences. The Q-score for "ad" was the strongest negative Q-score of a l l six groups. Also, Type C contained the only group to have a p o s i t i v e Q-score for "bd". In the a c t i v i t y l e v e l s , Type C had the largest p o s i t i v e Q-score on " f " and the largest negative Q-score on " i " . Subjects i n this type could be described as conservative and somewhat student-centred. They supported research-oriented a c t i v i t i e s and d i s l i k e d making changes (revision) i n t h e i r planned a c t i v i t i e s . Table 6 l i s t s the statements t y p i c a l of Type C. 70 Table 6 Type C C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items A. P o s i t i v e Q-Scores (Items Agreed With) 66 Students are t o l d at the s t a r t of term what the passing standards are 40 Students are encouraged to use the l i b r a r y to i n v e s t i g a t e open-ended problems 45 Proposed i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s are c l e a r l y o u t l i n e d to students before c l a s s e s begin 48 Class timetables are organized to permit some independent study 18 Students can n e g o t i a t e the d e t a i l s of major assignments w i t h t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r s B. Negative Q-Scores;(Items.Disagreed With) 2 Class marks are adjusted i f they are e i t h e r lower or higher than expected 19 Course standards are based on current job requirements 8 Any proposed course changes are checked i n p i l o t groups 46 Course o b j e c t i v e s are based h e a v i l y on the experience of the i n s t r u c t o r s 72 Students can s e l e c t a v a r i e t y of s t a r t i n g l e v e l s i n t h e i r courses 71 4.5 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Types Within Subject Population The d i s t r i b u t i o n of subjects among the three types was correlated with demographic data on the subjects. Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 compare the expected with the actual d i s t r i b u t i o n among the Types and demographic variables. The expected d i s t r i b u t i o n was generated from the number of subjects i n each category ( i . e . there were 7 deans) and the percent of subjects i n each Type. Table 7 examines the relationships between the subjects' i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e and t h e i r Type. The two summary li n e s for both " A l l Deans and Heads" and " A l l Faculty" show a Type d i s t r i b u t i o n that has an almost perfect c o r r e l a t i o n with the t o t a l subject d i s t r i b -ution. The two groups appeared to have similar attitudes when i n s t i t u t e , d i v i s i o n or subject d i s t i n c t i o n s are ignored. When each demographic l e v e l was examined separately, the department heads of the Business D i v i s i o n and Engineering D i v i s i o n , and the faculty of the Health D i v i s i o n were seen to be over-represented i n Type A and the deans, senior administrative s t a f f , and the continuing education department heads and faculty under-represented in Type A. However, i n Type B, the pattern was reversed. 72 Table 7 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By I n s t i t u t i o n a l Role Type A Type B Type C Role Expected Found Expected Found Expected Found Totals Dean 2.7 1 3.9 5 0.4 1 7 Business Head 1.6 3 2.2 0 0.2 1 4 Core Head 1.6 2 2.2 2 0.2 0 4 Engineering Head 1.6 3 2.2 1 0.2 0 4 Health Head 1.6 3 2.2 1 0.2 0 4 Cont. Ed. Head 1.2 0 1.7 3 0.2 0 3 Other Admin Head 2.0 1 2.8 4 0.3 0 5 Business Faculty 3.5 4 5.0 4 0.5 1 9 Core Faculty 2.4 2 3.3 4 0.3 0 6 Engineering Faculty 3.5 4 5.0 4 0.5 1 9 Health Faculty 3.5 5 5.0 4 0.5 0 9 Cont. Ed. Faculty 2.4 0 3.3 6 0.3 0 6 Other Faculty 3.5 3 5.0 6 0.5 0 9 A l l Deans & Heads 12.5 13 17.8 17 1.6 2 32 A l l Faculty 18.4 18 26.2 27 2.4 2 47 73 The actual and anticipated d i s t r i b u t i o n s for Type C were so small that few useful demographic judgements could be made except that no large departures from anticipated patterns were observed. Departments-heads of Core and Health and faculty of Business, Core, Engineering, and Support (e.g. Library, Counselling) Divisions were di s t r i b u t e d among the three Types close to the average values for the whole population. Relationships between educational background and Type preference are shown i n Table 8. The number of entries i s larger than the number of subjects because some subjects had formal t r a i n i n g i n two or more of the f i v e c r i t e r i a used. Table 8 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By Educational Training Type A Type B Type C Education Expected Found Expected Found Expected Found Total Commerce/ 6.3 7 8.9 7 0.8 2 16 Law Education 9.0 7 12.8 15 1.2 1 23 Arts 4.7 2 6.7 8 0.6 2 12 Health/Bio- 7.4 12 10.6 7 1.0 0 19 Sciences Engineering 11.4 9 16.2 19 1.5 1 29 Phys. S c i 7 4 S u b j e c t s w i t h t r a i n i n g i n e d u c a t i o n , e n g i n e e r i n g , p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s , and g e n e r a l a r t s ( i n c l u d i n g j o u r n a l i s m and l i b r a r i a n s h i p ) were f o u n d t o be u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d i n Type A, and t h o s e w i t h h e a l t h , o r b i o l o g i c a l s c i e n c e s b a c k g r o u n d s were o v e r - r e p r e s e n t e d . I n Type B , s u b j e c t s w i t h e d u c a t i o n , e n g i n e e r i n g , o r p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s were o v e r - r e p r e s e n t e d w h i l e commerce, law, h e a l t h , and b i o l o g i c a l s c i e n c e s were u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d . Commerce, law, and a r t s a p p e a r e d t o be o v e r - r e p r e s e n t e d i n Type C a l t h o u g h t h e numbers e x p e c t e d i n T y p e C were s m a l l enough t o make j u d g e m e n t s d i f f i c u l t . T a b l e 9 compares l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e w i t h T ype p r e f e r e n c e and T a b l e 10 compares g e n d e r w i t h T ype p r e f e r e n c e . N e i t h e r showed any s i g n i f i c a n t Q - s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e p a t t e r n d i s p l a y e d by t h e w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n e x c e p t t h a t Type C c o n -t a i n e d t h r e e t i m e s as many s u b j e c t s w i t h l e s s t h a n 5 y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e t h a n w i t h o v e r 5 y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e , a r e v e r s a l o f what was e x p e c t e d , and c o n t a i n e d o n l y m a l e s when t h e p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n w o u l d s u g g e s t a t l e a s t one f e m a l e c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o a p p e a r i n t h a t T y p e . 75 Table 9 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Types By Length of Ser v i c e Time. Type A Expected Found Type B Expected Found Type C Expected Found T o t a l Under 5 9.0 7 12.8 13 1.2 3 23 years 5 years 22.0 24 31.2 31 2.9 1 56 Si over Table 10 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Types By Gender of Subject Gender. . Type A Expected Found Type B Expected. Found Type C Expected Found T o t a l Female Male 5.9 25.1 6 25 8.4 35.6 9 35 0.8 3.3 0 4 15 64 The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of Type by demographic l e v e l i n d i c a t e d that conservative a t t i t u d e s are accepted more by Business, Health, and Engineering heads, Health f a c u l t y , and those w i t h h e a l t h , and b i o l o g i c a l sciences 76 background than by any other group. L i b e r a l attitudes were more associated with the deans, other senior admin-i s t r a t i v e s t a f f , Continuing Education heads and faculty, and those with backgrounds i n education, engineering, physical sciences, and, possibly, arts. 4.6 Discrimination Among Types by Item Preference As noted i n 4.3, there were no concensus items i d e n t i f i e d for a l l clusters but a number of items were shared among the clusters making up a group or a Type. The Types were examined to i d e n t i f y items which discriminated one Type from the other two. Three-way comparisons of items having either high or low p r i o r i t y were made. Table 11 and Figure 1 summarize those compar-isons. 77 Table 11 P r i o r i t y Comparison of Items Among Types More than Types B and C, Type A puts high p r i o r i t y on: 60 Available job openings for graduates are used to determine enrolment l e v e l targets 42 Instruction i s c a r e f u l l y scheduled so a l l topics can be taught by the end of term More than Types B and C, Type A puts low p r i o r i t y on: 80 A l l students can achieve a f i r s t class standing i f they master stated learning objectives 14 Teaching processes-are automatically, reviewed when class marks are lower than expected 72 Students can select a vari e t y of s t a r t i n g levels i n the i r courses More than Types A and C, Type B puts high p r i o r i t y on: 54 Several d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques are used i n each course 1 Student suggestions for course changes are ca r e f u l l y considered by instructors 72 Students can select a vari e t y of st a r t i n g levels i n the i r courses 80 A l l students can achieve a f i r s t class standing i f they master stated learning obj ectives 61 Student evaluation of instructors i s an accepted departmental practice 78 29 Departmental members c o l l e c t i v e l y plan pro-gramme changes 55 Instructional a c t i v i t i e s are designed to meet a wide range of student needs 51 Instructors and students cooperatively seek new methods of reaching course objectives 25 Instructional goals are set to meet work-place requirements. 79 Laboratory exercises are well integrated into lecture materials More than Types A and C, Type B puts low p r i o r i t y on: 12 F i n a l grades contain provisions for some discretionary marks for student attitude 53 Second year enrolment targets are set to be lower than f i r s t year enrolment targets 22 Student grades are analyzed to determine the effectiveness of instructor teaching methods 71 Instructors i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l jobs for their best graduates 23 Teaching assistants are used i n some classes to reduce instructor load 36 Topics for student projects are chosen by the department 64 Changes i n curriculum are authorized by the department head More than Types A and B, Type C puts high p r i o r i t y on: 66 Students are t o l d at the s t a r t of term what the passing standards are 48 Class timetables are organized to permit some independent study 45 Proposed i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s are c l e a r l y outlined to students before classes begin 79 40 Students are encouraged to use the l i b r a r y to investigate open-ended problems 18 Students can negotiate the d e t a i l s of major assignments with t h e i r instructors More than Types A and B, Type C puts low p r i o r i t y on: 19 Course standards are based on current job requirements 54 Several d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques are used i n each course The items l i s t e d i n Table 11 are the only items in the l i s t of 80 items which f i t each of the 6 categories. The number as well as the choice of items i s an i n d i c a t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the three Types. Type A choices contain a mixture of l i b e r a l and conservative items but have a s l i g h t preference for conservative items. There i s a lack of d e f i n i t i o n i n the preferences, no strong biases that would produce high Q-scores f o r s p e c i f i c items. Hence the small number of high and low p r i o r i t y items. The choice of the p r i o r i t y items confirms the e a r l i e r descrip-tion of Type A as preferring to be i n control of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n and not wishing to incorporate f l e x i b l e methods into t h e i r teaching strategies. The very large number of both high and low p r i o r i t y items for Type B i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the strong Q-scores seen i n 80 Appendix A. Also, the strong philosophical differences between Type A and B can be seen i n the choice of Type A low p r i o r i t y items which a l l appear i n the high p r i o r i t y l i s t of Type B. Similarly, one of Type C's two low p r i o r i t y items are on the Type B high p r i o r i t y l i s t . The choice of items for Type B c l e a r l y indicate support for progressive, student-centred behaviors and a r e j e c t i o n of p a t e r n a l i s t i c , instructor or department-centred behaviors. Type C items selected are sim i l a r i n many respects to those of Type B i n the high p r i o r i t y l i s t but tend to be s l i g h t l y more organized and controlled by the department. The biases of Type C appear to be i n favour of providing the students with information and some f l e x i b i l i t y i n the learning environment but on the department's terms and not those of the student. 