A Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Academic Department Chairperson

Transcription

1 Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College A Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Academic Department Chairperson Stanley Lawrence Coleman Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons Recommended Citation Coleman, Stanley Lawrence, "A Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Academic Department Chairperson" (1982). Dissertations This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.

2 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON by Stanley Lawrence Coleman A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Department of Educational Leadership Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan December 1982

3 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON Stanley Lawrence Coleman, Ed.D. Western Michigan U niversity, 1982 The purpose of th is study was to evaluate the effects of c o lle c tiv e bargaining and the incumbent's bargaining unit a f f ilia t io n on the role of the academic department chairperson. A questionnaire, designed to measure perceptions of the chairperson's ro le, was administered to a sample of 1A8 chairpersons from 10 mid-sized public in s titu tio n s. Using the data contained in the returned questionnaires, comparisons were made between chairpersons' responses grouped according to th e ir inclusion in or exclusion from th e ir fa c u ltie s ' c o lle c tiv e bargaining unit a f f ilia t io n on three aspects of the chairperson's role. These three aspects, and the data analysis procedures employed to evaluate them, were: 1. Expectations held for the chairperson's role ( i. e., functioning as e ith e r a faculty or administration representative), evaluated by using two-way analysis of variance procedures. 2. Role functions performed by the incumbents, evaluated by using two-way analysis of variance procedures. 3. The extent of the chairperson's influence with the faculty and with the dean, evaluated by using independent^ tests. A fourth aspect of the ro le, pertaining to the id e n tifica tio n of the decision-making loci on matters of department governance, was evaluated by subjectively analyzing the faculty c o lle c tiv e bargaining

4 contracts from the 10 universities included in the sample. Based on the analysis of the data, the follow ing conclusions were drawn: 1. Expectations that chairpersons hold for th e ir role are not sign ific a n tly affected by the c o lle c tiv e bargaining process or bargaining unit a f f i 1ia t ion. 2. The perceived importance attached to chairperson role functions is s ig n ific a n tly affected by c o lle c tiv e bargaining but not by a f f i l i a tion. 3. The chairperson's perceived influence with the dean and the faculty is not s ig n ific a n tly affected by a f f ilia t io n. 4. Decision-making loci on matters of department governance do not appear to be affected by a f f ilia t io n. 5. Regardless o f a f f ilia t io n, chairpersons appear to perceive themselves as faculty members and representatives rather than as administrators. Based on the data and the conclusions of the study, i t was recommended th at in order to reduce co n flicts among the expectations that adm inistrators, incumbents, and facu lty hold for the chairperson's role the role should be thoroughly and form ally defined, specially when universities negotiate new or renegotiate existing faculty c o lle c tive bargaining contracts.

5 INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or target for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is Missing Page(s). I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of sectioning the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Micrcxilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

6

7 Coleman, Stanley Lawrence A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON Western Michigan University Ed.D University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

8

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to a ll those individuals who have assisted and supported me in the development and completion of this study. In ad ditio n, special appreciation is given to: My Doctoral Committee, Dr. Harold W. Boles (Chairperson), Dr. Jack Asher and Dr. James A. Davenport, fo r th e ir guidance, encour agement and assistance. My parents, Neil and Louise Coleman, fo r th e ir support and love. My children, Melinda, J e ff, and Mark, fo r the time I had to take from them. F in a lly, to my w ife Jeanette, whose encouragement, understanding and patience can only be fu lly appreciated by me, goes my deepest gratitude. Stanley Lawrence Coleman

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... LIST OF TABLES... LIST OF FIG U R E S... Page ii vi ix Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND... 1 Problem Statement... 2 Purpose and Hypotheses... 3 Significance of the Study... k Assumptions... 5 Lim itations... 6 D efinitions of Terms... 6 Organization of the Dissertation... 7 I I. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE... 9 The Academic Department The Evolution of the Academic Department The Functions of the Academic Department C ollective Bargaining The History of C ollective Bargaining in Higher Education Why Faculties Form Bargaining Units... 2k Effects of C ollective Bargaining on Academic Governance The Role of the Department C h a ir p e r s o n The Chairperson's Role Previous Studies The Department Chairperson as an Educational L e a d e r... kk Role A c tiv itie s of the C h airp erso n... 5k The Chairperson and C ollective Bargaining Composition of the Faculty Bargaining Unit i i i

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued Page The Chairperson and the Labor Relations Boards The Effects of C ollective Bargaining on the Chairperson's R o le Summary DESIGN OF THE STUDY Population and Sample In stru m en tatio n Methodology Analysis of D a t a IV. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY Representativeness of Respondents Chairperson Role Expectations Role Expectations: Bargaining Unit A ffilia tio n across REAL/1 D E A L Role Expectations: Years of Experience across REAL/1 DEAL Role Expectations: Bargaining Unit A ffilia tio n across Years of Experience Chairperson Role Functions Role Functions: Bargaining Unit A ff ilia tio n across REAL/1 D E A L Role Functions: Years of Experience across REAL/1 DEAL Role Functions: Bargaining Unit A ffilia tio n across Years of Experience Chairperson Influence Chairperson Influence with the D e a n Chairperson Influence with Department Faculty M e m b e rs Decision-Making Patterns Formal Grievance Procedures Faculty Evaluations Faculty Promotion, Appointment and Reappointment T e n u re Sabbaticals iv

