Group Title: application of role conflict theory to the role expectations held for the dean of students by various reference groups in five selected universities /
Title: An application of role conflict theory to the role expectations held for the dean of students by various reference groups in five selected universities /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098860/00001
 Material Information
Title: An application of role conflict theory to the role expectations held for the dean of students by various reference groups in five selected universities /
Physical Description: xiii, 158 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Mackey, Bernard Allen, 1947-
Publication Date: 1977
Copyright Date: 1977
 Subjects
Subject: Role conflict   ( lcsh )
Role expectation   ( lcsh )
Deans (Education)   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 154-156.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Bernard A. Mackey.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098860
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000186483
oclc - 03375897
notis - AAV3073

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 9 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text









AN APPLICATION OF ROLE CONFLICT THEORY TO T!E
ROLE: EXPECTATIONS HELD FOR THE DEAN OF STUDENTS BY
VARIOUS REFERENCE GROUPS IN FIVE SELECTED UNIVERSITIES









By

BERNARD A. LACKEY


A DISSERTATION I'.SENTL 1C TE GRAUAi'TE COUNCIL OF
TH!E i ilV.LR!;71i' OF F! O(R IDA
INi PARTIAL FULFIL 1 !1. I :C [i:t T :o.I.:F! TS FOR T'i
DEGREE OF DOCTOI- O PILO.i(J-CH








ULI'.');RSI'" 0- FLORI!'A



































To iy parents

George and Mary Mackey














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The author is indebted to many individuals who have assisted him

throughout his doctoral program and with the completion of this study.

He expresses his gratitude to the members of his supervisory committee,

Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, chairman, Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough, Dr. Roderick

McDavis, and Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen. Special appreciation is extended to

Drs. Mattenbarger and Sandeen for their encouragement and interest during

the preparation of this study.

Also deserving of recognition are Drs. Michael Y. Nunnery and Max

C. Dertke for their contributions during the formative stages of this

project.

The author thanks Mrs. Anna Marie Hartin and Miss Margaret R.

Martinroe for the typing and technical assistance they provided.

Finally, the author expresses particular appreciation and thanks

to his wife, Martha, and their children, Justin, Darryl, and Kimberly,

for their patience and support, and for the many sacrifices they endured

to bring this effort to fruition.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . xi

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Problem . . . . . . . . ... . . .. 3
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . 3
Delimitations . . . . . . . . .. .. . 3
Limitations . . . . . . .. . . . 4
Significance of the Study . . . . . ... .. 5
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . .... ... 7
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . ... . . .. 11
Procedures. ................ .. . . 12
Setting and Sample. . . . . . . . . . 12
Instrumentation . . . . . . ... . . . 13
Data Collection . . . . . . . ... . . 15
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Organization of the Research Report . . . .... . .16

II ROLE CONFLICT THEORY AND STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION . 17

Role Conflict Theory . . . . . . . .. 17
Definitions of Role and Role Theory . . . . .. 17
The Observer-Actor Differentiation in Role Conflict . 18
Getzels' concept of role conflict . . . . .. 19
Gross' concept of role conflict . . . . .... 22
Role Consensus . ............ . . . 23
Student Personnel Administration: Nature and Functions . 24
The Student Personnel Point of View . . . . . 24
The Role of the Dean of Students. . . . . . ... 27
Relationship of the Scholarly Literature to the Study . 31
Confinement on Sources for Reviewed Literature. . . ... 32

III ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. . . . . . . . .... . 33

The Interview Process . . . . . . . . ... 33
Methods of Data Analysis. . . . . . . . .. 34
Reference Group Consensus Measures. . . . . ... 34









TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Page
Intrarole Conflict Measures . . . . . . .. 38
Relationship Between Measures of Consensus and
Intrarole Conflict. . . . . . . . . .. 39
Intrainstitutional analysis . . . . . .. 40
Interinstitutional analysis . . . . . .. 41
Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement Among Respondents 42
Format for Presentation of Data . . . . . .... 42
Intrainstitutional Analysis of Data . . . . .. 43
Institution 1 . . . . . . .. . . . . 43
Institution 2 . . . . . ... . .. .. 49
Institution 3 . . . . . . . . .. . 55
Institution 4 . . . . . . . .. 61
Institution 5 .. .. . .. . . .. .. ... . 66
Interinstitutional Analysis of Data .. . . . .. . 72
Student Advocacy . .. .. . . . . .... 72
Social Maturity and Value Development . . . ... 74
Governance . . . . . . . . . . . 7
All-Response Analysis . . . . . .... . . 78

IV DISCUSSION OF THE DATA. . . . . . . . . .... 86

Intrainstitutional Measures of Consensus and Intrarole
Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Interinstitutional Measures of Consensus and Intrarole
Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89
Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement Among Respondents 92
Intrainstitutional Agreement-Disagreement .... . . .92
Interinstitutional Agreement-Disagreement . . . .. 93
Relationship of Findings to Theory and Research ...... 94 -
Findings Concerning the General Hypothesis. . . . .94
Findings Concerning Fundamental Agreement-Disagreement
Among Respondents . . . . . .. ...... 95

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .. . . . . . . . 101

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Conclusions . . . . . . . . .. . 105
Implications. . . . . . . . . . . 106
Recommendations for Further Research. . . . . ... 107

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 109

A LETTERS OF REQUEST, INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPATION
ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AND FOLLOW-UP LETTER. . . . . ... .

B DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT (FORMS 1 AND 2). . . . ... 117

C INDIVIDUAL AND COMPOSITE REFERENCE GROUP RESPONSE SCORES. . 127









TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued


D INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE SCORES OF DEANIS OF STUDENTS ...... 133

E CONSENSUS AND INTRAROLE CONFLICT DISCREPANCY SCORE TOTALS .139

REFERENCES . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 154

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................... ..... 157














LIST OF TABLES


35


44


Table


1 Example of Composite Reference Group Response
Score Derivation for Item 1 at Institution . . . ....

2 Example of Major, Minor, and Total Item
Discrepancy Score Derivation . . . . . . ...

3 Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at Institution 1 . . . .

4 Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 1 . . . . . . . .

5 Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at Institution 2 . ......

6 Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 2 . . . . . . . .

7 Sumnary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at Institution 3 . . . .

8 Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 3 . . . . . . ....

9 Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at Institution 4 . . . ..

10 Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 4 . . . . . . . .

11 Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at Institution 5 . . . .

12 Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 5 . . . . . . . .

13 Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Discrepancy Score Means for the Student
Advocacy Area by Institution . . . . . . . .

14 Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Discrepancy Score Means for the Social Maturity
and Value Development Area by Institution . . . . .


Page









LIST OF TABLES Continued


Page
Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Discrepancy Score Means for the Governance
Area by Institution . . . . . . . . ... . 77


16 Summary of Interinstitutional Consensus and
Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Grand
Means by Area of Responsibility for
All Institutions . . . . . . . . . .

17 Percent of All Respondents in Fundamental
Agreement or Disagreement with Interview
Guide Items . . . . . . . . . . . .


C-1 Individual and Composite Reference Group
Response Scores for Institution 1 . . . .

C-2 Individual and Composite Reference Group
Response Scores for Institution 2 . . . .

C-3 Individual and Composite Reference Group
Response Scores for Institution 3 . . . .

C-4 Individual and Composite Reference Group
Response Scores for Institution 4 . . . .

C-5 Individual and Composite Reference Group
Response Scores for Institution 5 . .. .

D-1 Individual Response Scores of the Dean of
Students at Institution 1 . . . . .

D-2 Individual Response Scores of the Dean of
Students at Institution 2 . . . . .


. . . .. 127


. . . 128


. . . . 129


. . . . 131


. . . . 133


. . . . 134


D-3 Individual Response Scores of the Dean of
Students at Institution 3 . . . . . . . . .

D-4 Individual Response Scores of the Dean of
Students at Institution 4 . . . . . . . . .

D-5 Individual Response Scores of the Dean of
Students at Institution 5 . . . . . . . . .

E-1 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Student Advocacy Area at Institution 1 . . . . .

E-2 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Student Advocacy Area at Institution. . . . .


Table

15


. 80








LIST OF TABLES Continued


Paqe


Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 1 . . . . . . .


E-4 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 1 . . . . . .


. . 140


E-5 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Governance Area at Institution 1. . . . . . . ... 141

E-6 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Governance Area at Institution 1. . . . . ... 141


E-7 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Student Advocacy Area at Institution 2 . . .

E-8 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Student Advocacy Area at Institution 2.. .

E-9 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 2 . . . . . . .

E-10 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 2 . . . . . . .


. . . 142


. 143


E-11 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Governance Area at Institution 2. . . ... ....... 144

E-12 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Governance Area at Institution 2 .......... 144

E-13 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Student Advocacy Area at Institution 3. . . . . ... 145

E-14 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Student Advocacy Area at Institution 3. . . .. 145


E-15 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 3 . . . . . . . .

E-16 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 3 . . . . . . . .

E-17 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Governance Area at Institution 3 . . . . .


. . 146



. 146


Table

E-3








LIST OF TABLES Continued


Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Governance Area at Institution 3 . .


E-19 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Student Advocacy Area at Institution 4. . . . . . 143

E-20 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Student Advocacy Area at Institution 4. ...... .148

E-21 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 4 . . . . . . . .... . 149

E-22 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 4 . ... . . . . . .... 149

E--23 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Governance Area at Institution 4. . . . . . . ... 150

E-24 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Governance Area at Institution 4. . . . . . 150

E-25 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Student Advocacy Area at Institution 5. . . . . ... 151

E-26 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Student Advocacy Area at Institution 5. . . .. 151

E-27 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 5 . . . . . . . . . . 152

E-28 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Social Maturity and Value Development
Area at Institution 5 . . . . . . . . . . 152

E-29 Consensus Discrepancy Score Totals for the
Governance Area at Institution 5. . . . . . ...


E-30 Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy Score Totals
for the Governance Area at Institution 5. . .


. . . . 153


Table

L-18


Page


. . 147







Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Fartial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



AN APPLICATION OF ROLE CONFLICT THEORY TO THE
ROLE EXPECTATIONS HELD [OR THE DEAN OF STUDENTS BY
VARIOUS REFERENCE GROUPS )I FIViE SELECTED UNIVERSITIES



Dy

Bernard A. Mackey

June, 1977

Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger

Major Department: Educational Administration


This study was designed to test the applicability of theoretical

propositions concerning role conflict and reference group consensus to

the role performed by deans of students. The specific purpose was to

determine the nature of the relationship existing between reference

group role expectations held for the dean and the intrarole conflict

perceived by the dean. Also identified were issues on which deans of

students and their role-defining reference groups agreed or disagreed

fundamental ly.

lhree areas of responsibility of the dean of students were examined:

student advocacy, social maturity and value development, and governance.

Two forms of a structured interview guide containing 21 parallel items

were used to gather data from a total of 65 respondents (13 each at five

public universities located in the southeastern United States). The'

respondents i included the dean of students, three of the dean's peer/

superior administrators, three subordinate administrators, three faculty

pierbers, and three student leaders.








Data were analyzed on intrainstitutional and interinstitutional

levels by deriving item and mean discrepancy scores from the coded

responses of participants. Mean score comparisons were made to test

the validity of three alternative hypotheses related to the dean's

three areas of responsibility. The frequency with which discrepant

responses occurred enabled the identification of specific issues

of fundamental agreement or disagreement among respondents.

The major findings of this study were that:

1. On an intrainstitutional level a strong inverse relationship

exists, in each of the dean's areas of responsibility, between the

degree of reference group consensus on role expectations held fcr the

dean of students and the level of intrarole conflict perceived by the

dean.

2. On an interinstitutional level contradictory results precluded

any statement of relationship between reference group role expectations

and intrarole conflict perceived by the dean.

3. Reference group members held similar expectations more fre-

quently on issues concerning the dean's role in the social maturity

and value development area, less frequently on issues in the student

advocacy area, and least frequently on issues in the governance area.

4. Issues producing the greatest amount of conflicting expec-

tations among reference group members involved the dean's role with

regard to: (a) influencing students to adopt the institution's

values; (b) the degree of commitment given to the individual needs

of students; (c) the regulation of student conduct; (d) the priority'

given to personal relationships with students versus administrative

tasks; (e) consultation with students and faculty when formulating


~








student affairs policy; (f) allowing students to make decisions

concerning visitation regulations, student government activities,

and the allocation of student activity fees; (g) the adjudication

of academic dishonesty problems; and (h) ensuring that students who

participate in the institution's governance process are representative

of the student body with regard to sex, race, and age.

The results of this study suggest that theoretical propositions

in the literature concerning role conflict and reference group con-,

sensus are applicable to the role performed by deans of students,

and that an understanding of these theories should help them under-

stand better their own roles and improve the quality of their per-

formance. Areas in which greater amounts of conflicting expectations

are encountered by deans will necessitate greater efforts by them

to achieve their own role expectations. The changing expectations

of reference group members can affect a dean's ability to perform

his or her role. Continual reassessment of these expectations is

needed to enable deans of students to remain abreast of the changing

attitudes and beliefs of various reference groups in the academic

commu n i ty.

Further research is recommended to determine the effects of

varying amounts of perceived conflict on the quality of a dean's

role performance.















CHAPTFR I


INTRODUCTION


During the 1960s and early 1970s postsecondary institutions have

existed in a state of increasing conflict over crucial issues. Many of

these conflict-inducing issues have centered on the supposed assumptions

and beliefs of members of the academic community (Dutton, Appleton, &

Birch, 1970, p. i).

The dean of students on any large university campus performs: a role

which should make an integral contribution to the continual development

of a positive sense of coinunity for the institution's members. A

greater understanding of values, beliefs, end assumptions held by

students and other reference groups in the university would help deans

mae necessary adjustments in their own behavior as well as understand

how to relate more effectively to other members of the academic community.

Those reference groups with which the dean is in constant contact include

peer and superior administrators, subordinate admiinistrators, faculty

members, and students.

Members of different reference groups in the academic community have

had varying perceptions of the role and function of the degan Of students.

These perceptions have sometimes interferred with the dean's abili ty to

contribute to the learning process (Blue, 1973; Duttnn ctl a1l., 1970;

Hodgkins',n, 1970). Students, for example, may have different perceptions









than faculty members or administrators concerning the Primary mission of

the institution. Faculty members may view the learning process differently

than other members of the academic community. Administrators may feel that

regulations governing conduct are necessary and justified for different

reasons than other members of the institution. However, these differences

are to be expected because students, faculty members, and administrators

frequently have different backgrounds, needs, and perspectives, and perform

diverse roles in the community.