4,. 7 Summary The computer results provided 19 clusters of subjects having similar sorting patterns. Z-scores were produced for a l l items within each cluster and correlations made between item ranks and the c e l l s i n the t h e o r e t i c a l design. Based on the c e l l to cluster pattern correlations, the 19 clusters were combined into 6 groups and new weighted Q-scores were produced from the Z-scores. P o s i t i v e and negative weighting patterns on group items were established 8 1 and t h e 6 g r o u p s were r e d u c e d t o 3 T y p e s . R e l a t i o n s h i p s were made between s u b j e c t s and t h e i r T y p e s and d e m o g r a p h i c d a t a . Gender and e x p e r i e n c e were f o u n d n o t t o be c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s o r t i n g p a t t e r n s b u t d i s c i p l i n e , r o l e , p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , and w o r k i n g p a t t e r n s were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s o r t i n g p a t t e r n s . 82 Chapter 5  DISCUSSION OF DATA 5.1 Introduction I n s t i t u t i o n a l evaluation generally has as an under-lying objective the gaining of s u f f i c i e n t useful informa-tion on i n s t i t u t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s that the organization can improve i t s e l f or i t s a c t i v i t i e s . Pressures for i n s t i t u t i o n a l change are strong. But change without agreed upon objectives and c l e a r l y defined goals i s dangerous, often leading to major i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s . I f con-f l i c t prevention or resolution can be achieved through knowledge of i n s t i t u t i o n a l perceptions and b e l i e f s , then this study, which i s based on perception measurement, has the p o t e n t i a l for reducing c o n f l i c t and i n a s s i s t i n g i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l development. 5.2 Comparison of Results to Hypotheses In general, the subject clusters, trends, and item choices were i n agreement with the hypotheses. The r e s u l t s c l e a r l y supported the two general hypotheses. Hypothesis 1.411, Q-analysis techniques can be used i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l analysis to i d e n t i f y preferred operational behav-iors of teaching departments, 83 i s the prime operational hypothesis concerning the v a l i d i t y of the Q-sort process as a technique of i n s t i t u t i o n a l evaluation. I f this hypothesis had been i n v a l i d , a l l other r e s u l t s would have been meaningless. Imp l i c i t i n this hypothesis was an assumption that i f the process and the chosen instrument could separate a small number of subject clusters from the test population, and the explan-ations given were generally i n accord with both knowledge and i n t u i t i o n of the i n s t i t u t i o n or group examined, then the hypothesis was proven. If the re s u l t s could not be related to some l o g i c a l construct, then no generalizations could be drawn and the process and/or the instrument could not be applied to i n s t i t u t i o n a l development. However, i n this study l o g i c a l cluster patterns were observed and reasonable generalizations could be drawn. Preferred operational behaviors of teaching departments were c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d for two major groups of subjects having l o g i c a l within-group referents. These two groups were i d e n t i f i e d as Type A and Type B. Characteristics of the two Types were described i n section 4.4 and the membership of both i n section 4.5. The hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis 1.412, The perceptions of which teaching department a c t i v i t i e s are preferred w i l l vary among ident-i f i a b l e groups within a single i n s t i t u t i o n , 84 i s closely related to 1.411. If the second hypothesis had been rejected while the f i r s t hypothesis had been accepted, the results of the Q-sort would have been int e r e s t i n g but of l i t t l e use. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a series of preferred behaviors alone i s not s u f f i c i e n t for the information to be used by the i n s t i t u t i o n . U n t i l those preferences can be linked i n some l o g i c a l manner to groups or individuals they cannot be explained or understood and, therefore, remain only as c u r i o s i t i e s attributed, perhaps, to subject idiosyncrasies and not to any i n s t i t u t i o n - r e l a t e d attributes of the subjects. This hypothesis was accepted because the two major Types contained subject clusters that were strongly related to departmental, d i v i s i o n a l , and functional assignments of the subjects and the preferences of the two Types were c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t . The s p e c i f i c hypotheses were generally supported by the data. The observed trends established the o v e r a l l hypotheses v a l i d i t y but also revealed enough exceptions to the trends that the hypotheses could be accepted only on the understanding that the acceptance was based on strong trends but that i n d i v i d u a l exceptions could be expected to occur with r e g u l a r i t y . There we're no absolute answers. Hypothesis 1.421, 85 Subjects having s i m i l a r perceptions of preferred departmental a c t i v i t i e s w i l l cluster more on the basis of t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e than on the basis of t h e i r gender, length of service, or d i s c i p l i n e , was based on an assumption that subjects who worked together would develop similar attitudes that would be independent of the subjects' o r i g i n a l d i s c i p l i n e or other personal variables. The r e s u l t s showed clustering and item choices which were t i e d strongly to i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e and some-what to d i s c i p l i n e but not to gender or length of service. Tables 10 and 9 show the closeness of the match between the anticipated and actual d i s t r i b u t i o n of subjects by gender and length of service. Since the anticipated d i s t r i b u t i o n s were based on data from a l l the subjects, the closeness of match could be explained by random d i s t r i b u t i o n of subject choices rather than by any inherent rela t i o n s h i p to Type. D i s c i p l i n e or academic background was considered to be a d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n from departmental grouping or i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e because many subjects were i n departments or roles that could not be correlated with t h e i r o r i g i n a l d i s c i p l i n e . As noted i n Table 8, some d i s c i p l i n e - r e l a t e d trends were observed i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of subjects among the three Types. In the groups having a commerce or law background, the v a r i a - ~ tions between expected and actual d i s t r i b u t i o n among Types were.found to be small except that Type B was s l i g h t l y 86 under-represented. However, when the subjects c o l l e c t i n g i n each Type were examined, i t was noted that of the 7 subjects i n Type A, 6 were making d i r e c t use of the i r d i s c i p l i n e , primarily as instructors, but of the 7 subjects i n Type B, only 3 were as d i r e c t l y involved with t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e as were those i n Type A. For those with t r a i n i n g i n education, there was observed a s l i g h t trend away from Type A and toward Type B. Of the 7 education subjects i n Type A only 4 made regular use of the i r education t r a i n i n g i n contrast with the 15 education subjects who made regular use of th e i r t r a i n i n g . A l l subjects with arts backgrounds used th e i r t r a i n i n g regularly and no adjustments to the s l i g h t trend away from Type A could be made on the basis of use. A l l subjects i n the health and b i o l o g i c a l sciences groups were found to be regular users of their t r a i n i n g . The trend for this group was strongly toward Type A and away from Type B with no representation i n Type C. The engineering and physical sciences groups showed trends away from Type A and toward Type B. However, those using th e i r t r a i n i n g were found to be a larger percent (8 of 9) of the subjects c o l l e c t i n g i n Type A than i n Type B (12 of 19). Aside from the obvious trends displayed i n Table 8, there was found to be a trend related to the use of 87 educational background. Subjects no longer making extensive use of their o r i g i n a l d i s c i p l i n e were more often co l l e c t e d i n Type B (11 S's) than i n Type A (5 S's) or Type C (none). Also, of these 16 subjects, 3 of the 5 i n Type A had moved into administrative work as had 8 of the 11 i n Type B. These data reinforced the trends estab-lis h e d for the grouping of subjects on the basis of th e i r organizational roles as noted i n Table 7. It was a n t i -cipated that where subjects were members of a d i s t i n c t working group rather than being individuals loosely associated in an administrative unit, there would be an increased pr o b a b i l i t y of commonality i n perception and, thus, of appearing i n the same cl u s t e r a f t e r the Q-sort. . This was the case. Of the 7 deans and 5 senior administrative s t a f f who work together or i n conjunction with each other, 9 were associated with Type B, 2 with Type A, and 1 with Type C. Each of the 3 subjects not i n Type B was found either to be somewhat removed from the core of a c t i v i t i e s of the main group or to have a unique role within the i n s t i t u t i o n that could tend to a l t e r their perception of departmental r o l e s . Of the other " r o l e " groups ident-i f i e d i n Table 7, only the Continuing Education heads and Continuing Education faculty are known to work consistently both as separate units and as combined units. Both cluster exclusively i n Type B. Heads of Business, Core, Engineering 88 and Health also work as separate groups but less so as groups of heads than was found to be the case for the deans and Continuing Education heads. It was i n t e r e s t i n g to note that while the heads of Business, Core, Engineering, and Health seldom work together they tended to cl u s t e r within Type A (11 of 16) and th e i r respective deans a l l clustered with Type B subjects. On the basis of these cluster patterns the hypothesis i n 1.421 was accepted as v a l i d . Gender and length of service could not be t i e d to Type, and role more than d i s c i p l i n e was seen as the major predictor of Type location. Hypothesis 1.422, Differences i n perception of preferred departmental a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be observed among subjects who are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by th e i r association with d i f f e r e n t groups, i s c l o s e l y related to hypothesis 1.421. While an examination of subject cl u s t e r i n g on the basis of i n s t i t u -t i o n a l r o l e revealed trends of similar perceptions among subjects within a single group, more useful data were revealed before the Types were formed from the combination of related groups and clus t e r s . During the i n i t i a l analysis 19 clusters were i d e n t i f i e d . Four of the 7 subjects who taught business management courses were located i n c l u s t e r 9. This cluster 89 eventually became part of group 1. The other three subjects were located i n 3 separate clusters, none of which was combined into a common group, and were l a t e r associated with Types B and C. The 7 Health faculty and heads who were not involved i n the Nursing programmes a