12 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Concluded Page Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the S t u d y Conclusions Chairperson Role Expectations Chairperson Role Functions Chairperson Influence Decision-Making L o c i Recommendations APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX E BIBLIOGRAPHY v

13 LIST OF TABLES T a b le Page 1. Chairperson Role A c tiv itie s Directed Toward the Goal of In n o v a tin g Chairperson Role A c tiv itie s Directed Toward the Goal of Need Satisfaction > Chairperson Role A c tiv itie s Directed Toward the Goal of P r o d u c tiv ity Chairperson Role A c tiv itie s Directed Toward the Goal of Organizational Maintenance * D istribu tion of Questionnaires Issued and Responses Received and Used, by University... Sk 6. D istrib u tio n of Questionnaires Issued and Responses Received and Used, by Department Role Expectations - Summary and Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance fo r Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A ffilia tio n across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons with less than 6 years Adm inistrative Experience Role Expectations - Summary and Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance fo r Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A ff ilia tio n across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons with 6 or more Years Adm inistrative Experience Role Expectations - Summary and Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance fo r Chairperson's Years of Experience across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons in the Bargaining Unit (CP IN) Role Expectations - Summary and Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance fo r Chairperson's Years of Experience across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons Excluded from the Bargaining Unit (CP O U T ) * Role Expectations - Summary and Analysis of Variance for Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A ffilia tio n across Years of Experience: REAL D im e n s io n...10a 12. Role Expectations - Summary and Analysis of Variance fo r Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A ffilia tio n across Years of Experience: IDEAL Dimension Rank Order of I terns Pertaining to Role Expectations Based on Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A ffilia tio n across the REAL/IDEAL Dimensions vi

14 LIST OF TABLES, Continued Tabl e 14. Role Functions - Summary of Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance fo r Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A f f i l i a tion across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons with less than 6 Years Adm inistrative Experience Role Functions - Summary of Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance fo r Individual Items fo r Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A ff ilia tio n across REAL/1 DEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons with less than 6 years Experience. 16. Role Functions - Summary and Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance for Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A f f i l i a tion across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons with 6 or more Years Adm inistrative Experience Role Functions - Summary and Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance fo r Chairperson's Years of Experience across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons in the Bargaining Unit (CP IN) Role Functions - Summary of Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance fo r Individual Items for Chairperson's Years of Experience across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons in the Bargaining Unit (CP IN) - Source of Variance: Years of Experience (0 5 vs 6+) Role Functions - Summary of Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance fo r Individual Items for Chairperson's Years of Experience across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons in the Bargaining Unit (CP IN) - Source of Variance: Dimensions (REAL vs. IDEAL) Role Functions - Summary and Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance for Chairperson's Years of Experience across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons Excluded from the Bargaining Unit (CP OUT) Role Functions - Summary of Repeated-Measures Analysis of Variance for Individual Items for Chairperson's Years of Experience across REAL/IDEAL Dimensions: Chairpersons Excluded from the Bargaining Unit (CP OUT). 22. Role Functions - Summary and Analysis of Variance for Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A ff ilia tio n across Years of Experience: REAL Dimension... Page Role Functions - Summary and Analysis of Variance for Individual Items for Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A ff ilia tio n across Years of Experience: REAL dimension. 125 v ii

15 LIST OF TABLES, Concluded T a b le Page 2k. Role Functions - Summary and Analysis of Variance for Chairperson's Bargaining Unit A ff ilia tio n across Years of Experience: IDEAL Dimension Rank Order of Items Pertaining to Role Functions Based on Chairperson Bargaining Unit A ffilia tio n across the REAL/1 DEAL D im e n s io n Summary of Independent J^-Test Results on I terns Pertaining to Chairperson Influence w ith the Dean Summary of Independerit t^-test Results of Items Pertaining to Chairperson Influence w ith Department Faculty Rank Order of I terns Pertaining to the Chairperson's Influence with the Dean and Faculty Members Based on Bargaining Unit A ff ilia tio n vi i i

16 LIST OF FIGURES F ig u re Page 1. Roles, Major Actions and Goals of the Leadership P ro ce s s Two-way Analysis o f Variance Model ix