In the performance of his or her role in the academic community,

the dean of students may or may not experience conflict as a result of

varying role expectations held among several reference groups. The

literature related to role and role conflict theory generally verifies

the presence of conflict in any situation where there are contradictory

expectations held for a particular role. The level of intrarole conflict

experienced by a role incumbent is inversely proportional to the degree

of interreference group consensus on role expectations (Getzels, Lipham,

& Campbell, 1968; Gross, Mason, & McEachern, 1966; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn,

Snock, & Rosenthal, 1964; Katz, & Kahn, 1966).

The above observations invite further inquiry into specific aspects

of the role of the dean of students. There is a general lack of definitive

knowledge about role expectations and their relationship to the level of

intrarole conflict experienced by deans of students in large complex

universities. Theoretical propositions concerning the nature of these

relationships have not been adequately tested in such a setting. This

study was designed to examine the relationship of identifiable role expec-

tations to levels of intrarole conflict perceived by deans of students.









The Problem


Statement of the Problem

In general, the focus of this investigation was to test the applica-

bility of theoretical propositions, derived from the literature on role

conflict and reference group consensus, concerning the level of conflict

perceived by deans of students in selected universities and the degree

of consensus on role expectations held for these deans among selected

reference groups. Specifically, the writer sought to determine: (a) the

degree of commonalities and/or differences in the expectations for the

role of the dean of students as seen by incumbent deans, peer and superior

administrators, subordinate administrators, faculty, and students; (b)

the level of intrarole conflict perceived by incumbent deans; and (c) the

nature of the relationship existing between role expectations and intra-

role conflict.


Delimitations

This study was confined to five public universities selected from

institutions in the southeastern United States identified as having full-

time student enrollments in excess of 10,000 but less tnan 30,000 at the

beginning of i.he 1975-76 academic year. Institutions considered for

selection included Auburn University, the University or Alabama, the

University of Florida, Georgia State University, the University of

Georgia, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, the University of

North Caroiina at Chapel Hill, the University of South Carolina at Coluiibia,

Memphis State University, and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

The dtcrmi nation of the existence of intrarole conflict was confined

to the perce-'ptions of each individual holding the responsibilities as









dean of students as defined in this study. The determination of expecta-

tions for the dean's role included the dean's perceptions and the per-

ceptions held by four reference groups. Therefore, 13 people were

interviewed on each of the university campuses. Persons interviewed

included the dean of students, three administrative officers of equivalent

rank or suJperordinate to the dean of students (peers and superiors) in the

university's organizational hierarchy, three administrators subordinate to

the dean of students, three faculty members, and three undergraduate stu-

dent leaders.

The deans were interviewed for purposes of determining their own

expectations for the role they perform as well as the existence of their

perceived intrarole conflict. Members of the four reference groups were

interviewed only in regard to the expectations which they held for the

deans' position. Data for this investigation were confined to informa-

tion collected by interviewing the respondents noted above.


Limitations

The following are limitations applicable to this study:

1. To express their role expectations for the dean of students,

respondents found it necessary to recall past contacts with the dean.

The intensity of their exposure in these contacts, and the length of time

elapsed since the occurrence thereof, may have affected the responses

obtained.

2. Faculty members participating in this study were selected by the

deans of their respective colleges. The extent to which these partici-

pants were representative of all faculty members may have been limited by

the availability of the most appropriate faculty members.








3. The small number (65) of sample participants limited the generali-

zation of findings beyond the institutions participating in this study.

4. Because the design of this study was ex post facto in nature,

no definitive cause and effect statements can be made regarding the re-

lationship of reference group role expectations to the intrarole conflict

experienced by deans of students.


Significance of the Study

A major consequence of this study was that it served as a bridge be-

tween the abstract conceptualization of theory concerning role conflict

relationships in a social system and the existence of these relationships

in the reality of an administrative environment. When addressing the

question of what a theory should do, Hall and Lindsey (1970) noted that:

First, and most important, it leads to the
collection or observation of relevant empirical
relations not yet observed. The theory should
lead to a systematic expansion of knowledge
concerning the phenomena of interest and this
expansion ideally should be mediated or
stimulated by the derivation from the theory
of specific empirical propositions (statements,
hypotheses, predictions) that are subject to
empirical test. (p. 12)

In an effort to contribute to the available knowledge in the fields of

educational and student personnel administration, empirically testable

theoretical derivations were developed concerning relationships between

the role expectations of various reference groups and the degree of intra-

role conflict experienced by the dean of students. These theoretical

derivations were then tested, thereby allowing ti-e crossing of the bridge

from theory to reality.

A secc.rd important motive for this study lies in its departure from

represent ive research efforts previously accomplished in the area of








role conflict in educational environments. Much of the previous educational

research in the area of role conflict has been concentrated on the elemen-

tary and secondary administration levels (Carver, 1968; Duffy, 1966; Hughes,

1974; Meggers, 1967). Of the studies concentrating on the higher education

administration level, some have: (a) dealt with focal positions other than

the dean of students (Hutchins, 1975; Munoz, 1972); (b) been confined to

observations of deans of students in particular states (Arend, 1975; Blue,

1973); and (c) investigated the dean of students in institutions which had

enrollments of less than 10,000 full-time students (Rodgers, 1964).

The previously cited study by Dutton et al. (1970), which included

715 member institutions of the National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators, appears to be the most comprehensive recent investigation

into the role expectations held for the dean of students by various

reference groups in the academic community. In the Dutton et al. study,

however, less than 18% of the total responses in each category (chief

student personnel officers, presidents, faculty members, student body

pre'id.nts, and student newspaper editors) were received from participants

affiliated with institutions having full-time student enrollments in

excess of 10,000 (p. 39). Additionally, intrarole conflict was not the

focus of their investigation. The presence of conflict was assumed (rather

than measured) in situations where there was a significant lack of agree-

ment among reference groups concerning the dean's role.

The sample population in this study differed in some aspects from

those outlined above in that it consisted of universities in more than

one state which had full-time student enrollments of more than 10,000

but less than 30,000. The focal position was, of course, the dean of

students at each institution.








Finally, the most important reason for this study was suggested by

the need for deans of students to reassess continually the assumptions

and beliefs of their role-defining reference groups. These reassessments

are imperative if the dean is to function effectively as a facilitator

of human development. Sandeen (1971) addressed the subject of the dean's

opportunities to exert positive leadership.

If the dean of students wants to capitalize
on these opportunities then "research" is not
just an added "service" . but an essential
part of the dean's overall program. To
accomplish his goals, to understand the nature
of the community [emphasis added] . research
is an essential activity. (pp. 222-223)

Appleton (1971) reiterated Sandeen's call for more research relating to

the dean's role by stating that:

Studies of the assumptions and beliefs of the
dean have been compared with [those held by]
other university personnel and the career
patterns of student personnel administrators
have been completed. . Further attention
is merited in both areas. (p. 92)

Explicit in the above observations by Sandeen and Appleton is the

idea that, to the extent which deans of students increase their under-

standing of the expectations of reference groups in their environment,

improved role performance may result. In this study, the position was

taken that it was also necessary for deans to understand the relationship

between reference group role expectations and the intrarole conflict

which they may experience themselves. From a thorough understanding of

this relationship, an even greater improvement in role performance may

occur.


Definition of Terms

Areas of responsibility. Categories of functions usually performed








by the dean of students. The data collection instrument, a structured

interview guide, was composed of three areas: student advocacy, social

maturity and value development, and governance. Each area contains seven

items representing possible operating assumptions or behaviors which might

be held or exhibited by the dean of students in the usual performance of

functions in this area.

Conflict. A situation in which a role incumbent has to conform

simultaneously to a number of expectations which are mutually exclusive,

contradictory, or inconsistent so that the performance of one set of

duties makes performance of another set difficult or impossible. The

presence of conflict was determined by structured interview guide re-

sponses made by deans of students representing their perceptions con-

cerning the presence or absence of contradictory expectations held for

their role.

Consensus. The degree to which various reference groups are in

agreement concerning the expectations held by them for a particular role

incumbent. The presence of consensus was determined by structured

interview guide responses made by the four reference groups representing

their role expectations for the dean of students in the three areas of

responsibility.

Dean of Students. A student personnel administrator whose primary

responsibilities include the development and evaluation of appropriate

student services and co-curricular programs which facilitate student

development, as well as serving as the university's chief staff communi-

cator with the student body. This person mcy or may not be designated

by the university as the chief student personnel administrator.

Expectations. Those prescriptions and proscriptions (rights,








duties, privileges, obligations) that delineate what a person should

and should not do under various circumstances as the incumbent in a

particular role. Expectations for the dean of students were determined

in the three areas of responsibility by means of a structured interview

guide on which were recorded the responses made by deans and the

four reference groups. All participants responded to seven items in each

area of responsibility.

Faculty member. A full-time instructor who has been employed by the

participating institution for at least 2 years, teaches primarily under-

graduate classes, and has been identified by his or her college dean as

having knowledge of the functions performed by the dean of students.

Focal position. The dean of students.

Governance. The extent to which the dean of students consults with

reference groups in the process of policy formulation and decision-making

on issues concerning the development and maintenance of the student

affairs area. For the purpose of this study, the area of governance is

represented by items 15-21 on the structured interview guide.

Intrarole conflict. Conflict experienced by a role incumbent emanating

from contradictory expectations held by various reference groups for the

incumbent's role. The presence of intrarole conflict was determined by

structured interview guide responses made by deans of students representing

their expectations concerning the presence or absence of contradictory

expectations held for their role by the four role-defining reference

groups.

Peer/superior administrator. A full-time administrator, of equiva-

lent rank or superordinate to the dean of students in the university's

organizational hierarchy, who has been employed by the participating








institution for at least 2 years, and who has been identified by the dean

of students as having knowledge of his or her functions.

Public university. A state-supported institution of higher education

empowered to grant undergraduate and graduate degrees identified as having

a full-time student population in excess of 10,000 but less than 30,000

at the beginning of the 1975-76 academic year.

Reference group. An aggregate of persons, possessing a common class

characteristic, which acts as a role-definer for the incumbent dean of

students. Four reference groups participated in the current study: peer

and superior administrators, subordinate administrators, faculty members,

and student leaders.

Role. A set of expectations applied to the position of dean of

students.

Role incumbent. The occupant in the role of dean of students.

Social maturity and value development. The extent to which the

dean of students manifests the university's concern, through policies,

procedures, and programming, for the attainment of a desirable level

of social maturity by all students. Additionally, the extent to which

the dean attempts to influence students to adopt values held to be

important by the university. For the purpose of this study, the area

of social maturity and value development is represented by items 8-14

on the structured interview guide.

Student advocacy. The extent to which the dean of students performs

in an advocacy or adversary role in his or her relationship to students.

Additionally, the extent to which the dean supports the traditional

practice of combining counseling and disciplinary functions. For the

purpose of the current study, the area of student advocacy is represented









by items 1-7 on the structured interview guide.

Student leader. A full-time undergraduate student who has been in

attendance at the participating institution for at least 1 year, and who

holds an elected or appointed leadership position either in student govern-

ment or some other campus student organization.

Subordinate administrator. A full-time administrator who serves on

the professional staff of the dean of students.

Hypotheses


The propositions derived from a review of the scholarly literature

are based primarily on the role conflict theory of Gross et al. (1966).

Given the nature of these propositions, the following general hypothesis

was developed:

Where there is a high degree of consensus on role expectations
held for a particular role incumbent by various reference groups,
there will be a low level of intrarole conflict perceived by
that role incumbent. Conversely, where there is a low degree
of consensus on role expectations, the role incumbent will per-
ceive a high level of intrarole conflict.

Applied to this study, the above general hypothesis led to the

following three specific hypotheses which were tested in the field por-

tion of the study for each individual institution and for all institutions

collectively:

1. Where there is a hioh degree of consensus on role
expectations held for the dean of students by various
reference groups in regard to the area of student
advocacy, there will be a low level of intrarole
conflict perceived in this area by the dean of stu-
deits. Conversely, where there is a low degree of
consensus on role expectations in this area, the
dean will perceive a high level of intrarole conflict.

2. Where there is a high degree of consensus on role
expectations held for the dean of students by various
reference groups in regard to the area of social
maturityy and value development, there will be a low








level of intrarole conflict perceived in this area
by the dean of students. Conversely, where there is
a low degree of consensus on role expectations in this
area, the dean will perceive a high level of intra-
role conflict.

3. Where there is a high degree of consensus on role
expectations held for the dean of students by various
reference groups in regard to the area of governance,
there will be a low level of intrarole conflict
perceived in this area by the dean of students. Con-
versely, where there is a low degree of consensus on
role expectations in this area, the dean will perceive
a high level of intrarole conflict.


Procedures


This investigation was essentially ex post facto in nature. A

descriptive case study design was employed. In the sections following,

attention will be given to a discussion of the setting and sample,

instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.


Setting and Sample

The sample population of universities in this study, selected on the

basis of a prompt indication of their willingness to participate, con-

sisted of five public universities located in the southeastern United

States which had been identified as having full-time student enrollments

in excess of 10,000 but less than 30,000 at the beginning of the 1975-76

academic year.

Five classes of participants comprised the sample population within

each university as follows:

1. Three administrative officers of equivalent rank or superordinate

to the dean of students, who had some knowledge of the dean's role functions,

were selected for participation by the dean.

2. Three subordinate administrators were chosen by the investigator








from the professional staff of the dean of students.

3. Three faculty members who had some knowledge of the functions

performed by the dean of students were designated by the deans of the

three colleges having the largest undergraduate enrollments.

4. Three full-time undergraduate student leaders were designated

by the student affairs advisor to student organizations or an authorized

representative thereof.

5. The dean of students was selected by virtue of his or her in-

cumbency in the role under investigation.


Instrumentation

The instrument used in collecting the data was a structured interview

guide which the researcher developed by modifying a questionnaire designed

originally by the Division of Research and Program Development, National

Association of Student Personnel Administrators (Dutton et al., 1970, p.

33). The purpose of the original questionnaire was to measure the assump-

tions and beliefs of selected members of the academic community regarding

significant issues and concerns in higher education. An important dimen-

sion of the study focused on perceptions held by members of the academic

community concerning the chief student personnel officer's role and

functions.

The first step in modifying the instrument was to extract several

items which could be classified into three general areas of responsibility

of a dean of students: student advocacy. social maturity and value

development, and governance. A list of 21 such items was compiled.