l l appeared i n Type A and a l l 5 Nursing programme subjects appeared i n Type B. Three of the 4 subjects i n or related to Student Services clustered i n Type A while 3 of 4 l i b r a r i a n s clustered i n Type B. The 6 Continuing Education fa c u l t y a l l clustered i n Type B. Subjects from Chemistry and B i o l o g i c a l Sciences departments tended to cluster i n Type A, subjects from English and Physics departments: in Type B, and subjects from Mathematics, Forestry, Survey, Elec t r o n i c s , and Operations Management departments were s p l i t between Type A and Type B. However, the numbers of subjects i n each of the l a s t 9 departments were small enough that the trends displayed could not be accepted as support-ing or r e j e c t i n g hypothesis 1.422. Despite the uncertainty created by the small number of subjects i n some of the departments, the general trends for groups having larger numbers of subjects were s u f f i c i e n t l y toward the i d e n t i f i -cation of s p e c i f i c groups with either Type A or Type B, that the hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis 1.423, 90 Administrators w i l l tend to cluster more together i n t h e i r perception of preferred departmental a c t i v i t i e s than with the faculty i n the i r respect-ive administrative centres, had an intere s t i n g implication that either administrators develop a d i f f e r e n t perception of preferred departmental a c t i v i t i e s or they become selected as administrators because they hold d i f f e r e n t perceptions than the personnel they administer. This hypothesis dealt with the r e l a t i o n -ship of department heads to faculty, and therefore, data involving deans and other senior administrative s t a f f were excluded. Of the 13 departments which had both the head and one or more faculty i n the subject population, 4 departments had both head and a l l faculty i n a common Type (3 were i n Type B and 1 i n Type A). Six departments had th e i r f a c u l t y and head i n d i f f e r e n t Types and 3 departments had the head and some faculty i n one Type and other faculty i n another Type. There were i n s u f f i c i e n t data either to accept or to reje c t the hypothesis. However, i t was noted that the four departments that had both head and a l l faculty i n a common Type either made a spec i a l e f f o r t to operate as a department-of-the-whole (English), or made extensive use of small work teams (Programme Development and English), or was very d i s c i p l i n e - o r i e n t e d with no strong departmental ti e s to other centres i n the organization (Physics), or had just completed a major analysis of departmental mission (Psychiatric Nursing). 91 Hypothesis 1.424, Clusters of subjects having si m i l a r perceptions of preferred departmental a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the basis of a c t i v i t i e s which are rated as being either Student-centred or Department-centred, and either L i b e r a l or Conservative was related to the organization theory incorporated into the study design. The 6 groups i d e n t i f i e d i n Appendix A were c l e a r l y associated to varying degrees with each of the four hypothesized levels with each being dominant for one or more groups. The appearance of dominances for a l l four levels and the relationships of the subjects contributing to the dominances were accepted as evidence that there were at least two levels of philosophy and of motivation operating within the population examined. The labels used, L i b e r a l , Conservative, Student-centred, and Department-centred, were convenient but not: necessarily accurate. However, since the v a l i d i t y of the terms was not at issue, they were retained as convenient labels. On the basis of having clusters of related subjects which could be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d through the degree of t h e i r accept-ance or r e j e c t i o n of a l l four of the levels noted, the hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis 1.425, 92 Subjects who have l i t t l e or no teaching contact with students w i l l cluster i n groups that pre-fer departmental a c t i v i t i e s related to change and openness with students more than wi l l - s u b j e c t s who are primarily teachers, was accepted as proven because Type A which displayed more conservative and less student-centred c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than did Type B was dominated by subjects with f u l l or p a r t i a l teaching assignments (26 of 31 subjects) while Type B had a majority of non-teaching personnel (24 out of 44) . Type C was somewhat l i k e Type A and had .3 teachers to 1 non-teacher. The results appeared to confirm suggest-ions made by subjects during the study that those who were closest to the students would be less open to new ideas or to student p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l process than would those whose distance from the process gave them enough security to support more f l e x i b l e or progressive concepts. 5.3 Interpretation of the Data In attempting to explain why more subjects clustered i n Type B than i n Type A and noting that formal studies i n education were common for many more Type B subjects than for those i n Type A or C, the pattern of a c q u i s i t i o n of the education experience was examined. Few of the subjects (.8 of 79) had an education background when they 93 were hired. Hiring p o l i c y was to r e c r u i t s t a f f who were well-prepared i n t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e and who had extensive p r a c t i c a l experience. Few were professional teachers. Twenty one of the subjects are known to have continued their professional development through formal studies, p a r t i c u l a r l y during the past f i v e years. Ten percent (3 subjects) of Type A subjects took graduate l e v e l studies in education and 7 percent (2 subjects) continued i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l d i s c i p l i n e . Type B subjects were very active with 32 percent (14 subjects) working either on Diplomas i n Adult Education or Masters Degrees i n Education. One of the 4 subjects i n Type C had completed a Diploma i n Adult Education and another a s o c i a l science Bachelor's degree. Only 3 Type A and zero Type C subjects compared with 13 Type B subjects had taken any form of leave during the past f i v e years although extensive opportunities for educational and work experience leave had been available. What was not evident from the data was whether subject attitudes i n Type B led many to begin graduate education programmes or the attitudes were an outgrowth of those programmes. Subjective data co l l e c t e d i n discussions with ' the subjects during the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the Q-sort, suggested that the additional studies were undertaken because of a personal need for more information on the educational process and that the experiences produced obvious attitude changes that the subjects recognized within themselves. 94 In an examination of the a c t i v i t i e s , Plan, Research, Instruct, Evaluate, and Revise that had been incorporated into the Q-sort items, a l l three Types showed similar preferences with a few exceptions. Type A was composed of group 1 — primarily department heads and Business faculty — and group 2 — primarily instructors or teaching depart-ment heads i n Engineering and Health (not Nursing). Group 1 was sharply distinguished from group 2 by having a very -strong emphasis on planning and l i t t l e on i n s t r u c t i o n . Group 2 was a complete reversal, emphasizing i n s t r u c t i o n and ignoring planning. These re s u l t s were as expected since group 1 contained 10 department heads whose p a r t i c u l a r departments require considerable planning or coordination and 4 instructors whose courses involve the teaching of the planning process. Only 4 subjects i n group 1 could not r e a d i l y be i d e n t i f i e d with a continued use of the planning process. It was natural for the majority of the subjects i n this group to show the preferences they did because i t was a r e f l e c t i o n of what was a major focus of t h e i r d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s . S imilarly, 9 of 11 subjects i n group 2 had i n s t r u c t i o n and not planning or the teaching of planning as a major part of their a c t i v i t i e s . Type B contained groups 3, 4, and 5. Group 3 which was strongly supportive of planning and s l i g h t l y negative toward i n s t r u c t i o n contained 15 subjects, 12 of 95 whom were planners, coordinators, or teachers who used planning i n t h e i r courses. Group 4 was a mixture of Continuing Education s t a f f and instructors and contained the majority of subjects who had an education background. This group showed no strong preferences i n a c t i v i t i e s except for having a s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e preference to research while groups 1, 2, 3, and 5 were negative. Group 4 had in t e r e s t i n g weightings on the "Philosophy" and "Motivation" independent variables — having the largest p o s i t i v e and negative loadings of any group. Those subjects had extremely d e f i n i t e and p a r a l l e l views on what a good teaching department should and should not do. The number of unique or s i g n i f i -cant items selected by this group was 10, the largest number of any group. The only common experience that could be i d e n t i f i e d among the members of this group was th e i r formal studies i n education. Their preferences were for l i b e r a l , student-centred a c t i v i t i e s , the stereotype of the progressive educator. Perhaps the preferences were a r e f l e c t i o n of the attitudes members of this group could have acquired through t h e i r education studies rather than from their work experience. I f not, others with s i m i l a r work experience who appeared i n other groups would have tended to cluster with those i n group 4 or those i n group 4 would have migrated to other role-oriented clusters such as groups 1 and 2. 96 Group 5 consisted of the majority of the deans, some Health and Core department heads, and some non-teaching s t a f f . The preferences of thi s group p a r a l l e l e d those of Group 4 but at a reduced l e v e l for most a c t i v i t i e s . Also, research appeared negatively and inst r u c t was more p o s i t i v e l y accepted than for Group 4. This group contained only one f u l l - t i m e instructor and one subject who had formal studies i n education. Yet the preference trends are similar, though less pronounced to that of Group 4 with i t s heavy concentration of subjects with education backgrounds. Even with the lack of subjects with active teaching roles, the inst r u c t a c t i v i t y preference was higher than that for Group 4. A possible explanation i s that Group 5 was dominated by senior education administrators who would be expected to take a p o s i t i o n supporting the student, i f necessary at the expense of the departments. Part of a dean's r o l e was to maximize the educational services possible within the d i v i s i o n a l manpower available. It was not surprising that there were strong differences i n per-ceptions between the academic deans (Group 5) and the majority of the academic department heads (Group 1). Group 6 contained one non-academic dean, one Business department head, and two inst r u c t o r s . The a c t i v i t y trends for this group p a r a l l e l e d those of Groups 1 and 2 97 but enough item and s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y differences existed to warrant the creation of a t h i r d Type. The most unique a c t i v i t y pattern for this group was the strong preference for research when a l l other groups were either negative or only s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e to that a c t i v i t y . Three of the four subjects either had j u s t l e f t research-oriented a c t i v i t i e s or used research extensively i n t h e i r p o s i t ion. In general trends, i t was noted that no groups favoured department-centred a c t i v i t i e s although Groups 1 and 3 were very close to a balance point between items p o s i t i v e toward and items negative toward the concept of department-centred a c t i v i t i e s . This trend i s echoed i n the student-centred a c t i v i t i e s i n which Groups 1, 2, and 3 are s i m i l a r l y near a balance point between negative and p o s i t i v e loading. A l l groups favoured planning but a l l rejected evalua-t i o n as desirable a c t i v i t i e s . This was thought to be based on two considerations. The i n s t i t u t e had placed great emphasis on the departmental, d i v i s i o n a l , and i n s t i t u t e planning process, complete with t r a i n i n g workshops for a l l deans, heads, and senior s t a f f . The process had been peak-ing at the time of the study. Also, major debates on evaluation had j u s t been completed with the process of 98 s t a f f and departmental evaluation being described either i n the c o l l e c t i v e agreement or i n i n s t i t u t e p o l i c y . There was a considerable f e e l i n g of resistance to the concept of evaluating anything but students. A possible point of interest was that those groups having the strongest preference for research had the least negative preference toward evaluation. Curiously, those who had least negative feelings about evaluation had the strongest negative f e e l i n g toward revise. 