17 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND In the last two decades, many demands have been placed on our in stitu tio n s of higher education. Students have demanded relevance in th e ir courses. Legislatures have demanded accountabi1ity and fru g a lity. Faculty have demanded a greater voice in the governance of th e ir in s titu tio n s. Our culture has demanded knowledge through research and graduates capable not only o f functioning but also of leading in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world. Upper-level academic adm inistrators, such as the president and vice-presidents, have become more and more involved in a c tiv itie s that are not d ire c tly related to teaching. D ille y (1972) stated that "a recent study of governance in higher education estimates that as l i t tle as 18% of a president's time is given to educational leadership. The figure may well be high" (p. 28). Corson (1960) asserted that the "re sp o n sib ility for decision making in the central areas of educational governance is being entrusted, not by design but by the pressure of events, to the deans and the department heads" (p. 95). But as D ille y pointed out, with the increasing s ize, complexity and sp ecialization o f the in s titu tio n, "the dean lias been reduced p r i m arily to managerial status in larger in s titu tio n s, and often his area of authority is too fragmentized to be managed" (p. 28). At the same time, faculty members have, for a varie ty of reasons, started to assert th e ir c o lle c tiv e influence on governance matters. This 1

18 2 influence is being exerted by conventional methods such as fa c u lty senates and c o lle g ia l structures, and, w ith increasing frequency, through the newer method o f c o lle c tive bargaining. Heimler (1972) summarized the situ atio n when he stated that the d ecentralizatio n of decision-making authority in American colleges and the rising influence of facu lty members in the formulation of in s titu tio n a l policy have led to a rearrangement of the academic power structure. The departments and departmental chairmen are coming out ahead, (p. 198) Problem Statement The college departmental chairman bears major authority and re sp o n s ib ility in the management of American colleges. He is the key factor in the formulation and implementatio n o f educational p o licie s, both as a facu lty leader and as an adm inistrative o ffic e r. (Heimler, p. 207) Increases in authority and resp o n sib ility make the chairperson's role an increasingly important one. Unfortunately, th is increase in importance has not led to a c la rific a tio n o f the ro le. As Brann (1972) succinctly put i t, the chairperson "is the foreman in higher education the person who sees that the work gets done. I t is a d if f ic u lt and ambiguous ro le, and so ill-d e fin e d that at many colleges no description o f his duties appears on paper" (p. 5 ). Smart and Elton (1976) concurred, and suggested that these problems (ambiguity and i 11 -d e fin itio n ) are compounded by the fact that a review of pertin ent lite ra tu r e reveals that there is a general absence of theory regarding the chairperson's role. These three problems are fu rth e r complicated by the advent o f the c o lle c tiv e bargaining movement on campus. Faculty bargaining units are

19 demanding a voice often a strong one on matters of academic governance that had previously been the responsibility of administrators from the chairperson up to the board of trustees. In addition, on those campuses with established bargaining units, the chairperson may be e ith er included in or excluded from membership in that u n it. As Harrington (1977) asks, "are chairmen adm inistrative agents, chosen outside the department and responsible for enforcing rules on members of the department? Or are they fu ll professorial colleagues, e n title d to p articip atio n as such" (p. 59)? Purpose and Hypotheses The purpose of th is study was to examine the role of the academic department chairperson by describing a paradigm on which to base the role and by providing a delineation of the role functions performed; also to examine the effe c ts of c o lle c tiv e bargaining and bargaining unit placement on the incumbent's performance of the role. The objectives concerning the effects of c o lle c tiv e bargaining and bargaining unit placement on the chairperson's role were evaluated by performing a comparative analysis of the perceptions of incumbents at 10 mid-sized public u n iversities located in various parts of the United States. Chairpersons at fiv e of these u n iversities are members of th e ir fa c u ltie s ' bargaining units w hile th e ir counterparts at the other fiv e u n iversities are excluded from such membership. This analysis was performed by evaluating chairpersons' perceptions of various aspects of th e ir roles using the following hypotheses. 1. Expectations fo r the chairperson's role w ill vary between

20 incumbents depending on th e ir membership status w ith th e ir in s titu tio n 's faculty bargaining u n it. 2. The importance o f selected chairperson role functions w ill vary between incumbents depending on th e ir membership status with thei in s titu tio n 's facu lty bargaining unit. 3. The chairperson's influence with faculty members and with administrators w ill vary between incumbents depending on th e ir membership status with th e ir in s titu tio n 's faculty bargaining u n it. k. Decision-making patterns on matters o f department governance w ill vary between in s titu tio n s depending on the department chairperson's membership status w ith the in s titu tio n 's faculty bargaining unit Significance of the Study Department chairmen occupy a pivotal role in the adminis tra tiv e processes o f postsecondary in s titu tio n s.... They stand in the sensitive area between an educational system that is continually under pressure for e ffic ie n t management and a learning environment whose members search for tru th and meaning and desire great freedom and f le x i b i l i t y. Notwithstanding recent research on faculty... knowledge about the roles o f chairmen has hardly progressed beyond the anecdotal state. (Smart 6 Elton, 1976, p. k2) I t would appear that a complete description o f the chairperson's role, one that is based on an underlying model or theory, has never been organized. Various generalized lis ts of chairperson functions and a c tiv itie s are ava ilab le, but the categorization of these functions and a c tiv itie s in relatio n to various organizational goals has not occurred. Describing a basic role model, delineating the role functions, and relatin g these functions to the various goals pursued