Second, the format of the original instrument, which provided

dichotomous response choices ("yes" or "no") for each item, was redesigned









to allow respondents a greater variety of response options. The new

response options permitted respondents to "strongly agree," "agree,"

"disagree," or "strongly disagree" with each item.

The first draft of the instrument to be used in this study contained

two forms consisting of 21 items each. Parallel items appeared on the

two forms. Form 1, to be used for recording the responses of deans of

students, requested that the deans respond first in terms of the extent

to which they personally agreed or disagreed with each item. The deans

were then requested to estimate, on the same agreement-disagreement

continuum, the composite responses of each of the four role-defining

reference groups. Form 2 requested only that reference group members

respond to each item in terms of the extent of their personal agreement

or disagreement with each item.

Third, a parel of five student personnel experts was asked to

evaluate each item in terms of whether it represented an appropriate

assumption or behavior which might be held or exhibited by a dean of

students, and whether it was clearly stated. Additionally, the panel

was asked to indicate whether the items designated under each of the

dean's areas of responsibility were representative of these areas as

defined for the purposes of this study. The panel was also asked to

recomminnd changes needed on individual items or on the overall format,

and to suggest additional itenis which they felt were appropriate for

inclusion.

On the basis of reactions from the panel of experts, some items

were reworded to achieve greater syntactical clarity and consistency,

a few items were eliminated, and some additional items suggested for

inclusion were incorporated. All items on the final draft were judged









to be appropriate and representative. No changes in the format of the

instrument were suggested. The completed data-collection instrument

(see Appendix B) provided a data base from which observations were made

about commonalities and/or differences in the expectations held for the

dean of students by the four reference groups and the deans themselves,

and the relationship between the degree of consensus on role expectations

and the level of intrarole conflict experienced by the dean.

Data Collection

Contacts were made with deans of students in ten qualifying univer-

sities to assess the willingness of their institutions to participate in

this study. The first five institutions indicating a desire to participate

were selected. Visitations were made to each of the selected institutions

and individual interviews were conducted with each participant using Forms

1 and 2 of the structured interview guide to record the data.


Data Analysis

The data were analyzed primarily by deriving item and mean discrepancy

scores from the coded responses of all participants to items on Forms 1

and 2 of the structured interview guide. The deans' responses provided

measures of the level of perceived intrarole conflict. The responses of

reference group members provided measures of the degree of consensus on

expectations held for the deans. Mean score comparisons were then made

to determine the validity of hypotheses derived from a review of the

scholarly literature concerning intrarole conflict and reference group .

consensus. A derailed description of the methods of data analysis used

in this study appears in the comments preceding the presentation of data

in ChIptlr III.





16


Organization of the Research Report


This study is reported in five chapters. The first chapter has

provided an introduction including a statement of the problem, the

significance of the study, definitions, hypotheses, and procedures. The

second chapter provides a review of related literature. An analysis of

the data is presented in Chapter III, Chapter IV is devoted to a discussion

of the data, and, in Chapter V, the study is summarized and conclusions

are presented.














CHAPTER II


ROLE CONFLICT THEORY AND STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION


The review of related literature for this study is divided into two

major sections. First, role conflict theory, and role consensus is

examined. Second, the nature and Functions of student personnel admini-

stration, with particular emphasis on the role of the dean of students,

is explored.


Role Conflict Theory

This section will be devoted to: (a) definitions of role and role

theory; (b) a method of differentiating between role conflict theorists;

and (c) the concept cf role consensus.


Definitions of R nle ani Role Theory

Biddle and Thomas (1966, p. 14) observed that, according to most

role analysts, a comprehensive "role theory" has not been developed. In

fact, the literature reveals many definitions of the concept of role.

Parsons and Shils (1951) proposed the following definition of role:

The role is that organized sector of an actor's
orientaTion which constitutes and defines his
participation in the interactive process. It
!nol ve a set of co_:plenientai_ expectations
Liemph:;;sis added] concerning his own actions and
those of others with whom he interacts. (p. 23)

Kahn et al. (1964) suggested another concept of role:








Associated with each office is a set of activities,
which are defined as potential behaviors. These
activities constitute the role to be performed, at
least approximately, by any person who occupies
that office. (p. 13)

More recently, Katz and Kahn (1966) defined role in terms of a

sequential process called a "role episode" which includes "role senders"

and a "focal person" (p. 182). In spite of the confusion surrounding the

concept of role, the most common definition of role was cited by Hare

(1965) as "a set of expectations" (pp. 101-102).

Before beginning a discussion of types of role conflict, attention

must be given to a basic differentiation factor separating role conflict

theorists. This factor, though often disregarded, is integral to the

study of role conflict.


The Observer-Actor Differentiation in Role Conflict

A differentiation has been made by Gross t al. (1966) between

those theorists who define role conflict according to incompatible expec-

tations "perceived by the observer" and those who define role conflict

according to incompatible expectations "perceived by the actor" (p. 244).

Those who use role conflict to refer to cultural contradictions perceived

by an observer would use it to include any contradiction to which an

actor may_ e exposed. There is no implication that the actor -is aware

of, or perceived incompatibilities in, the expectations for his or her

behavior.

Other social scientists mean role conflict to encompass situations

in which the actor perceives incompatible expectations. For example,

Parsons (1951), after defining role conflict as "the exposure of an actor

to conflicting sets of role expectations such that complete fulfillment

of both is realistically impossible," noted that:









It is necessary to compromise, that is, to
sacrifice some at least of both sets of
expectations, or to choose one alternative
and sacrifice the other. In any case, the
actor is exposed to negative sanctions and,
as far as both sets of values are internalized,
to internal conflict. (p. 280)

According to Parsons, actors must decide on a course of action as

a consequence of perceiving their exposure to contradictory expectations.

If they did not perceive the incompatible expectations, there would be

no need to "choose" among "alternatives."

Gross et al. (1966) concurred with Parsons' viewpoint when

they observed that:

A theoretical model for the problem of how
an actor will behave when exposed to
incompatible expectations must be based on
the assumption that the actor perceived the
expectations as incompatible [emphasis
added. (p. 245)

A foundation has now been established which permits a categorical

view of different types of role conflict. Attention is given first to

Getzels, who represents the observer orientation, and then to Gross, who

represents the actor orientation.


Getzels' concept of role conflict

in order to understand fully the conceptualization of different

types of role conflict by Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell (1968), an

overview of their social behavior model is necessary. Figure 1

illustrates their operational model.








Normative (Nomothetic) Dimension

Institute on---- > Role------- Expectations


Social Social
System Behavior


Individual---- Personality-- Need.-Disposition

Personal (Idiographic) Dimension

Figure 1. The normative and personal dimensions of social
behavior (Getzels, Lipham, & Campbell, 1968,
p. 80).


Adding a social nature to the concept of role, Getzels et al.

offered the following broad explanation of their model:

The normative axis is shown at the top of the
diagram. It consists of institution, role, and
role expectation, each term being the analytic
unit for the term preceding it. Thus, the social
system is defined by its institutions, each
institution by its constituent roles, and each
role by the expectations attaching to it.
Similarly, the personal axis, shown at the lower
portion of the diagram, consists of individual,
personality, and need-disposition, each term
again serving as the analytic unit for the term
preceding it. (p. 80)

Using this model, a social act may be understood as resulting

from the individual's attempts to cope with an environment composed of

patterns of expectations for his or her behavior in ways consistent

with his or her own pattern of needs and dispositions. A general

equation was derived by Getzels and Guba (1957) to notate this inter-

action: B = f (R X P), where B is observed behavior, R is a given

institutional role defined by the expectations attaching to it, and P.

is Lhe personality of the particular role incumbent defined by his

need-dispositions. In this formula, R and P are independent since P








is defined by internal determinants within the role incumbent and R is

defined by external standards set by others.

A key distinction is made in the formula B = f (R X P) because the

environment (R) is not defined by the perception of the person, but

rather by external (institutional) determinants. The Getzels-Guba model

can consequently be classified -- as suggested earlier by the Gross et

al. (1966) categorization -- as one which defines a role conflict along

the normative (institutional) dimension in terms of the perceptions of

the observer.

Getzels et al. (1968) identified three basic types of conflict in

educational settings which can occur along the "institutional" axis

(p. 182).

Interrole conflict. This type of conflict has its source in the

contradictory expectations of two or more roles which an individual is

attempting to fulfill simultaneously.

Intrareference-group conflict. Conflict occurs here when contra-

dictory expectations arise within a single reference group.

Interreference-group conflict. When two or more reference groups

have contradictory expectations for the same role, and these in turn

differ from the expectations of the individual in the role, this type

of conflict occurs.

The concept of interreference-group conflict was explored in a

study cited by Getzels et al. (1968, p. 204) wherein it was found that

(among other similar relationships) the expectations held for a school

superintendent by teachers were significantly different from those held

by city labor council members. The result of these contradictory expec-

tations was a conflicting situation for the superintendent the severity








of which permitted him no viable options for action. A similar study

by Duffy (1966), which explored the role of the Director of Instruction,

produced similar findings as the one cited by Getzels et al.


Gross' concept of role conflict

Gross et al. (1966) took the position that role conflict should

be defined "according to incompatible expectations perceived by the

actor" (p. 244). From this position, two major types of role conflict

were identified.

Interrole conflict. In this situation, individuals perceive that

others hold different expectations for them as incumbents of two or more

positions. For example, as a husband and a father in a social system a

superintendent may think his wife and children expect him to spend most

of his evenings with them. However, his school board and P.T.A. groups,

he may feel, expect him (as their school superintendent) to spend most

of his after-office hours on educational and civic activities. The

superintendent usually cannot satisfy both of these incompatible expec-

tations. He is faced with interrole conflict because the source of the

dilemma stems from his occupancy of more than one focal position.

Intrarole conflict. Individuals are confronted with this type of

conflict if they perceive that others hold different expectations for

them as incumbents of a single position. The school superintendent,

for example, may feel that the teachers expect him to be their spokes-

person and leader, to take their side on such matters as salary increases

and institutional policy. However, the superintendent may feel that

the school board members expect him to represent them, to "sell" their

views to the staff because he is the executive officer and the admini-

strator of school hoard policies.








It is readily apparent that the previously cited study by Getzels

et al. (1968) which explored "interreference-group conflict" concentrates

on the same problem as the example given for "intrarole conflict." The

difference lies in the fact that the Getzels et al. study was based on

observer perceptions and the Gross et al. example was based on actor

perceptions.


Role Consensus

Smith (1971) noted that "in the last two decades, there has been a

renewed interest in the concept of consensus" (p. 31).

Brown and Deekens (1948), in a rural sociology study, discovered

that extension specialists perceived "alter" groups as having differential

expectations for their roles and that they oriented themselves primarily

to county agents, conforming to their expectations rather than to those

of other groups (pp. 263-276).

Gross et al. (1966) analyzed consensus on expectations concerning:

(a) consensus within school boards and between the school board and its

superintendent; and (b) consensus between their two samples of 105

superintendents and 508 school board members in the state of Massachusetts.

The major purpose of their research was to test theoretically derived

hypotheses concerning expectations for the behavior of incumbents of

positions in social systems. The study was based on the following

assumptions:

It was our assumption that the extent to which there
is consensus on role definition may be an important
dimension affecting the functioning of social systems,
whether they are total societies or subsystems within
them. In addition, the degree of consensus among
significant role definers as perceived by an actor
may be an important variable affecting his behavior.
(p. 5)








The authors determined from the study that differences in the expectations

of superintendents and school board members can be accounted for partly

because they occupy different positions and partly because they occupy

positions in formal organizations of different sizes.

Smith (1971) noted that "the significant finding of the research by

Gross et al. (1966) was that there are 'differential degrees of consensus'

for organization roles; a finding which challenges the assumption that a

set of clearly defined and agreed upon expectations are associated with

any organization position" (p. 67).


Student Personnel Administration: Nature and Functions


The dean of students occupies a focal position in the general area

of student personnel work. An understanding of the role of deans of

students cannot be achieved without first having some knowledge of the

subsystem which constitutes their immediate sphere of operation. For

this reason, attention is given to the basic tenets of student personnel

work before examining the dean's role.


The Student Personnel Point of View

Crookston (1972b) noted that student personnel administrators, when

reviewing the turbulent and traumatic decade of the i960s, should face

up to the practical realities and consequences of the dramatic changes

which took place during that period. Deans of students who were trained

in the nuances and skills of applying in loco parents, found that the

early 1970s brought a new concept, more avuncular in nature, which re-

quired a search for new ways and means to function effectively (p. 3).

This search for a new approach was met by the concept of "student develop-

ment."









In their review of the early literature on the philosophical develop-

ment of the student personnel point of view, Blaesser and Crookston

(1960) noted that most authorities in the field, until the late 1940s,

accepted the view that student personnel work consisted of all non-

instructional activities in which the all around development of the

student was of primary concern. For the next two decades, increasing

support developed for the view that it was erroneous to speak in terms

of a dichotomy between student personnel work and instruction. Student

personnel work was to include not only those processes and functions

that emphasize intellectual, social, emotional, cultural, and physical

development of the individual, but also those which help build curricula,

improve methods of instruction, and develop leadership programs. It was

generally held that student personnel work complemented as well as

supplemented the instructional program in the total development of the

individual.

Crookston (1972a) stated that the principal difference between the

student development idea and the old philosophy rested in asserting that

student development is not merely complementary or supplementary to the

instructional program, it is a central teaching function of the institu-

tion. According to student developmental theory the entire academic

coinmunity is a learning environment in which teaching can take place.

Therefore, the teacher of student development teaches in multiple situa-

tions, including in the classroom.

In a more recent discussion, Crookston (1976) described the

operational impact of the student development concept on student

personnel professionals.









[Student development]. . is a return to holism
reinforced with the unerring vision of hindsight.
Freed at last from the necessity of exercising
the benevolent control of the parent and from
adherence to the remedial model of counseling,
professionals in our field, within a time frame
of only a few years, have found themselves free
to relate to students not on the basis of status,
but competency; not reactively, but proactively.
(p. 28)

The Commission on Professional Development of the Council of Student

Personnel Associations in Higher Education (COSPA), in its position

statement on the philosophy of, and professional preparation in, student

development services, posited the following assumptions and observations:

Human beings express their life-goal as becoming
free, liberated, and self-directed. . The
potential for development is already possessed
by every person. . Since human potential
cannot be adequately measured, a person's possession
of it must be assumed. . The ideal relation-
ship that best facilitates human development in-
cludes faith in peoples' potential, understanding
of them as they are at any particular time, and
acceptance of them as they can be. . Human
beings exist, function, and develop as individuals,
groups, and organizations. (COSPA, 1974, p. 75)

Student personnel professionals operating under these assumptions should

provide opportunities for the realization by students of certain educa-

tional values. A synthesis of the assumptions underlying the provision

of these opportunities leads to the formulation of two basic goals for

student personnel professionals. Students who take advantage of these

opportunities should be able to: (a) adjust to and function adequately

in the total university community as individuals, as members of individual

groups, and as members of many groups which together constitute the

larger organization; and (b) achieve a level of personal growth and

maturity which will allow them to transfer the knowledge and skills

acquired in the university community to the total societal environment.