5.4 Implications of the Data The data i d e n t i f i e d groups which should be able to work well together because of compatible attitudes toward preferred departmental behavior. In general terms, the perceptions of Continuing Education, deans and senior administrative s t a f f , Nursing, Core and Engineering were found to be similar and d i s t i n c t from those of Business, Health, and most non-Continuing Education department heads. Further, the strong bias found toward planning without a p a r a l l e l acceptance of evaluation indicated a pot e n t i a l problem area. 99 5.5 Summary A l l hypotheses were accepted except 1.423 which dealt with the separate clustering of administrators and their faculty. While there were some indications to support the hypothesis, the sample was too small for d e f i n i t i v e answers to be given. Two d i s t i n c t i v e Types, L i b e r a l and Conservative, were i d e n t i f i e d . Almost a l l subjects supported Student-centred over Department-centred a c t i v i t i e s . Most deans, Continuing Education s t a f f , Engineering and Nursing faculty and l i b r a r i a n s were i n the L i b e r a l Type and department heads, Business and Health faculty, and student services s t a f f were i n the Conservative Type. Most personnel who had undertaken further studies i n education, clustered i n the L i b e r a l Type. Those who had most dire c t contact with students, except those who had education studies, were more Conservative i n attitude than those who were somewhat removed from the classroom. Few subjects rated i n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s highly but many strongly supported planning. Evaluation was given a very low score as were items dealing with r e v i s i o n i n the teaching process. 100 Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 6.1 Conclusions 6.11 Q-Sort The Q-methodology of Stephenson was found to be useful i n i d e n t i f y i n g differences i n a t t i -tude among educational i n s t i t u t i o n s t a f f , and therefore, to have po t e n t i a l as an i n s t i t u t i o n a l evaluation t o o l . The Q-sort developed for this study was found to be capable of fin e discriminations and could r e a d i l y be adapted for use i n other educa-t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s that provide similar career-oriented programmes. 6.12 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of C o n f l i c t Potential Two opposing philosophies related to the involvement of students i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l pro-cess were i d e n t i f i e d among the instructors, the non-teaching faculty, and the administrative s t a f f . The philosophy l a b e l l e d Conservative was associated with the majority of instructors and many department 101 heads. The opposite philosophy, l a b e l l e d L i b e r a l , was associated with a l l the academic d i v i s i o n deans, a l l the Continuing Education group, and most of those who had some formal studies i n education. Many of the members of the L i b e r a l group either d i r e c t the a c t i v i t i e s or u t i l i z e the resources of members of the Conservative group. Direction and u t i l i z a t i o n require acceptance i f not agreement on the part of the department head and instructors to receive d i r e c t i o n and to provide services. When the perceptions of the groups d i f f e r on such a basic issue as the r o l e of the student i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l process or how the student and department w i l l interact, and on which a c t i v i t i e s should have p r i o r i t y , c o n f l i c t i s a normal outcome unless the differences are recognized and compensa-tions made. 6.13 Concensus Development While concensus i n perception of departmental r o l e can exis t among subjects because of strong s i m i l a r i t i e s i n professional training, concensus among subjects with a diverse range of professional 102 t r a i n i n g can be developed through exposure to the philosophies of a new, common d i s c i p l i n e or through extended involvement i n planning or work groups. While the concept of discipline-based concensus can account for a large number of clusters i n this study, i t cannot explain why the clusters were associated with a p a r t i c u l a r Type, or more import-antly, why they should be d i s t r i b u t e d between only two Types and not among as many Types as there were d i s t i n c t d i s c i p l i n e s . A possible explanation for the c o l l e c t i o n i n one Type of such a large percent of subjects who had added the d i s c i p l i n e of education to t h e i r o r i g i n a l diverse subject of d i s c i p l i n e s , i s that the old d i s c i p l i n e which dealt with what students should learn was less important to them than the new d i s c i p l i n e which dealt with how the students should learn. 6.14 Student Contact and Perception Differences Subjects who had continued contact with students were generally found to have a more conservative perception of the departmental r o l e than did those who were i n d i r e c t l y involved with 103 students or who had no special r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for student performance. It appears as i f those whose'. performance and reputation could be most d i r e c t l y t i e d to student a c t i v i t i e s wished to have firm con-t r o l over as many student-related variables as was possible. Those whose ro l e and reputation were t i e d less to student progress and more to organiza-t i o n of resources, development of programmes, or to planning of a c t i v i t i e s appeared more w i l l i n g to experiment with new ideas and to take a more open attitude toward students and t h e i r involvement i n the learning process. Exceptions to this trend were mainly instructors who had l i b e r a l perceptions and who had acquired education as a second d i s c i p l i n e . Whether or not the education and perception has cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p could not be determined. However, education was considered to be a moderating influence on role perception because i t de-mystified the learning process and encouraged change. 6.15 Department-Centred Attitudes The data confirmed that there was no general support of a department-centred philosophy among the subjects examined. However, the group which contained the majority of department heads was the 104 only group that did not have a sharp d i s t i n c t i o n between department-centred and student-centred philosophies, being s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e to both. 6.2 Recommendations for Further Study 6.21 Impact of Studies i n Education on Role  Perception The study revealed a relationship between one major cluster and t h e i r recent involvement i n graduate l e v e l studies i n education. What could not be determined was whether the c l u s t e r i n g was a r e s u l t of the education or the common intere s t i n further studies, s p e c i f i c a l l y i n education, led to the c l u s t e r i n g . A longitudinal study of t h i s group and ofcother groups of educational personnel should be undertaken to determine i f increased encouragement should be given to educational leave with studies i n education as a prime reason for granting the leave or i f there i s no r e l a t i o n between education studies and changes i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l philosophy. 105 6.22 Transient Ef f e c t s The very strong preference for Planning and the negative preference for Evaluation and Revision found i n this study may, i n the case of Planning and Evaluation, have been related to l o c a l events which w i l l be less important i n the future than they were at the time of data c o l l e c t i o n . The strong p o l a r i t y found may or may not be unusual. It i s important to determine i f i t i s a transient e f f e c t or an i n d i c a t i o n of something more serious i n the p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n studied and to other organizations where sim i l a r biases may exist. 6.23 Role Perception and Work Groups This study should be repeated with larger samples of subjects drawn from the same i n s t i t u t i o n to determine i f the mixed trends for departments and working groups can be substantiated. Groups and departments which worked together appeared to have some int e r n a l consistency related to t h e i r per-ception of the r o l e of an i d e a l teaching department. Subjects from departments which, on the surface, 106 had less involvement with within-department working groups often had major differences i n r o l e perception. Whole departments and working groups should be examined so that sampling i s not an issue i n the re s u l t s . 6.24 Role Perception of Other I n s t i t u t i o n Members This study was limi t e d to those s t a f f who were involved with in s t r u c t i o n , d i r e c t support of instr u c t i o n , student services, or the administra-t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n . No data were coll e c t e d from students, c l e r i c a l s t a f f , advisory committees, non-educational service administrators, board of governors, or the public. It would prove not only in t e r e s t i n g but valuable to know what patterns of perception regarding the r o l e of an i d e a l teaching department exist among other i n s t i t u t i o n members who make up the majority of the i n s t i t u t i o n popula-ti o n . 6.3 Summary This study was able to confirm the suggestions of researchers such as Rinn and Jenks that Q-methodology 107 has a p p l i c a t i o n s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t . The Q - s o r t c r e a t e d was a b l e t o i d e n t i f y a t l e a s t two t y p e s o f s u b j e c t s w i t h somewhat o p p o s i n g p h i l o s o p h i e s on t h e r o l e o f an i d e a l t e a c h i n g d e p a r t m e n t . The t y p e c a l l e d C o n s e r v a t i v e c o n s i s t e d o f most i n s t r u c t o r s and d e p a r t m e n t h e a d s , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e l i v e r y g r o u p . The L i b e r a l t y p e i n c l u d e d most o f t h e deans and s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f , t h e C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n s t a f f , and most o f t h o s e s u b j e c t s f r o m a l l g r o u p s who h a d f u r t h e r s t u d i e s i n e d u c a t i o n . M o s t o f t h o s e who w o u l d p l a n o r a d m i n i s t e r i n s t r u c -t i o n c o l l e c t e d i n t h e L i b e r a l g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e s e two g r o u p s c o n t a i n t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t b e c a u s e t h e y must c o n t i n u a l l y work t o g e t h e r . T h e r e was an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t c o n c e n s u s o r , a t l e a s t , r e a s o n a b l e l e v e l s o f agreement c a n be d e v e l o p e d i f s u b j e c t s a c q u i r e a common new d i s c i p l i n e t h a t o v e r l a y s t h e i r o r i g i n a l d i s c i p l i n e . F u r t h e r e d u c a t i o n s t u d i e s were f o u n d t o be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h L i b e r a l a t t i t u d e s . S i m i l a r l y , g r o u p s t h a t d e l i b e r a t e l y work and p l a n t o g e t h e r may be a b l e t o d e v e l o p c o n c e n s u s a t t i t u d e s as t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f d e p a r t m e n t a l r o l e . 