21 by educational in s titu tio n s should provide valuable information on what the chairperson's role is. The c o lle c tiv e bargaining movement in higher education has become a major factor in matters of academic governance. However, the e ffects of c o lle c tiv e bargaining on the roles of academic administrators are not well understood. Peterson (1976) indicated that research is needed on the effects o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining on the chairperson and the academic department (p. 32). Mortimer and McConnell (1978) strongly suggested that a subject for future research should be "whether inclusion o f department chairmen in the bargaining unit or th e ir exclusion from i t w ill s ig n ific a n tly a ffe c t th e ir role" (p. 67)- Researching the effects of c o lle c tiv e bargaining and bargaining unit placement on the chairperson's role should provide a better understanding o f how the role is performed. i t is hoped that the conclusions and recommendations of this study w ill prove useful to educational in stitu tio n s and faculty bargaining units in establishing guidelines for the department chairperson's role under conditions o f co lle c tive bargaining. Assumptions 1. The chairperson's role is a crucial one in higher education. 2. Chairpersons are able to accurately describe (perceive) th e ir own p a rticu la r roles w ithin th e ir in s titu tio n s. 3. The chairperson's role is poorly defined and understood at the present time. k. C o llective bargaining w ill become even more commonplace in

22 the fu tu re, and its occurrence w ill have effects on the chairperson's role. Limi ta t ions This study has at least the following lim itatio n s. 1. Ten in s titu tio n s were compared, but only chairpersons were surveyed in th is e ffo rt to evaluate the chairperson's role. 2. Other schools, and other types of schools, such as community colleges, professional schools, or very large or very small schools, might well have d iffe re n t roles delineated fo r th e ir chairpersons. 3. Other groups and individuals, especially facu lty and higherechelon adm inistrators, might perceive the chairperson's role d if f e r ently than the role incumbent does. k. As time passes, the chairperson's role under conditions of c o lle c tiv e bargaining might change. D efinitions of Terms In an e ffo r t to provide continuity and to promote understanding of certain terms, the following d efin itio n s are provided. 1. A uthority. Authority is the "relationship which exists when one person (a) ra tio n a lly legitim izes another individual or a group to make decisions or take actions that a ffe c t him or her, or (b) recog - nizes in another a s k ill or knowledge that he/she does not possess" (Boles & Davenport, 1975, p. ^23). 2. Chai rperson. A chairperson is a member of the departmental facu lty selected to coordinate the a c tiv itie s of the department.

23 7 3. Department. A department is a "community of scholars engaged in an organized program of research and teaching in a single, c le a rly defined fie ld o f knowledge" (Euwema, cited in Augon, 1977, p. 8 ). 4. 1n f1uence. Influence is "a relationship in which one in d iv i dual a ffe c ts the thoughts or a ttitu d es of another. The e ffe c t often is manifest in actions" (Boles S Davenport, p. 425). 5. Perception. Perception is "the in terp retatio n given to r e a lity by an individual" (Boles & Davenport, p. 426). 6. Power. Power is a "re la tio n s h ip in which one in dividual has the c a p a b ility to apply sanctions to another" (Boles & Davenport, p. 426). 7. Role. A role is "the to tal of expectations held by members of a social system fo r an individual w ithin that system" (Boles & Davenport, p. 426). Organization o f the D issertation Provided in Chapter I is an in trodu ction to the study. A statement o f the problem, the purpose o f the study and hypotheses, the s ig n if i cance o f the study, assumptions, lim ita tio n s, d e fin itio n o f terms, and the organization o f the study are provided. Provided in Chapter II is a review o f the relevant lite ra tu re. This chapter is divided in to four main sections reviewing the topics o f: academic departments; c o lle c tiv e bargaining; the role o f the department chairperson; and the chairperson and c o lle c tiv e bargaining. Presented in Chapter I I I is the design o f the study. Included are descriptions o f the population and sample used, the construction

24 of the instrument, the method of data c o lle c tio n, and the techniques used to analyze the data. Presented in Chapter IV are the findings of the study. Provided in Chapter V are a summary, some conclusions, and some implications of the study.