This enables them to become effective and productive investments in

human capital.


The Role of the Dean of Students

Universities vary widely with respect to the titles given to persons

who have the responsibilities of the "dean of students." Arend (1975),

in a study of the role of chief student personnel administrators in Ohio

colleges and universities, found the two most common titles to be Dean

of Students and Vice President for Student Affairs. In the current

investigation, however, the dean of students (as defined herein) may or

may not be the university's chief student personnel administrator.

Chief student personnel administrators in Ohio public universities

were also the subjects of role analysis study by Anton (1976). The con-

ceptual framework used to guide his study was a theoretical model of

factors involved in the taking (receiving) of organizational roles pro-

posed by Katz and Kahn (1966). Anton found eight identifiable sources

for role definition perceived by chief student personnel administrators:

(a) administrative superior(s); (b) administrative peers; (c) student

affairs staff; (d) faculty; (e) written job descriptions; (f) fellow

student affairs administrators outside the incumbent's institution; (g)

organizations and associations; and (h) the "self." Based on these

findings, one might reasonably conclude that students played no part

in defining the role of these chief student personnel administrators,

or, at the very least, students were not perceived by them as role-

definers. Such a conclusion, if accurate, could illustrate the frustra-

tions experienced by students who seek greater involvement in governance


and decision-making processes.









In their study of the perceptions of the role of the dean of students

held by other pertinent groups, Dutton et al. (1970, p. 8) found that

deans and presidents were in general agreement. Deans, however, were

found more likely than presidents to say that the dean's primary

responsibility was to students, rather than to the institution, and

favored involving students in institutional governance. Deans were also

found to be less willing to view the enforcement of moral standards as

among their responsibilities. A major finding of Dutton's study indicated

that deans function in the midst of widely conflicting expectations (p. 7).

This finding may have provided a basis for understanding why deans ex-

perience role confusion, and sometimes conflict, with members of the

academic community.

Sandeen (1971) also noted the demands placed on the dean's

shoulders:

The president, the faculty, the students, the
public, and the dean's own staff may all have
different expectations of him, and the-dean
himself, of course, has his own goals and
priorities to meet. (p. 222)

Blue (1973), as an extension of the study by Dutton et al. (1970),

found significant differences in the assumptions and beliefs of academic

community members regarding the dean of students' role in 16 North

Carolina colleges and universities. Reference groups in different types

of institutions (public-private, black-white) appeared to hold similar

role expectations for the dean of students.

Terenzini (1973) studied the views of deans and presidents con-.

cerning the nials of student affairs programs. His findings seemed to

indicate that the two groups were most sharply divided on the question

of the cxternt to which student affairs programs should be involved in the








academic or intellectual development of students -- the degree to which

"academic" and "student" affairs should be merged (p. 33). Presidents,

in this study,were less inclined than deans to see the academic and

intellectual pursuits of students as appropriate concerns for student

personnel programs.

During the course of interviews conducted as a part of the Campus

Governance Project of the American Association for Higher Education,

Hodgkinson (1970) was impressed with the degree of criticism expressed

toward deans of students. Faculty and other administrators appeared to

be confused about whether the dean was an advocate for students or an

intermediary who protected higher level administrators from student

protests. Another role conflict situation involved disagreements be-

tween deans of students and their presidents concerning the severity

of punishment warranted in student disciplinary matters. Also, deans

were found to have little administrative power or influence on final

decision making. In an earlier analysis (Hodgkinson, 1968), it was

suggested that deans of students were criticized so severely because

they very likely represented a threat to faculty members and other

administrators. The threat was apparently caused by the ease with

which students expressed to the dean of students their concerns about

weaknesses in the academic program (p. 7).

Similar observations of opposing role expectations held for the

dean of students were discussed by Rickard (1972):

Student affairs staff, caught in the crossfire
between administrative expectations to control
[student] behavior and student demands for increased
control over the conditions of student life, find
the continued lack of clarity in roles detrimental
to the development of relationships of trust with








students. With lack of clarity in the system,
many students prefer to live with problems rather
than seek assistance from student affairs staff
members. (p. 220)

Rickard suggested that the traditional practice of combining the

counselor-disciplinarian roles, perpetuating the advocacy-adversary

dilemma, should be abolished in order to eliminate much of the role

ambiguity in student personnel work. He seemed to suggest that the

disciplinarian role ought to be clearly divorced from the entire area

of student affairs.

Williamson and Biggs (1975) agreed with a portion of Rickard's

analysis when they noted that "A traditional stereotyped image of role

conflict and expectancy is illustrated by the assumed antagonistic roles

of the dean . as friend-counselor and 'disciplinarian'" (p. 168).

However, they suggested a different strategy for solving this problem.

We shall hold that this assumed conflict can be
and must be reconciled within SPW [Student
Personnel Work] (but not by every staff or
counselor) rather than by separation of the
two roles into discrete role-sets. (p. 168)

A study of the functions of chief student personnel officers in

selected colleges with student populations between 1,000 and 2,500

(Lilley, 1974) indicated that the ten functions of most concern were:

serving as chief administrator of the student affairs unit, policy

formation affecting students, determining objectives, preparing the

budget, recruiting staff, non-academic discipline, student government,

student-faculty liaison, interpreting policy to students, and advising

faculty on students' needs (p. 9). It may be observed that direct

involvement with students could occur within only four of these ten

functions. Lilley concluded that the role of the chief student personnel

officer appeared to be one of coordinating and administering a








heterogeneous group of functions. A similar study (Arend, 1975), the

sample population of which included large and small institutions, showed

that deans of students in large institutions were becoming much more

involved with supervision of staff members and, as a result, had less

time to devote to activities involving direct student contact.


Relationship of the Scholarly Literature
to the Study

In order to place the current study in perspective and to derive

empirically testable hypotheses, the following propositions were drawn

from the scholarly literature:

1. The student personnel function, as directed by the dean of

students, is operated in the midst of widely conflicting expectations

held by various reference groups.

2. 'Whether viewed from the standpoint of observer perceptions or

actor perceptions, some type of role conflict will occur where a role

incumbent is faced with contradictory expectations emanating from various

reference groups.

3. Intrarole conflict will be experienced by a role incumbent who

perceives contradictory expectations held for his or her role by more

than one role-defining reference group.

4. The degree of intrarole conflict experienced by a role incumbent

is inversely proportional to the degree of role consensus among various

reference groups concerning the role expectations held by them for that

role incumbent.

Propositions two, three, and four are derived from the role conflict

theory of Gross et al. (1966). These propositions, in conjunction with

proposition one, provided the basis for developing hypotheses concerning





32



the relationship between the degree of reference group consensus on role

expectations held for the dean of students and the level of intrarole

conflict perceived by the dean.


Confinement on Sources for Reviewed Literature


The scholarly literature reviewed in Chapter II is the result of a

search for literature related to the current study in books, monographs,

Dissertation Abstracts International, the Current Index of Journals in

Education, the Education Index, and College Student Personnel Abstracts.













CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA


The purpose of this chapter is to present an analysis of results ob-

tained in the field portion of this study. Two forms of an interview

guide were designed to elicit information regarding: (a) the degree of

consensus on expectations held for deans of students by members of four

role-defining reference groups; (b) the level of intrarole conflict

perceived by deans of students; and (c) issues within general areas of

responsibility on which deans of students and reference group members

agreed or: disagreed fundamentally.

The interview process is discussed below followed by a description

of the methods used to analyze the data. A discussion of the data

presentation format precedes an analysis of the data for each individual

institution. For the purpose of preserving the anonymity of respondents

each institution was assigned arbitrarily an identification number of

1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.


The Interview Process


Personal interviews were conducted with 13 respondents on each of

five university campuses located in the southeastern United States.

Participants at each institution included the dean of students, three

peer/superior administrators, three subordinate administrators, three

faculty members, and three student leaders. Consequently, interviews

were accomplished with a total of 65 participants.









With few exceptions, each participant responded to 21 items on an

interview guide. At Institutions 1 and 3, all participants responded to

each item. One faculty member at Institution 2 did not respond to item

16. The dean of students at Institution 4 did not respond to items 2 and

18. One superior administrator at this institution did not respond to

item 18. At Institution 5, one superior administrator did not respond to

items 11, 14, and 16. Individual responses of all participants appear in

Appendices C and D.

The maximum number of responses for 65 participants responding to 21

interview guide items was 1,365. Recorded usable responses totaled 1,358

yielding a response rate of 99.5%.


Methods of Data Analysis


The methods used for data analysis are presented in four primary

sections. The first two sections are devoted to an explanation of the

quantification of reference group consensus measures and intrarole con-

flict measures, respectively. The process of determining the relationship

between measures of consensus and conflict is discussed in the third

section. Provided in the fourth section is a description of the data

collapsing technique used to ascertain areas of fundamental agreement or

disagreement among respondents.


Reference Group Consensus Measures


Responses provided by members of the four reference groups formed the

basis for analyzing the degree of consensus on expectations held for the

dean of students at a given institution. Responses to each item on the

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR REFERENCE GROUPS Form 2 (see Appendix B) were coded









from 1 to 4 on a Likert Scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree,

3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree. In most instances, three members of

each of the four reference groups at a given institution responded to each

item on the interview guide. A composite reference group response score

was obtained for each item by computing the arithmetic mean of the three

responses to that item. In instances where the arithmetic mean did not

result in a whole number, the score was rounded to the nearest whole

number. Although the rounding operation produced composite reference

group response scores of a basically modal nature, further manipulation of

these scores was not affected detrimentally. Appendix C contains a com-

plete list of individual and composite reference group response scores

for each sample institution.

Table 1 provides an example of the derivation of composite reference

group response scores. Responses used in the example are those given by

sample participants at Institution 1 for item 1 on the INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR

REFERENCE GROUPS Form 2.


Table 1

Example of Composite Reference Group
Response Score Derivation for Item 1 at Institution 1


Reference Group Individual Response Composite Score


Peers/Superiors 2 2 3 2
Subordinates 4 2 3 3
Faculty 2 2 2 2
Student Leaders 3 3 4 3



As shown in Table 1, computation of the arithmetic mean for the

responses of the peer/superior and student leader reference groups resulted









in fractional values which were then rounded to the nearest whole number

to obtain the composite score. The arithmetic mean computed for the

subordinate and faculty reference groups resulted in a whole number re-

quiring no rounding operation.

Using the composite reference group response scores as a base, major

and minor discrepancy scores were computed for each item by examining the

six possible pairwise comparisons of the four reference groups. A major

discrepancy was assumed to exist in a given pairwise comparison if the two

composite response scores represented a "directional" difference on the

fundamental agreement-disagreement continuum. For example, a composite

score of 1 or 2 was considered to be directionally different from a score

of 3 or 4 because both of the former scores represent fundamental dis-

agreement with a particular item whereas both of the latter scores rep-

resent fundamental agreement with the same item.

A minor discrepancy was assumed to exist in a given pairwise com-

parison if the two composite response scores represented a difference in

"strength" of response on either side of the fundamental agreement-dis-

agreement continuum. For example, a composite score of 1, when compared

to a composite score of 2, represents a stronger fundamental disagreement

on a particular item. Nevertheless, both of these responses are in the

same basic direction. A pairwise comparison of composite scores of 3 and

4 yields a difference in strength of agreement on a particular item but

again, both are in the same basic direction.

A major discrepancy in a given pairwise comparison was assigned-an

arbitrary value of 4. Minor discrepancies, representing a lesser dif-

ference in expectations in a given pairwise comparison, were assigned an

arbitrary value of 2.









Major and minor discrepancy scores for each of the six possible pair-

wise comparisons on a given item were then summed respectively to obtain

total major and minor discrepancy scores for each item. Summation of all

discrepancy scores on a given item resulted in a total item discrepancy

score.

Table 2 provides an example of the derivation of major, minor, and

total item discrepancy scores. The composite reference group response

scores, used as a basis for deriving discrepancy scores in this example,

were those computed from responses given by sample participants at

Institution 1 for items 1 and 4 on the INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR REFERENCE

GROUPS Form 2.


Table 2

Example of Major, Minor, and
Total item Discrepancy Score Derivation


Minor Major Item
Reference Group Pairwise Comparisonsa Discre- Discre- Discre-
Item AB AC AD BC BD CD pancy pancy pancy
Total Total Total

1 4 0 4 4 0 4 0 16 16
4 0 2 0 2 0 2 6 0 6

F Reference Group Legend: A = Peer/Superior Administrators, B =
Subordinate Administrators, C = Faculty Members, and D = Student Leaders.


Table 2 shows that no minor discrepancies were noted for item 1 of

this example. However, the major discrepancy score is i6. Consequently,

the total item discrepancy score of 16 represents a summation of major

discrepancies in the expectations of various reference groups in four

possible painrise comparisons: peers/superiors and subordinates; peers/








superiors and student leaders; subordinates and faculty; and faculty and

student leaders. For item 4 the total item discrepancy score of 6 rep-

resents a summation of minor discrepancies in the expectations of various

reference groups in three pairwise comparisons: peers/superiors and

faculty; subordinates and faculty; and faculty and student leaders.

The data on reference group consensus measures, confined to minor,

major, and item discrepancy score totals, appear in Appendix E.


Intrarole Conflict Measures


The dean of students at each sample institution was requested to

respond to each item on the INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DEANS OF STUDENTS Form 1

(see Appendix B) first in terms of the extent to which he or she personally

agreed or disagreed with the item. These responses were recorded on the

4-point Likert Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

Second, the dean was asked to give an estimate of what the composite

reference group response would be for each of the four sample reference

groups. These estimates were recorded on the same 4-point scale.

The reference group response estimates provided for each item by

each of the deans (see Appendix D) were used as the basis for computing

major, minor, and total item discrepancy scores. The procedure used for

computing these discrepancy scores was the same as that used to compute

discrepancy scores from the composite reference group response scores.