108 T h o s e s u b j e c t s who were c l o s e s t t o ' t h e t e a c h i n g p r o c e s s and who h a d t h e g r e a t e s t s h a r e o f c l a s s r o o m power were l e a s t l i k e l y t o s u p p o r t a c t i v i t i e s t h a t i m p l i e d a s h a r i n g o f t h a t power w i t h s t u d e n t s . T h o s e whose power l a y i n t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r programming r o l e s were g e n e r a l l y p r e p a r e d t o h a v e t h e s t u d e n t s s h a r e c l a s s r o o m power, i n e f f e c t , g i v i n g away t h e power o f t h e i r sub-o r d i n a t e s o r c o l l e a g u e s . F u r t h e r s t u d i e s s h o u l d be u n d e r t a k e n t o f o l l o w c u e s p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s t u d y . F u r t h e r s t u d i e s i n e d u c a -t i o n a p p e a r t o h a v e a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p on r o l e p e r -c e p t i o n and on w i l l i n g n e s s t o employ f l e x i b l e i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e s . A l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y s h o u l d be u n d e r t a k e n t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e s e t r e n d s c a n be s u b s t a n t i a t e d . A l s o , p o s s i b l e p r o b l e m s c r e a t e d by s a m p l i n g s h o u l d be e x p l o r e d by e v a l u a t i n g w h o l e d e p a r t m e n t s and b y i n c l u d i n g s u b j e c t s f r o m o u t s i d e t h e a c a d e m i c l i n e . P o t e n t i a l s u b j e c t s a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t e t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t a r e s t u d e n t s , t h e p u b l i c , c l e r i c a l s t a f f , and g o v e r n i n g and a d v i s o r y b o d i e s . The d a t a f r o m t h e s e e x t e n d e d s t u d i e s w o u l d p e r m i t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f d e p a r t m e n t a l p r o f i l e s w h i c h w o u l d be e x t r e m e l y u s e f u l t o t h e e n t i r e i n s t i t u t i o n . 109 Chapter 7  RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Or gahi z at iona1 Development While processes such as planning and evaluation which have application to both i n s t r u c t i o n and management can r e a d i l y be taught to i n s t i t u t i o n members, they w i l l not produce a smoothly running organization i f i n d i v i d u a l and group attitudes and perceptions are: ignored. This study i d e n t i f i e d a difference i n basic philosophy between those having r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r departmental development and those with r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for d i v i s i o n a l and i n s t i t u t e development. The backgrounds and recent experiences of the individuals are similar but the perceptions are di f f e r e n t . Any organization, and an educational organiza-t i o n with i t s c o l l e g i a l atmosphere i n p a r t i c u l a r , should c a r e f u l l y consider the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of group attitudes and perceptions before attempting to implement a single system of administration which might be appropriate and acceptable for one group but not for another. The Q-sort process has p o s s i b i l i t i e s for i d e n t i f y i n g areas of agreement and disagreement among groups as well as individuals and should be considered as a possible tool to aid i n organiza-t i o n a l development. It should have p a r t i c u l a r application 110 when c o o p e r a t i o n and c o n c e n s u s w i t h i n a n e w l y a s s e m b l e d work gro u p i s d e s i r e d . 7.2 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g ~ The m e c h a n i c s o f t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s h a v e b e e n w e l l d e s c r i b e d i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l i t e r a t u r e . I n p r a c t i c e , t h e m a i n d i f f i c u l t y i s t o f o c u s a t t e n t i o n on b a s i c i s s u e s w h i c h must be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e p r o c e s s a l o n g w i t h t h e more o b v i o u s q u e s t i o n s s u c h as g r o w t h r a t e , f i n a n c e s , and a c c o mmodations. I f t h e r e i s no a g r e e m e n t on o r g a n i z a t i o n r o l e s o r m i s s i o n , i t i s u n l i k e l y t h e r e w i l l be e a s y a g r e e -ment on s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s o r i n d i v i d u a l and g r o u p r e s p o n s -i b i l i t i e s . I n t h i s study.some o f t h e i t e m s h a d b u i l t i n t o them i m p l i c a t i o n s o f i n c r e a s e d f l e x i b i l i t y o f i n s t r u c t i o n so t h a t s t u d e n t s and i n s t r u c t o r s c o u l d move f r o m a l o c k - s t e p l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s t o a more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d a p p r o a c h . One k e y group ( t h e p l a n n e r s and d e c i s i o n m akers) a c c e p t e d t h e s e i d e a s a n d p l a c e d a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r i o r i t y on them. The o t h e r m a j o r g r o u p ( t h e i m p l e m e n t o r s ) was c o o l t o w a r d the c o n c e p t s and p l a c e d a q u i t e low p r i o r i t y on them. U n l e s s d i f f e r e n c e s s u c h as t h i s c a n be i d e n t i f i e d and r e s o l v e d i n a n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g f a s h i o n , a l l t h e h i g h e r l e v e l p l a n n i n g w i l l n o t p r o d u c e t h e d e s i r e d r e s u l t s . The p r o c e s s u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y c a n r e v e a l n o t o n l y c o n c e n s u s an d c o n t e n t i o n I l l i s s u e s , and the i n d i v i d u a l s and groups i n v o l v e d , but a l s o , changes i n a t t i t u d e s w i t h time or exposure to new i d e a s . 7.3 P o t e n t i a l f o r Abuse Because Q-sort techniques have the p o t e n t i a l f o r examining how an i n d i v i d u a l t h i n k s about many i s s u e s depending on the types o f questions that are put, they should be used on l y w i t h the f r e e l y g i v e n consent o f the persons i n v o l v e d . The a c q u i s i t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n on an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e l i e f s and the u s i n g o f t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t o a s s i s t i n group processes can onl y be j u s t i f i e d i f the i n d i v i d u a l agrees t h a t the p o t e n t i a l r i s k s are more than balanced by the gains to be made. A l a r g e amount of t r u s t and l e a d e r s h i p must e x i s t w i t h i n the group b e f o r e such s t u d i e s are attempted. 7.4 Summary Q-methodology i s o n l y one o f many p o s s i b l e t o o l s a v a i l a b l e f o r c o l l e c t i n g data which can a s s i s t i n organ-i z a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n and development. Because Q-sorts can r e a d i l y be c r e a t e d or m o d i f i e d f o r s p e c i f i c s i t u a -t i o n s , and because they can expl o r e beneath s u r f a c e impressions, q u a n t i t a t i v e data not normally a v a i l a b l e can be 112 c o l l e c t e d . The d a t a o n l y p r o v i d e c u e s w h i c h c a n l e a d t o f u r t h e r c u e s o r , p o s s i b l y , some s u g g e s t i o n s as t o why b e h a v i o r s o c c u r . However, t h e u n d e r l y i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s o f Q-methodology w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r i n a p p r o p -r i a t e u s e o f d a t a , must be r e c o g n i z e d . Any e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s w h i c h p e r m i t s o pen-ended c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a and b r o a d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s must be u s e d w i t h d i s c r e t i o n . Q -methodology c a n h a v e b r o a d i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a n a l y s i s o f group dynamics and t h u s s h o u l d be a c t i v e l y e x p l o r e d as a l e g i t i m a t e p a r t o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n . 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY Periodicals Brown, Steven R. "Bibliography on Q-Technique and Its Methodology," Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 26:587-613, 1968. Brown, Steven R. "The Forced-Free D i s t i n c t i o n i n Q Technique." Journal of Educational Measurement. 8:4:283-6, Winter, 1971. Cronbach, L.J. "Course Improvement Through Evaluation." Teachers College Record. 64:672-82, 1963. Gordon, Leonard V. and Akio Kikuchi. "The Comparability of the Forced-Choice and Q-Sort Measurement Approaches: An Other-Culture Study." The Journal  of Social Psychology. 81:137-44, 1970. Haas, Eugene and Linda Collen. "Administrative Practices i n University Departments." Administrative Science  Quarterly. 8:1:44-60, June 1963. Haskell, Stephen Carle. "A Time-Referenced Q-Sort Tech-nique For Evaluating Behavioral Change." American  Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 49:1:109-19, January T9~79~. Hilden, Arnold H. "Q-Sort Correlation: S t a b i l i t y and Random Choice of Statements." Journal of Consulting  Psychology. 22:1:45-50, 1958. Housego, B.E. and W.B. Boldt. " P r i o r i t i e s of Teacher Behaviors as Perceived by Student-Teachers i n a School Based Program: An Exploratory Study." Alberta Journal of Educational Research. 24:1:53-65, March 1978. Jenks, Stephen R. "An Action-Research Approach to Organ-i z a t i o n a l Change." The Journal of Applied  Behavioral Science. 6:2:131-150, 1970. Kerlinger, Fred R. "A Q V a l i d a t i o n of the Structure of Social Attitudes." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 32:981-995, 1972. 114 Liveson, Norman H. and Thomas F. Nichols. "Discrimination and R e l i a b i l i t y i n Q-Sort Personality Descriptions." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 52:2:159-165, 1956. Mayhew, Louis B. "Higher Education - Toward 1984." Educational Record. 53:215-21, Summer, 1972. Mix, Marjorie C. "The 'Other Professionals' i n University Governance." Educational Record. 53:331-6, F a l l , 1972. Quarter, Jack, D.R. Kennedy, and R.M. Laxer. "Effect of Order and Form i n the Q-Sort." Psychological  Reports. 20:893-894, 1967. Redburn, F. Stevens. "Q Factor Analysis: Applications To Educational Testing And Program Evaluation." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 35:767-778, 1975. Rinn, John L. "Q Methodology: An Application to Group Phenomena." Educational and Psychological Measure- ment. 21:2:315-329, 1961. Scriven, Michael. "Pros and Cons About Goal Free Evaluation." Evaluation Comment. 3:1-4, 1972. Stake, Robert. "Objectives, P r i o r i t i e s and Other Judgement Data." Review of Educational Research, 4:181-212, 1970. Stephenson, William. "Independency And Operationalism In O-Sorting." The Psychological Record. 13:269-272, 1963. Stufflebeam, Daniel L. "The Use of Experimental Design In Educational Evaluation." Journal of Educational Measurement. 8:4:267-274, Winter, 1971. ERIC Documents, Reports, and Theses Behm, Robert J. and William J. S c h i l l , The Examination  of Intra-Group Agreement of Q-Sort Responses. U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 131 103, March 1977. 