25 CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE The purpose o f th is study was to perform a comparative analysis o f the department chairperson's ro le. S p e c ific a lly, i t was to provide a meaningful delineation o f the chairperson's role functions, and to determine whether the chairperson's status w ith the fa c u lty bargaining u n it a ffe c ts h is/h e r role perception. While there are numerous studies and a r tic le s on the chairperson's ro le, there appear to be none that examine the e ffe cts o f inclusion in o r exclusion from the fa c u lty bargaining u n it on how th a t ro le is perceived. In a d d itio n, w hile there are many lis ts describing the chairperson's role functions, none o f these lis t s appears to be based on a s p e c ific model th a t might be used to describe that role at an abstract o r th eoretical le v e l. This study was designed to address those two concerns. In order to analyze the chairperson's ro le, i t was f i r s t necessary to examine, in part at le a st, the social system in which the role e x is ts. This was accomplished by studying the environment in which the role is performed the academic department, and by studying a major variable in that environment c o lle c tiv e bargaining. Presented in th is chapter is a review of the relevant lite ra tu r e on the role o f the chairperson, and on the social system in which that role e x is ts. I t is divided into four major sections: (a) the academic department; (b) c o lle c tiv e bargaining; (c) the role and functions of the department chairperson; and (d) the chairperson and c o lle c tiv e 9

26 10 bargaining. The Academic Department In order to examine the role of the chairperson, i t was f i r s t necessary to gain an understanding of the social system in which that role e x is ts the academic department. What is the academic department? Trow (1977) provided the following description: The academic department is the central, building block... of the American un iversity.... I t is not fa r wrong to think of the university as a kind of adm inistrative arrangement fo r supporting and coordinating the a c tiv itie s of f i f t y to one hundred re la tiv e ly autonomous departments, (p. 12) The academic department is the central lin k between the u niversity and the d is c ip lin e, that is to say, between an organized body of learning a body of knowledge and ch ara c te ris tic ways of extending knowledge and the in s titu tio n in which teaching and learning occur. (p. 13) Corson (1960) concurred, stating: As the basic unit of the adm inistrative structure, departments have the power to in itia t e most actions that a ffe c t the basic function of the in s titu tio n. They have the opportunity, and in some in s titu tio n s, almost exclusive authority to propose changes in courses and c u rric u la, to propose the selection or promotion of facu lty members, and to suggest changes in conditions a ffectin g the student in the classroom.... A t the same time, they form the basic units which u ltim ately carry out, properly or inadequately, the policies of the in s titu tio n, (p. 92) Andersen (1977) echoed these sentiments, and added: No adm inistrative unit w ithin the college or university has been so important, misunderstood, and maligned as the academic department... [however] departm entalization has played a dominant role in the evolution of higher education, (p. 1) [The department is] the basic adm inistrative unit

27 of the college, housing a community of scholars that is re la tiv e ly autonomous and responsible fo r instruction and research w ithin a specialized fie ld of knowledge. (p. 2) Other authors (Anderson, 1976; H ill & French, 1971; Kemerer & Baldridge, 1975; McHenry & Associates, 1977) noted that the department is both the center or heart of the u n iversity, and the locus of much of the important decision making being done on campus. Trow (1977) summed i t up nicely when he stated: The academic department remains the central organizational unit of American universities... and i t must be given much of the c re d it fo r the extraordinary success of American higher education over the past century in extending both educational opportunities and the fro n tie rs of knowledge. (p. 33) Few individuals would argue that the academic department is not here to stay. The department is the central part of the social system in which the chairperson functions. Information on both the evolution and the functions of the department provide a background fo r the examination of the chairperson's role. The Evolution of the Academic Department By the end of the Middle Ages in d iffe re n t parts of Europe, p a ra lle ls of the modern department can be discerned in the beginnings of the specializatio n of knowledge and professional schools. Masters grouped themselves, spontaneously at f i r s t, into re la tiv e ly autonomous facu lties... w i t h respons ib ilit y fo r setting standards fo r th e ir own degree. (Andersen, 1977> P- 4) In the American Colonies, discrete units sim ilar to departments were observed as early as 1739 at Harvard College. Andersen, c itin g J. Quincy's 1840 work, The History of Harvard U n iversity, noted that these "departments" were being pressured by an overzealous Board

28 12 of Overseers who had encroached on departmental prerogatives. "By 1767, Harvard had four departments" (Andersen, p. 3 ). Dressel, Johnson, and Marcus (1970) noted that in 1823 Harvard was reorganized into six departments a fte r a "student rebellion" (p. 3)* Andersen continued by noting that the University of V irg in ia, on the recommendation of Thomas Jefferson, established eight departments: In 1824, a committee of seven persons... presaged the modern department by recommending that professors and tutors be divided into separate departments, each embracing analogous studies and having a professor at its head responsible fo r the d irection of studies, instructors, and students, (p. 3) In 1826, the University of Vermont followed su it by establishing four departments. As Trow (1977) pointed out, however, the academic department as we know i t today is a re la tiv e ly recent development. Based on the model of the German u n iversity, to which American students had been going for advanced studies since early in the nineteenth century, "the academic department arose w ith the emergence of graduate education and the research-oriented university in the last three decades of the nineteenth century" (p. 13). Dressel et a l. (1970) were more specific; they placed the time of s o lid ific a tio n of departments into th e ir present form as Harvard again led the way, followed shortly by Cornell, John Hopkins, Columbia, Yale, Princeton, and the University of Chicago. P rio r to the 1890's, departmental structure bore l i t t l e resemblance to the structure of the present day department. "Usually there was but one professor or chair to a department, and a varying number of lesser lights whose a c tiv itie s and careers were dominated by the