An examination of the six possible pairwise comparisons of a particular

dean's estimates of reference group responses on a given item yielded

discrepancy scores for the level of intrarole conflict onthat item.

These intrarole conflict discrepancy scores were assumed to be comparable

to the reference group consensus discrepancy scores. As is the case with









reference group consensus discrepancy scores, intrarole conflict dis-

crepancy score data (minor, major, and item score totals only) appear

in Appendix E.


Relationship Between Measures of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict


Forms 1 and 2 of the interview guide contained 21 parallel items.

These items represented three areas of responsibility of the dean of

students. The area of student advocacy was represented by items 1-7,

social maturity and value development by items 8-14, and governance by

items 15-21.

Two sets of data were generated for each of the sample institutions.

Members of the four role-defining reference groups, responding to 21 items

categorized into three areas of responsibility of the dean of students,

provided data for measJues of reference group consensus in each of the

three areas. The dean of students, estimating the responses of reference

group members, provided data for measures of intrarole conflict in the

same areas of responsibility.

Using the reference group consensus measures, an area discrepancy

score mean (based on the discrepancy score totals for each of the seven

items in that area) was computed for each of the dean's areas of respon-

sibility. Area discrepancy score means were also computed for each area

of responsibility using the intrarole conflict measures.

Two methods of analyzing the relationship between the consensus

variable and the intrarole conflict variable were used. The first method,

an intrainstitutional analysis, and the second method, an interinstitutional

analysis, are described below.









Intrainstitutional analysis

The intrainstitutional analysis was accomplished through the following

procedure:

1. A consensus discrepancy score grand mean and an intrarole con-

flict discrepancy score grand mean were computed From the respective 21

item discrepancy score totals.

2. Comparisons of the area discrepancy score means to the discrepancy

score grand means enabled the determination of highness or lowness of the

area means. If a consensus area mean was greater than the consensus grand

mean, a low degree of consensus was assumed to exist in that area of re-

sponsibility. (It is important to remember that all scores were based on

"discrepancies" or "degrees of disagreement" between composite group

responses and that a higher discrepancy score, therefore, represents a

lower degree of consensus.) If a consensus area mean was less than the

consensus grand mean, a high degree of consensus was assumed to exist in

that area of responsibility. If an intrarole conflict area mean was

greater than the intrarole conflict grand mean, a high level of intrarole

conflict was assumed to exist in that area of responsibility. If an

intrarole conflict area mean was less than the intrarole conflict grand

mean, a low level of intrarole conflict was assumed to exist in that

area of responsibility.

3. Hypotheses derived from the literature concerning the relation-

ship between the degree of consensus on expectations held for the dean

of students and the level of intrarole conflict experienced by the dean

were then empirically tested, on an intrainstitutional level, for each

of the dean's three areas of responsibility.









Interinstitutional analysis

The interinstitutional analysis was accomplished through the following

procedure:

1. A consensus discrepancy score grand mean and an intrarole con-

flict discrepancy score grand mean were computed for each area of respon-

sibility irrespective of institutional differentiations. This was accom-

plished by combining the respective seven item discrepancy score totals

for a given area of responsibility at an individual institution with the

item discrepancy score totals for the same area of responsibility at all

other institutions.

2. Comparisons of the area discrepancy score means for an individual

institution to the area discrepancy score grand means for all institutions

enabled the determination of highness or lowness of the area means for an

individual institution. If an institutional consensus area mean was

greater than the corresponding interinstitutional consensus area grand

mean, a low degree of consensus was assumed to exist in that area of

responsibility at that particular institution. Conversely, an institutional

consensus area mean lower than the corresponding interinstitutional con-

sensus area grand mean reflected a high degree of consensus in that area

of responsibility at a given institution. If an institutional intrarole

conflict area mean was greater than the corresponding interinstitutional

intrarole conflict area grand mean, a high level of intrarole conflict

was assumed to exist in that area of responsibility at that particular

institution. Conversely, an institutional intrarole conflict area mean

lower than the corresponding interinstitutional intrarole conflict area

grand mean reflected a low level of intrarole conflict in that area of

responsibility at a given institution.









3. Hypotheses derived from the literature concerning the relation-

ship between the degree of consensus on expectations held for the dean of

students and the level of intrarole conflict experienced by the dean were

then empirically tested, on an interinstitutional level, for each of the

dean's three areas of responsibility.


Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement Among Respondents


In order to determine those interview guide items on which the

respondents at individual institutions agreed or disagreed fundamentally,

the coded responses of reference group members and the dean of students

at each sample institution were recorded or "collapsed" to an abbreviated

form. The dean's responses to each item (ranging from 1 to 4 where 1 =

strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree) were recorded such that points

1 and 2 on the Likert Scale became minus (-) responses representing

fundamental disagreement with the item, and points 3 and 4 on the scale

became plus (+) responses representing fundamental agreement with the

item.

Responses of reference group members were recorded in the same manner

as those of the dean except that the composite reference group response

scores, rather than individual response scores, were used for the recoding

operation.


Fornat for Presentation of Data

The results of this study are reported primarily in terms of dis-

crepancy score totals and mean score comparisons. Appendix E contains,

for each sample institution, the item discrepancy score totals for the

three areas of responsibility of the dean of students. These areas of








responsibility, represented by the respective seven-item sets of parallel

items on Forms 1 and 2 of the interview guide, appear in Appendix E in

the order of student advocacy first, social maturity and value develop-

ment second, and governance third. Within each area of responsibility

discrepancy score data appear first for responses provided by reference

group members (hereafter called consensus data in tabular material), and

then for estimates of reference group responses provided by the deans

(hereafter called intrarole conflict data in tabular material).

Before presenting the data for each sample institution it is necessary

to clarify the essential purpose for using item discrepancy scores as the

basis for data analysis. The utility of the item discrepancy scores rests

in the fact that they provide a point of comparison (via mean discrepancy

scores) between the areas of responsibility of the dean of students.

Consequently, only the mean and grand mean discrepancy scores for each

area of responsibility and for each institutional variable (consensus

and intrarole conflict) are essential in order to establish the highness

or lowness of a given area of responsibility with respect to degrees of

consensus and levels of intrarole conflict.

The remainder of this chapter is devoted to intrainstitutional and

interinstitutional analyses of the data. Collapsed data regarding funda-

mental agreement or disagreement among respondents on all interview guide

items are presented following each method of analysis.


Intrainstitutional Analysis of Data

Institution 1

Minor, major, and item discrepancy score totals for responses at









Institution 1 are presented in Tables E-1 through E-6. A summary of the

consensus and intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means for this

institution is shown in Table 3.


Table 3

Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at
Institution 1


Consensus Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score
Mean Meanb


Student Advocacy 8.00 14.57
Social Maturity and Value Development 5.14 10.00
Governance 10.57 10.57

aConsensus discrepancy score grand mean 7.90, standard deviation
5.27.
blntrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean 11.71, standard
deviation 5.2G.


A comparison of the consensus area discrepancy score means to the

consensus discrepancy score grand mean reveals that the areas of student

advocacy and governance are characterized by high discrepancy score means

and are, therefore, areas of low consensus. The social maturity and

value development area has a low discrepancy score mean and is, therefore,

an area of high consensus.

The consensus area discrepancy score means at Institution 1 are, in

order of increasing degrees of disagreement, 5.14 for the social maturity

and value development area, 8.00 for the student advocacy area, and 10.57

for the governance area. Consequently, peer/superior administrators,

subordinate administrators, faculty members, and student leaders agreed

most on their expectations for the role performed by the dean of students

in the area of social maturity and value development. A lesser degree of








agreement existed for the dean's role in the student advocacy area and

the least amount of agreement was found in the governance area.

A comparison of the intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means

to the intrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean shows that student

advocacy is a high intrarole conflict area. The areas of social maturity

and value development and governance are low intrarole conflict areas.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means are, in order

of increasing levels of conflict, 10.00 for the social maturity and value

development area, 10.57 for the governance area, and 14.57 for the student

advocacy area. This indicates that the dean of students experienced the

least amount of conflicting role expectations in the social maturity and

value development area, a greater amount of conflicting expectations in

the governance area, and the greatest amount of conflicting expectations

in the student advocacy area.

The relationship of reference group consensus on role expectations

held for the dean of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the

dean at Institution 1 is now observable in each of the dean's areas of

responsibility. The area of student advocacy was characterized by a low

degree of consensus and a high level of intrarole conflict. The social

maturity and value development area had a high degree of consensus and

a low level of intrarole conflict. The area of governance was one of

low consensus and low intrarole conflict.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy scores in Table 3 were

derived from estimates of reference group responses provided hy the dean

of students at Institution 1. A comparison of these estimates to the

actual responses provided by reference group members shows that the dean

estimated accurately the area of greatest agreement among the reference







groups (social maturity and value development), but estimated inaccurately

the relative degree of agreement in the student advocacy and governance

areas.

Data regarding the fundamental agreement or disagreement among respon-

dents at Institution 1 on all interview guide items are shown in Table 4.

In the student advocacy area the dean and all reference groups agreed

fundamentally that the dean must be willing to engage in frank and open

debate with students (item 4), and that the dean should, if necessary,

advocate positions on policy matters that are in opposition to those held

by peers or superiors (item 5).

All reference groups agreed that the dean should regulate student

conduct to the extent necessary for the maintenance of reasonable order

in the academic community (item 6), and that the privacy rights and con-

fidences of counseling relationships should not be violated except for

safety considerations (item 7). The dean disagreed with both of these

items.

The dean, subordinates, and student leaders felt Lhat the dean's

relationships with students should take priority over administrative tasks

(item 1) but the other reference groups disagreed. The dean and student

leaders indicated agreement with the premise that although counseling

and discipline may be closely related, the dean should give priority

consistently to the counseling needs of students (item 2). The dean's

peers/superiors, subordinates, and faculty indicated fundamental dis-

agreement with this item. Item 3, which suggested that the dean's pri-

mary commitment should be to the individual needs of the student, pro-

duced agreement from the dean, peers/superiors, and subordinates, and

disagreement from faculty and student leaders.














Table 4

Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 1


a Dean of Reference Groups_
Item Students Peers/ Subordinates Faculty Student Leaders
Superiors


Student Advocacy

1 + + +
2 + + +
3 + + +
4 + + + + +
5 + + + + +
6 + + + +
7 -+ + + +

Social Maturity and Value Development

8 + + + + +
9 -+ + + 4
10 + + + + +
11 + + + +
12 + + + + +
13 + + + + +
14 + + + + +

Governance

15 + + + + +
16 + +
17 -
18 + +
19 + + + +!
20 + + + +
21 + + + + +

Note. Fundamental agreement .is indicated by a "+". Fundamental
disagreement is indicated by a "-"
individual items are identified in text and in Appendix B.








In the social maturity and value development area the dean and all

reference groups agreed fundamentally that: (a) the dean should initiate

programs manifesting the institution's concern for the maturity and

development of the student (item 8); (b) the dean should allow students

to make their own personal decisions (item 10); (c) programs and activities

sponsored by the dean should help students develop their own set of values

(item 12); (d) the dean should exert influence on the institutional

environment to support individual students (item 13); and (e) student

growth may be hindered if the dean attempts to protect students from

experiencing "defeats" (item 14).

Only the dean disagreed with item 9 which suggested that social

maturity and value development are integral to the student's intellectual

attainment. The idea that it is questionable for the dean to influence

students to adopt the institution's values (item 11) was met with dis-

agreement from peers/superiors only.

In the governance area the dean and all reference groups agreed

fundamentally that the dean should consult students, faculty, and other

administrators before developing student affairs policy (item 15), and

that the dean should insist that student participation in the governance

process be representative of the student population with regard to sex,

race, and age (item 21). All groups of respondents disagreed with the

premise that the dean should have no requirement to consult with students

and faculty before determining policy (item 17).

The student leader reference group did not favor the adjudication of

academic dishonesty problems through joint participation of students,

faculty, and the dean of students (item 19). Only the peers/superiors

reference group disagreed with the limitation of the dean's role to an








advisory capacity to students on issues concerning student activities

and the allocation of student activity fees (item 20).

Although the dean and student leaders were willing to have student

affairs policy determined by a campus governance body on which the dean

would sit as a voting member, peers/superiors, faculty, and subordinates

disagreed (item 16). Student leaders and subordinates favored allowing

students primary authority to make decisions concerning visitation regu-

lations in residence halls (item 18), however, the dean, peers/superiors,

and faculty were unwilling to do so.

A review of the data in Table 4 shows that conflicting expectations

among the five groups of respondents (the dean, peers/superiors, subordi-

nates, faculty, and student leaders) resulted on five items in the stu-

dent advocacy area, four items in the governance area, and two items in

the social maturity and value development area. Further, an examination

of instances in which the fundamental role expectations of one or two

groups of respondents differed from those of the remaining groups on a

particular item showed that eight such instances appeared in the area of

student advocacy, six in the governance area, and only two in the social

maturity and value development area. These findings suggest that the

fundamental role expectations of all groups of respondents at Institution

1 tended toward greatest congruence in the social maturity and value

development area, a lesser congruence in the governance area, and least

congruence in the area of student advocacy.


Institution 2


Minor, major, and item discrepancy score totals for responses at

Institution 2 are presented in Tables E-7 through E-12. A summary of the








consensus and intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means for this

institution is shown in Table 5.


Table 5

Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at
Institution 2


Consensus Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score
Meana Mean

Student Advocacy 8.00 2.57
Social Maturity and Value Development 7.43 1.71
Governance 6.29 1.71

aConsensus discrepancy score grand mean 7.24, standard deviation
4.31.
blntrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean 2.00, standard
deviation 3.46.


A comparison of the consensus area discrepancy score means to the

consensus discrepancy score grand mean reveals that the areas of student

advocacy and social maturity and value development are characterized by

high discrepancy score means and are, therefore, areas of low consensus.

The governance area has a low discrepancy score mean and is, therefore,

an area of high consensus.

The consensus area discrepancy score means at Institution 2 are,

in order of increasing degrees of disagreement, 6.29 for the governance

area, 7.43 for the social maturity and value development area, and 8.00

for the student advocacy area. Consequently, peer/superior administrators,

subordinate administrators, faculty members, and student leaders agreed

most on their expectations for the role performed by the dean of students

in the area of governance. A lesser degree of agreement existed for the

dean's role in the social maturity and value development area, and the








least amount of agreement was found in the student advocacy area.