115 Boyd, Richard S. Student Attitudes arid Teacher Judgement  of Student Attitude. U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 016 270, October 1968. Carrter, A l l a n M. An Assessment of the Quality i n Graduate Education. Washington: American Council on Education, 1966. Freeman, Leonard. Q-Method' 20 Years Later: Its Uses And Abuses In Communications' Research. U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 095 580, January 1975. G r i f f i t h s , Stephen J. "An Investigation of the Goals of the Laboratory Programme i n Secondary School Chemistry Courses i n B r i t i s h Columbia." M.A. thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974. Heikkinen, Michael W. The Teaching S t y l e Q-Sort: A Description Of Its Uses In Assessing Teaching Style. U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 151 351, June 1978. Huff, George P. Evaluation Of Attitudes To Teaching. U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 003 843, 1964. Kerlinger, Fred N. and Elazar J. Pedhazur. Attitudes And  Perceptions Of Desirable T r a i t s And Behaviors Of  Teachers. F i n a l Report. U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 019 742, September 1967. MacLean, Malcolm S. J r . , Thomas Danbury, and Albert D. Talbott. C i v i l Defense B e l i e f Patterns: (VIII)  Technical Summary. Excerpts From Report. U.S., Office of C i v i l Defense, Department of Defense, Contract #: OCD-OS-62-19, 1964. Scriven, Michael, "Evaluation Perspectives and Procedures," Draft prepared for AERA series on Educational Evaluation, 1973. (Xeroxed.) Smith, Inez L. Attitudes Toward Education Arid General S o c i a l Attitudes - A "Q" Study. U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 013 498, February, 1967. 116 Talbott, Albert D. "Q Technique And Its Methodology: A B r i e f Introduction And Consideration." Paper presented at the meeting of AERA, New York, February, 1971. Williams, Dwight A. J r . Mass Media Preference Patterns:  A Cross-Media Study"! U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 049 611, A p r i l 1971, Wood,, Randy. A Use of the Q-Sort Technique i n Educational Evaluation. U.S., Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 128 360, January 1977. Books Baldridge, J. V i c t o r , ed. Academic Governance - Research  on I n s t i t u t i o n a l P o l i t i c s and Decision Making. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1971. ______ David V. Curtis, George Ecker, and Gary L. Riley. A National Study of Academic Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978. Blalock, H.M., J r . , ed. Causal Models i n the Social  Sciences. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971. Blau, Peter M. On the Nature of Organizations. New York: John Wiley, 1974. ________ and Richard A. Schoenherr. The Structure of Organizations. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Borich, Gary D., ed. Evaluating Educational Programs and Products. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1974. Browder, Lesley H., J r . , William A. Atkins, J r . , and Esin Kaya. Developing an Educationally Accountable  Program. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1973. Brown, Steven R. and Donald J. Brenner, eds. Science,  Psychology and Communications: Essays Honoring  William Stephenson. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1972. 117 Burns, Tom and G.M. Stalker. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock Publications, 1961. Burt, C y r i l . The Factors of the Mind: An Introduction to Factor-Analysis i n Psychology. London: University of London Press, 1940. Campbell, Donald T. and J u l i a n C. Stanley. Experimental  and Quasi-Experimental Designs For Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Dressel, Paul L. and others. Evaluation i n Higher Education. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1961. ________ F. Craig Johnson, and P h i l i p M. Marcus. The Confidence C r i s i s : An Analysis of University  Departments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. Enderud, Harald Gjessing. Four Faces Of Leadership In An  Academic Organization! Copenhagen: Arnold Busck, 1977 . G r i f f i t h s , D.E., ed. Developing taxonomies of organizational  behavior i n educational administration. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Heinlein, Albert C , ed. Decision Models i n Academic Administration. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1973. Hodgkinson, Harold L. and Blchard L. Meeth, eds. Power and  Authority - Transformations of Campus Governance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971. L i k e r t , Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. McHenry, Dean E. Academic Departments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass" 1967 . M i l l e r , Richard I. Evaluating Faculty Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. M i l l e t t , John D. New Structures of Campus Power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978. Riley, Gary L. and J. Victor Baldridge. Governing Academic Institutions - New Problems New Perspectives. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1977. 118 Stephenson, William. The Play Theory of Mass Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. . The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and Its MetKodoTogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Stufflebeam, D.E., and others. Educational Evaluation and Decision-Making. Itasca, I l l i n o i s : Peacock, W7T. Worthen, B.R. and J.R. Sanders. Educational Evaluation  Theory and Practice. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1973. Webber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. by Talcott Parsons and Algo Henderson. New York: Free Press, 1947. APPENDIX A DOMINANT LOADINGS SUMMARY Factors S's ac be ad bd a b c d e f g h 9,18,3,8 19 -5.10 5.58 3.87 -3.35 -1.24 2.23 0.48 0.52 6.78 -1.70 0.89 -5.46 -1.19 10,1,5,17 12 -4.87 5.84 -0.46 -1.82 -5.33 4.02 0.99 -2.28 0.63 -2.55 6.62 -3.97 -2.03 6,19,14,12 15 -2.77 3.87 5.29 -5.44 2.52 -1.57 1.10 -0.14 6.87 -0.66 -0.28 -5.42 0.44 ,_, 2,16 17 10.44 2.37 1.75 -17.25 12.19 -14.89 12.81 -15.51 3.39 0.46 0.08 -2.22 -2.31 11,15 12 0.59 6.21 1.66 -11.41 2.26 -5.37 6.97 -9.75 4.22 -1-20 1.26 -5.63 -0.89 4,7,13 1.74 1.16 -2.76 0.17 -1.02 1.33 2.90 -2.60 3.96 3.08 -1.16 -0.45 -5.12 120 APPENDIX B CELL IDENTIFICATION BY ITEM NUMBER Item Number C e l l Type 1 a c i 2 b d i 3 b c i 4 bdg 5 b d i 6 b c i 7 bee 8 bdh 9 ach 10 bdh 11 adh 12 bdh 13 adf 14 b c i 15 bdg 16 a c i 17 a d i 18 acg 19 adg 20 bdf 21 bde 22 bef 23 bdg 24 bef 25 bee 26 a d i 27 ade 28 acf 29 bde 30 ade 31 beh 32 beg 33 adg 34 b d i 35 beg 36 bdf 37 bdh 38 bef 39 b c i 40 acf a = Li b e r a l / E x p e r i m e n t a l b = C o n s e r v a t i v e / A u t h o r i t a r i a n c = Student-centred d = Department-centred e = Pl a n Item Number C e l l Type 41 bdf 42 bdg 43 adf 44 ach 45 adg 46 bdg 47 ade 48 acg 49 ace 50 adf 51 acf 52 bef 53 bde 54 acg 55 ace 56 bee 57 bee 58 adf 59 beg 60 bde 61 ach 62 ace 63 beh 64 b d i 65 adh 66 beh 67 a c i 68 a d i 69 adh 70 acf 71 bdf 72 ace 73 beh 74 adh 75 a c i 76 acg 77 a d i 78 ade 79 adg 80 ach f = Research g = I n s t r u c t h = Evaluate i = Revise APPENDIX C SAMPLE POPULATION DEMOGRAPHY Administrator A. Administrative Group Business 5 Core 5 Engineering 5 Health 5 Administration 5 Support 2 Continuing Education 4 B. Background* Commerce/Law 6 Education/Arts 11 Health/Bio Sciences 8 Engineering/Phys S c i 14 C. Length of Service Under 5 years 6 Five years & over 26 Under Five Faculty Male Female 5 Years Years & over 9 13 1 5 9 6 9 2 2 9 9 13 1 4 10 9 8 6 4 10 1 6 0 2 4 8 6 4 5 5 6 9 1 4 6 10 14 2 6 10 24 23 12 13 22 11 12 7 7 12 15 28 1 4 25 17 18 5 _ _ _ 30 46 10 — --* Background t o t a l s are higher than subject totals because some subjects have a mixed or multiple background and appear several times i n the l i s t i n g . 122 APPENDIX D RANGE OF ALL ITEMS # Range Range # Range if Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.88 4.13 1.73 3.08 2.57 2.84 2.88 3.99 3.90 4.75 3.35 3.07 2.70 2.24 4.08 2.75 2.85 4.00 4.01 2.27 64.07 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 5.30 3.27 3.11 3.13 4.94 3.04 4.05 3.10 3.89 2.58 2.46 3.94 2.80 2.75 2.15 3.53 2.35 4.12 3.40 2.76 130.74 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 5.32 3.39 2.68 3.76 3.47 3.68 2.69 3.37 2.99 2.22 3.20 2.32 4.02 3.11 3.32 3.64 4.43 1.97 4.45 4.00 198.77 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Average 3.48 2.88 4.70 2.96 4.00 3.66 3.59 3.13 4.19 2.08 3.17 4.81 2.15 3.08 2.10 2.45 2.66 2.62 3.44 3.68 263.6/80 = 3.30 NOTE: A l l values given are Z-scores 123 APPENDIX E Q-Sort Items 1 Student suggestions for course changes are ca r e f u l l y considered by instructors. 2 Class marks are adjusted i f they are either lower or higher than expected. 3 F.equired reading l i s t s are revised each year. 4 Students are required to submit at least one assignment per course each week. •5 Refinements are made to departmental tests after each test cycle. 6 Laboratory exercises are regularly reviewed to ensure they are as p r a c t i c a l as possible. 7 Assignment dates are coordinated among classes at the beginning of each term. 8 Quiz marks are expected to range from very low to very high with an average of about 65 percent. 9 Course objectives are j o i n t l y set by instructor and students. 10 Early term tests have high enough standards that poor students are convinced to drop out quickly. 11 Department members are inv i t e d to evaluate other member's teaching s k i l l s . 12 F i n a l grades contain provisions for some di s -cretionary marks for student attitude. 13 Instructors organize modest student research problems. 14 Teaching processes are automatically reviewed when class marks are lower than expected. 15 Students are required to attend a l l classes unless i l l . 124 APPENDIX E (Continued) Q-Sort Items 16 Curriculum revisions are based on an analysis of apparent student needs. 17 Course outlines are revised each year. 18 Students can negotiate the d e t a i l s of major assignments with their i n s t r u c t o r s . 19 Course standards are based on current job reauirements. 20 The department encourages instructors to con-duct modest departmental research projects. 21 Course standards are set high enough to guarantee that graduates w i l l be of high qua l i t y . 22 Student grades are analyzed to determine the effectiveness of instructor teaching methods. 23 Teaching assistants are used i n some classes to reduce instructor load. 24 The department c o l l e c t s data on job placement of graduates. 25 Instructional goals are set to meet work-place requirements. 26 The department changes course content only when i t can prove students w i l l benefit from the changes. 27 Planning i s based on long-term departmental obj ectives. 28 Curriculum changes are made only after the department documents the advantages to be gained by the students. 29 Departmental members c o l l e c t i v e l y olan programme changes. 125 APPENDIX E (Continued) Q-Sort Items 30 Departmental curriculum committees approve curriculum changes. 31 Students are reauired to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the evaluation of the i r i n structors. 32 Instruction i s c a r e f u l l y paced so students can complete the essential course objectives by term end. 33 Team teaching i s used. 34 New i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods are implemented when a majority of the department agrees. 35 Instructors provide c a r e f u l l y selected supple-mental reading l i s t s . 36 Topics for student projects are chosen by the department. 37 Instructors schedule tests at regular i n t e r v a l s . 38 Industry surveys are used to aid i n curriculum design. 39 Course outlines are altered during the course i f necessary to improve i n s t r u c t i o n . 40 Students are encouraged to use the l i b r a r y to investigate open-ended problems. 41 Students c o l l e c t data for instructor's research proj ects. 42 Instruction i s c a r e f u l l y scheduled so a l l topics can be taught by the end of term. 43 Some departmental funds are provided for approved student projects. 44 Student self-evaluation contributes to term marks. 126 APPENDIX E (Continued) Q-Sort Items 45 Proposed i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s are c l e a r l y outlined to students before classes begin. 46 Course objectives are based heavily on the experience of the instructors. 47 Changes to curriculum are phased i n c a r e f u l l y . 48 Class timetables are organized to permit some independent study. 49 Instructors revise test dates when students are overloaded with work. 50 Student project proposals are approved by instructors. 51 Instructors and students cooperatively seek new methods of reaching course objectives. 52 Students are required to undertake small research projects. 53 Second year enrolment targets are set to be lower than f i r s t year enrolment targets. 54 Several d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques are used i n each course. 