29 13 professor" (Dressel et a l., 1970, p. k). The c o lleg ial aspect of today's department had yet to appear; instead, the department "was an extension of the sphere of the single professor of a given subject. He had assistants to help his teaching and research, but they worked fo r him and under him" (Epstein, 197*«, p. 129). Dressel et a l. pointed out that our current academic rank system came into being in the 1890's, and was the result of the factors that influenced the evolution of the department into its present form. There were several important factors that led to the development of the modern-day department. What shaped the American academic department was largely the development and the formation of a new university structure in th is country. In the last h a lf of the nineteenth century, the growth of knowledge broke the boundaries of the old classical c u r r i culum and led to a specializatio n in scholarship.... the emergence of specialized disciplines coincided with the growth in size of American u n iversities. (Trow, 1977, P- 1*0 Other authors, notably Andersen (1977), Corson (1960), Dressel et a l. (1970), and Shoben.(1972) agreed that the primary factors that in flu enced the development of the modern department were the increasing amount and complexity of knowledge and the increasing student e n ro llments. The increase in the scope and extent of man's knowledge made i t impossible for one professor to teach a ll the subjects being offered by the in s titu tio n. The increasing enrollments meant that more than one professor was required to teach the courses offered w ithin a single d is c ip lin e. Andersen (1977, p. 3) suggested th at, because of these two factors, departm entalization became a "necessity." These same two factors also led to changes in the structure of

30 the American university. The growing number of students, coupled with the increasing number and d iv e rs ity of academic disciplines resulted in an increase in the size and the complexity of the university. growth led to changes in the role of the university president. This She/he was no longer able to hire a ll the s ta ff or define and develop a ll the c u rricu la. The department was granted increasing.amounts of autonomy "as higher-level administrators seemed to believe that departmental technical matters could best be handled by experts or leaders in the departments involved" (Aguon, 1977, pp ). The academic department, then, became "as much an organizational as an in te lle c tu a l necess ity, an e ffic ie n t unit fo r making decisions about the curriculum, student careers, and the appointments and promotions of s ta ff" (Trow, 1977, p. 15). In e ffe c t, the change in the u n iversity's structure, including the development of the modern academic department, was accompanied by a decentralization o f decision-making a c tiv ity in the univers ity. As Heimler (1972, p. 198) noted, "with the growth in size of in s titu tio n s, the number of facu lty members has increased so substant i a l l y, and departmental budgets have become so large... that enormous power resides in the departments." The department has both strong points and weak points. Among the weak points are those id e n tified by Dressel et a l. (1970). They noted that the department: may develop and pursue goals not espoused by the u niversity; may not be an e ffic ie n t structure in a small college or u n iversity, or i f the d is cip lin e is being taught by a small number of facu lty; may demand too much specialization among the fa c u lty, espec ia lly i f the program(s) offered are complex or at the doctoral level;

31 15 and may become isolated from the rest of the u n iversity. Corson (1960) noted that the department may become "a bastion of the status quo, in opposition to any creative educational leadership" (p. 93). Trow (1977) suggested that the department may not be the best structure for promoting a lib era l and unspecialized undergraduate education, because departments are specialized and there is re la tiv e ly l i t t l e crossf e r tiliz a tio n of ideas between d is cip lin es. Andersen (1977, PP- 8-9) acknowledged these and other disadvantages, but believed that the advantages of the current departmental structure are more important. S p e c ific a lly, he id e n tifie d fiv e major advantages: (a) the department is the most suitab le vehicle fo r the development, preservation, and transmission of knowledge; (b) the department is characterized by formal sim p licity and a c le a rly defined hierarchy of authority ; (c) the department provides a setting where facu lty members can work and interact with th e ir peers with a "minimum of misunderstanding and superfluous e ffo rt" ; (d) the department is able to interact more e ffic ie n tly and e ffe c tiv e ly with the university organization than is the individual professor; and (e) the evaluation and promotion of facu l ty members is best accomplished by one's peers. Andersen (1977) concluded' by stating "we should respect the department as v ir tu a lly the last remnant of the community of scholars in an organization so complex as to necessitate many bureaucratic practices" (p. 11). The preceding was a b rie f description o f the evolution of the academic department. Trow (1977) summarized by stating: Today, as in its orig in s, the department is an arm of a specialized d iscip lin e... as well as the administrativ e unit that leg itim ately applies the resources i t receives from the university to perform its assigned tasks, (p. 15)