A comparison of the intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means

to the intrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean shows that student

advocacy is a high intrarole conflict area. The areas of social maturity

and value development and governance are low intrarole conflict areas.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means are, in order of

increasing levels of conflict, 1.71 for the areas of social maturity and

value development and governance, and 2.57 for the student advocacy area.

This indicates that the dean of students experienced the least amount of

conflicting role expectations in the areas of social maturity and value

development and governance, and a greater amount of conflicting expecta-

tions in the student advocacy area.

The relationship of reference group consensus on role expectations

held for the dean of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the

dean at Institution 2 is now observable in each of the dean's areas of

responsibility. The area of student advocacy was characterized by a low

degree of consensus and a high level of intrarole conflict. The social

maturity and value development area had a low degree of consensus and a

low level of intrarole conflict. The area of governance was one of high

consensus and low intrarole conflict.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy scores in Table 5 were de-

rived from estimates of reference group responses provided by the dean

of students at Institution 2. A comparison of these estimates with the

actual responses provided by reference group members shows that the dean

estimated accurately the area of least agreement among the reference

groups (student advocacy). Although the dean estimated a lesser degree

of agreement in the social maturity and value development area than in








the governance area, actual reference group responses showed equivalent

degrees of agreement in these areas.

Data regarding the fundamental agreement or disagreement among

respondents at Institution 2 on all interview guide items are shown in

Table 6. In the student advocacy area the dean and all reference groups

agreed fundamentally that: (a) although counseling and discipline may be

closely related, the dean should give priority consistently to the

counseling needs of students (item 2); (b) the dean must be willing to

engage in frank and open debate with students (item 4); (c) the dean

should, if necessary, advocate positions on policy matters that are in

opposition to those held by peers or superiors (item 5); (d) the dean

should regulate student conduct to the extent necessary for the maintenance

of reasonable order in the academic community (item 6); and (e) the

privacy rights and confidences of counseling relationships should not be

violated except for safety considerations (item 7).

Only the dean's subordinates disagreed with the premise that the

dean's relationships with students should take priority over administrative

tasks (item 1). The dean, peers/superiors, and faculty felt that the

dean's primary coonitment should be to the individual needs of the

student (item 3) but subordinates and student leaders disagreed.

In the social maturity and value development area the dean and all

reference groups agreed fundamentally that: (a) the dean should initiate

programs manifesting the institution's concern for the maturity and value

development of the student (item 8); (b) social maturity and value

developinnt are integral to the student's intellectual attainment (item

9); (c) the dean should allow students to make their own personal

decisions (item 10); (d) programs and activities sponsored by the dean















Table 6

Fundamental Agreement'or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 2


Dean of Reference Groups
Itema Students Peers/ Subordinates Faculty Student Leaders
Superiors


Student Advocacy


Social Maturity and Value Development


Governance


ental


Note. Fundamental agreement is indicated by a "+". Fundami
disagreement is indicated by a "-"
"Individual items are identified in text and in Appendix B.


" ' "








should help students develop their own set of values (item 12); (e) the

dean should exert influence on the institutional environment to support

individual students (item 13); and (f) student growth may be hindered if

the dean attempts to protect students from experiencing "defeats" (item

14). The idea that it is questionable for the dean to influence students

to adopt the institution's values (item 11) was met with agreement from

student leaders only.

In the governance area the dean and all reference groups agreed

fundamentally that: (a) the dean should consult students, faculty, and

other administrators before developing student affairs policy (item 15);

(b) the adjudication of academic dishonesty problems should be accomplished

through joint participation of students, faculty, and the dean of students

(item 19); (c) the dean's role should be limited to an advisory capacity

to students on issues concerning student activities and the allocation of

student activity fees (item 20); and (d) the dean should insist that

student participation in the governance process be representative of the

student population with regard to sex, race, and age (item 21).

All groups of respondents were unwilling to have student affairs

policy determined either by a campus governance body on which the dean

would sit as a voting member (item 16) or by the dean alone where there

was no implicit or explicit requirement for prior consultation with

students and faculty (item 17). All groups of respondents except faculty

favored allowing students primary authority to make decisions concerning

visitation regulations in residence halls (item 18).

A review of the data in Table 6 shows that conflicting expectations

among the five groups of respondents (the dean, peers/superiors, sub-

ordinates, faculty, and student leaders) resulted on two items in the








student advocacy area, and one item each in the areas of social maturity

and value development and governance. Further, an examination of

instances in which the fundamental role expectations of one or two groups

of respondents differed from those of the remaining groups on a particular

item showed that three such instances appeared in the area of student

advocacy, and only one instance each in the areas of social maturity

and value development and governance. These findings suggest that the

fundamental role expectations of all groups of respondents at Institution

2 tended toward greatest congruence in the areas of social maturity and

value development and governance, and least congruence in the area of

student advocacy.


Institution 3


Minor, major, and item discrepancy score totals for responses at

Institution 3 are presented in Tables E-13 through E-18. A summary of

the consensus and intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means for

this institution is shown in Table 7.


Table 7

Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at
Institution 3


Consensus Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score
ieana Meanb

Student Advocacy 6.29 2.86
Social Naturity and Value Development 7.71 3.43
Governance 10.00 4.57
aConsensus discrepancy score grand mean 8.00, standard deviation
4.98.
blntrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean 3.62, standard
deviation 4.41.








A comparison of the consensus area discrepancy score means to the

consensus discrepancy score grand mean reveals that the areas of student

advocacy and social maturity and value development are characterized by

low discrepancy score means and are, therefore, areas of high consensus.

The governance area has a high discrepancy score mean and is, therefore,

an area of low consensus.

The consensus area discrepancy score means at Institution 3 are, in

order of increasing degrees of disagreement, 6.29 for the student advocacy

area, 7.71 for the social maturity and value development area, and 10.00

for the governance area. Consequently, peer/superior administrators,

subordinate administrators, faculty members, and student leaders agreed

most on their expectations for the role performed by the dean of students

in the area of student advocacy. A lesser degree of agreement existed

for the dean's role in-the social maturity and value development area,

and the least amount of agreement was found in the governance area.

A comparison of the intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means

to the intrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean shows that

governance is a high intrarole conflict area. The areas of student

advocacy and social maturity and value development are low intrarole

conflict areas.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means are, in order

of increasing levels of conflict, 2.86 for the student advocacy area,

3.43 for the social maturity and value development area, and 4.57 for

the governance area. This indicates that the dean of students experienced

the least amount of conflicting role expectations in the student advocacy

area, a greater amount of conflicting expectations in the social maturity

and value development area, and the greatest amount of conflicting









expectations in the governance area.

The relationship of reference group consensus on role expectations

held for the dean of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the

dean at Institution 3 is now observable in each of the dean's areas of

responsibility. The area of student advocacy was characterized by a high

degree of consensus and a low level of intrarole conflict. The social

maturity and value development area also had a high degree of consensus

and a low level of intrarole conflict. The area of governance was one

of low consensus and low intrarole conflict.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy scores in Table 7 were de-

rived from estimates of reference group responses provided by the dean

of students at Institution 3. A comparison of these estimates to the

actual responses provided by reference group members shows that the dean

estimated accurately the relative degree of agreement among the

reference groups on all areas of responsibility.

Data regarding the fundamental agreement or disagreement among

respondents at Institution 3 on all interview guide items are shown in

Table 8. In the student advocacy area the dean and all reference groups

agreed fundamentally that: (a) the dean's relationship with students

should take priority over administrative tasks (item 1); (b) although

counseling and discipline may be closely related, the dean should give

priority consistently to the counseling needs of students (item 2); (c)

the dean must be willing to engage in frank and open debate with students

(item 4); (d) the dean should, if -necessary, advocate positions on policy

matters that are in opposition to those held by peers or superiors (item

5); (e) the dean should regulate student conduct to the extent necessary

for the maintenance of reasonable order in the academic community (item 6);













Table 8

Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 3


Dean of
Itema Students


Peers/
Superiors


Reference Groups
Subordinates Faculty


Student Leaders


Student Advocacy

+
+
+
+
+
+
+


Social Maturity


and Value Development


Governance


Note. Fundamental agreement is indicated by a "+". Fundamental
disagreement is indicated by a "-"
individual items are identified in text and in Appendix B.








and (f) the privacy rights and confidences of counseling relationships

should not be violated except for safety considerations (item 7). Item

3, which suggested that the dean's primary commitment should be to the

individual needs of the student, produced agreement from all groups of

respondents except peers/superiors.

In the social maturity and value development area the dean and all

reference groups agreed fundamentally that: (a) the dean should initiate

programs manifesting the institution's concern for the maturity and value

development of the student (item 8); (b) social maturity and value

development are integral to the student's intellectual attainment (item

9); (c) the dean should allow students to make their own personal decisions

(item 10); (d) programs and activities sponsored by the dean should help

students develop their own set of values (item 12); (e) the dean should

exert influence on the institutional environment to support individual

students (item 13); and (f) student growth may be hindered if the dean

attempts to protect students from experiencing "defeats" (item 14).

Subordinates, faculty, and student leaders agreed that it would be

questionable behavior for the dean to influence students to adopt the

institution's values (item 11) but the dean and his peers/superiors

disagreed.

In the governance area the dean and all reference groups agreed

fundamentally that the dean should consult students, faculty, and other

administrators before developing student affairs policy (item 15). All

groups of respondents disagreed with .the premise that the dean should

have no requirements to consult with students and faculty before deter-

mining policy (item 17). Only subordinates and student leaders felt








that student affairs policy should be determined by a campus governance

body on which the dean sits as a voting member (item 16).

All groups of respondents except peers/superiors favored allowing

students primary authority to make decisions concerning visitation

regulations in residence halls (item 18). Peers/superiors, faculty,

and student leaders favored the adjudication of academic dishonesty

problems through joint participation of students, faculty, and the dean

of students (item 19) but the dean and subordinates disagreed.

All groups of respondents except the dean were willing to have the

dean's role limited to an advisory capacity to students on issues con-

cerning student activities and the allocation of student activity fees

(item 20). Although the dean's peers/superiors, subordinates, and

faculty agreed that the dean should insist that student participation

in the governance process be representative of the student population

with regard to sex, race, and age (item 21), the dean and student

leaders did not agree.

A review of the data in Table 8 shows that conflicting expectations

among the five groups of respondents (the dean, peers/superiors, sub-

ordinates, faculty, and student leaders) resulted on five items in the

governance area, and one item each in the areas of student advocacy and

social maturity and value development. Further, an examination of

instances in which the fundamental role expectations of one or two

groups of respondents differed from those of the remaining groups on a

particular item showed that eight such instances appeared in the

governance area, and two instances each in the areas of student advocacy

and social maturity and value development. These findings suggest that

the fundamental role expectations of all groups of respondents at








Institution 3 tended toward greatest congruence in the areas of student

advocacy and social maturity and value development, and least congruence

in the area of governance.


Institution 4


Minor, major, and item discrepancy score totals for responses at

Institution 4 are presented in Tables E-19 through E-24. A summary of

the consensus and intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means for

this institution is shown in Table 9.


Table 9

Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at
Institution 4


Consensus Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score
Meana Meanb


Student Advocacy 10.29 5.00
Social Maturity and Value Development 6.00 3.14
Governance 5.71 6.00

aConsensus discrepancy score grand mean 7.33, standard deviation
4.99.
bIntrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean 4.63, standard
deviation 5.29.


A comparison of the consensus area discrepancy score means to the

consensus discrepancy score grand mean reveals that the areas of social

maturity and value development and governance are characterized by low

discrepancy score means and are, therefore, areas of high consensus.

The student advocacy area has a high discrepancy score mean and is,

therefore, an area of low consensus.








The consensus area discrepancy score means at Institution 4 are,

in order of increasing degrees of disagreement, 5.71 for the governance

area, 6.00 for the social maturity and value development area, and 10.29

for the student advocacy area. Consequently, peer/superior administrators,

subordinate administrators, faculty members, and student leaders agreed

most on their expectations for the role performed by the dean of students

in the area of governance. A lesser degree of agreement existed for the

dean's role in the social maturity and value development area, and the

least amount of agreement was found in the student advocacy area.

A comparison of the intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means

to the intrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean shows that student

advocacy and governance are high intrarole conflict areas. The area of

social maturity and value development is a low intrarole conflict area.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means are, in order

of increasing levels oF conflict, 3.14 for the social maturity and value

development area, 5.00 for the student advocacy area, and G.00 for the

governance area. This indicates that the dean of students experienced

the least amount of conflicting role expectations in the social maturity

and value development area, a greater amount of conflicting expectations

in the student advocacy area, and the greatest amount of conflicting ex-

pectations in the student advocacy area.

lhe relationship of reference group consensus on role expectations

held for the dean of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the

dean at Institution 4 is now observable in each of the dean's areas of

responsibility. The area of student advocacy was characterized by a low

degree of consensus and a high level of intrarole conflict. The social

maturity and value development area had a high degree of consensus and








a low level of intrarole conflict. The area of governance was one of

high consensus and high intrarole conflict.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy scores in Table 9 were de-

rived from estimates of reference group responses provided by the dean

of students at Institution 4. A comparison of these estimates to the

actual responses provided by reference group members shows that the

dean estimated inaccurately the relative degree of agreement among the

reference groups on all areas of responsibility.

Data regarding the fundamental agreement or disagreement among

respondents at Institution 4 on all interview guide items are shown in

Table 10. In the student advocacy area the dean and all reference groups

agreed fundamentally that: (a) the dean must be willing to engage in

frank and open debate with students (item 4); (b) the dean should, if

necessary, advocate positions on policy matters that are in opposition

to those held by peers and superiors (item 5); and (c) the dean should

regulate student conduct to the extent necessary for the maintenance of

reasonable order in the academic community (item 6). All reference

groups agreed that although counseling and discipline may be closely

related, the dean should give priority consistently to the counseling

needs of students (item 2). However, the dean did not respond to this

item.

Only the dean's peers/superiors disagreed that the dean's relation-

ship with students should take priority over administrative tasks (item

1). The dean's subordinates, faculty, and student leaders agreed that

the dean's primary commitment should be to the individual needs of the

student (item 3) but the dean and peers/superiors disagreed. With the

exception of student leaders, the dean and other reference groups agreed




64


Table 10


Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 4

Dean of Reference Groups
Itema Studentsb Peers/ Subordinates Faculty Student Leaders
Superiors


Student Advocacy


Social Maturity and Value Development


Governance


Note. Fundamental agreement is indicated by a "+". Fundamental
disagreement is indicated by a "-"
alndividual items are identified in text and in Appendix B.
bAn asterisk (*) indicates a missing response.









that the primary rights and confidences of counseling relationships

should not be violated except for safety considerations (item 7).