55 Instructional a c t i v i t i e s are designed to meet a wide range of student needs. 56 Department plans course changes when i t can i d e n t i f y new employment opportunities for graduates. 57 Course objectives are given to students at the start of each term. 58 New i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods are tested i n cla s s . 59 Instructors provide a model for students to follow. 127 APPENDIX E (Continued) Q-Sort Items 60 Available job openings for graduates are used to determine enrolment l e v e l targets. 61 Student evaluation of instructors i s an accepted departmental practice. 62 Projects are planned j o i n t l y by students and instructors. 63 Students are graded by comparing th e i r work against that of their classmates. 64 Changes i n curriculum are authorized by the department head. 65 Student grades are used as a gauge of instruc-t i o n a l success. 66 Students are t o l d at the start of term what the passing standards are. 67 Student representatives are f u l l members of programme r e v i s i o n committees. 68 Any proposed course changes are checked i n p i l o t groups. 69 Tests are based on stated course objectives. 70 Student-selected research projects are an in t e g r a l part of the programme. 71 Instructors i d e n t i f y potential jobs for th e i r best graduates. 72 Students can select a va r i e t y of s t a r t i n g levels i n th e i r courses. 73 Homework assignment marks are included i n f i n a l grades. 74 Each instructor's end-of-term marks are reviewed by a departmental marks review committee. 128 APPENDIX E (Continued) Q-Sort Items 75 Causes of student f a i l u r e are examined to see i f changes i n curriculum are needed. 76 Provision i s made for easy access to remedial in s t r u c t i o n . 77 Changes i n course content are made only after careful consideration by a departmental review committee. 78 Instructors i n i t i a t e planning for new programmes 79 Laboratory exercises are well integrated into lecture material. 80 A l l students can achieve a f i r s t class standing i f they master stated learning objectives. 129 APPENDIX F CLUSTER ANALYSIS STATISTICS Eigenvalues 26.10396 2.28632 1.50325 1.22206 6.04173 2.08901 1.49236 1.14303 3.45223 1.94759 1.44895 1.09331 2.80632 1.79645 1.33678 1.05581 2.55142 1.66781 1.30129 0.97048 and continuing for another 58 eigenvalues down to 0.00001. Cumulative Proportion of Eigenvalues 0.33044 0.54738 0.66135 0.74745 0.40692 0.57382 0.68025 0.76192 0.45062 0.59847 0.69859 0.77576 0.48614 0.62121 0.71551 0.78912 0.51844 0.64233 0.73198 terminated after 19 vlaues to correspond to 19 clusters taken with eigenvalues greater than 1.0000 3. B a r t l e t t ' s Test for Non-Identity Correlation Matrix Chi-Square = 6,427.9 Degrees of freedom = 3,160 Chi-probability = -0.0 4. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Overall measure = 0.99994 Range i n values is" 0.99999 to 0.99973 5. Test of Adequate Factoring With 19 Factors Chi-Square = 3,684.5 Degrees of freedom = 1,830 Chi-probability = -0.0 4 APPENDIX G Z-SCORES FOR NINETEEN CLUSTER-ITEM ARRAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 1.218 1.128 -0.111 0.431 0.557 -0.350 -1.177 0.240 0.846 1.018 0.986 0.000 0.784 -1.674 0.440 0.784 -0.404 0.000 -0.345 2 -2.144 -2.172 -0.771 -1.977 -1.916 1.735 -0.392 1.710 -1.969 -1.638 -1.070 -0.784 1.961 -0.039 -0.397 0.000 0.214 -0.903 -0.891 3 0.906 0.006 -0.380 0.773 -0.461 -0.506 0.000 -0.603 0.524 1.133 -0.146 0.392 0.392 0.786 0.000 -0.392 0.230 0.477 -0.442 •0.906 -1.468 -1.515 -1.027 -0.195 1.504 0.784 0.591 -0.978 1.271 -1.304 -0.784 1.177 1.230 -1.582 -0.784 1.369 -1.395 -1.332 5 0.293 0.227 -0.946 -0.519 0.387 0.049 -1.569 -0.410 -0.911 -1.395 -0.248 -0.784 0.392 0.444 0.174 -1.177 0.995 -0.238 -1.182 6 0.000 0.660 1.418 -0.331 1.334 -0.963 0.000 -1.295 1.188 0.926 0.521 0.784 -0.784 -0.583 0.572 -0.784 -1.509 0.936 1.205 7 0.751 0.132 0.954 1.027 0.151 0.179 1.569 0.172 0.556 -0.818 0.636 -1.569 0.784 -0.648 1.143 0.000 1.313 -0.185 0.277 8 -0.595 -2.193 -1.236 -1.458 -0.129 1.748 0.784 -0.160 -1.155 -1.480 -1.450 -0.784 1.569 0.990 -1.492 -0.392 1.900 0.441 -0.602 9 -1.218 0.689 -1.883 -0.950 -0.357 0.770 -0.392 1.951 -0.705 -0.818 -1.095 -0.392 0.000 0.990 0.174 -0.784 1.435 -1.139 -1.953 10 -1.988 -2.093 -0.352 1.204 0.595 2.398 -2.353 1.189 -1.700 -1.403 -1.746 0.392 -0.392 1.878 -1.317 -1.961 1.005 0.221 -1.002 11 -0.293 0.202 -1.293 -0.088 0.446 0.784 -1.569 0.659 0.639 -0.656 0.430 1.177 0.392 -1.369 -1.137 1.177 0.796 -0.053 0.456 W 12 0.156 -1.481 0.571 1.116 -0.864 0.687 -0.784 -1.543 -0.642 0.423 -1.397 0.392 -1.961 0.546 -0.878 -1.568 -0.795 -1.174 -0.168 13 0.604 -0.321 0.281 1.039 -1.708 0.622 -0.392 -0.161 -0.689 0.141 -0.735 0.784 0.392 -0.102 -0.614 -0.392 0.304 -0.035 0.208 14 0.010 0.227 -1.460 -1.293 -1.305 0.699 0.000 -0.917 -0.554 -0.942 -0.277 0.000 -0.000 0.102 -0.048 0.784 0.696 -0.221 0.297 •0.165 -1.757 0.549 -0.088 -0.137 1.524 -1.177 1.736 0.035 1.471 -1.819 1.177 -0.784 2.257 -0.307 -0.784 0.805 2.039 -0.593 1.228 0.348 0.017 -1.027 0.059 0.607 0.392 0.642 0.055 -0.620 0.181 0.392 0.000 1.165 -1.011 0.392 -0.422 0.018 1.520 17 1.676 0.017 -0.481 -0.165 0.918 -0.260 -0.785 -0.925 0.787 -0.230 0.500 0.392 -1.177 -1.027 0.000 0.392 0.300 1.156 1.037 18 -0.458 0.771 0.349 1.458 -0.063 -0.004 0.392 0.450 0.097 -0.686 0.000 0.000 0.784 -0.204 -0.174 0.784 1.722 -2.277 -0.949 19 -0.916 0.356 1.548 -1.723 0.071 -1.297 -1.177 -0.271 -0.284 0.437 0.023 -0.784 1.569 0.102 -1.492 -0.784 -0.226 2.295 -0.276 20 -0.741 -0.640 -0.285 -0.596 -1.093 -0.237 1.177 0.049 -0.884 0.397 -0.116 0.784 0.392 -0.065 0.614 1.177 0.335 -0.918 0.551 21 1.237 -0.070 2.678 1.900 0.993 -1.227 -1.177 -2.627 0.797 2.209 2.140 2.353 -2.353 1.128 2.503 2.353 -2.391 0.662 2.705 22 -1.686 -0.883 -1.686 0.331 1.019 0.738 0.392 -0.508 -0.285 -0.315 -0.871 -0.392 1.569 0.546 0.572 -1.569 0.570 -0.680 -1.703 23 0.302 -0.442 0.110 -0.342 0.564 0.892 0.392 0.957 -0.851 0.059 -1.050 1.177 0.000 -0.583 -1.931 -0.392 -0.778 -0.971 -0.066 24 1.053 -0.137 1.064 0.265 -1.257 0.262 -1.177 0.089 0.857 -0.223 0.702 -1.177 -1.177 -0.749 1.450 -1.177 -0.565 0.662 -0.141 O 15 16 APPENDIX G Z-SCORES FOR NINETEEN CLUSTER-ITEM ARRAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 25 - 0 . 7 6 0 0 . 6 5 0 - 0 . 1 2 2 - 0 . 0 7 7 0 . 9 9 0 - 1 . 2 7 4 0 . 000 - 0 . 3 5 0 1 .033 2 .479 1 . 382 0 . 0 0 0 - 1 . 5 6 9 - 0 . 102 0 . 662 - 0 . 7 8 4 - 2 . 4 3 5 2 .313 1.903 26 - 0 . 1 3 7 - 0 . 1 2 3 - 1 . 1 8 4 - 0 . 1 7 7 0 . 1 4 0 - 0 . 8 9 8 0 . 0 0 0 0 .288 1 .472 0 . 6 8 6 0 . 636 0.784 - 1 . 5 6 9 0 . 990 - 0 . 481 - 1 . 1 7 7 - 0 . 3 7 8 0 . 4 4 1 -0 .1 .67 27 - 0 . 3 0 2 0 . 4 1 3 0 . 6 4 1 - 0 . 1 7 7 0 . 2 2 1 - 2 . 0 6 9 0 . 000 - 0 . 0 4 8 1 . 9 8 0 - 0 . 623 1 . 766 1 . 5 6 9 - 0 . 7 8 4 0 . 481 - 0 . 307 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 4 9 6 0 . 2 3 8 1 . 0 4 6 28 1 . 5 3 0 - 0 . 2 1 1 - 0 . 6 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 3 2 6 - 0 . 8 4 7 0 . 392 - 0 . 4 9 7 1 .528 - 0 . 8 6 7 0 . 871 - 1 . 1 7 7 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 1 0 2 - 0 . 174 - 1 . 5 6 9 - 0 . 0 1 8 - 0 . 2 0 3 1.364 29 0 .458 0 . 5 7 6 0 . 2 8 2 - 0 . 5 9 6 - 0 . 6 4 2 - 1 . 7 5 6 0 . 392 0.957 0 . 7 5 1 - 0 . 8 7 6 0 . 595 - 0 . 7 8 4 - 1 . 9 6 1 - 1 . 230 1 . 931 - 1 . 1 7 7 - 0 . 6 9 6 0 . 9 0 0 1 .372 30 0 .614 - 0 . 3 8 8 - 0 . 9 6 4 - 0 . 3 4 2 - 0 . 1 8 0 - 0 . 6 5 6 0 . 000 0 . 6 0 3 0 .747 - 0 . 8 6 7 0 . 640 0 .784 • 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 8 2 3 0 . 746 0 .784 - 0 . 3 9 1 1 . 6 1 5 1 . 1 9 1 31 0 . 3 2 1 0 . 3 5 8 - 0 . 7 6 3 - 0 . 2 6 5 1 . 0 6 1 0 . 8 9 5 - 0 . 3 9 2 - 1 . 1 0 3 1 . 1 3 6 0 . 023 - 0 . 038 - 0 . 3 9 2 - 0 . 3 9 2 - 0 . 379 - 1 . 317 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 2 5 6 0 . 4 0 6 - 0 . 1 2 9 32 2 . 2 8 1 1.004 0 . 9 0 0 0 .862 2 . 4 7 8 - 1 . 4 5 7 0 . 392 - 1 . 2 1 1 - 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 125 1 . 485 1.177 - 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 749 1 . ,143 0 .392 - 0 . 0 2 2 - 0 . 4 5 9 0 .718 33 - 1 . 0 7 2 - 0 . 0 3 4 - 0 . 3 0 3 - 0 . 0 8 8 0 . 6 9 5 0 . 3 1 8 - 1 . 5 6 9 - 0 . 9 5 7 - 0 . 9 1 7 0 . 000 - 0 . 694 - 0 . 3 9 2 - 0 . 3 9 2 - 0 . 786 1 . ,227 - 0 . 3 9 2 - 1 . 0 8 7 0.238 0 . 0 4 1 34 - 0 . 4 5 8 - 1 . 0 5 0 - 0 . 7 3 2 - 0 . 2 6 5 0 . 3 1 3 0 . 0 3 4 - 0 . 392 0 . 6 4 1 - 0 . 7 5 8 - 0 . 785 - 0 . 8 4 8 - 1 . 5 6 9 1.177 - 0 . 000 0. ,614 0 . 0 0 0 0 .796 - 0 . 2 0 3 - 0 . 4 5 0 35 0 .614 - 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 4 1 - 0 . 1 6 5 0 .967 - 0 . 5 5 9 - 1 . 177 - 0 . 6 9 1 - 0 . 0 2 3 0 . 620 0 . 295 0 .784 0.784 0 . 583 0 .439 0 .392 0 . 6 3 5 0.477 0 . 4 4 0 36 - 0 . 3 1 8 - 1 . 2 7 6 - 0 . 5 3 8 - 0 . 6 0 8 - 1 . 4 0 5 0 . 6 4 8 0 . ,000 - 0 . 3 7 1 - 1 . 4 0 9 0 .463 - 0 . 7 6 8 - 1 . 9 6 1 0.784 1 . ,572 - 1 , .185 - 0 . 3 9 2 0 . 4 9 1 0.68 0 - 0 . 8 1 8 37 0 . 1 6 5 - 0 . 7 1 4 - 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 9 5 0 1 . 0 8 1 0 .137 1 . .177 - 0 . 1 5 5 - 0 . 0 6 7 0 . 803 0. .169 0.784 - 0 . 3 9 2 - 1 . .128 0, .264 1.177 0 . 2 6 1 - 1 . 1 7 4 - 0 . 1 8 8 38 0 . 7 4 1 1 .167 1 . 4 9 5 0 . 5 1 9 - 1 . 0 1 6 - 2 . 1 5 5 0. .784 - 0 . 8 0 8 1 .199 0. .726 1.807 1 . 9 6 1 - 0 . 0 0 0 - 1 . .230 1 .624 0 .784 - 0 . 2 3 5 1 . 3 5 9 1 .962 39 1 .832 1 .013 - 0 . 1 3 1 - 0 . 7 7 3 - 1 . 3 4 9 0 . 4 0 6 0. .000 0 . 3 5 0 0 : 5 4 5 0, .651 0. .185 - 1 . 5 6 9 - 0 . 7 8 4 - 0 .379 - 0 . 2 2 2 1 .177 - 0 . 8 8 7 1.174 0 .992 AO 1 .228 1 .115 - 0 . 0 3 8 1 .977 - 0 . 3 1 5 - 0 . 7 7 9 1 .177 - 0 . 5 8 6 0 . 7 2 6 1 .389 - 0 .166 0 .392 0.784 0 . 4 8 1 1 .053 0 .392 - 0 . 5 6 5 - 0 . 6 8 0 0 . 0 5 1 41 - 1 . 0 6 2 - 1 . 8 0 9 - 1 . 9 6 1 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 8 5 1 1 . 3 0 5 - 0 .392 2 . 7 5 5 - 1 . 9 8 1 - 0 .975 - 2 .557 0 .392 0 .392 1 .914 - 1 .757 - 1 . 1 7 7 0 . 5 2 6 - 0 . 9 3 6 - 1 . 8 1 8 42 1.384 - 0 . 6 0 9 0 . 4 2 3 - 0 . 6 8 5 2 .097 - 1 . 2 0 3 1 . 9 6 1 - 0 . 6 3 5 - 0 . 4 9 6 1 .405 0 .955 1.177 0 .784 1 .434 0 .000 - 0 . 7 8 4 - 1 . 2 9 1 - 0 . 4 5 9 0 .194 43 0 . 1 5 6 - 0 . 1 3 4 0 . 6 1 2 1 . 0 3 9 - 1 . 3 1 9 0 .508 - 1 . 5 6 9 - 0 . 8 5 3 - 0 . 2 0 0 0 .397 - 0 .319 0 .784 - 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 .444 - 0 .920 0 .784 1 .113 - 1 . 1 3 9 - 0 . 2 7 6 44 - 0 . 6 2 3 - 0 . 0 2 1 - 2 . 1 8 1 - 0 . 3 5 4 0 . 0 6 0 1 .803 - 1 . 9 6 1 1 . 1 5 6 - 1 . 4 4 5 - 1 .356 - 0 .920 - 0 . 3 9 2 - 1 . 5 6 9 0 .139 - 0 . 7 4 6 - 1 . 1 7 7 1 .513 - 1 . 3 7 7 - 1 . 4 67 45 - 0 . 1 5 6 1.214 1 .222 1.204 1 .674 - 1 . 1 1 8 2 .253 - 0 . 1 6 0 0 . 7 6 5 0 .677 0 .911 1 .569 - 0 . 7 4 8 - 0 . 8 5 1 1 .185 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 8 3 1 0 . 9 3 6 0 . 6 1 1 46 - 0 . 0 1 0 - 1 . 3 7 9 0 . 1 9 1 - 1 . 8 1 2 0 . 2 5 8 1 .947 - 0 .784 1 . 7 6 1 0 .137 1 .109 - 0 . 8 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 3 9 2 0 .953 - 0 .529 1 . 9 6 1 - 1 . 7 2 1 0 . 6 8 0 - 0 . 6 9 2 47 1 . 5 1 1 - 0 . 1 2 6 1 . 1 3 5 0 . 4 3 1 - 0 . 7 4 4 - 0 . 7 5 8 - 0 .392 0 . 2 0 0 1.264 - 1 .182 0 .612 0 .392 1 .177 - 0 .000 - 0 . 1 3 2 0 .784 0 . 2 3 0 0 . 6 8 0 1.124 48 0 . 1 5 6 0 . 6 6 2 0 . 4 1 8 1 . 8 0 0 - 0 . 0 3 7 - 0 . 2 9 0 1 .177 - 0 . 1 4 3 - 0 . 3 5 6 - 0 .254 0 .585 - 1 . 5 6 9 0 .392 0 .379 0.874 0 . 3 9 2 0 .639 - 0 . 6 9 7 0 .447 49 0 . 7 6 0 0 . 2 0 0 0 . 2 9 0 0 . 6 7 3 - 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 7 6 4 0 .392 - 0 . 6 5 9 - 0 . 4 1 0 - 0 . 4 1 3 - 0 .023 0 .392 - 0 . 3 9 2 - 0 .684 - 2 .238 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 1 5 6 0 .238 - 0 . 