32 16 The Functions of the Academic Department Iden tifyin g the functions of the academic department provides a sound basis fo r analyzing the role and functions of the department chairperson. The chairperson performs the role in the social system of the department, and the incumbent's actions are geared toward the achievement of departmental objectives. Scheufler (1973, p. 1) stated that "the predominate a c tiv ity of an educational in s titu tio n takes place at the level of in s tru ctio n," i. e., the department. Trow (1977, pp. 15 f f ) id e n tified and provided a detailed description of four primary functions performed by the department. 1. The most important function of the department, as seen by Trow, is graduate education. The department determines the curriculum, chooses the candidates, teaches them the s k ills and knowledge of the d is c ip lin e, and shapes th e ir values about the d isciplines and the world. He stated: The so cia liza tio n of graduate students into a structure of values, a ttitu d e s, and ways of thinking and feelin g is perhaps the most important single function that departments perform.... The chief work of the univ ers ity department is preparing... the next generation of scholars and s c ie n tis ts, (p. 15) Trow continued by id entifying two components of th is function. F irs t, the student must be allowed to acquire competence in the d is c ip lin e ; second, the student must become able to do creative research independently. This function was also id e n tified as being of prime importance by Dressel et a l. (1970) and by McLaughlin, Montgomery, and Mai pass (1975).

33 17 2. Self-perpetuation is a function performed by the department. The recruitm ent, selection, evaluation, and promotion of facu lty members takes place prim arily at the departmental lev e l. 3. Research a c tiv itie s w ithin the d is c ip lin e are centered in the department. "Graduate university department? are commonly seen as existing largely to fu rth er the creation of knowledge through scholarship and research" (Trow, p. 20). The importance of research increased a fte r World War I I, when the federal government increased its financial support of research a c tiv itie s. This increase in funds strengthened both the department as a whole and the individual professor. k. Undergraduate education is another primary function of the department. McLaughlin et a l. (1975, p. 2A6) stated that one departmental "goal concerns graduating a well-versed student with a balanced education." Dressel et a l. (1970) id e n tified the instruction and the advisement of undergraduate students as important aspects of departmental a c tiv itie s. Roach (1976, p. 21) concurred, and noted that the development of programs and courses that "re s u lt in the educational growth o f the student" is a primary objective o f the department. Not only are additional departmental functions id e n tifia b le, but d iffe re n t departments w ill emphasize d iffe re n t functions. Smart and McLaughlin (cited in Smart, 1976) suggested that wide variations exist in the emphasis that departments place on th e ir own goals. For example, psychology and sociology departments might emphasize graduate education and research, w hile applied science departments, such as engineering and home economics, might be more a tte n tiv e to undergraduate education a c tiv itie s. Other departmental functions include

34 curriculum development and change, promotion of the d iscip lin e w ithin the university, exploration of the interfaces between d isciplines, and consultation a c tiv itie s with business and government. In addition to these functions, which may vary from department to department and which relate to the goals of the u n iversity, the department has other functions which help define the relationship between the individual facu lty member and the university organization. Andersen (1977) suggested that the department provides the facu lty member with protection from outside interference i t assures the facu lty member of a minimum of constraints, and in e ffe c t promotes academic fre e dom. The department also serves as a vehicle fo r facu lty members to exercise c o lle c tiv e influence. Ryan (1972, p. 46*0 stated "the academic department is a major avenue through which facu lty members in large u n iversities influence decisions." Epstein (1974, p. 126) concurred, suggesting that "the department asserts the... power fo r its professors to make co lleg ial decisions w ithin an academic fie ld." In summarizing th is b rie f review of the evolution and functions of the academic department, a quotation from Shoben (1972) said it best: A symbolic confession of the breakdown of the unity of knowledge, the department grew out of an interaction between professional yearnings and the necessity of clustering specialists of generally s im ilar persuasions in some manageable fashion. On the one hand i t provided the mechanism for ordering an otherwise unwieldy number of academic professionals into a reasonably systematic framework of university operation and governance; on the other, it defined the formal vehicle by which chemists, fo r instance, could express th e ir status and th e ir aspirations, (p. 83) The next section of this chapter reviews a major variable a ffe c t ing the role of the chairperson c o lle c tiv e bargaining.

35 19 C ollective Bargaining On campus, the 1970's were characterized by increasing faculty m ilitancy and organization. Unlike mi 1itan t a c tiv itie s by students in the 1960' s, however, faculty organization is here to stay. Faced with increasing pressures from a ll segments of th e ir environment, facu lties began turning to c o lle c tiv e bargaining as a means of preserving th e ir role (and status) in the academic community. Whether c o lle c tiv e bargaining w ill solve the problems being faced by the fa c u ltie s, or w ill create new, currently unsuspected problems, remains to be seen. Collectiv e bargaining is, however, a phenomenon that is not lik e ly to soon disappear; its effects on the tra d itio n a l governance models at colleges and u niversities is, and w ill continue to be, great. Carr and Van Eyck (1973) offered the following description of c o lle c tiv e bargaining they describe i t as a specific means by which persons id e n tified with a.particular enterprise, separated into management and labor components, are enabled, in a highly fo rm alistic way, to discuss certain issues (or "relation s") that lie between them, to reach binding agreement on how to handle these issues, and then to be governed by that agreement in the work relatio n ship, (p. 3) [But] c o lle c tiv e bargaining... should not be viewed as a process by which workers and managers jo in forces to operate an enterprise on a shared authority and responsibility basis. Instead, i t must be viewed as an adversary relationship... between two opposing forces... which share certain lim ited goals but also have w e ll-d iffe re n tia te d interests or needs, (p. 14) Epstein (197^, p. 1^3) saw c o lle c tive bargaining on campus as "a conception of government in which s ta ff members organize... to exercise power through b ila te ra l negotiations." He continued by suggesting that "c o lle c tiv e bargaining introduces a measure of b ila te ra l

36 20 government distinguishable both from unfettered hierarchical authority and from pure professional self-government" (p. 144). I t is the premise of th is w rite r that c o lle c tiv e bargaining affects the role of the department chairperson. It is generally accepted that c o lle c tiv e bargaining has had a major e ffe c t on governance patterns on campus (Kemerer & Baldridge, 1975; L eslie, 1972), but its e ffe c t on departmental policymaking is not so clear cut. Epstein (1974) stated: I see nothing in department policy making that has to be, or is lik e ly to be, s ig n ific a n tly changed as a result of faculty c o lle c tiv e bargaining.... At this level the one controversial p o s s ib ility so fa r to emerge is the role o f the department chairman, (p. 155) A la te r section o f this chapter examines the relationship between c o lle c tive bargaining and the chairperson. The present section includes: (a) a b rie f history o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining in higher education; (b) some reasons why a faculty might turn to c o lle c tiv e bargaining; and (c) some o f the effects of c o lle c tiv e bargaining on academic governance. The History of C ollective Bargaining in Higher Education Carr and Van Eyck (1973, P* *0 noted that " c o lle c tiv e bargaining became a leading system of co ntrolling the employment relationship in the American economy in 1935 when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, known as the Wagner Act." During its formative years the early 1930's to the mid-1960's the c o lle c tive bargaining process was shaped by laws and practices without regard to its a p p lic a b ility to higher education. The Wagner Act was not addressed to the

37 21 question of c o lle c tiv e bargaining rights for public and professional employees. In 19^7, the T a ft-h a rtle y Act amended the labor statutes and recognized the rights of professional employees to engage in c o l lec tiv e bargaining. The Wagner Act was fu rth er amended by the Landrum- G riffin Act of Executive Orders by Presidents Kennedy in 1962 and Nixon in 1969 granted to federal employees the rights of joining unions and bargaining c o lle c tiv e ly. Questions concerning the rights of state and municipal employees (including fa c u lty members) to unionize and bargain c o lle c tiv e ly were not addressed by any of the federal statutes. I t was le f t to the individual states to enact and implement such laws. Carr and Van Eyck (1973) noted that: The f i r s t decisive change in the law a ffe c tin g facu lty c o lle c tiv e bargaining took place in 1965 when Michigan and Massachusetts enacted statutes [often referred to as L it t le Wagner Acts] authorizing bargaining by public employees. By the end of 1972, 37 states permitted some degree of discussion or agreement between management and labor in public employment, (p. 21) The appearance of c o lle c tiv e bargaining agreements at post-secondary in stitu tio n s was scattered at f i r s t, especially at four-year in s titutio n s. For agreements at four-year in s titu tio n s, "the s tartin g point might be marked as September [s ic ], 1969" (Carr S Van Eyck, p. 17), when a contract was negotiated at the C ity U niversity of New York (CUNY). CUNY's lead was followed shortly (by the end o f the summer, 1970) with bargaining units being established and contracts being signed at Centra l Michigan University and at St. John s U niversity, mt two-year community colleges, the f ir s t contracts appeared shortly a fte r the enactment of the L it t le Wagner Acts. As early as 1966, a contract was negotiated

38 22 at Henry Ford Community College in D e tro it, Michigan. This "may have marked the formal beginning of c o lle c tiv e bargaining in American higher education" (Carr & Van Eyck, p. 17). From this modest beginning the number of in s titu tio n s and facu lty units engaged in c o lle c tive bargaining a c tiv itie s has ballooned, as indicated by the following data taken from Kemerer and Baldridge (1975, p. 1): Year Faculty bargaining units ** 360 mid Kemerer and Baldridge also noted (p. 1) that by mid-1975, approximately one-eighth of the 3038 colleges and u niversities in the country... [had] facu lty bargaining agents.... [and] nearly 12 percent of the fu ll-tim e teaching facu lty in American higher education... [were] represented by unions. In addition, they pointed out that the "vast m ajority of unionized facu lty... are in public in s titu tio n s, mainly two-year colleges" (p. 2 ). Mortimer and McConnell (1978) indicated th at, by February of 1977, there were 326 bargaining units representing 550 campuses across the United States, and approximately 120,000 faculty members belonged to bargaining u n its. Of the 550 campuses, **86 were public and of these, 157 were public, four-year schools. They also noted that "the growth