In the social maturity and value development area the dean and all

reference groups agreed fundamentally that: (a) the dean should initiate

programs manifesting the institution's concern for the maturity and

value development of the student (item 8); (b) social maturity and value

development are integral to the student's intellectual attainment (item

9); (c) the dean should allow students to make their own personal

decisions (item 10); (d) it would be questionable behavior for the dean

to influence students to adopt the institution's values (item 11); (e)

programs and activities sponsored by the dean should help students

develop their own set of values (item 12); (f) the dean should exert

influence on the institutional environment to support individual students

(item 13); and (g) student growth may be hindered if the dean attempts

to protect students from experiencing "defeats" (item 14).

In the governance area the dean and all reference groups agreed

fundamentally that: (a) the adjudication of academic dishonesty prob-

lems should be accomplished through joint participation of students,

faculty, and the dean of students (item 19); (b) the dean's role should

be limited to an advisory capacity to students on issues concerning

student activities and the allocation of student activity fees (item 20);

and (c) the dean should consult students, faculty, and other administra-

tors before developing student affairs policy (item 15). All groups of

respondents disagreed with the premise that the dean should have no

requirement to consult with students and faculty before determining

policy (item 17). Only the dean's peers/superiors were unwilling to

have student affairs policy determined by a campus governance body on









which the dean sits as a voting member (item 16).

All reference groups except subordinates favored allowing students

primary authority to make decisions concerning visitation regulations in

residence halls (item 18). The dean, however, did not respond to this

item. Although all reference groups agreed that the dean should insist

that student participation in the governance process be representative

of the student population with regard to sex, race, and age (item 21),

the dean did not agree.

A review of the data in Table 10 shows that conflicting expectations

among the five groups of respondents (the dean, peers/superiors, subordi-

nates, faculty, and student leaders) resulted on three items each in the

areas of student advocacy and governance, and no items in the social

maturity and value development area. Further, an examination of instances

in which the fundamental role expectations of one or two groups of re-

spondents differed from those of the remaining groups on a particular

item showed that four such instances appeared in the student advocacy

area, three instances in the governance area, and no such instances in

the social maturity and value development area. These findings suggest

that the fundamental role expectations of all groups of respondents at

Institution 4 tended toward greatest congruence in the area of social

maturity and value development, a lesser congruence in the area of

governance, and least congruence in the area of student advocacy.

Institution 5


Minor, major, and item discrepancy score totals for responses at

Institution 5 are presented in Tables E-25 through E-30. A summary of

the consensus and intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means for









this institution is shown in Table 11.



Table 11

Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Means at
Institution 5


Consensus Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score
Meana Meanb


Student Advocacy 8.00 5.71
Social Maturity and Value Development 7.14 0.00
Governance 9.14 4.00

aConsensus discrepancy score grand mean 8.10, standard deviation
4.22.
422bntrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean 3.24, standard
deviation 6.02.


A comparison of the consensus area discrepancy score means to the

consensus discrepancy score grand mean reveals that the areas of student

advocacy and social maturity and value development are characterized by

low discrepancy score means and are, therefore, areas of high consensus.

The governance area has a high discrepancy score mean and is, therefore,

an area of low consensus.

The consensus area discrepancy score means at Institution 5 are,

in order of increasing degrees of disagreement, 7.14 for the social

maturity and value development area, 8.00 for the student advocacy area,

and 9.14 for the governance area. Consequently, peer/superior admini-

strators, subordinate administrators, faculty members, and student -

leaders agreed most on their expectations for the role performed by the

dean of students in the area of social maturity and value development.

A lesser degree of agreement existed for the dean's role in the student









advocacy area, and the least amount of agreement was found in the

governance area.

A comparison of the intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means

to the intrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean shows'that the

areas of student advocacy and governance are high intrarole conflict

areas. The area of social maturity and value development is a low

intrarole conflict area.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy score means are, in order

of increasing levels of conflict, 0.00 for the social maturity and value

development area, 4.00 for the governance area, and 5.71 for the student

advocacy area. This indicates that the dean of students experienced the

least amount of conflicting role expectations in the social maturity and

value development area, a greater amount of conflicting expectations in

the governance area, and the greatest amount of conflicting expectations

in the student advocacy area.

The relationship of reference group consensus on role expectations

held for the dean of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the

dean at Institution 5 is now observable in each of the dean's areas of

responsibility. The area of student advocacy was characterized by a high

degree of consensus and a high level of intrarole conflict. The social

maturity and value development area had a high degree of consensus and a

low level of intrarole conflict. The area of governance was one of low

consensus and high intrarole conflict.

The intrarole conflict area discrepancy scores in Table 11 were de-

rived from estimates of reference group responses provided by the dean of

students at Institution 5. A comparison of these estimates to the actual

responses provided by reference group members shows that the dean estimated









accurately the area of greatest agreement among the reference groups

(social maturity and value development), but estimated inaccurately the

relative degree of agreement in the student advocacy and governance areas.

Data regarding the fundamental agreement or disagreement among re-

spondents at Institution 5 on all interview guide items are shown in

Table 12. In the student advocacy area the dean and all reference groups

agreed fundamentally that: (a) the dean must be willing to engage in

frank and open debate with students (item 4); (b) the dean should, if

necessary, advocate positions on policy matters that are in opposition

to those held by peers or superiors (item 5); (c) the dean should regulate

student conduct to the extent necessary for the maintenance of reasonable

order in the academic community (item 6); and (d) the privacy rights and

confidences of counseling relationships should not be violated except

for safety considerations (item 7).

The dean's peers/superiors, faculty, and student leaders agreed

that the dean's relationship with students should take priority over

administrative tasks (item 1) but the dean and subordinates did not

agree. Only the dean disagreed with the premise that although counseling

and discipline may be closely related, the dean should give priority

consistently to the counseling needs of students (item 2). Item 3,

which suggested that the dean's primary commitment should be to the

individual needs of the student, produced agreement from all groups of

respondents except the dean and peers/superiors.

In the social maturity and value development area the dean and all.

reference groups agreed fundamentally that: (a) the dean should initiate

programs manifesting the institution's concern for the maturity and value

development of the student (item 8); (b) social maturity and value














Table 12

Fundamental Agreement or Disagreement among
Respondents at Institution 5


aDean of Reference Groups
Item Students Peers/ Subordinates Faculty Student Leaders
Superi ors


Student Advocacy

1 + + +
2 -+ + + +
3 + + +
4 + + + + +
5 + + + + +
6 + + + + +
7 + + + + +

Social Maturity and Value Development

8 + + + + +
9 + + + + +
10 + + + + +
11 +
12 + + 4 + +
13 + + + + +
14 + + + + +

Governance

15 + + + + +
16 + + +
17 -
18 + + +
19 + + + + +
20 +
21 + + + + +

Note. Fundamental agreement is indicated by a "+". Fundamental
disagreement is indicated by a "-"
aIndividual items are identified in text and in Appendix B.









development are integral to the student's intellectual attainment (item

9); (c) the dean should allow students to make their own personal de-

cisions (item 10); (d) programs and activities sponsored by the dean

should help students develop their own set of values (item 12); (e) the

dean should exert influence on the institutional environment to support

individual students (item 13); and (f) student growth may be hindered

if the dean attempts to protect students from experiencing "defeats"

(item 14). Only student leaders agreed that it would be questionable

behavior for the dean to influence students to adopt the institution's

values (item 11).

In the governance area the dean and all reference groups agreed

fundamentally that: (a) the adjudication of academic dishonesty prob-

lems should be accomplished through joint participation of students,

faculty, and the dean of students (item 19); (b) the dean should insist

that student participation in the governance process be representative

of the student population with regard to sex, race, and age (item 21);

and (c) the dean should consult students, faculty, and other administrators

before developing student affairs policy (item 15). All groups of

respondents disagreed with the premise that the dean should have no

requirement to consult with students and faculty before determining

policy (item 17). The dean, peers/superiors, and faculty felt that

student affairs policy should be determined by a campus governance body

on which the dean sits as a voting member (item 16), but subordinates and

student leaders disagreed.

All groups of respondents except the dean and subordinates favored

allowing students primary authority to make decisions concerning visita-

tion regulations in residence halls (item 18). All groups of respondents,









except student leaders, were unwilling to have the dean's role limited

to an advisory capacity to students on issues concerning student activities

and the allocation of student activity fees (item 20).

A review of the data in Table 12 reveals that conflicting expecta-

tions among the five groups of respondents (the dean, peers/superiors,

subordinates, faculty, and student leaders) resulted on three items each

in the areas of student advocacy and governance, and one item in the area

of social maturity and value development. Further, an examination of

instances in which the fundamental role expectations of one or two groups

of respondents differed from those of the remaining groups on a particular

item showed that five such instances appeared in each of the areas of

student advocacy and governance, and one instance in the area of social

maturity and value development. These findings suggest that the funda-

mental role expectations of all groups of respondents at Institution 5

tended toward greatest congruence in the area of social maturity and

value development, and least congruence in the areas of student advocacy

and governance.


Interinstitutional Analysis of Data

Student Advocacy


Consensus and intrarole conflict discrepancy score means for each

of the dean's areas of responsibility at each institution were presented

in Tables 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. A summary of these discrepancy score means

for the student advocacy area at Institutions 1-5 is shown in Table 13.

A comparison of the consensus discrepancy score means for each

individual institution to the interinstitutional consensus discrepancy









Table 13

Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Discrepancy Score Means for the Student
Advocacy Area by Institution


Consensus Intrarole Conflict
Institution Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score
Mean Meanb

1 8.00 14.57
2 8.00 2.57
3 6.29 2.86
4 10.29 5.00
5 8.00 5.71
aInterinstitutional consensus discrepancy score grand mean 8.11,
standard deviation 5.51.
bInterinstitutional intrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean
6.18, standard deviation 6.52.


score grand mean for the student advocacy area indicates that Institutions

1, 2, 3, and 5 are characterized by low discrepancy score means and are,

therefore, institutions in which a high degree of consensus exists. In-

stitution 4 has a high discrepancy score mean and is, therefore, an

institution in which a low degree of consensus exists.

The consensus discrepancy score means for the student advocacy area

at each institution are, in order of increasing degrees of disagreement,

6.29 for Institution 3, 8.00 for Institutions 1, 2, and 5, and 10.29 for

Institution 4. Consequently, peer/superior administrators, subordinate

administrators, faculty members, and student leaders were in greatest

agreement at Institution 3 concerning their expectations for the role

performed by their dean of students in the area of student advocacy.-

Reference group members at Institution 4 were in least agreement on

their expectations for their dean in this area.

A comparison of the intrarole conflict discrepancy score means for









each individual institution to the interinstitutional intrarole conflict

discrepancy score grand mean for the student advocacy area shows that a

high level of intrarole conflict exists in Institution 1. A low level of

intrarole conflict exists in Institutions 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The intrarole conflict discrepahcy score means for the student

advocacy area at each institution are, in order of increasing levels of

conflict, 2.57, 2.86, 5.00, 5.71, and 14.57 for Institutions 2, 3, 4, 5,

and 1, respectively. This indicates that the least amount of conflicting

role expectations in the student advocacy area was felt by the dean of

students at Institution 2. Successively greater amounts of conflicting

expectations were felt by deans of students at Institutions 3, 4, 5, and 1.

The relationship of reference group consensus on role expectations

held for deans of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the

deans at institutions 1-5 is now observable for the area of student

advocacy at each institution. Institutions 2, 3, and 5 were characterized

by a high degree of consensus and a low level of intrarole conflict.

Institution 1 had a high degree of consensus and a high level of intra-

role conflict whereas Institution 4 had a low degree of consensus and a

low level of intrarole conflict.


Social Maturity and Value Development


The second area of responsibility for which interinstitutional data

are analyzed is the social maturity and value development area. Table 14

contains a summary of the consensus and intrarole conflict discrepancy

score means for this area at Institutions 1-5.

A comparison of the consensus discrepancy score means for each

individual institution to the interinstitutional consensus discrepancy









Table 14

Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict Discrepancy
Score Means for the Social Maturity and Value
Development Area by Institution


Consensus Intrarole Conflict
Institution Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score
Meana Meanb

1 5.14 10.00
2 7.43 1.71
3 7.71 3.43
4 6.00 3.14
5 7.14 0.00

aInterinstitutional consensus discrepancy score grand mean 6.69,
standard deviation 3.32.
blnterinstitutional intrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean
3.66, standard deviation 4.66.


score grand mean for the social maturity and value development area in-

dicates that institutions 1 and 4 are characterized by low discrepancy

score means and are, therefore, institutions in which a high degree of

consensus exists. Institutions 2, 3, and 5 have high discrepancy score

means and are, therefore, institutions in which a low degree of consensus

exists.

The consensus discrepancy score means for the social maturity and

value development area at each institution are, in order of increasing

degrees of disagreement, 5.14, 6.00, 7.14, 7.43, and 7.71 for Institutions

1, 4, 5, 2, and 3, respectively. Consequently, peer/superior administra-

tors, subordinate administrators, faculty members, and student leaders

were in greatest agreement at Institution 1 concerning their expectations

for the role performed by their dean of students in the area of social

maturity and value development. Reference group members at Institution 3

were in least agreement on their expectations for their dean in this area.









A comparison of the intrarole conflict discrepancy score means for

each individual institution to the interinstitutional intrarole conflict

discrepancy score grand mean for the social maturity and value development

area shows that a high level of intrarole conflict exists in Institution 1.

A low level of intrarole conflict exists in Institutions 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The intrarole conflict discrepancy score means for the social maturity

and value development area at each institution are, in order of increasing

levels of conflict, 0.00, 1.71, 3.14, 3.43, and 10.00 for Institutions 5,

2, 4, 3, and 1, respectively. This indicates that the least amount of

conflicting role expectations in the social maturity and value development

area was felt by the dean of students at Institution 5. Successively

greater amounts of conflicting expectations were felt by deans of students

at Institutions 2, 4, 3, and 1.

The relationship of reference group consensus on role expectations

held for deans of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the

deans at Institutions 1-5 is now observable for the area of social maturity

and value development at each institution. Institution 4 was characterized

by a high degree of consensus and a low level of intrarole conflict.