3 7 5 APPENDIX G Z-SCORES FOR NINETEEN CLUSTER-ITEM ARRAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 50 0.906 0.186 0.410 1.293 -0.930 -0.362 0.000 -0.908 0.281 0.479 -0.021 1.177 1.177 -0.786 -0.307 0.784 -0.356 0.035 0.662 51 -0.770 1.572 -1.049 0.508 -1.583 -0.299 -0.392 1.013 -0.024 -1.248 -0.026 -0.392 0.392 -0.000 1.624 0.392 1.169 -0.221 -0.605 52 0.312 -0.374 -0.383 0.785 -0.930 0.092 1.177 -1.141 0.068 1.083 -0.352 1.177 1.177 0.102 -0.307 0.392 0.391 -0.715 0.720 53 -1.530 -1.495 0.601 -0.862 1.019 0.977 -0.784 0.691 -0.620 -0.679 -2.024 -2.353 -0.784 0.721 -1.011 -0.392 1.678 -1.651 -1.946 54 1.062 1.200 0.451 -0.862 0.769 -0.506 -0.784 -0.691 -0.634 0.423 -0.019 -1.177 -0.392 0.065 1.931 1.177 -0.905 -0.715 -0.386 55 -1.667 1.648 0.372 -0.773 0.979 -0.091 1.569 0.298 -0.386 0.656 0.605 -1.177 -0.784 1.369 0.439 1.177 -0.548 -1.103 0.433 56 1.384 0.491 1.719 0.519 0.456 -1.499 0.392 0.104 1.869 0.421 -0.196 -0.784 -0.392 0.037 1.360 0.392 -1.765 1.615 1.599 57 1.072 1.833 1.342 2.231 2.450 -1.781 1.961 -0.994 1.563 0.411 1.940 1.961 0.784 -1.979 1.185 1.961 -0.905 2.057 0.799 58 0.302 0.117 0.076 -0.254 -0.160 0.775 -0.784 0.884 -0.693 -0.512 -0.714 0.000 -0.392 -0.342 1.185 0.000 0.813 0.936 -0.021 59 0.604 0.218 1.599 -1.027 1.208 0.488 0.392 1.311 -0.899 2.488 1.313 0.392 0.392 1.332 -0.571 -1.961 0.787 -0.238 -0.200 60 1.355 0.124 2.244 -0.254 -1.065 -0.535 -0.784 -1.759 1.444 -0.026 0.676 0.000 -1.177 0.037 0.794 -0.392 -0.983 0.697 -0.832 61 0.010 0.746 0.082 0.342 0.320 -0.267 0.000 -1.865 1.212 0.254 1.138 0.000 -1.177 -1.914 0.704 1.569 0.374 0.406 0.888 62 -1.520 0.745 -0.834 0.862 -0.503 -0.415 -0.392 -1.328 -0.037 0.141 -0.363 -0.392 -0.392 -0.990 0.572 0.784 0.887 -0.900 -1.362 63 -0.458 -2.296 -0.715 -0.088 -2.218 1.406 -1.177 0.940 -1.814 -2.117 -2.041 -0.392 2.353 1.230 -1.143 -2.353 -0.504 -1.598 -1.472 64 -0.614 -1.287 -0.063 -0.188 0.040 -0.739 0.784 0.459 0.733 0.042 -0.550 -1.961 0.000 -1.027 -0.878 -1.569 -0.957 -0.971 0.997 65 -1.374 -1.177 -1.269 -2.143 -0.681 1.801 1.177 0.392 -1.818 -1.356 -1.158 0.000 1.961 1.091 -1.053 -0.784 0.761 -0.900 -1.864 66 1.218 1.206 0.551 1.812 0.322 -0.631 1.569 -0.762 0.892 0.982 1.331 -0.784 -1.177 -1.813 -0.132 1.569 -1.204 1.354 -0.377 67 -0.770 0.515 -1.738 -0.431 -0.265 0.900 -0.784 1.854 0.261 -0.818 -0.138 0.000 0.784 -0.342 -0.571 0.000 0.778 -0.018 -1.213 68 -0.916 -0.228 -0.620 -1.293 -1.559 0.735 -0.784 0.890 -0.527 -1.159 -0.621 -0.392 1.569 0.444 0.788 1.569 1.100 -0.918 0.188 69 0.458 1.733 0.363 -1.546 1.719 -1.155 0.784 -1.123 0.111 0.785 1.379 -1.177 -0.392 -2.460 0.391 0.392 -1.043 0.697 1.074 70 0.000 0.230 -0.617 1.193 -0.560 -0.017 1.177 0.264 -0.087 0.571 -0.888 -0.392 0.000 -0.102 0.132 -0.392 0.252 -0.680 0.453 71 -0.312 -0.893 0.839 0.342 -0.091 0.572 -0.392 1.511 -0.836 -0.834 -1.267 0.784 -0.784 1.813 -1.101 -0.392 -1.269 -1.359 -1.354 72 -2.436 1.344 0.281 -2.154 -1.991 0.884 0.784 0.266 -2.256 -2.091 -1.111 0.000 0.392 0.065 0.656 0.392 2.373 -1.103 -1.225 73 0.468 -0.168 0.675 0.685 0.816 -0.281 0.784 -0.995 0.971 -0.009 0.572 -0.392 -1.177 0.342 -0.746 0.000 -0.722 0.697 -0.197 N 3 A P P E N D I X G Z - S C O R E S F O R N I N E T E E N C L U S T E R - I T E M A R R A Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 74 -1.072 -0.886 -0.704 1. .116 -0-. Oil -0. 116 -1. ,961 0.563 0.469 -1.553 0.681 0. ,000 -1. ,177 -1. ,165 -0.571 -1.177 -0. ,778 0.918 -0.243 75 0.000 0.917 0.133 -1. .116 0.369 0. ,192 0. ,000 -0.209 0.881 -0.338 0.585 -1. ,177 1. .177 0. ,444 0.572 -0.784 0. .622 -0.883 -0.384 76 0.146 1.044 1.126 0. .608 -0.258 -0. .691 0. .392 -0.874 -0.086 0.959 1.522 0. ,392 0. .392 -0. .546 0.481 1.569 -0. .148 -0.883 0.234 77 -0.448 -0.819 -0.260 -0, .431 -0.509 -1, .314 0, .784 1.139 1.348 -0.726 0.604 -1. .177 1, .177 -0, .786 -0.439 0.000 0, .300 0.715 0.634 78 0.458 0.145 0.276 0, .608 -0.101 -0. .070 -0 .392 -0.017 • 0.436 0.933 -0.383 1, .569 -0, .000 -0, .000 -1.053 -0.392 -0 .391 -0.715 0.994 79 0.760 0.851 1.492 0 .696 1.616 -0 .972 0 .784 -1.302 1.480 1.323 0.900 1 .569 0 .784 '1, .535 1.143 1.177 -1 .826 1.156 1.213 80 -1.355 1.879 -1.558 -1 .204 -0.071 -0 .287 1 .569 0.886 -1.801 -0.098 0.075 -0 .784 -1 .569 1 .535 -1.095 0.000 1 .348 0.018 -0.899 LO 134 APPENDIX H Q-Sort Instructions A Q-sort i s a form of a forced choice r a t i n g system s i m i l a r to the fa m i l i a r f i v e point rating scale. The main differences are many items or statements are compared, a larger number of increments i s used i n the scale, and groups of statements are assigned by the rater to each of the increments i n the scale. Also, the numbers of statements i n each approximately-equal-in-value increment w i l l vary according to a set pattern. Examples of how this w i l l work are given below. In t h i s Q-sort, you w i l l be r a t i n g 80 statements, a l l o c a t i n g each of them to one of the 13 increments ( i d e n t i f i e d by l e t t e r s from A to M), with the number of statements allocated to each increment varying from 1 to 12 to produce an approximately normal d i s t r i b u t i o n pattern that looks l i k e : 135 A B C D 1 2 4 7 X X X X X x: X X X X X X X X most agreeing with my view < E F G H I 9 11 12 11 9 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X n n X X X X X e e X X X X X u u X X X X t t X X X X X r r X X X a a X l x l X X J K L M 7 4 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X most disagreeing with my view Note that each "x" represents one statement on a card that i s i n this Q-sort k i t and the alphanumerics on the top l i n e represent envelopes i n the k i t . Also, each column of "x"'s or statements has been rated to be about the same i n importance by the person doing the comparison and rating. While there may be some v a r i a -tions i n the items i n one column, they are closer to each other than they are to others i n other columns. Most people can complete this Q-sort i n between 30 and 45 minutes. Before you begin you w i l l need a clear, f l a t surface about 45" by 30". A standard desk would be i d e a l . Try to select a time and place where you w i l l not be disturbed. 136 The Q-sort k i t you have received should have two envelopes, one containing 80 cards and another containing thirteen marked small envelopes. The 80 cards w i l l each have a d i f f e r e n t statement on one side and a d i f f e r -ent random, reference number on the other side. Since the numbers are randomly chosen, there i s not any s i g -n i f i c a n t pattern or relationship between the number series and some hidden pattern in the statements. At the top of your table, set out the 13 l e t t e r e d envelopes i n sequence from "A" on the extreme l e f t side to "M" on the extreme r i g h t side (see example on the f i r s t page of these i n s t r u c t i o n s ) . Shuffle the 80 cards and place them sentence-side up i n random order on the table top. As you place each card on the table, read the sentence. When a l l 80 cards are on the table i n f u l l view, spend several minutes glancing over the sentences so you get an o v e r a l l impression of a l l 80 cards. The next step i s to s p l i t the cards into three groups. The 80 statements represent a small sample of the 137 thousands of statements that could be given to describe the a c t i v i t i e s , behaviors, or "style"oof a teaching department i n an i n s t i t u t i o n s i m i l a r to B.C.I.T. You probably have some memories from when you were a student or from observations of a department that you would rate as "good", "so what", or "bad". You probably have some picture of what you would consider to be the " i d e a l teaching department". Your perceptions of the i d e a l department and those of other people may be s i m i l a r or may be quite d i f f e r e n t depending on your frame of ref -erence. The objective of t h i s Q-sort i s to see i f i t i s capable of detecting such s i m i l a r i t i e s or differences in small samples of people. Now back to the Q-sort d e t a i l s . Look over the 80 cards and select about 25 state-ments you f e e l would most l i k e l y be associated with what you would l a b e l "The Ideal Teaching Department at B.C.I.T.". Set that p i l e aside. Select another approximately 25 cards having statements that would be least l i k e l y to be found i n your "Ideal Department". The remaining approximately 30 cards should have those statements for which you have no strong opinion for or against i . e . you are somewhat neutral. 138 Take the "most l i k e l y " p i l e and spread the cards out again. Read the statements again f a i r l y quickly. Select the one statement you f e e l i s the most important of . a l l those given. Place that card, statement side up, d i r e c t l y under the envelope "A". Note that the numbers on the envelopes correspond to the numbers of cards that w i l l be placed below each of the envelopes as sorting proceeds. See the example on page 1 of these ins t r u c t i o n s . Even i f you f e e l there are several cards of nearly equal importance, you must choose one as the most important. Now, go back to the displayed cards and draw, i n descending order of importance, f i r s t 2, then 4, then 7, and then 9 cards. Place those cards under the appropriate envelopes i . e . 2 under B, 4 under C, 7 under D, and 9 under E. Any l e f t over cards go on the "neutral" p i l e for now. Take the "l e a s t l i k e l y " cards and spread them out just as you did for the "most l i k e l y " p i l e . Select the one statement that i s the least l i k e l y of a l l those there or the one that you disagree most strongly with. Place i t beneath the "M" envelope. Then i n sequence, select i n descending order of disagreement 2, then 4, then 7, and then 9 cards. Place them i n columns under the matching 139 envelopes, i . e . the 2 under the "L", etc. Any l e f t overs go on the remaining p i l e of unused cards. Spread out the remaining cards and select 11 with which you agree somewhat as belonging to the "Ideal Department" and place them below envelope "F". Select 11 you disagree with belonging to the "Ideal Department" and place them under "H". You should now have 12 cards l e f t over that you are mostly undecided about or are neutral. Place these under "G". What you should have i s a d i s t r i b u t i o n that i s i d e n t i c a l to that shown on page 1 of these i n s t r u c t i o n s . The column on the far l e f t , under "A", has the statement you most agree with as belonging to your "Ideal Department" moving to the r i g h t with decreasing amounts of agreement as you move' from column to column. The middle i s neutral at "G" and disagreement r i s e s the farther to the r i g h t you move. The maximum disagreement i s at the extreme ri g h t , at "M". The f i n a l step i n the sorting i s to reconsider any choice you have made. I f you f e e l you have made any incorrect choices, s h i f t cards around as much as you wish as long as the numbers i n each column remain i n the 140 pattern given on the envelopes. As soon as you f e e l you have made the f i n a l choice, c o l l e c t the cards beneath each envelope and place them i n their respective envelopes, i . e . a l l 7 cards under envelope " J " are placed inside " J " . Seal the envelopes so that cards cannot come out and be mixed together again. Place the sealed envelopes i n the o r i g i n a l large 8% x 11 envelope. The f i n a l step i s to give me some information on your background and your place i n the B.C.I.T. organ-i z a t i o n . There i s a short questionnaire enclosed. Please f i l l i t i n and place i t i n the envelope. Seal the envelope and readdress i t to me and leave i t i n my mailbox i n the mailroom or c a l l me to pick i t up. I f you have any questions, please c a l l me at l o c a l 406 or at home at XYZ-ABCD. (Number deleted for publication.) When the re s u l t s are compiled within the next few weeks, I w i l l be pleased to discuss them with anyone interested. Your responses w i l l be revealed only to yourself unless you permit otherwise. 141 Thank you. Your cooperation i s much appreciat Please c a l l on me i f you ever become i n v o l v e d i n a s i m i l a r venture and I can be of any a s s i s t a n c e . High Pr ior i ty 2 ( J 1 OA 0 0 -1 0 Low "2 0 P r i o r i t y —I— 60 T to L e g e n d Type A Type B mmsmmmm Type C I J 42 — i — 80 72 14 i 61 — i 54 Items — i 29 i 55 51 - r -25 79 Figure 1. Items d i s c r i m i n a t i n g among the three Types High P r i o r i t y 2 OH 1 . 0 -o.o-I - 1 . 0 H Low -2.0H Pr ior i ty ~ ~ i — 12 53 22 —r-71 23 36 Figure 1 (continued) L e g e n d T y p e C I • 1 1 1 1 1 T" 64 66 48 45 40 18 Items High Pr io r i t y 2.CH 1.CH 0-0-1.0H L o w - 2 - ° P r i o r i t y 19 54 Figure 1 (continued) L e g e n d T y p e B i _ _ T y p e C I 1 Items A g r e e Liberal C o n s e r v a t i v e Depar tment Centred F i g u r e 2 S t u d e n t Cent red Loading p a t t e r n s among Groups by independent v a r i a b l e s . Agree 2.0 1-0H 0-0--1.0H •2.0-1 Disagree real L e g e n d G r o u p 1 G r o u p 2 G r o u p 3 G r o u p 4 G r o u p .5 G r o u p 6 nr. BBfusmsi IIlIIIHllIIIIlili Plan R e s e a r c h I ns t ruct Eva luate R e v i s e Figure 2 (continued) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055789/manifest

Comment

Related Items