Institution 1 had a high degree of consensus and a high level of intra-

role conflict. Institutions 2, 3, and 5 were found to have a low degree

of consensus and a low level of intrarole conflict.

Governance


The third area of responsibility for which interinstitutional data

are analyzed is the governance area. Table 15 contains a summary of the

consensus and intrarole conflict discrepancy score means for this area

at Institutions 1-5.









Table 15

Summary of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict
Discrepancy Score Means for the Governance
Area by Institution


Consensus Intrarole Conflict
Institution Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score
Meana Meanb


1 10.57 10.57
2 6.29 1.71
3 10.00 4.57
4 5.71 6.00
5 9.14 4.00

ainterinstitutional consensus discrepancy score grand mean 8.34,
standard deviation 4.93.
'lintoriiistitutional intrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean
5.35, standard deviation 6.51.


A comparison of the consensus discrepancy score means for each

individual institution to the interinstitutional consensus discrepancy

score grand mean for the governance area indicates that Institutions 2

and 4 are characterized by low discrepancy score means and are, therefore,

institutions in which a high degree of consensus exists. Institutions 1,

3, and 5 have high discrepancy score means and are, therefore, institutions

in which a low degree of consensus exists.

The consensus discrepancy score means for the governance area at

each institution are, in order of increasing degrees of disagreement,

5.71, 6.29, 9.14, 10.00, and 10.57 for Institutions 4, 2, 5, 3, and 1,

respectively. Consequently, peer/superior administrators, subordinate

administrators, faculty members and student leaders were in greatest

agreement at Institution 4 concerning their expectations for the role

performed by their dean of students in the area of governance. Reference

group members at Institution 1 were in least agreement on their









expectations for their dean in this area.

A comparison of the intrarole conflict discrepancy score means for

each individual institution to the interinstitutional intrarole conflict

discrepancy score grand mean for the governance area shows that a high

level of intrarole conflict exists in Institutions 1 and 4. A low level

of intrarole conflict exists in Institutions 2, 3, and 5.

The intrarole conflict discrepancy score means for the governance

area at each institution are, in order of increasing levels of conflict,

1.71, 4.00, 4.57, 6.00, and 10.57 for Institutions 2, 5, 3, 4, and 1,

respectively. This indicates that the least amount of conflicting role

expectations in the governance area was felt by the dean of students at

Institution 2. Successively greater amounts of conflicting expectations

were felt by deans of students at Institutions 5, 3, 4, and 1.

The relationship of reference group consensus on role expectations

held for deans of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the

deans at Institutions 1-5 is now observable for the area of governance

at each institution. Institution 1 was characterized by a low degree of

consensus and a high level of intrarole conflict whereas Institution 2

had a high degree of consensus and a low level of intrarole conflict.

Both Institutions 3 and 5 were found to have a low degree of consensus

and a low level of intrarole conflict. Institution 4 had a high degree

of consensus and a high level of intrarole conflict.


All-Response Analysis


In order to determine, for all institutions collectively, the rela-

tionship of reference group consensus on role expectations held for deans

of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the deans, the









interinstitutional consensus and intrarole conflict discrepancy score

grand means For each of the deans' areas of responsibility were compared

respectively to a discrepancy score grand mean derived by combining all

consensus measure responses and a discrepancy score grand mean derived

by combining all intrarole conflict measure responses. These latter

grand mean derivations are referred to respectively as the "all-response

consensus discrepancy score grand mean" and the "all-response intrarole

conflict discrepancy score grand mean."

Interinstitutional consensus and intrarole conflict discrepancy

score grand means for each of the deans' areas of responsibility were

presented in Tables 13-15. A summary of these discrepancy score grand

means is shown in Table 16.

A comparison of the interinstitutional consensus discrepancy score

grand means to the all-response consensus discrepancy score grand mean

reveals that the areas of student advocacy and governance are characterized

by high discrepancy score grand means and are, therefore, areas of low

consensus. The social maturity and value development area has a low

discrepancy score grand mean and is, therefore, an area of high consensus.

The interinstitutional consensus area discrepancy score grand means

are, in order of increasing degrees of disagreement, 6.69 for the social

maturity and value development area, 8.11 for the student advocacy area,

and 8.34 for the governance area. Consequently, the combined responses

for all reference group members at Institutions 1-5 indicate that peer/

superior administrators, subordinate administrators, faculty members,

and student leaders agreed most on their expectations for the role per-

formed by their deans of students in the area of social maturity and

value development. A lesser degree of agreement existed for the role of









Table 16

Summary of Interinstitutional Consensus and Intrarole
Conflict Discrepancy Score Grand Means by
Area of Responsibility for All Responses


Interinstitutional Interinstitutional
Consensus Intrarole Conflict
Area Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score
Grand Meana Grand Meanb

Student Advocacy 8.11 6.18
Social Maturity and Value Development 6.69 3.66
Governance 8.34 5.35

aAll-response consensus discrepancy score grand mean 7.71, standard
deviation 4.69.
bAll-response intrarole conflict discrepancy score grand mean 5.05,
standard deviation 5.99.


the deans in the student advocacy area, and the least amount of agreement

was found in the governance area.

A comparison of the interinstitutional intrarole conflict discrepancy

score grand means to the all-response intrarole conflict discrepancy score

grand mean shows that the areas of student advocacy and governance are

high intrarole conflict areas. The area of social maturity and value

development is a low intrarole conflict area.

The interinstitutional intrarole conflict area discrepancy score

grand means are, in order of increasing levels of conflict, 3.66 for the

social maturity and value development area, 5.35 for the governance area,

and 6.18 for the student advocacy area. This indicates that the deans of

students at Institutions 1-5 experienced collectively the least amount of

conflicting role expectations in the social maturity and value develop-

ment area, a greater amount of conflicting expectations in the governance

area, and the greatest amount of conflicting expectations in the student

advocacy area.








The relationship of reference group consensus on role expectations

held for the deans of students to the intrarole conflict perceived by the

deans at all institutions is now observable in each of the deans' areas

of responsibility. The area of student advocacy was characterized by a

low degree of consensus and a high level of intrarole conflict. The

social maturity and value development area had a high degree of consensus

and a low level of intrarole conflict. The area of governance was one of

low consensus and high intrarole conflict.

Data are shown in Table 17 regarding the fundamental agreement or

disagreement among respondents at all institutions on all interview guide

items. Unlike the data for reference groups in Tables 4, 6, 8, 10, and

12 (which were derived from "composite" response scores representing the

averages of three individual response scores), the reference group data

in Table 17 represent percentages computed from the individual response

scores of all reference group members at all institutions.

On 12 of the 21 interview guide items at least 87% of the reference

group members either agreed or disagreed fundamentally. Of the nine items

for which less than 87% agreement or disagreement was found among

reference group members, three (items 1, 3, and 6) were in the student

advocacy area, one (item 11) was in the social maturity and value

development area, and five (items 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21) were in the

governance area. These nine items are reviewed below in the context of

each of the deans' areas of responsibility. The remaining 12 items

(items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17), on which at least

87% of the reference group members either agreed or disagreed, may be

reviewed by referring to either of the Interview Guides in Appendix B.

In the student advocacy area 62% of the reference group members

























05,in r- *- n
**
tOCO m o inOO in Ci C)







C*-toU r- r- 64






r-to0o50 to w n to or.oin









at




z I~I h--hCl
0000000 c n ^i-^n rtl^oenenfl






tnooo40co >- trhOhit00
Ca-< ..3 -,4- *.-' ren-ri- .00

cir oo-t r^o eor 4,, 1'




('1 I' 0e no 0 he -05
<-1 (0
t=OOOODODO O t-OOn-OQ
&ID aO= u~cooc >-, oicICOm







fl* +
m~00n onUh~hO>

~m~O~h ~ 00~~0P
r~ Cor r r^ *' m -^r


VI
I











~




z
..






e






" &

n
4


C)
C
I




c




d
S

5









u


o r-. t~orn n1=e



OY 0.- e e


o n a twt




CC0t 6.06
tDO 't 64intt



5=)150 C n c
o e to 6. ot.


o r' nrt-. tr oo,
(l













n m e C n
e t






0 MD -


0000000






~000i000




0 to CL to t t




in to -SO i-n 0


C00000C 0000000





000000 000000





.-- n tuoh (o0o-.jen


14
P





10 C




L"e
u

I











CO
4.1-








'45,
at- 51

(7> 1-
44 Cl




-0l~
'a- 0*
c.*
















1-.I-
$5^
ac c







i=s






01 0



Oh-'
1*001Q
(U E <
4- *
fl3Cu
(-> r -
-r- (
TO C *U
C: * (
OiT/1
C U *-
a> p-
e &>
01co

meu-
10 c )
-*s"
^-g?






c c








agreed fundamentally that the dean of students should insure that his/

her availability and personal relationships with students take priority

consistently over the performance of administrative tasks (item 1). Of

those who disagreed with this item (38%), student leaders were less in-

clined to do so than were peers/superiors, subordinates, or faculty.

Four (80%) of the five deans agreed with this item.

Item 3, which suggested that the dean of student's primary commit-

ment should be to the individual needs of the student, produced 48%

agreement among reference group members. Subordinates (80%) agreed more

with this item than did other reference groups. Three of the five deans

also agreed with this item.

Although 83% of all reference group members agreed that the dean

should attempt to regulate student conduct to the extent necessary for

the maintenance of reasonable order in the academic community (item 6),

27% of the dean's peers/superiors disagreed. Four of the five deans

agreed with this item,

In the social maturity and value development area 52% of the

reference group members agreed fundamentally that it would be questionable

behavior for the dean to influence students to adopt the institution's

values (item 11). Subordinates and faculty were almost evenly divided

on this issue (53% agreed and 47% disagreed in each group), whereas peers/

superiors and student leaders were more inclined to agree (67% and 73%

agreed, respectively). Two of the five deans agreed with this item.

In the governance area 40% of the reference group members agreed

fundamentally that student affairs policy should be determined by a cam-

pus governance body on which the dean sits as a voting member (item 16).

Although two reference group members (one eac:, in the peer/superior and









faculty groups) did not respond to this item, student leaders appeared

slightly more inclined to agree than other reference groups, and three

of the five deans also agreed.

Item 18 suggested that the dean of students should permit decisions

concerning visitation regulations in'residence halls to be made primarily

by students. More than 50% of each reference group agreed with this

item but student leaders (87%) agreed more than others. One dean did

not respond to this item and the remaining deans were split evenly (two

favored and two opposed).

Concerning the joint accomplishment (by students, faculty, and the

dean) of the adjudication of academic dishonesty problems (item 19), 72%

of all reference group members agreed with this procedure. Peers/superiors

(93%) agreed most and subordinates (53%) agreed least. Faculty members

were generally favorable (73% agreed) to this arrangement. Four of the

five deans also agreed wi h this item.

More reference group members agreed (68%) than disagreed (32%) with

the premise that final decisions concerning student government and other

organizational activities and the allocation of student activity fees

should be made by students with the dean performing only in an advisory

capacity (item 20). Student leaders (87%) comprised the largest propor-

tion of those who agreed with this item. Three of the five deans also

agreed.

Peers/superiors and subordinates agreed most (93% in each group)

that the dean should insist that students who participate in the

governance process be representative of the student population with

regard to sex, race, and age (item 21). Faculty members (73%) agreed

less with this item and student leaders (67%) agreed least. AltLhough








82% of all reference group members agreed with this item, two of the

five deans disagreed.

It should also be noted that 97% of all reference group members

(as well as all of the deans) agreed that the dean should determine

student affairs policy only after consultation with students, faculty,

and other administrators (item 15). Although 40% of the reference group

members would require that student affairs policy be determined by a

campus governance body of which the dean would be a member (item 16),

98% were opposed to the dean determining student affairs policy without

any requirement to consult with students and faculty (item 17).

The largest number of items (6) on which less than 87% of the

reference group members either agreed or disagreed was found in the

governance area. The student advocacy area had three items in this

category and the social maturity and value development area had one.

This suggests that for all institutions collectively the area of greatest

congruence among reference group members was social maturity and value

development, followed by a lesser congruence in the student advocacy

area, and the least congruence in the governance area.













CHAPTER IV


DISCUSSION OF THE DATA


The purpose of this chapter is to discuss findings from the field

portion of the study which were presented in Chapter III. In order to

place this discussion in proper perspective, a review of the purpose of

this study is provided. Specifically, the writer sought to determine:

1. The degree of commonalities and/or differences in the expecta-

tions for the role of the dean of students as seen by incumbent deans,

peer/superior administrators, subordinate administrators, faculty, and

students. This was accomplished through the use of consensus discrepancy

scores. Comparisons of discrepancy score means and grand means enabled

a determination of the relative "highness or lowness" (degree) of con-

sensus among reference group members.

2. The level of intrarole conflict perceived by incumbent deans.

This was accomplished through the use of intrarole conflict discrepancy

scores. Comparisons of discrepancy score means and grand means enabled

a determination of the relative "highness or lowness" (level) of intra-

role conflict perceived by deans.

3. The nature of the relationship existing between role expecta-

tions and intrarole conflict. This was accomplished by first formulating

the following general hypothesis:

Where there is a high degree of consensus on role
expectations held for a particular role incumbent
[dean of students] by various reference groups,
there will be a low level of intrarole conflict








perceived by that role incumbent. Conversely,
where there is a low degree of consensus on role
expectations, the role incumbent will perceive a
high level of intrarole conflict.

Second, the general hypothesis was empirically tested via three alterna-

tive hypotheses, each representing one of the three areas of responsibility

(student advocacy, social maturity and value development, and governance)

of the dean of students as defined in this study.

Also examined was a research question attendant to number "1" above

concerning an identification of issues on which deans of students and

their role-defining reference groups agreed or disagreed fundamentally.

On the intrainstitutional level, these data were presented and discussed

in Chapter III. On the interinstitutional level, data concerning these

issues presented in Chapter III are discussed in greater detail in the

current chapter.

The remainder of this chapter is divided into four major sections.

In the first and second sections, the results of each of the two methods

of data analysis are discussed in the context of each of the deans'

three areas of responsibility (alternative hypotheses). Discussed in

the third section are findings concerning areas of fundamental agreement

and disagreement among deans and reference group members. The fourth

section is devoted to a discussion of the relationship of findings to

theory and research.

Intrainstitutional Measures of Consensus and Intrarole Conflict

On an intrainstitutional level the general hypothesis was tested

15 times (once at each of the five institutions in each of the deans'

three areas of responsibility). In the student advocacy area, Alternative




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs