Title: Communication between legislators and university administrators
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099120/00001
 Material Information
Title: Communication between legislators and university administrators an analysis of perceptions on selected issues
Physical Description: xii, 167 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Busta, Joseph Frank, 1946-
Publication Date: 1978
Copyright Date: 1978
 Subjects
Subject: Communication in politics -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Higher education and state -- Florida   ( 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 163-166.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joseph F. Busta, Jr.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099120
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 - 000064450
oclc - 04271634
notis - AAG9656

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

communicationbet00bust ( PDF )


Full Text










COMMUNICATIO' BETiEEN LEGISLATORS AND
UNIVERSITY ADMI!STIRATORS: A" ANALYSIS
OF PERCEPTiO'-S ON SELECTED ISSUES









By

JOSEPH F. BUSTA, JR.


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE RECUIREiENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA




























To my parents

Joseph and Lillian Busta


my wife

Loretta


and my son and daughter

Brian and Sarah















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The author is indebted to many friends and members of the University

of Florida faculty who have assisted him with his doctoral program and

with this study. He expresses his gratitude to the members of his super-

visory committee, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Chairman, Dr. C. Arthur

Sandeen and Dr. Robert 0. Stripling. Deep appreciation is extended to

Dr. M. Cecil Mackey and Mr. W. Reece Smith for their encouragement and

their ongoing support which made everything possible.

The author thanks Ms. Janelle M. Fortson for the typing and techni-

cal assistance she provided and Dr. Bernard A. Mackey for his suggestions

and advice.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDG MENTS. . . . . . . . . . . ...


Page

iii


LIST OF TABLES . . ... . . . . . . viii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . ... x


CHAPTER


I INTROCCTION. . . . . . . . . . . ...


The Pr blem . . . .
Statement of the Problem.
Delimitations . . .
Limitations . . . .
Significance of the Study
Definition of TeYrs ...
Hypotheses . . ....
Procedures . . . .
Setting and Participants.
instrumentation . . .
Data Collection . . .
Data Analysis . . .
Organization of the Researcl


h


....




. Re or. . .


II COMMUNICATION THEORY, PERCEPTIONS AND
UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS . . . . ...

Communication Theory . . . . . . ....
Definitions of Coniunication and Communication Theory
The Communication Process . . . . . . ..
The Communication Sequence . . . . . .
The Occasions of Communication . . . . ...
Communication Control . . . . . . . .
Learning and Communication . . . . . .
Meaning and Communication . . . ... .. ...
Analysis of Communication . . . .. .. ..
Basic determinants of communication effectiveness .
Communicating efficiently . . . . . . .
Clearness and ambiguity in communication .....
The Tools and Techniques of Communication . .
Communication Dysfunction . . . . . . .
Facilitators and Barriers in Conmunication . . .


h









TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued


fage

The Importance of Perceptions in the Communication Process. 32
Definition of Perception and the Process of Perception. 33
Factors Related to What One Perceives . . . ... 34
Characteristics Influencing Perceptions ........ 34
Reality and Perceptions . . . . .. . . . 35
The Value of Communication In University Governmental
Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The Need to Restore Confidence Through Good
Communication . . . . . . . .. .. . 36
Effective Communication: The Key to Successful
Governmental Relations .... ......... . 36
Relationship of the Scholarly Literature to the Study. 37
Confinement of Sources for Reviewed Literature. . . ... 38

III THE SETTING AND METHODOLOGY ... . . . . . .39

A Brief History and General Description of the State of
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A Brief History and General Description of the Florida
Legislature . . . . . . . . . . 41
A Brief History and General Description of the State
University System of Florida . . . . . 42
The Legal Relationship Between the Florida Legislature
and the State University System of Florida. . . .. 44
A Review of the 1977 Florida Legislature. ....... . 45
The Purpose and DeveloomenT. of interview Guide A. .... .47
The Preliminary Poll ane an Analysis of the Poll's
Results . . . . . . . . . . . .... 47
A Description of the Target Group . .. .. . . 47
A Description of How the Preliminary Foil Uas
Conducted ... . . . . . .... . 48
An Analysis of the Results of the Poll. ....... . -49
The Purpose and Development of Communication Interview
Guide B . . . . . . . . . .. . . 51
The Purpose of Communication Interview Suide B. ... 51
The Development of Communication Interview Guide B. . 51

IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. . . . . . . . .... . 53

The Full Funding of Faculty Salaries in the Union
Contract Issue . . . . . . . . . .. 53
Special $10 Million Library improvement Funding Issue . 75
The Censorship-ierger Bill Issue. . . . . . .. 93








TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued


Page

V DISCUSSION OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . .. 113
The Full Funding of Faculty Salaries in the Union
Contract Issue . . . . . . . . . 114
The Communication Process. ... . . . . . 114
The Nature of the Communication Process. .. . . .. 114
The Role Relationship of the PC to Each Other. . ... 115
Comparisons to the Alternative Hypotheses. . . .. 116
Special $10 Million Library improvement Funding Issue. .. 117
The Communication Process. . . . . . .. . 117
The Nature of the Communication Process . . . .. 117
The Role Relationship of the PC To Each Other. .. .... 118
Comparisons to the Alternative Hypotheses . . .. 118
The Censorship-rerger Bill issue . . . . . .. 119
The Communication Process. .............. .119
The Nature of the Communication Process. . . . .. 120
The Role Relationship of the PC to Each Other. .. .... 121
Comparisons to the Alternative Hypotheses. . . ... 121
General Results of Non-Issue Oriented Questions. .. .... 122
General Results of Question 29 ............ 123
General Results of Question 30a. . . . . . .. 123
General Results of Question 30b . . . . . ... 124

VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . .. 125
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125
Conclusions. . . . . .. . . . . . . 128
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Recommendations for Further Research . . . . .. 129

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . 133

A INTERVIEW GUIDE A. . . . . . . ... . . 133

B COMMUNICATION INTERVIEW GUIDE B. . . . . . . ... 136

C RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED
IN COMMUNICATION INTERVIEW GUIDE B . . . .... 145

D LETTERS OF REQUEST AND APPRECIATION. . . . . . ... 149

E COMPOSITION OF THE PRELIMINARY POLL BY NAME AND TITLE. . 152

F RANKING OF TOP ISSUES IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY POLL 155

G AN ANONYMOUS LISTING OF THE RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY POLL
CONCERNING THE FULL FUNDING OF FACULTY SALARIES IN THE
UNION CONTRACT ISSUE . . . . . . . .... .158








TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued


H AN ANONYMOUS LISTING OF THE RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY
POLL CONCERNING THE SPECIAL LIBRARY IMPROVEMENT
FUNDING ISSUE . . . . . . . . . . .. 160

I AN ANONYMOUS LISTING OF THE RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY
POLL CONCERNING THE CENSORSHIP-MERGER BILL ISSUE .... . 162

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 163

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................ 167














LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 PC Responses to Significance of the Full Funding
of Faculty Salaries Issue. . . . . . . . . ... 54

2 PC Responses to the Degree of Influence of the Other PC. . 57

3 PC Responses to the Degree of Familiarity Each Had
With the Others. . . . . . . . .. .. . 59

4 PC Responses to How Well Each PC Was Regarded by Others. . 60

5 PC Responses to the Degree to Which Each Found
Himself in Agreement with the Other PC . . . . . .. 61

6 PC Responses to Whether or Not the Other PC Supported
or Opposed the Issue . . . . . . . . . . 61

7 PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and From Whom
Each Person Claimed to Have Received Communications. .... .62

8 PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and to Whom Each
Person Claimed to Have Initiated Communications. ....... 63

9 Composite PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and To
Whom Each Person Claimed to Have Received or Initiated
Communications . . . . . . . . . . . 64

10 Cross-Tabulation of PC Responses Concerning Who Gave To
Whom the Most Useful Information on the Issue . . . .. 69

11 PC Responses to Significance of the $10 Million
Special Library Funding Issue . . . . . . .. 76

12 PC Responses to the Degree of Influence of the Other PC. . 78

13 PC Responses to the Degree of Familiarity Each Had
With the Others . . . . . . . . . . . 80

14 PC Responses to How Well Each PC Was Regarded by Others. . 81

15 PC Responses to the Degree to Which Each Found Himself
in Agreement With the Other PC . . . . . . . .. 81








LIST OF TABLES Continued


Table Page

16 PC Responses to Whether or iNbt the Other PC
Supported or Opposed the Issue . . . . . ..... 82

17 PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and From Whom
Each Person Claimed to Have Received Conmunications. .... .83

18 PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and To Whom
Fach Person Claimed to Have Initiated Communications .... .83

19 Composite PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and To
Whom Each Person Claimed to Have Received or Initiated
Communications . . . . . . . . ... .... . 84

20 Cross-Tabulation of PC Responses Concerning Who Gave
To Whom the Most Useful Information on the Issue ...... 88

21 PC Responses to Significance of the Censorship-Merger Bill . 95

22 PC Responses to the Degree of Influence of the Other PC. . 96

23 PC Responses to the Degree of Familiarity Each Had
With the Others. . . . . . . . . . . 98

24 PC Responses to How Well Each PC Was Regarded by Others. . 99

25 PC Responses to the Degree to Which Each Found Himself
in Agreement with the Other PC . . . . . . . .. 100

26 PC Responses to Whether or Not the Other PC Supported or
Opposed the Issue. . . . . . . . . ... . .. 100

27 PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and From Whom
Each Person Claimed to Have Received Communication . . .. 101

28 PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and to Whom Each
Person Claimed to Have Initiated Communications. . . .. 102

29 Composite PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and To
Whom Each Person Claimed to Have Received or Initiated
Communications . . ... . . . . . . . . . 103

30 Cross-Tabulation of PC Responses Concerning Who Gave To
Whom the Most Useful Information on the Issue. . . . ... 107









Abstract of Dissertatior Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of tne
Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LEGISLATORS AND
UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS: AN ANALYSIS
OF PERCEPTIONS ON SELECTED ISSUES



By

Joseph F. Busta, Jr.

March, 1978


Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger

Major Department: Educational Administration


The purpose of this study was to test the applicability of theoret-

ical propositions, derived from the scholarly literature on the communi-

cation process between legislators and university cr state university

system administrators. Specifically, the focus of the study was on those

in the State of Florida and was designed to determine: (a) whether a

communication process existed; (b) the nature of the process; and (c)

the role relationships among the principal characters involved in the

process. The study also provided general information and special insights

concerning the most significant legislative issues affecting the State

University System of Florida during the 1977 Florida Legislative Session.

The field portion of the study was conducted in four steps. The

first two steps included the development of a preliminary polling instru-

ment which was then administered to 25 leading legislative, state govern-

ment and State University System of Florida officials to determine the









three most significant issues addressed by the 1977 Legislature and af-

fectinc the State University System of Florida. The development of a

detailed communication interview guide was step three, The last step

consisted of in-depth interviews with seventeen people who were deter-

mined to be principal characters in the three issues studied.

Data were analyzed by issue to determine whether or not there was a

high or low level of perceptual consensus concerning each question. These

measures of consensus were then used to test two sets of alternative

hypotheses.

The major findings of this study were:

1. In the first issue it was determined that there was a high degree

of consensus that information was communicated back and forth and a high

degree of consensus that communication existed. The data also supported

that there was an accurate mutual understanding of perceived role rela-

tionships and a high degree of successful communication on the issue.

2. In the second issue it was determined that there was a high de-

gree of consensus that information was communicated back and forth and a

high degree of consensus that communication existed. The data also sup-

ported that although there was a high degree of mutual understanding of

perceived role relationships among those involved in the issue there was

a low degree of successful communication,

3. In the third issue it was determined that there was a low degree

of consensus that information was communicated back and forth and a low

degree of consensus that communication existed. The data also supported

that there was an accurate mutual understanding of perceived role rela-

tionships and a nigh degree of successful communication on the issue.









4. The data supported that communication in general, between legis-

lators and State University System administrators, could be improved

through increased personal contact and improved personal relationships.

The results of this study lead to the general assumption that the

theoretical propositions in the literature concerning the criteria neces-

sary for the existence of communication and for the occurrence of success-

ful conounication are applicable to the communication process between

legislators and state university administrators. These theories should

help university and legislative personnel understand the ingredients

necessary to make successful communications and build a solid communica-

tion process. These understandings are especially important if legisla-

tors and administrators are to live up to their mandated responsibilities

to make solid decisions on issues affecting the quality of public higher

education and in turn the citizens they serve.

Further research is recommended to determine: (a) how to improve a

communication process; (b) how legislators and university administrators

can improve their personal communication skills; (c) how negative percep-

tions of individuals can be reversed; and (d) whether legislative issues

with budget implications dominate other issues which have little or no

fiscal impact.












CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


The late Clement Atlee, former British Prime Minister, once observed

that "the peoples of the world are islands shouting at each other over

seas of misunderstanding." One basic reason for this perplexing phe-

nomenon is society's misunderstanding of the importance of communication

and the study of its principles. Perhaps a poignant example of ccmmuni-

cation failure is the famous story of the plumber who allegedly wrote the

United States Bureau of Standards saying that he had found hydrochloric

acid fine for cleaning drains, and was it harmless? Washington replied:

"The efficiency of hydrochloric acid is indisputable, but the chlorine

residue is incompatible with metallic permanence."

!he plumber wrote back that he was mighty glad the Bureau agreed

with him. The Bureau replied with a note of alarm: We cannot assume

responsibility for the production of toxic and noxious residues with

hydrochloric acid, and suggest you use an alternate procedure." The

plumber was happy to learn that the Bureau still agreed with him.

Whereupon, Washington exploded: "Don't use hydrochloric acid; it

eats hell out of the pipes!"

The need to improve communication is a commonly heard plea. As

society and institutions become more complex and as technological

conmiunicative ability becomes more complex, the need for effective

communication increases.








To students of higher education, the need for good communication in

public higher educational institutions is universally accepted. Rare is

the dean, president, or trustee who has not gone on record at one time

or another stressing the need for open, direct and meaningful communi-

cation. Edward R. Morrow, a great communicator of our time, once said,

"It is no miracle of communication to send a message by Telstar. It is

the last three feet between one man and another that matters in getting

the message across."

Just as the need for good communication is obvious within public

higher educational institutions, the need for good communication is also

obvious between these institutions and their governing boards and be-

tween governing boards and state legislatures. For it is from governing

boards and legislatures that public institutions of higher education de-

rive their authority and resources.

Like all living systems, organizations establish and maintain them-

selves through communication with their environments. Simon (1959)

stated the case succinctly when he wrote, "It is obvious that without

communication there can be no organization" (p. 154). Since public

higher educational institutions are living systems and since public

higher educational institutions must exist in harmony with the legis-

lative environment, these institutions must communicate successfully

with the legislature in order to survive.

Thayer (1961) claimed that for successful communication to exist be-

tween two or more people (or organizations) three communication elements

are necessary:

1. . they must have symbols (words) with which
to communicate;

2. . they must have certain rules for using the symbols;








3. . there must be accurate mutual understanding of
perceived role relationships. (p. 45-43).

Thayer also stated that:

What this means is that in any situation, each person
(or organization) perceives himself to be in certain
role relationships with other persons (or organizations)
in, or concerned with in some way, that situation. Un-
less the originator actually perceives these role re-
latinnships as the receiver perceives them, the origin-
ator s message will be misinterpreted to some extent
(depending upon just how inaccurate the misconception
is). And conversely, unless the receiver perceives
accurately the role reTationships in that situation
as the originatorperceives them, he will likely assign
"incorrect" meaning or significance to the originator's
message. (p. 48)

Therefore, since public higher educational institutions are organi-

zations and living systems that must communicate successfully in order

to survive with regard to the legislative environment and since success-

ful communication is dependent upon the degree to which accurate mutual

understanding of perceived role relationships exist, it follows that the

study of these perceived role relationships is a worthwhile endeavor.


The Problem


Glenny, et. al. (1976) summed up well the past, present and immedi-

ate future of American public higher education:

During the "soaring sixties" growth in higher education
was spectacular, whether measured by number of students
enrolled, dollars spent, buildings constructed, or de-
grees granted. In contrast, the current decade has
been characterized by rapidly falling growth rates in
all these dimensions. State and federal budget prior-
ities are shifting. Many observers see the beginnings
of an extended period of very little or no growth in
total enrollment, with an absolute decline occurring
in the 1980's. Today, economic recession and inflation
exacerbate the problems of adjusting to the new realities
of declining rates of enrollment and of financial support.
(p. 1)








The State of Florida has been no exception to these problems. In

The 1977 SUS Legislative Program Backgro.:nd Materials document of the

State University System of Florida (SUS), the following statistics can

be found:

1. Since 1968, SUS headcount enrollments ?have increased
by 85% while appropriations in non-inflated dollars
have increased by only 44%.

2. Since 1972, SUS headcount enrollments have increased
by about one-fourth, while appropriations in non-
inflated dollars have actually decreased. Indeed,
support per student has decreased by about 23%.
(p. 5)

Further, according to a study reported by The Chronicle of Higher

Education (How the 50 States 1976), Florida, the nation's eighth most

populated state, dropped to 33rd among fifty states in allocation of

"state and local tax revenue appropriated or levied for operating ex-

penses of higher education" (p. 1).

The facts were clear, there were serious problems facing American

higher education, in general, and the SUS in particular. Many of these

problems would have to be addressed at the legislative level. How well

and to what extent these problems were addressed were related directly

to how well state universities were able to convincingly communicate

their needs to their respective legislatures.


Statement of the Problem

The general purpose of the study was to focus on the applicability

of theoretical propositions, derived from the literature, on the commu-

nication process between state university systems and state legislatures

with emphasis on successful communication. Specifically, the study

sought to determine (a) if a communication process existed between

selected members of the SUS and selected members of the Florida State








Legislature, (b) the nature of the communication process (who communi-

cates what, and how), and (c) to what extent was there agreement or

disagreement on the perceived role relationships of the parties con-

cerned.


Delimitations

The study was concerned with the three most significant legislative

issues affecting tie SUS during the 1977 session of the Florid,; Legis-

lature. These issues were determined by a poll of the leadership in the

SUS and the Florida Legislature immediately after the close of the 1977

session. The determination of whether a communication process existed,

the nature of the communication process, and whether there was agreement

on the perceived role relationships was confined to those identified as

being Principal Characters (PC) in the three issues. The PC were also

identified during the poll of the leadership.

The PC of each of the three issues were interviewed to determine:

(a) their perceptions about whether a communication process existed be-

tween the parties involved in the issue, (b) their perceptions of the

nature of the communication process concerning this issue, and (c)

their perceptions of the role relationships of each of the other PC in

the issue.

Data for-the study were confined to information collected through

the interviews of the PC. Data analysis was accomplished by inspection

and presentation of data through appropriate tables and narrative.


Limitations

There were several threats to the internal and external validity of

this study:








1. Because many of the PC may have had contact with other PC on

other issues or through ongoing working relationships, which may have

ranged in nature from the negative to the positive, the objectivity of

the responses to the issues in question may have been affected. The re-

searcher was sensitive to these arrangements and tried to identify any

prior activities or events which may have had such a bearing on the re-

lationships involved. No evidence was found during the course of the

study to substantiate this possible concern.

2. Confidentiality was maintained throughout the study; therefore

the data had to be described in a restrictive and anonymous fashion.

3. Since those interviewed were aware of their participation in

the study, reactive arrangements may have threatened internal validity.

The researcher attempted to minimize this threat through reassurance of

the confidentiality of the data and the anonymity of the participants.

4. Because two of the issues were hotly contested, the objectivity

of the participants could have been questioned and could have threatened

internal validity. The researcher was sensitive to this problem but did

not find this to be the case.


Sionificancp of the Study

Concerning the utility of theory, Hall and Lindsey (1970), noted:

First, andmost important, it leads to the collection or
observation of relevant empirical relations not yet ob-
served. 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)

The researcher attempted to contribute to available knowledge on communi-

cation theory by developing empirically testable theoretical derivations








concerning the communication process between educators and legislators.

These derivations were then tested and helped bridge the gap between

theory and reality. This was themost significant aspect of this study.

Another important aspect of this study was that it helped contribute

to the general knowledge of the nature and the process of communication

and the perceptions of those concerned in the communication process be-

tween state legislators and state higher education officials. There have

been only a few recent studies (Manahan, 1975; Scott, 1977) that have

focused on the communication process between these two specific groups.

Thirdly, this study was important because it helped contribute to

the specific knowledge of the nature and the process of communication

and the perceptions of those concerned in the communication process be-

tween Florida legislators and SUS officials. The results of the study

should be helpful to members of these two groups, should they so choose,

to assess constructively how they communicate with one another.


Definition of Terms


All of the formal titles used in the following list of terms and

definitions are those which existed during the 1977 session of the

Florida Legislature.

Board of Regents of the State University System of Florida. The

name of the nine member Governing Board of the SUS.

Board of Regents Staff. Any non-executive employee of the SUS

Board of Regents office.

Communication. As defined by Thayer (1968):

The dynamic process underlying the existence, growth,
change, and the behavior of all living systems --
individual or organization. That indispensable









function of people and organizations through which the
organization or the organism relates itself to its en-
vironment, and relates its parts and its internal pro-
cesses one to another. (p. 14)

Communication Failure. A breakdown in communication or in the

communication process.

Communication Process. The continuing development of communicating

...the way in which communication is done.

House Leadership. The Speaker of the Florida House of Representa-

tives and the Chairmen of the committees of the House.

Principal Characters (PC). Those persons identified as playing a

major role or having a major part in the issues studied.

Senate Leadership. The President of the Florida Senate and the

Chairmen of the committees of the Senate.

Staff Director. A person who held the title of Director on House

or Senate committee staffs. These persons were full-time employees of

the State responsible for the day to day operations of a House or Senate

committee and responsible for other committee staff employees.

State Legislator. Elected members of either the Florida House of

Representatives or the Florida Senate.

State University System of Florida (SUS). The name of the public

university system in Florida created by the Florida Legislature. All

public universities in the State of Florida were members of the system.

The system did not include any of the public community colleges in the

State.

SUS Officials. For the purpose of this study, all executive per-

sonnel of the SUS, including but not limited to the titles of: Regent,

Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and President.

Successful Communication. As defined by Thayer (1961):








Occurs when a receiver. .. assigns a meaning to that
condition which approximates the meaning intended by
the originator. (p. 45)

This does not mean that the receiver will positively respond to the in-

tention of the sender.

Hypotheses


Based upon Thayer's propositions cited earlier, the following al-

ternative hypotheses were tested:

1. Where there is a high degree of consensus that in-
formation is communicated back and forth between
legislators and higher education personnel, there
will be a high degree of consensus that communication
exists. Conversely, where there is a low degree of
consensus that information is communicated back and
forth between legislators and higher education per-
sonnel, there will be a low degree of consensus that
communication exists.

2. Where there is an accurate mutual understanding of
perceived role relationships, successful communi-
cation will occur. Conversely, where there is no
mutual understanding of perceived role relation-
ships, successful communication will not occur.

Procedures


The study was ex post facto in nature and a descriptive case study

method was used. The following sections will discuss the setting and

participants, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.


Setting and Participants

The issues studied were those issues relating to the SUS in the

1977 Florida Legislature which were identified as a result of a poll

of the people holding the following positions:

1. Commissioner of Education.
2. President of the Senate.








3. Speaker of the House.

4. Chairmen of the House and Senate Approoriations Committees.

5. Chairmen of the House and Senate Education Committees.

6. Staff Directors of the House and Senate Appropriations
Coami ttees.

7. Staff Directors of the House and Senate Education Committees.

8. Chairman of the SUS Board of Regents.

9. Chancellor of the SUS.

10. Vice Chancellors of the SUS.

11. The Presidents of the nine state universities in the SUS.

This same poll, using the same group of people, was also used to identify

the PC involved with each issue. These PC were the major participants in

the study. These PC were also asked to identify other PC, not previously

determined in the poll, who may then become participants in the study;

however, none met the criteria for inclusion as described in the follow-

ing section.


Instrumentation

There were two separate instruments used in. the study. The first

instrument, Interview Guide A, (Appendix A) was an interview polling

instrument used to determine the major issues and the PC. This was a

simple instrument asking those polled what, in their opinion, were the

three most significant issues affecting the SUS during the 1977 Florida

Legislative session and who were the three principal legislators and

educators involved in the issue. The three issues which received the

most citations were the three issues studied. In the event of a tie,

the issue cited most frequently by the Chairman of the Board of Regents,

Chancellor of the SUS, Speaker of the House and President of the Senate
was the issue selected for the study.









A similar method was used to determine the PC involved with each

issue. Those people and one alternate who were cited most frequently as

being a PC in each issue became the participants in the study. However,

both groups, the legislature and the SUS, had to be represented by at

least two people; therefore, to insure this minimal condition, some peo-

ple cited less frequently than others were selected. Ties were broken

in the same manner as previously described. Precautions were also taken

so that if, later on during the personal interviews of the PC, others

were identified by three or more of the PC as being very influential in

the issue, then those so identified would have been included as partici-

pants of the study. However, this did not happen. Upon conclusion of

the poll, it became apparent that the criteria for the number of parti-

cipants in two of the issues in the study were not appropriate. For one

issue it was necessary to interview a student and for another issue only

five people needed to be interviewed instead of six.

The second instrument, Communication Interview Guide B (Appendix B),

was more complex and utilized a structured interview guide technique, de-

veloped by the researcher, with specific questions designed to meet the

study objectives. The questions used were based upon authorities sources

and were derived from relevant scholarly literature.

All study participants were personally interviewed and asked to re-

spond to parallel items on the structured interview guide. Some open-

ended questions were used for the determination of certain variables

which were thought to have a bearing on the study.








Data Collection

The following steps were used in collecting the data:

1. Contacts were made either by phone or in person with the twenty-

four people, listed earlier, who were to be polled using Interview Guide

A. They were asked to list the top three issues affecting the SUS by

the 1977 Florida Legislature, citing the names of those three legis-

lators and three SUS representatives who they thought were PC in the

issues in question.

2. The results of this poll were analyzed to determine the top

three issues and the PC involved.

3. Letters of introduction (Appendix D) from Senator Betty Castor,

Hillsborough County, were written to the legislative participants in the

study requesting their cooperation and support. Letters of introduction

were not necessary for other study participants.

4. Interview appointments with the PC were set and each person was

interviewed, using Interview Guide B.

5. Data were then aggregated as appropriate.


Data Analysis

The method of data analysis used was inspection and the presentation

of the data was through narrative and graphic displays. The specific

responses were analyzed to determine:

1. If a communication process existed.

2. The nature of the communication process.

3. The role relationships among the PC involved in the process.

The aggregate findings were then compared to the two sets of alter-

native hypotheses. In particular, responses were analyzed to determine









the degree of consensus that infonration was communicated back and forth

between legislators and educators. A high degree of consensus would

indicate the likelihood that communication did exist. A low degree of

consensus would indicate the likelihood that communication did not exist.

Likewise, responses we"e analyzed to determine to what extent mutual

understanding of perceived role relationships existed. A high degree

of consensus would indicate a high degree of accurate mutual understand-

ing of perceived role relationships existed and thus successful communi-

cation occurred. A low degree of consensus would indicate a low degree

of mutual understanding of perceived role relationships existed and thus

successful communication did not occur. For the purpose of this study

a high degree of consensus results when 50% or more of the responses to

a particular question are the same or similar. A low degree of consensus

results when less than 50% of the responses to a particular question are

the same or similar.



Organization of the Research Report


This study is reported in six chapters. The first chapter provides

an introduction and includes a statement of the problem, the significance

of the study, definitions, hypotheses, and procedures. The second chapter

provides a review of the related literature. A discussion of the setting

for the study, including a short history and description of the Florida

Legislature and the SUS and the legal relationship of the two, is found

in the third chapter along with the methodology.





14



Chapter IV provides an analysis of the data and in Chapter V the data

are discussed. In Chapter VI the study is summarized and conclusions

are presented.













CHAPTER II


COMMUNICATION THEORY, PERCEPTIONS
AND UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS


For the purpose of this study, the review of the related literature

is divided into three sections. In the first section, communication

theory is examined. In the second section, the importance of perceptions

in the communication process is reviewed. In the final section, the

value of communications in university governmental relations is discussed.

Communication Theory


1his section wil! be concerned with: (a) definition of conmunica-

tion End communication theory; (b) the communication process; (c) the

communication sequence; (d) the occasions of communication; (e) com-

munication control; (f) learning and communication; (g) meaning and

communication; (h) analysis of communication; (i) the tools and

techniques of communication; (j) communication dysfunctions; (k) fa-

cilitators and barriers in communication.


Definitions of Co.maunication and Communication Theory

Definitions of communication are many. Some are simple, such as

that given by Ber e(1953) "Whatever can be understood is a communication.

Whatever cannot be understood is not a communication" (p. 191). Others

are more complex, such as that given by Scott and Mitchell (1972):









It is the link between individual and individual, individual
and group, individual and activity, group and group, group
and activity and activity and activity. Communication is the
means of obtaining action from others or from things. It is
manifested in many ways -- as influence, as authority, or as
information flowing through networks of communication channels.
(p. 137)

Most of the more modern definitions of communication center on the

processes of transmission involving senders and receivers. For instance,

Brown (1959) defined communication as "the process of transmitting ideas

or thoughts from one person to another, or within a single person, for

the purpose of creating understanding in the thinking of the person re-

ceiving the communication" (p. 331). Johnson, Kast and Rosenweiz (1963)

defined communication as 'a system involving a sender and a receiver,

with implications of feedback control" (p. 92).

Perhaps the most comprehensive definition was provided by Thayer

(1968) and which is grounded in basic systems theory:

Communication. .[is] the dynamic process underlying the
existence, growth, change, the behavior of all living
systems, individual or organizational. Communication can
be understood as that indispensable function of people and
organization through which the organization or the organism
relates itself to its environment, and relates its parts
and its internal processes one to the other. (p. 14) [add]


The Communication Process

Most dictionaries define "process" as any phenomenon which shows a

continuous change in time or any continuous operation or treatment.

Communication theory reflects a process point of view. According to

Berlo (1960):

A communication theorist rejects the possibility that nature
consists of events or ingredients that are separate from all
other events. He argues that you cannot talk about the be-
ginning or the end of communication or say that a particular
idea came from one specific source, that communication occurs
in only one way, and so on. (p 24)









The unit of analysis for the purpose of understanding the communica-

tion process, according to Thayer (1961), is the "communication event"

(p. 44). The communication event has four basic elements:

1. an originator

2. a stimulus

3. a message

4. a receiver.

A communication event is bounded at its origin by a receiver's

attention to a message and at its termination by the receiver's reaction

to that message. Analysis of a communication event requires taking into

account such aspects as the perceptions of the originator and the re-

ceiver of the situation, their perceptions of each other and the origi-

nator's objective.

Again, according to Thayer (1961) there are certain elements which

must be present for the communication process to occur:

1. If successful communication is going to occur between
two people, they must have symbols (words) with which
to communicate.

2. If successful communication is going to occur between
two people, they must have certain rules for using symbols.

3. If successful communication is going to occur between
two people, there must be accurate mutual understanding
of perceived role relationships. (p. 43)

What this means is that in any situation each person perceives him-

self to be in a certain role relationship with other persons in, or con-

cerned with in some way, that situation. Unless the originator accurate-

ly perceives these role relationships as the receiver perceives them, the

originator's message will be misinterpreted to some extent depending upon

just how inaccurate is the misperception. Conversely, unless the









receiver accurately perceives the role relationships in that situation as

the originator perceives them, he will likely assign an incorrect meaning

or significance to the originator's message.

The basic model representing the communication process has been cre-

dited to Shannon and Weaver (1949). This was copied and modified by

many including: Thayer (1961), Scott and Mitchell (1972), Kast and

Rosenweiz (1974) and others. The classic model follows:


message signal received message
signal
Information ITransmitter | jNoisie lReceiver Destination
source ~* J-* source -> I


Figure 1. Symbolic representation of the communication
process (Shannon and Weaver, 1949, p. 98).



In the Shannon and Weaver model, noise is defined as factors that

distort the quality of a signal. This can be broadened to include fac-

tors in each of the ingredients of communication that can reduce effect-

iveness.

Berlo (1960) made an important point concerning the sources and re-

ceivers: "Communication sources and receivers must be similar systems.

If they are not similar, communication cannot occur" (p. 31). For

example, a television set cannot receive a radio signal.


The Communication Sequence

Lasswell (cited in Thayer, 1961) identified and defined the communi-

cation sequence as "who says what in which channel to whom with what

effect" (p. 48). Thayer (1961) developed a corollary for this formula:










1. who says . .
2. (or does not say) . .
3. what . .
4. to whom . .
5. when . .
6. in what way .. .
7. under what circumstances . .
8. with what effect . (p. 49)

It should be noted that each aspect of this sequence does not repre-

sent a step since communication is but one event. The ,'orollary is

especially useful in analyzing the communication event.


The Occasions of Communication

Thayer (1951) and March and Simon (1959) found that there are cer-

tain occasions for communication. According to Thayer, a person communi-

cates (or remains silent):

1. to accomplish, directly or indirectly, what he perceives to
be expected of him or as an individual by himself. He will
seek to maintain if not enhance his own concept of himself,
and his communicators can be expected to serve this purpose.
If he conceives of himself as a question asker, he will
question. If he conceives of himself as a man of few words,
he will likely strive to use few.

2. to accomplish, directly or indirectly, what he perceives to
be expected of him by another person in any interpersonal
situation. Role relationships and interpersonal expectations
will influence his communication behavior most in an inter-
personal situation.

3. to accomplish, directly or indirectly, what he perceives to
be expected of him in any situation by his membership and
reference groups.

4. to accomplish, directly or indirectly, what he perceives to
be expected of him in the work situation (and away from it
if he is a carrier of the norms and values of the organi-
zation) by the organization.

5. to accomplish, directly or indirectly, what he perceives to
be expected of him in any situation by his society and,
further yet, his culture. (pp. 60-61)









There is no logic or rationality that can be applied to what a per-

son actually does or says to determine if his behavior or communication,

in fact, accomplishes these objectives for him. It is first of all his

perceptions, right or wrong, which are important. Second, his choice of

behavior or words to accomplish these objectives may not fit any pattern.

Third, he can actually misperceive these expectations, and finally, he

may simply be inept in his ability to communicate.


Communication Control

Thayer (1961) contended that:

"communication control implies control over all aspects of
the process including control over one's thinking, verbali-
zation (ideation -- translating thoughts and feelings into
words), transmission, interpretation, and receiver action
or reaction, thus increasing one's control begins with im-
proving one's own thinking and communication skills. (p. 69)

Thayer continued by stating that there are three aspects of communi-

cation control:

1. one's knowledge of people and of how they communicate,
and the nature and content of the message.

2. one's awareness of his own and his receiver's attitudes,
values, and how they may affect communication between
them; and

3. one's interpersonal and communicative skills and
techniques. (p. 71)


Learning and Communication

The source-message-channel-receiver model of the communication pro-

cess emphasizes the importance of a thorough understanding of human be-

havior as a prerequisite to communication analysis. Berlo (1960) defined

learning as a "change in the stable relationships between (a) a stimulus

that the individual organism perceives and (b) a response that the









organism needs, either covertly or overtly" (p. 76). This process re-

lates to communication in that the communication objective of the source

often is a change in the behavior of the receiver.

Berlo (1960, p. 102) stated that learning and communication are

processes and the following six ingredients that are involved in learn-

ing have their analogs in communication.

Ingredients in Learning Ingredients in Communication

1. organism 1. channel
2. stimulus 2. message
3. perception of stimulus 3. decoder
4. interpretation of stimulus 4. receiver-source
5. overt response of stimulus 5. encoder
6. consequence of response 6. feedback


Meaning and Communication

The meaning or significance of things, actions and words does not

reside in them but is assigned or attached to them by people.

According to both Thayer (1961) and Berlo (1960), there is a rela-

tionship between meaning and communication. Berlo provided a model for

this relationship:









INTERPRETER
(receiver-source)


MEANING


STIMULUS
(message)


(message) CONSEQUENCE
(feedback)


Figure 2. A model of the relationship between
communication and meaning (Berlo, 1960, p. 105)



Thayer (1961) made clear the impact of the model:

Awareness of a stimulus, however, cannot occur until
meaning or significance is assigned to that sinulus.
From this concept, it follows that what a person
actually perceives is not the stimulus itself, but
the meaning or significance he assigns to that stimulus.

Thus when we perceive a person, what we are actually aware
of is some aspect of that person's significance or meaning
to us. When we listen to another person talking to us, or
read what he has written to us, what we are actually aware
of is the meaning or significance of those auditory or
visual stimuli to us. The meaning or significance we
assign to verbal stimuli is some algebraic sum of both
what we perceive to be its manifest (word) meaning and
what we perceive to be its latent meaning (that is, what
we perceive to be its intended meaning). (p. 43)


RESPONSE
(message)


4___









Analysis of Communication

There are but three basic qualities by which to measure a communi-

cation: its effectiveness (whether or not its purpose is achieved); its

efficiency (its total cost relative to its effectiveness); and its clear-

ness (the degree to which it is free of unintended ambiguity). Thayer

(1961) defined communicating effectively as:

A communication is effective to the degree that it accom-
plishes the purpose intended. If a communication produces
an inappropriate or unintended result, it has been in-
effective. (p. 83)

Thus, the only measure of communication effectiveness is the success a

communication has in producing the desired result.

The first essential in communication effectiveness is a clear and

sharply defined purpose. Communications fail because their originators

do not have clearly in their minds before speaking the purpose of their

communications.

Purpose is a vague generality. To be specific, the originator of

a communication must decide three things, according to Thayer (1968):

1. What he wants the receiver of the communication to
know after being exposed to the communication
(information);

2. What he wants the receiver of the communication to
feel like after being exposed to the communication
(attitude toward the communication and toward the
originator); and

3. What he wants others, not directly exposed to the
communication, to know about it and to feel about
it. (p. 84)

When a communicator decides these three things, he will then have in mind

a clear purpose for his communication.









Basic determinants of communication effectiveness

Thayer (1968, p. 85) gave three basic determinants of communication

effectiveness: (a) the originator's thinking, (b) his attitude, and

(c) his technique. Beyond the necessity of having a specific purpose

in mind, the effectiveness of any communication depends primarily upon

the quality and effectiveness of the originator's thinking.

A receiver interprets meaning not only from the words or the ges-

tures used by the originator. He evaluates as many cues as are available

in order to interpret the meaning he gets. From this meaning, he infers

the originator's attitude; or if he knows the originator's attitude at

the outset, he qualifies the meaning of the communication to coincide

with that attitude.

Most of what we learn about communication with others has to do with

technique. But techniques follow thinking and attitude i!! order of im-

portance. Technique affects the outcome of communication only if the

originator's thinking and attitudes are affected. There may be accidental

or incidental successes, but a person cannot communicate effectively for

long by accident.


Coinmunicating efficiently

The use of the word "efficiency" in this context implies a relation-

ship between effectiveness and economy. There are three aspects of

communication efficiency, stated by Thayer (1961, p. 91): (a) organi-

zational efficiency, (b) operational efficiency, and (c) psychological

efficiency. Communication efficiency may be thought of as a conceptual

measure derived from a comparison of the expenditure (time, effort,

money, etc.) required to produce a communication. Thayer (1968) stated









that this measure may be thought of as an equation:


Efficiency = Effectiveness (p. 158)
Expenditure

Efficiency can be appraised from two points of view; from the point

of view of the originator or from the point of view of the receiver.

Communication can be originated and transmitted or it can be received

and understood, efficiently. For all practical purposes, efficiency

should be measured only by considering the expenditure of both the origi-

nator and the receiver, and the effectiveness of the communication.

Communication efficiency car, be improved, according to Thayer (1961):

1. improving feedback channels, improving feedback
evaluation and improving feedback utilization.

2. improving methods and means of communication.

3. improving the attitude of the originator toward
those with whom he will communicate, and toward
the importance of communication problems in
general: improving a person's ability to solve
problems involving communication; and improving
the person's techniques in communication.

4. improving the situation (in which a communication
occurs).

5. improving the receiver. (p. 95)


Clearness and ambiguity in communication

Clearness in communicating is a quality. It is the quality of com-

munication which we infer from the fact that the receiver has understood

the message immediately, easily, and accurately. Clearness is neither a

purpose nor a function of communication. Clearness is a quality of com-

munication which may help the originator achieve a specific purpose.

According to Hill (cited in Thayer, 1961, p. 115), clearness relates

only to the receiver's understanding, not to his agreement with what is









said. To understand clearness, it is essential to keep in mind that

clearness relates only to the receiver's understanding, and not to his

agreement with the content nor the point of view of the communication.

Clearness must be determined from the facility with which the receiver

comprehends the information, not alone from the receiver's actions or

reactions to the communication. Clearness does not begin at the receiv-

er's eyes or ears but must begin in the originator's thinking.

To be clear, communication must also have a clear purpose. The

originator must determine precisely what his purpose is to be in the

communication. Implicit in this statement is that the communicator must

think clearly in order to plan clearly so that the result is clear

communication.

Clearness in communication is the absence of ambiguity. Thayer

(1951), listed three kinds of ambiguity that lead to lack of clearness

in the communication: "(a) ambiguous words (symbol integrity), (b)

ambiguous sentences (syntactical ambiguity), and (c) ambiguous situa-

tions (situational ambiguity)" (p. 119).

A symbol that is ambiguous is a word or an expression that has more

than one possible meaning to the receiver. A symbol can also be a facial

expression, a gesture, a motion, or even a certain posture. If the re-

ceiver is confronted with a symbol which has more than one possible mean-

ing to him, he is confused. If the receiver is confused, the communi-

cation is obviously not clear.

Thayer (1961) gave four propositions of symbol ambiguity:

Proposition 1: for maximum clearness and greater read-
ability, terms should be used which are
familiar to the receiver. The deciding
factor must always be whether the term
is familiar to the receiver.








Proposition 2: a. to reduce or eliminate ambiguity,
restrict the length of the communi-
cation and all its components in
paragraphs, sentences and words.

b. never sacrifice completeness for
brevity: clearness depends upon
completeness.

Proposition 3: To minimize ambiguity and maximize
clearness, maximize the reader's atten-
tion to, and interest in, the communi-
cation.

Proposition 4: To minimize ambiguity and maximize clear-
ness, develop habits of accuracy and con-
sistency, both in what is said and the
manner in which it is said. (pp. 119-123)

There may be some ambiguity aboAt the situation within the conmuni-

cation or about the situation outside the communication (that is, about

the relationship between the originator and the receiver, the import of

the content of the communication, the reason for the communication, etc.).

Both of these are referred to as situational ambiguity.

Situational ambiguity means that there is some possibility of mis-

understanding as a result of some ambiguity in the situation. Situation-

al ambiguity within the message occurs when the originator assumes the re-

ceiver knows as much about the background of the subject as he does.


The-Tools and Techniques of Communication

The tools of communication are all those elements and aspects of the

communication situation which the originator can manipulate or utilize

to produce the effect of his message. Tools also refer to all those ele-

ments and aspects of the communication situation which the receiver can

utilize in attending to interpreting and comprehending the message.

Thayer gives the following tools and techniques (1961):









1. Modes. Modes of communication are observation (and
thought, listening, writing, reading, and talking).

2. Media. The media of communication are basically two:
visual and aural.

3. Forms or Vehicles. The forms or vehicles of communi-
cation are manifold (letters, speeches, reports,
books, articles, telephone calls, manuals, tele-
vision, etc.).

4. Channels. The channels of communication are those
communication avenues or pathways frequently used
to pass certain types of communication. There are
many types of channels:

a. formal and informal channels.
b. organizational and interpersonal channels.
c. authority and power channels.
d. intragroup and intergroup channels.
e. prestige/status and common-interest channels.
f. idea channels and value channels.
g. functional and situational channels.

5. Mechanics. The mechanics of communication refer to
all the physical aspects of the presentation of
communication, such as colors, sizes, formats,
documentary style, type face, graphics, etc.

6. Techniques. Communication techniques then refer to
the manner with which tools and mechanics are used to
provide variably effective and efficient messages in
any mode, medium, form, and channel. (pp. 209-210)


Communication Dysfunction

Berlo (1960) attributed communication dysfunction or breakdown to

one or both of two causes, inefficiency or misperception (p. 13).

Guetzkow (1965) claimed that communciation dysfunction occurs when

"symbols fail to carry the full contents of the messages, their seman-

tic properties are transformed as they are handled within a communication

flow either by omission of aspects of the contents, or by the introduction

of distortions" (p. 555).









Scott and Mitchell (1972) claimed that communication has many patho-

logical states and that communication difficulties arise from one of a

combination of the following factors:

1. The nature and functions of language (distortion),

2. Deliberate misrepresentation (filtering);

3. Organizational size and complexity (overload,
timing, and short circuiting);

4. Lack of acceptance. (p. 157)

The amount of distortion contained in any communication act is a

function of three variables: "the relative efficiency of language, the

type of language employed, and the degree of incongruency in the frames

of reference of the sender and receiver" (pp. 158-9). Distortion occurs

because of the inadequacy of language to carry precisely the ideas of the

sender, and because of the inadequacy of the sender to frame his ideas in

correct language.

Filtering is "the conscious manipulation of facts to color events in

a way favorable to the sender" (pp. 159-60). Filtering occurs in upward

communication because this direction of flow carries managerial control

information.

When "communication lines or receivers become so filled with informa-

tion that it cannot be processed"(pp. 161-2), then there is communication

overload. The timing of communications involve two major considerations:

1. The strategic release of information,

2. Coordination of the release of information (so that
multiple receivers get information simultaneously or
in sequential order. (p. 162)

Short circuiting means that "someone has been left out" (Scott and

Mitchell, p. 162) either purposefully or not purposefully.









Scott and Mitchell stated that administrative communication "fails

not only because of language problems, misrepresentation, or difficulties

of size" but also "because of lack of acceptance" (p. 163). Fearing

(1953) stated that several factors condition human acceptance of communi-

cation:

1. Reality. The individuals appraisal of the situation
in which he finds himself. ..his definition of his
environment.

2. Ambiguity. The lack of clarity in the communication
or the receiver's idea of his reality.

3. Credibility. That we accept as a "matter of faith"
in the sender.

4. Congruency. The relevancy of the communication to
the needs, motives, and values of the receiver.
(pp. 81-84)

Thayer (1961) added two other causes for communication dysfunction.

The first, the purpose and the failure of the originator to have clearly

in his mind the purpose of the communication prior to making communi-

cation. Secondly, the concept of noise.

Noise, according to Thayer (1968), "in the theoretical sense is

often assumed to be deleterious to communication"(pp. 118-119). However,

Berne (1953) stated that in interpersonal communication, noise "is of

more value [information] since in such cases it is of more value to the

coiiunicants to know about each other's states than to give information

to each other." Noise carries "latent communication for the communicator"

(p. 197). [added]


Facilitators and Barriers in Communication

According to Thayer (1968), the extent that a person needs or has

an appetite for what is communicatively available to him from any









originator "communicating-to" that receiver will be facilitated. To the

extent that the originator attempts to "communicate-to" any receiver

something which that receiver can "take-into-account" or has a need or

appetite for, intercommunication will be facilitated. To the extent that

these conditions do not hold, there will be barriers or obstacles to the

communication (pp. 128-9). He goes on to explain that the extent to which

the relationship, the situation, or circumstances, the non-verbal clues

or any other communication elements serve to enhance the "take-into-

account-susceptibilities" of the receiver, intercommunication will be

facilitated. To the extent that communicative factors diminish the re-

ceiver's take-into-account-susceptibilities, there will be barriers or

obstacles to intercommunication. (p. 129)

Five types of barriers to effective communication of information are

given by Thayer (1963):

1.t Organizational Barriers. The structure and conventional
procedures of the organization itself may be the source
of significant barriers to the effective or efficient
dissemination of information. These barriers may stem
from one or more of four conditions.

a. the simple physical distance between members of
an organization,

b. the specialization of task functions fundamental
to all organizations,

c. power, authority, status relationships may impede
the proper flow of information within an organi-
zation,

d. closely related is another barrier which derives
from the very nature of human organization --
that of information "ownership" (pp. 195-196).

2. Interpersonal Barriers.

a. The climate of the interpersonal contact or
relationship.









b. People obtain their values and standards of
conduct from the norms of the groups to which
they belong, or to which they aspire to be
identified.

c. Closely related is the barrier which may arise
from the conflicting or antagonistic attitudes
of the persons involved.

d. The effect of mass communication on people's
communicate-abilities. (pp. 197-198)

3. Individual Barriers. There are two barriers to forma-
tive communication that have their source in the
individual. These are his individual competencies to
think and to act (strategic competencies), and his
skills in receiving and transmitting information
(tacticle competencies).

a. individual habits of thought and action, when
obsolete or inappropriate (or incompetent) account
for one of the most serious obstacles to effect-
ive inner communication.

b. the individual's inabilities to receive and trans-
mit information, in terms of his personal communi-
cative skills, thoroughly create barriers which
impede his inner communication with others. (p. 199)

4. Economic, Geographic and Temporal Barriers. The in-
dividual who originates or receives the message may
simply not have, or take the time to:

a. read it, write it, say it, hear it (properly),

b. comprehend it,

c. act upon it properly (as intended). (p. 201)

5. Channel and Media Barriers. The channel or the medium
employed to transmlit data may itself act as a barrier
to successful and informative communication. Certain
kinds of messages are best communicated in person,
while other kinds by memos, reports, telephone, tele-
type, etc. (p. 201)


The Importance of Perceptions In The
Communication Process

The effect that the perceptions of individuals in a communication

process have on that process cannot he overemphasized. The word









perception appears in all aspects of discussions on communication theory

throughout the scholarly literature. An understanding of these effects

is essential to understanding the communication process. Therefore,

special attention is devoted to the subject of perceptions in this

section.


Definition of Perception and the Process of Perception

Most dictionaries and psychology texts define perception as a mental

image. Scott and Mitchell (1972) offered a comprehensive definition in

which perception is defined as a process:

Individuals are being constantly bombarded by sensory
stimulation. There are noises, sites, smells, tastes,
and tacticle sensations. Yet somehow we manage to pro-
cess this information without confusion. This process
is k:own as perception and may be defined as the experience
people have as the approximate result of the sensory inputs.
The process is one of selection and organization of sensa-
tions to provide the meaningful entity we experience. (p. 71)

There are two basic components of the Scott and Mitchell definition.

The first, perception, is a system of selection and screening. Some in-

formation is processed, some is not. Screening helps to avoid processing

irrelevant or disruptive information.

The second component is organization. The information that is pro-

cessed must be ordered and categorized in some fashion that allows one to

ascribe meaning to the stimulus information. The stimulus provides cer-

tain "cues" as to its nature. An orange has color, texture, shape, and

size, all of which help in the categorization process. These categories

may be more or less elaborate but their central function is the reduction

of complex information into simpler categories.









Factors Related to What One Perceives

Scott and Mitchell (1972) gave four factors which are related to

what one perceives:

1. Response Disposition. People tend to perceive
familiar stimuli more quickly than unfamiliar
ones.

2. One's feelings towards objects in question. There
is considerable evidence that those things for
which we hold strong feelings are also recognized
more quickly than neutral stimuli.

3. Response Salience. Given several responses which
have been equally practiced, a particular one may
be elicited by experimental instructions, by an
immediately preceding sequence of behavior, by the
presence of a motivated state, or by some aspect
of the immediately present stimulus situation.
(Example: frightened people would perceive
fearful object; hungry people food objects, etc.)

4. Those Variables That Represent the Physical Environment.
Research has shown that one's surrounding environment
is related to his perceptions. (p. 71)


Characteristics Influencing Perceptions

People are constantly making judgements about other people's needs,

emotions, and thoughts and this is done rather automatically. Research

by Scott and Mitchell (1972) has shown that there are three sets of

characteristics which influence these perceptions:

1. The person perceived: In an interpersonal situation,
one's evaluation and behavior towards the other is
partly influenced by the characteristics of the
individual with whom he is interacting. These
characteristics fall under four headings:

a. physical: gestures, posture, facial expressions,
pigmentation, etc.

b. social: voice quality, appearance, education,
location of residence.


c. historical: sex, age, occupation, religion, race.









d. personal: personality traits or characteristics
attributable to others.

2. The perceiver: In general, there appears to be two
sets of variables about the perceiver that are
important in understanding one's perceptions of
others. First, ooe's own social and personality
characteristics. Second, the complexity of one's
perceptions about other people is important.

3. The situation: The final set of circumstances
which are related to one's perceptions of others
is the situation in which one finds himself.
Example: if you are traveling in a foreign
country, you may find yourself interacting
differently with a fellow countryman. (p. 73)

March and Simon (1959, p. 152) found that perceptions that are dis-

cordant or not in harmony with the frame of reference of an individual

are "filtered out before they reach his consciousness" or "are inter-

preted or rationalized so as to remove the discrepancies." They also

found that the vast bulk of one's knowledge of fact does not gain through

direct perception but through the second-hand, third-hand, and n-th hand

reports of the perceptions of others, transmitted through the channels of

social communication. Since these perceptions have already been filtered

by one or more communicators, most of whom have frames of reference simi-

lar to that person, the reports are generally in harmony with the filter-

ed reports of that person's own perceptions and serve to reinforce them.

March and Simon also found that there are two principal types of in-

groups which are of significance in filtering: "in-groups with members

in a particular organizational unit, and in-groups with members in a

common profession" (p. 153). Therefore, one can distinguish organization

identification and professional identifications.


Reality and Perceptions

Important to the understanding of perceptions and the behavior of

people in the communication process is an understanding of reality. Each









individual's perception and structuring of a situation are different

from another individual's perception and structuring of the same situa-

tion; therefore, reality to one may be quite different from reality to

another according to Combs and Snygg (cited in Thayer, 1961, p. 16).

Thayer (1961) stated that there are two types of realities; physical

reality and social reality (p. 16). Physical reality is that which can

be measured and/or is identical for all persons while social reality is

immeasurable and varies from one person to the next.


lhe Value of Communication In University
Governmental Relations

As stated in Chapter I, public higher educational institutions are

living systems which must exist in harmony with the legislative environ-

ment. In order to do this, successful communication must occur between

them. Just how important is this link is worth noting.


The Need to Restore Confidence Through Good Communication

Pifer (1975), like so many officials of his time, described the

challenges facing higher education:

Today . when the nation is still in the throes of the
most prolonged and deepest recession in many decades, the
issue of where the campus should stand in public funding
priorities is infinitely more accute than at any time in
recent memory ... Public officials all over the country
as well as in Washington are now asking themselves whether
it is morally right to be spending so much money on higher
education when the states are in a state of fiscal crises ..
(p. 4)

Effective Communication: The Key to Successful Governmental Relations

The response to this "lack of confidence" attitude according to

Crawford (1977) has been an attempt to restore the public's confidence

in higher education through the creation of a new profession concerned









with governmental relations (p. 342). It is the governmental relations

specialists' task, therefore, to insure that effective communication is

carried out.

Moos and Rourke (1959) put the responsibility for good legislative

communication squarely on the shoulders of higher education when they

warned that:

If communications have faltered between legislatures and
colleges. higher education officials must assume the re-
sponsibility. One of the common reasons for legislative
intrusion on educational administration has been the lack
. or the suspicion of lack . of full information from
universities regarding campus operations and plans. (p. 283)


Relationship of the Scholarly Literature
to the Study

The following propositions drawn from the scholarly literature place

the current study in perspective and form a basis upon which can be de-

rived empirically testable hypotheses:

1. Without communication there can be no organization.

2. Public institutions of higher education are organi-
zations and living systems.

3. State legislatures are organizations and living
sys teams.

4. Public institutions are sub-systems of state legis-
lative systems and therefore must live in harmony,
through communication with the legislative environment.

5. Conflict will occur between state legislatures and
public institutions of higher education when infor-
mation is not successfully communicated back and
forth or where there is not accurate mutual under-
standing of perceived role relationships.

Propositions one, two, three, and four are based on Simon (1959).

Proposition five is based on Thayer (1961). These propositions formed

the basis for developing hypotheses concerning the degree of consensus





38



that coimnunication is transmitted back and forth between state legislators

and higher education personnel and the degree to which there is accurate

mutual understanding of perceived role relationships.


Confinement of Sources for Reviewed Literature

The scholarly literature reviewed herein is a result of the search

for literature related to the study in books, monographs, Dissertation

Abstracts International, the Current Index of Journals in Education,

the Education Index, and Communication In Organizations: An Annotated

Bibliography and Source Book.














CHAPTER III

THE SETTING AND METHODOLOGY


A discussion of the study's setting and methodology is presented in

this chapter. The first section provides a brief history and general de-

scription of the State of Florida. A brief history and general descrip-

tion of the Florida Legislature is in the second section. Section three

provides a brief history and a general description of the State Univer-

sity System of Florida (SUS). The legal relationship between the Florida

Legislature and the SUS and a review of the 1977 Florida Legislature are

described in sections four and five. Section six describes the purpose

and development of Interview Guide A which is the data gathering instru-

ment used to conduct the preliminary poll while section seven is devoted

to the preliminary poll and analysis of the poll's results. The purpose

and development of Interview Guide B is found in the last section.

A Brief History and General Description
of the State of Florida


The first written records credit the Spanish explorer Ponce de Leon

with the discovery of Florida in 1513 when he made landfall in the St.

Augustine area, according to Marth and Marth (1976, p. 1). The first

permanent settlement was also at St. Augustine in 1565 with Pedro Menen-

dez de Aviles as the founder (p. 1). Over the next 250 years, the

"ownership" of Florida changed hands many times because of the struggles








for world power among the Spanish, French, and English. In 1821, the

United States finally acquired Florida from the Spanish and appointed

Andrew Jackson as territorial governor (p. 2). In 1824, Tallahassee

was selected as the capital and by 1830 the new territory reached 35,000

inhabitants (p. 3). By 1845, when Florida attained statehood, the pop-

ulation had grown to 66,500 (p. 3) and on the eve of the Civil War,

Florida's population had reached 140,000 (p. 3).

Florida withdrew from the Union on January 11, 1861 (Marth and Marth,

1976, p. 3), and the War Between the States began the following April.

During the Civil War, the State furnished the South with 15,000 troops

while at the same time it supplied 1,290 troops to the North (p. 3).

When the war was over, Tallahassee was the only Confederate state capital

east of the Mississippi River to escape capture.

From reconstruction through the end of the 19th century, Florida

grew and prospered as coastal fishing towns were established and rail-

roads began to expand. New industries such as timber, shipping, cattle

and citrus were also established during this time. Cigar making came to

Key West and Tampa. Other industries were established such as sponging

and phosphate and the early beginnings of tourism became visible. By

1900, the population passed the 500,000 mark (p. 4).

In the early twentieth century, major North-South railroads were

completed to Tampa and Miami, opening up new areas of the State for

significant development. The rich agricultural lands of Lake Okeechobee

were also developed at this time. By 1917, the State was ready to embark

on major road building programs designed to supplement the growing rail-

road system (p. 4).








In 1919, Carl Fisher of Miami Beach began an advertising campaign

in northern cities which would bring thousands of land speculators to

Florida and before long the "Florida Boom" was begun (p. 4). As word of

fabulous land and unbelievable bargains spread northward, people swarmed

to Florida. By 1925, land fever reached epidemic proportions and Florida

"became a coast to coast real estate office" stated Marth and Marth

(1976, p. 4).

After the stock market crash of 1929, Florida became more stabilized.

During World War II, most of the State's military bases were established

and many men who were stationed at one time or another in Florida re-

turned after the war with their families.

In recent times, the "58,560 square miles of land that was a pawn

in the battles between the most powerful nations of Europe" Marth and

Marth (1976, p. 5) has become a diverse and rapidly growing state. In

1977, Florida was the nation's eighth most populated state with 8 million

inhabitants. The State is a national leader in citrus, cattle, tourism,

space exploration and research, phosphate and shipping.


A Brief History and General Description
of the Florida Legislature


During 1838 and 1839, a constitutional convention was held in St.

Joseph, Florida. The purpose was to draft a state constitution in

anticipation of statehood (Marth and Marth, 1976, p. 6). This consti-

tution formed the basis upon which government in Florida was built. The

constitution called for three branches of government: the Executive

Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The Legislative

Branch consisted of a two house legislature, a House of Representatives

and a Senate. The first session of the Florida Legislature was convened

on January 7, 1839 (The Florida Senate, 1976-8, p. 1).









The constitutional convention of 1868 and 1885 continued the bi-

cameral form of legislature with minor changes. The next constitutional

convention was not held until 1968-and it was this convention which esta-

blished the form and substance of the legislature during which this study

was conducted.

Under the 1968 constitution, the Legislature was to meet annually

for regular sessions of 60 days, beginning in April. It also provided

that the Legislature could be called into special sessions for up to

20 days by the Governor. The 1968 constitution required a 40-member

Senate, each senator elected to 4-year terms, with one-half of the Senate

elected every two years in even-numbered years. Representation in the

Senate was based on population with each senator representing 170,000

Florida residents. The House of Representatives required 120 members,

elected to two-year terms -- one-half during even-numbered years and one-

half during odd-numbered years. Representation in the House was based on

one Representative for each 55,000 residents. The general rule governing

the operation, structure and the passage of bills in the Florida Legis-

lature was essentially the same as for most states of the United States.


A Brief History and General Description of the
State University System of Florida


In 1851, the Florida Legislature passed an act authorizing the esta-

blishment of two state colleges, one east of and one west of the Suwannee

River (Florida State University Bulletin, 1973, p. 10). These two colleges

were forerunners of Florida State University and the University of Florida.

The University of Florida, in fact, had roots going back before Florida was

admitted to the Union (The University Record, 1974, p. 1), but in these








earliest years,it was operated as a private institution. In 1887, the

Florida Legislature established a "Normal School for Negroes" in Talla-

hassee and thus Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University was started

(Florida A & M University Bulletin, 1973, p. 1).

These three institutions of higher learning served the State's

public higher education needs until the Florida Legislature created the

University of South Florida in Tampa in 1956 (USF Bulletin, 1977, p. 6).

Five more public universities were created by the Legislature between

1956 and 1970: Florida Atlantic University, University of West Florida,

Florida Technological University, University of North Florida and Florida

International University.

In 1976, according to IMPACT SUS (1976), the State University

System of Florida consisted of "nine main campuses, one branch campus,

14 off-campus centers, 20 agricultural research and education centers,

and cooperative extension programs in each of Florida's 67 counties"

(p. 2). The nine universities offered "about 950 degree programs in

some 320 departments of some 60 colleges and schools" (p. 2). There

were also a variety of non-traditional education delivery systems, in-

cluding "open university," external degree programs and more than 1900

continuing education courses (p. 2). The State University System also

offered many major professional programs, including two colleges of

medicine, law, architecture and pharmacy, and one college each of

dentistry and veterinary medicine. In the 1975-76 school year, there

were approximately 116,000 students enrolled and the System had a

budget (including all specially funded units and the Educational and

General budget) of approximately $387 million.









The Legal Relationship Between the Florida Legislature
and the State University System of Florida


According to the 1969 CODE (The Comprehensive Development Plan of

the State University System of Florida) document, there was "no State

planning in higher education in Florida prior to the 1900's (p. 3).

The three public higher educational institutions which were established

by legislative acts in the 1800's were independent of one another and

reported directly to the Legislature until passage of the Buckman Act

of 1905. The Buckman Act placed the governance of the State's one

university (The University of Florida) and the two colleges (Florida

A & 1 University and Florida State University) under a Board of Control

(p. 3). This action w.as the State's first attempt at State planning for

higher education. The Buckman Act also reaffirmed the jurisdiction of

the State Board of Education as the final deteriinina body in educational

matters. (A provision of the 1885 constitution vested control of all

education in the State Board of Education which was composed of the

Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, and

State Superintendent of Public Instruction.) This structure continued

until 1964.

In 1964, the Florida Legislature replaced the Board of Control with

the Florida Board of Regents, a single governing board for publicly sup-

ported universities, and the State University Systne of Florida was born.

The Board of Regents still continued, however, under the jurisdiction of

the State Board of Education. This act of the Legislature gave the Board

of Regents broader powers than the old Board of Control as expressed in

the legislative intent language of the act creating Chapter 240 of the

Florida Statutes:









The Board of Regnets of the Division of Universities of
the Department of Education is granted the necessary
powers to govern, regulate, coordinate, and oversee
the institution and agencies in the State University
System in order to attain the most effective accomplish-
ment of the lawful aims of education. (F.S. 240.001(1))

It should be noted, as can be observed in the preceding citation, that

in creation of the Board of Regents, the Legislature retained all author-

ity for funding the system and for approving all fees charged by the

several institutions in the system.


A Review of the 1977 Florida Legislature


In the end, the 1977 Florida Legislature proved to be one of the

most "confusing, frustrating and ineffective legislative sessions ever"

stated Senator Guy Spicola of Tampa (speech to Greater Tampa Chamber of

Commerce, July 21, 1977). The theme of the 1977 session was taxes.

It was following this type of situation that this study was conducted.

On April 5, 1977, Governor Askew told legislators in his seventh

opening day address that new taxes are needed to provide new revenues

to fund public education and other State services in Florida. The

Governor's recommended budget was built on the assumption of new taxes,

primarily a one-cent increase in the sales tax. The House leadership

later endorsed the Governor's tax package, while the Senate opposed the

package. During the session, the House and the Senate were never able

to come together on a tax package and on June 3, 1977, the legislature

adjourned, still not in agreement and without passing an appropriations

bill.

Because the legislature failed to pass an appropriations bill and

failed to address other important legislation, Governor Reubin Askew

called a special session (originally for a seven-day period) from noon,








Wednesday, June 8 chi.rour,n Tuesday, June 14. The special session was to

address four subjects: a general appropriations bill; legislation needed

to finance the appropriations bHil; a compensatory education program and

other bills needed to implement appropriations and legislation related to

tax relief. The session was later extended for a three-day period ending

June 17 and otner subjects such as financial disclosure, barge canal

elimination and automobile insurance reform were added to the Governor's

call. When the House and Senate again failed to reach agreement on taxes,

although passing an appropriations bill, the Legislature adjourned on

June 16 and the Governor called another special session beginning June 22

for a period of three days. During this session, the Legislature was

finally successful in passing new taxes to meet appropriations needs and

the 1977 Legislature ended for good on June 24, 1977.

During the 1977 Florida Legislature several thousand bills were

introduced. Of these, a total of 446 bills dealing with education (265

House, 181 Senate) were introduced and considered according to Legis-

lative Report, Vol. III, No. 14 (1977, p. 2). A total of 66 school

bills passed, 41 of them during the final week(p. 2). The increase

in sales tax did not pass. The State University System of Florida re-

ceived approximately a 17% increase in budget, stated Legislative Report.

Vol. III, No. 15 (1977, p. 1); however, almost all of the increase was

in specially earmarked categories.

Salaries for university employees were one of the most debated issues

in the waning days of the session. Overall, according to Legislative

Report, Vol. Ill, No. 15 (1977, p. 1), salary increases of 8.75% were

authorized for career service employees, while only a 7.1% increase for

faculty and administrative and professional employees was approved despite









the fact that a faculty union contract calling for 8.85% was approved by

all parties concerned.


The Pu'pose and Development of Interview Guide A


The purpose of Interview Guide A was to provide a telephone polling

instrument which would enable the researcher to poll a previously identi-

fied target group of people to answer two questions:

1. What, in the opinion of those polled, were the three
most important issues affecting the SUS during the
1977 Florida Legislature?

2. Who were the principal characters representing the
Legislature and the SUS in each issue?

This technique was chosen so as to eliminate any bias which might

be inadvertently reflected by the researcher. Because of the simplicity

of these questions, they were easily rephrased end put into the following

form (see Appendix A for a complete copy of the instrument):

1. What do you consider to be the three most important
issues in the recent 1977 Florida Legislature affecting
the State University System of Flordia? Please list in
priority order.

2. For each issue what people, legislators and representatives
of the State University System, were the principal figures
on each side of the issue? Please cite no more than three
people on each side. Also, please make sure each group is
represented by at least one name.

The Preliminary Poll and an Analysis of the Poll's Results

This section is concerned with describing the target group polled

and how the preliminary poll was conducted. The section also includes an

analysis of the results of this poll.


A Description of The Target Group Polled

The purpose of the preliminary poll, as stated earlier, was to use

an independent group of state government and university officials to








determine the issues to be studied by the researcher. The target group

polled consisted of the people (or their designees) having the following

titles at the close of the 1977 Florida Legislative Session:

1. Commissioner of Education
2. President of the Senate
3. Speaker of the House
4. Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriation Committees
5. Chairmen of the House and Senate Education Committees
6. Staff Directors of the House and Senate Appropriation Committees
7. Staff Directors of the House and Senate Education Committees
8. Chairman of the SUS Board of Regents
9. Chancellor of the SUS
10. The three Vice Chancellors of the SUS
11. The Presidents of the nine state universities in the SUS

An exact listing, by name, of this target group can be found in Appendix E.

A Description of How the Preliminary Poll Was Conducted

The 1977 Florida Legislature, which was to adjourn in the first

week of June, did not adjourn until June 24, because of the need for two

special sessions which were called at the end of the regular session.

Upon adjournment of the Legislature, many University presidents and legis-

lators immediately went on vacation. Because of these two factors, the

start of the preliminary poll, originally planned to commence in mid-June,

was delayed from its planned starting date by almost one month. The poll

was finally begun in mid-July and was completed in late August. The tar-

get group was polled by phone or in person during this six-week period.

Because several key persons were on extensive vacations during the summer

and could not be reached until late August, the poll could not be com-

pleted in a shorter time period.

Interview Guide A, consisting of two questions, was administered

verbally by the researcher. Of the 25 people in the target group, 19

people (76%) were contacted directly by phone or in person. Answers to

the questions from three people (12%) were obtained through their official









designees. Answers were not obtained from only three people (12%) or

their designees. The following lists the titles of the persons whose

responses were obtained through designees or not obtained at all:

1. Responses obtained through official designees:

a. President of the Senate
b. Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee
c. President, Florida Technological University

2. No responses received:

a. Chairman, House Appropriations Committee
b. Chairman, Senate Education Committee
c. Speaker, House of Representatives


An Analysis of the Results of the Poll

Tabulation of the responses to Question 1, Interview Guide A, re-

vealed that 20 separate issues were identified by the 22 target people or

their designees who were contacted (see Appendix F for a complete listing

of issues and the frequency of their citations). Seven of these 20 issues

were mentioned as first in importance, receiving a total of 22 votes.

Eleven issues were mentioned as second in importance, receiving 21 votes.

Twelve issues were mentioned as third most important, receiving a total

of 20 votes, it should be noted that some of the people polled felt

there were less than three issues of real significance; therefore, the

total votes of the 23 people polled are less than 66.

Seven issues were listed in more than one of the three categories.

Twelve of the issues were in the form of legislative bills or parts of

legislative bills. Eight issues were conceptual in nature or part of

larger philosophical questions which were debated in a general sense.

The issues receiving the most citations were:

1. The full funding of faculty salaries as called for
because of contractual negotiations between the
State University System of Florida and the United








Faculty of Florida Union. This issue received 15
total votes.

2. The passage of a $10 million Special Library Improve-
ment Program. This issue received six total votes.

3. The bill, later vetoed by the Governor, prohibiting
the merger of State Universities and establishing
curriculum screening committees (known as the cen-
sorship-mierger bill). This issue received six total
votes.

4. The question of new taxes and new state revenues.
This issue received six total votes.

Since the study design required a research project based on three

issues and not four, the tie-breaking method described in Chapter I was

used to eliminate the new taxes-new revenue issue. This issue was not

cited by either the Chancellor, Chairman of the Board of Regents, Presi-

dent of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House. The issue concerning

the censorship-merger bill was cited by the Chancellor and the Chairman

of the Board of Regents, while the Library Improvement Program was cited

by the Chancellor. It should be noted that contact with the Speaker of

the House was never made, therefore eliminating him from practical con-

sideration as one of the four tie-breaking voters.

Question 2 in Interview Guide A requested the names of Principal

Characters (PC) concerned with each issue cited. An analysis of the top

three issues listed above revealed that:

1. Twenty people were identified as being PC in the full-
funding of faculty salary issue. Three SUS representatives
and one alternate and three legislators and one alternate
were selected for personal interviews on this issue.

2. Eleven people were identified as being PC in the Library
Improvement issue. Two SUS representatives and one alter-
nate were selected for personal interviews on this issue.
Since only two SUS representatives received more than one
citation each, the same tie-breaking method was used here,
as earlier, to determine the SUS alternate. It should









be noted that only a minimum of twc representatives from
each group were necessary for the investigation. A tie-
breaker was also used for the legislative alternate.

3. Thirteen people were identified as being PC in the censor-
ship-merger issue. Three SUS representatives and one
alternate and three legislators and one alternate were
selected for personal interviews on this issue. The
tie-breaking method was used to determine both alter-
nates for this issue.

(See Appendix G, H and I for an anonymous, but accurate, listing of PC

and the frequencies of their mention.)

As a result of the preliminary poll, three issues were identified for

further study. The poll also identified thirteen PC to be interviewed on

one or more of the issues. Six people were identified as alternates,

three of whom were previously identified as PC. As it turned out, none

of the alternates were needed for this study.


The Purpose and Development of Communication
Interview Guide B


The Purpose of Communication Interview Guide B

The purpose of Communication Interview Guide B was to provide a sin-

gle data gathering instrument to be used during all personal interviews

with each of the PC in the issues to be studied. The guide was to be

structured in such a manner that it would achieve the study's objectives

through questions grounded in the pertinent scholarly literature concerned

with communication theory.


The Development of Communication Interview Guide B

To accomplish the purpose of this study, the researcher felt it was

necessary for Interview Guide B to consist of four general types of ques-

tions. These four types of questions would:









Type 1. Provide a minimum of general comparative background
data on each interviewee and would serve as "warm-up"
questions.

Type 2. Re-establish that the interviewee and others were, in
fact, PC in the issue.

Type 3. Provide the necessary data on the perceptions of those
involved which would enable a determination to be made
as to the acceptance or rejection of the study's
hypotheses.

Type 4. Help build a reference base of general information cen-
cerning communication between the Florida Legislature
and the SUS through the study participants.

A thirty question interview guide was then developed based upon these

four general types of questions. (See Appendix B for a complete copy of

Communication Interview Guide B,) Appendix C describes the rationale and

relationship of each question to the respective general type of questions.














CHAPTER IV


ANALYSIS OF THE DATA


Seventeen personal interviews were held with thirteen different

people on the three subject issues during September and early October,

1977. The results of these interviews are presented and analyzed in this

chapter. The first, second, and third sections are concerned with issues

of the full funding of faculty salaries, the special library improvement

funding bill and the censorship-merger bill, respectively. Note that

alphabetical letters were used to code individuals so that anonymity

could be maintained as promised.


The Full Funding of Faculty Salaries
in the Union Contract issue


The issue of the full funding of faculty salaries, as called for in

the collective bargaining contract between the Florida Board of Regents

and the United Faculty of Florida in the Spring of 1977, was far and away

the most important issue as determined by the preliminary poll used in

this study. This issue, as noted earlier, received a total of 15 votes

with nine votes cast as the most important issue of the session, and six

votes cast as the second most important issue. Interviews were held with

six principal characters (PC) on this issue. Three of the PC were repre-

sentatives of the State University System of Florida (SUS), two were









members of the House of Representatives, and one was a member of the

Senate. The three SUS representatives had been in their current positions

for three, two and two years, respectively. Both of the State Representa-

tives had held their positions for eleven years, while the State Senator

had held his position for seven years. All six of the individuals inter-

viewed considered legislative issues concerning the SUS as part of their

formal job or legislative responsibilities. An analysis of the PC re-

sponses to the remaining questions is discussed in the following para-

graphs. Persons A, B, and C are the SUS representatives. Persons D, E,

and F are the legislative representatives.


Question 4: In previous interviews, the subject of full funding
of faculty salaries was determined to be a significant
issue. In your opinion, how significant was this subject?

As shown in Table 1, 67% of the PC felt this issue was very signifi-

cant, indicating a high degree of consensus. Three SUS representatives

and one State representative considered this issue to be very signifi-

cant, while one State representative and one State senator considered

the issue to be significant.
Table 1

PC Responses to Significance of the Full Funding
of Faculty Salaries Issue

Very Somewhat Not Very Not
PC Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant

A x
B x
C x
D x
E x
F x









Question 5: Briefly, in your opinion, what was important about this
issue.

In response to question number 5, two major themes came to the fore,

one-half (50%) of the interviewees believed that the importance of this

issue was in the fact that this was the first major state agency union

salary contract to be brought before the legislature and, therefore, it

was extremely important that the legislature carefully set precedent.

This view was held by the three SUS representatives, while the three (50%)

legislative representatives interviewed were in agreement in their per-

ceptions that the importance of this issue was because salaries are al-

ways significant issues and are a large part of all agency budgets.

Therefore, although the perceptions of the SUS representatives and the

legislative representatives on this issue differed significantly, there

was consensus on both themes. The following are the major comments made

on this question by each of the interviewees:

1. Person A: "From the standpoint of collective bargaining..
but also important to the legitimacy of the
collective bargaining process."

2. Person B: (a) "The first real test under collective
bargaining for the State."

(b) "This issue came after two years of low
salary increases relative to the rest of
the nation."

(c) "This issue was important because of
the high expectations of the Chancellor by
all of the people in the universities."

3. Person C: (a) "It was important because of the rela-
tively poor salary treatment during the
previous two to three years for the faculty."

(b) "This was the first full year under
collective bargaining."









4. Person D:



5. Person E:






6. Person F:


"A quality system is determined by funding
(of salaries) and salaries are 80% of the
budget."

"In the rules under which the legislature
operates (are what was important) because
under the written rules of the Senate (salary
increase) figures (in the conference committee)
could not go higher than those listed in the
bill in either house, therefore, this was a
procedural problem."

(a) "Salaries are always significant be-
cause it is a lot of money in the budget."

(b) "(The amount of money appropriated) was
all the money there was available for the union
contract. The Senate used 82, of the governor's
recommendations for career service and faculty
salaries because this was all the money that
was available."


Question 6: In these same interviews, several people, in addition to
yourself, were identified as being principal or influ-
ential in the issue. In your opinion, how influential
were these other people?

In general, the consensus of the perceptions of the interviewees was

very high in response to this question as shown in Table 2. Out of a 30

possible responses, 20 (67%) of the PC perceived the others to be very

influential. Seven others, or 23%, of the PC perceived the others to

be somewhat influential. Two of the principal characters received 100'

of the votes as being very influential on the question. One of the

principal characters received 80% of the votes as being very influential,

while two of the principal characters received 60% of the votes as being

either very influential or somewhat influential. The sixth PC received

votes in each of the five categories and, therefore, was perceived to be

considerably less influential than the others.









Table 2

PC Responses to the Degree
of Influence of the Other PC

V-ery -Somewhat Not Very
PC Influential Influential Influential Infl

A 5
B 2 3
C 1 1 1
D 3 2
E 4 1
F 5


Not Not Involved
uential At All



1 1


Note. Numbers refer to the number of times each person was cited
by the other PC.


Question 7: In your opinion, were there any other people in the
Legislature or representing the State University System
who were very influential in the issue?

In response to this question, nine other people were cited; however,

there was not enough agreement to meet the standards established for the

study which would enable any of them to be included as PC and, therefore,

to be interviewed. In fact, only one of these nine people was mentioned

more than once and this person was mentioned twice. Because there was no

consensus on this question, the researcher was confident that the PC

identified for this issue were, in fact, the PC.


Question S: In your opinion, and briefly, why were each of these
people involved or interested in this issue?

The perceptions of those interviewed showed a very high degree of

consensus in response to this question. Almost without exception, every-

one interviewed felt the involvement of the PC was because it was their

job to be involved and concerned about this issue. One PC felt that the

reason Person F was involved was to show that the legislature was still

in control. Two PC did not know why Person C was involved. Therefore,









of 30 possible responses, 27 (90%) of the PC responses indicated job

responsibility.


Question 9: Should each person have been involved?

In answer to this question, 29 of 30 (97%) of the PC responses indi-

cated that they felt the other PC should have been involved with one

exception. One person did not know if Person C should have been involved

or not. Therefore, the consensus of their perceptions on this question

were essentially unanimous.


Question 10: Should anyone else have been involved in the issue
who was not?

One-half (50%) of the interviewees thought that the United Faculty

of Florida union should have been involved, but were not, from their

point of view. One legislator and two SUS representatives held this

view. Two of these three made remarks that they felt the unicn thought

they were involved, when in fact, they were not. One legislator felt

the Commissioner of Education should have become involved, while one

legislator and one SUS representative did not feel any other person or

group should have been involved.


Question 11: Should you have been involved or interested in this
issue and why?

The response to this question was unanimous. All of the interviewees

thought they should have been involved because it was their job to be in-

volved in issues of this kind.


Question 12: How well do you know each of these people?

Out of 30 possible responses, 19 (63%) indicated very well, while

eight (27%) indicated fairly well (see Table 3). The responses to this








question indicate that the PC perceived that there was more than just a

surface or casual relationship among the PC. This is not to say the re-

lationships were positive or negative but at least substantive.

Table 3

PC Responses to the Degree of
Familiarity Each Had With the Others


Very Fairly Not Not Not At
PC Well Well Very Well Well All

A 5
B 3 2
C 2 1 1 1
C 3 2
E 2 2 1
F 4 1

Note. Numbers refer to the number of times each person was
cited by the other PC.



Question 13: In your opinion, to what degree do others regard the
opinion of these people?

In response to this question, there was a high degree of consensus

that the PC were regarded very well. Out of 30 possible responses, 21

(70%) selected Very Well Regarded, while 7 (23%) chose Fairly Well Re-

garded. The general agreement among those who were involved was that

five of the six PC were very well regarded and that the sixth person


was fairly well regarded (see Table 4).









Table 4

PC Responses to How Well Each
PC Was Regarded by Others

Very Well Fairly Well Generally Not Very Well Not Well
PC Regarded Regarded Regarded Regarded Regarded

A 4 1
B 2 3
C 3a
D 4 1
E 4 1
F 4 1


Note. Numbers refer to the number of times each person was
cited by the other PC.
a Two of the PC had no opinion concerning Person C.


Question 14: In general, to what degree of agreement do you find
yourself with (each person)?

As shown in Table 5, 80% of the PC usually agreed with Persons A

and B. Fifty percent of the PC usually agreed with Person D, and 50%

sometimes agreed with Person F. In general, the PC either usually agreed

or sometimes agreed with each other. This consensus reflects a high de-

gree of perceptual consensus as only four of the 28 responses, or 14%,

fell outside these two categories. Usually agree was the answer given

16 times (53%), while sometimes agree was the answer given eight times

(27%).









Table 5

PC Responses to the Degree to Which Each Found
Himself in Agreement with the Other PC

Always Usudlly Sometimes Rarely Never
PC Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree

A 1 4
B 4 1
Ca 1 2
D 3 2
E 2 2 1
F 1 3 1

a Two PC had no response concerning Person C.



Question 15: In your opinion, did the following people support
or oppose the issue?

As reflected in Table 6, the PC perceived that Persons A, B, C, and

D supported the full funding of faculty salaries while they perceived that

Persons E and F were opposed to it.


Table 6


a Two PC
b One PC


PC Responses to Whether or Not the Other
PC Supported or Opposed the Issue

PC Supported Opposed

A 5
B 5
Ca 3
Db 3 1
E 2 3
F 1 4

did not know the position taken by Person C.

felt that Person D did not take any position.









Questions 16 and 19: To the best of your recollection, which of
these people initiated communication to you
in some way about this issue and approximately
how many times?

To the best of your recollection, to which of
the following people did you initiate communi-
cation in some way about this issue and
approximately how many times?

These two questions are interrelated and must be considered first

separately and then together to determine whether or not the perceptions

of the PC agree. First, Question 16 is discussed.

Table 7 shows that all six PC claimed to have received a communi-

cation one or more times from the other PC, resulting in 16 different

combinations of people. There appeared to be an extraordinarily high

level of communication activity on this subject as perceived by the PC

and reflected in the large number of communication events cited by the

PC. The total number of such events ranged from 86 to 95+.


Table 7

PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and Frorm Whom Each
Person Claimed to Have Received Communications

Person Person Receiving Communications
Initiating
Communicate ons A B C D E F

A 7+ 5-7 7+ 7+ 7+
B 7+ 5-7 7+ 3-4
C 7+ 3-4
D 7+ 3-4
E 3-4
F 1-2 7+

Note. Numbers indicate PC estimates of the number of
communications received.



In response to Question 19, as shown in Table 8, all six of the PC

claimed to have initiated communication one or more times to the other








PC resulting in fourteen different combinations of people. Again, the

level of communication activity was perceived to be high with a range

of 69-84+ different communication events.


Table 8

PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and To Whom
Each Person Claimed To Have Initiated Communications

Person Person Receiving Communications
Initiating
Communications A B C D E F

A (7+) (7+) (5-7) (5-7) (5-7)
B (7+) (1-2) (7+)
C (3-4) (5-7)
D (3-4)
E (7+) (7+)
F (3-4)
Note. Numbers indicate frequency or PC estimates of the
number of communications.


The.importance of Questions 16 and 19 is found when matching up the

two sets of responses to see if the perceptions of the senders and re-

ceivers agreed with each other. Table 9 reflects the composite responses

to the two questions. There were a total of 18 combinations where one or

two PC claimed communications occurred between PC. In three of these

combinations, both the senders and the receivers involved agreed perfectly

on who communicated and how many times (ex. A'B). In six combinations,

there was total disagreement (ex. C'B). In four combinations, both

people involved had very similar perceptions (ex. B'C) and in five com-

binations, there was some agreement of perceptions (ex. D'E).








One must remember that it is difficult to recall the exact number of

times another person may talk to you on a certain subject. That person

may talk to you many times on different subjects. In general, the re-

searcher feels there was a fairly high degree of consensus among Persons

A, B, C, D, and E because in the thirteen combinations among them, there

was minimum to perfect agreement in ten combinations (77%). Person F

seemed to be in discordance with the other five because he claimed to

have initiated communication on this subject several times to each of

the other five PC; however, only two of them confirmed his claim. Also,

three of the six total disagreement combinations concerned Person F.

One must also remember there were twelve possible combinations on

the table that were blank (ex. F'A) and excluding same-person groupings

(ex. A'A). These twelve combinations, in a sense, reflect perfect agree-

ment in perceptions as those involved confirmed that neither of the two

people in each combination initiated any communications (ex, B'E). If

these are considered, the level of perceptual agreement increases dra-

matically.

Table 9

Composite Responses Identifying the Frequency and To Whom
Each Person Claimed to Have Received or Initiated Communications

Person Person Receiving Communications
Initiating
Communications A B C D E F
A' 7+(7+) 5-7(7+) 7+(5-7T 7+(b-7) 7+(5-7)
B' 7+(7+) 5-7(1-2) 7+(7+) 3-4
C' 7+(3-4) (5-7) 3-4
D' 7+(3-4) 3-4
E' 1-2 (7+) 3-4(7+)
F' 7+(3-4)
Note. Responses to Question 19 are in parentheses.
a Use of the prime symbol is to help the reader avoid confusion
when reading the text.









Questions 17 and 20: Briefly and to the best of your recollection,
what was the main theme or point made by each
person who initiated communication to you?

Briefly and to the best of your recollection,
what was the main theme or point that you made
to those people to whom you initiated communi-
cation?

These two questions must be considered together to determine ihether

perceptions agree.

It is important to note that in response to Question 17, the SUS

people (A, B and C) claimed to have received communications only from each

other with one exception. The nature of the communications were generally

concerning the status of the situation and on tactics to convince the

legislature to fully fund salaries. The legislative people (D, E and F)

claimed to have received communications from both SUS people and other

legislators. The nature of these communications were requests by SUS

people to fund the contract fully and discussions with other legislators

on how to solve the problem.

With regard to Question 20, the SUS people (A, B and C) claimed to

communicate with each other and to the legislators. Their communications

to each other were of a nature to maintain their position while their

communications to the legislators were intended to convince them to

support the full funding of salaries. On the other hand, the legislators

stated that they did not initiate any communication to the SUS people

but only to each other. The nature of their communications centered on

the problems associated with the situation.

For the purpose of further analysis, the summarized responses to

each of these questions are listed below in such a way as to compare

what each receiver claimed to have received and what each sender claimed

to have sent. There are 18 combinations.









1. A claimed to have received from B:
. general information on the status of the situation.

B claimed to have sent to A:
. status reports on the situation.

2. A claimed to have received from C:
. .general information on the status of the situation.

C claimed to have sent to A:
. information relating to the bargaining process and
requests for advice on positions to take on the issue.

3. B claimed to have received from A:
. information on the logic of why the negotiated level
of salary increases should be funded.

A claimed to have sent to B:
. information updating the situation and giving status
reports.

4. C claimed to have received from A:
S. a request to preserve the highest degree of merit in
the pay package and to support the highest level of salary
increase possible.

A claimed to have sent to C:
. information updating the situation and giving status
reports.

5. C claimed to have received from B:
S. .information on the appropriations and planning process.

B claimed to have sent to C:
. status reports on the situation.

6. C claimed to have received from F:
. information concerning the salary level of faculty and
other states.

F claimed to have not initiated communication with C.

7. D claimed to have received from A:
.information that the negotiated contract was legal
and that the legislature must fund it fully.

A claimed to have sent to D:
. information concerning the rationale for salary levels
requested, provided supporting data and various analyses
for justification.









8. D claimed to have received from B:
. .information that the negotiated contract w-as
legal and that the legislature must fund it fully.

B claimed to have sent to D:
. information on ways to find the difference between
the House position and the Governor's recommendations.

9. E claimed to have received from A:
. information that the negotiated contract was legal
and that the legislature must fund it fully.

A claimed to have sent to E:
. information concerning the rationale for salary
levels requested, providing supporting data and various
analyses for justification.

10. E claimed to have received from D:
. information concerning where the money could be
taken to fund the contract.

D claimed to have sent to E:
. comparisons of funds available and information
on the Governor's recommendations.

11. E claimed to have received from F:
. information concerning where the money could
be found to fund the contract.

F claimed to have sent to E:
. information advising E that the Senate only had
a fixed amount of money and F tried to work out a
compromise with E.

12. F claimed to have received from A:
S. a request to fully Fund the contract.

A claimed to have sent to F:
. information concerning the rationale for salary
increases, provided supporting data. and various
analyses for justification.

13. F claimed to have received from B:
S. .a request to fully fund the contract.

B claimed to have not initiated communications with F.

14. F claimed to have received from C:
. a request to fully fund the contract.

C claimed to have not initiated communications with F.









15. F claimed to have received from D:
a request to fully fund the contract.

D claimed to have not initiated communications with F.

16. F claimed to have received from E:
. information to try to work out a compromise solution.

E claimed to have sent to F:
. arguments to help Senate figure a way to fund
the contract.

17. C claimed to have sent to B:
. information on the number of authorized faculty
positions in the system, number of positions filled
and salary averages.

B claimed to have received no communications from C.

18. E claimed to have sent to D:
. arguments to convince D to fund the contract.

D claimed to have received no communications from E.


Questions 18 and 21: To what degree were you able to understand
what each person was trying to communicate
to you?

In your opinion, how well did those people
to whom you communicated understand you?

In all instances, every PC felt they understood very well what was

being communicated to them and that those to whom they communicated

understood very well their messages.


Questions 22 and 23: In retrospect, which two of these people gave you
the most useful information?

In retrospect, to which two of these people did
you give the most useful information?

These questions are interrelated. Of the responses given, two for

each person on each question, 18 responses cited PC and there were four

combinations where there was mutual consensus (see Table 10). Consensus

for these questions means that both people identified each other as








giving them the most useful information. A total of 14 possible combin-

ations were discovered, therefore, there was mutual consensus on 29%.

Although these figures do not meet the study's 50% criteria, it should

be noted that this most likely is a high degree of consensus for a

situation of this nature.

The research en this subject revealed that there was literally hun-

dreds of people communicating on this issue -- such as administrators,

faculty, students, alumni, and friends from each of the nine universities

in addition to most of the 160 senators and representatives. It should

also be noted that Person A was involved in three of the four mutual con-

sensus combinations and eight of the total combinations, indicating that

Person A was probably a very key person in the issue.


Table 10

Cross-Tabulations of PC Responses Concerning Who Gave
To Whom the Most Useful Information on the Issue

Receivers

Senders A B C D E F

A A A(A)a A A(A)a
B (B) B
C (C)
D D D D
E (E) E(E)a
F F(F) (F)


Note. This table does not show the six non-PC who were cited
but not relevant to the study. Persons identified in
parentheses relate to Question 23.
a indicates consensus situations for both senders and receivers.









Question 24: Should anyone else have given you more useful
information?

Four of the six PC (60%) responded negatively. The other two

identified two people and one group whom they thought could have given

them better information; however, there was no consensus or relation-

ship among these three.


Question 25: In your opinion, how much information was exchanged
between legislators and SIS representatives on this
issue?

There was unanimous agreement in the perceptions of the respondents

that a lot of information was exchanged on the issue.


Question 26: In retrospect, was there anything that stood out in
your mind that relates to the communication process
and this issue?

There appears to be some degree of consensus (50%) in the perceptions

of three legislative PC that one of the problems was a cut in the budget

because of the shift in either the budget year for salaries or the

question of a nine versus a twelve-month contract year for figuring

salary raises. However, as can be seen, each story is considerably

different. Also, there is some consensus (50%) in the perceptions of

the other three PC that some problem appeared to lie in the Senate and

particularly in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Finally, fingers

of blame were pointed at the Senate, the faculty union, and the SUS. The

major points made by each PC follow:

1. Person A: "In the final stages, there were some problems. ..
some people say the committee was a problem. Per-
sons E and 0 told me that they thought there was
an understanding with the Senate to fund the con-
tract. There appeared to be a problem between the
Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee
and the Comimiittee staff on this subject."









2. Person B:





3. Person C:







4. Person D:


"One lesson: the power and influence of Mr. X,
a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee
staff, had not previously been recognized .. he
dominated the appropriations process in the Senate
Appropriations Committee."

"The relationship of the Department of Adminis-
tration. .. their involvement was deep with the
Board of Regents' staff and the legislature. I
felt that the Lepartmeat of Administration and
the Board of Regents relationship became deep
because both were in a similar position on this
issue."

"The SUS made an error in calculating salary
raises. The Governor also made the same error .
they used a 12-month year and not the 9-month year
that the legislature used .. the legislature uses
9-months as a rule and adds on for the 12-month
contracts. The error cut $2.25 million from the
appropriation but the House restored this figure
and the Senate did not at a later date. The
Board of Regents is to blame. The Board of Regents
wrote the Speaker of the House and the President
of the Senate but this (a request to correct the
error) never filtered down to the members."


5. Person E: "The SUS negotiated and agreed upon a contract
based upon the Governor's recommendations which
was based on the July 1 June 30 year. The
budget was then moved to September 1 June 30
year. Budgets got cut between July and Septem-
ber, in both the House and the Senate, thereby
reducing the rate available. They (the Legis-
lature) therefore cut out the part between July 1
and September 1 which the Board of Regents used
for negotiation and this is where the United
Faculty of Florida fell down by not understanding
the process. There was a high degree of communi-
cation among those involved . only the UFF was
not involved. (The total) contract should have
been finalized before the legislative session for
a better chance of being understood and passed by
the legislature. This should be a good learning
experience that contracts must be finalized before
the legislative session as salaries and money issues
must depend upon the legislature for appropriation."


6. Person F:


"The Board of Regents' staff and Universities' staffs
were always there. There was no staff error .. the
tapes have been reviewed and it is explained in the
tapes of the committee meetingss"








Question 27: To what degree did you feel there was communication
on this issue?

Two members of the SUS and one member of the legislature, or 50% of

the PC, perceived that there was a very high degree of communication on

this issue. The other 50% of the PC perceived that there was a high

degree of communication. Therefore, as a result of the perceptions of

the PC, it can be concluded that there was a high degree of communica-

tion on this issue.


Question 23: If there was a low or very low degree of communication
on this issue, what was the single most important
problem or barrier preventing better communication?

Since all of the PC felt there was a high or very high degree of

communication on this issue, this question was not asked due to its

inappropriateness. The question would only be used if the PC indicated

that there was a low or very low degree of communication on the issue.


Question 29: In your opinion, regardless of the issue, how could
communication between the legislature and the State
University System be improved?

This question was not concerned with this issue, but rather was a

question asking the PC in general how communication could best be im-

proved between the legislature ard the SUS. Although each PC had

different points to make, five of them (80%) perceived that improving

the personal relationships and contact between people in the SUS and the

legislature might help. Only Person D deviated significantly, but even D

got back to "relationship" via the budget process. The following are the

responses which were received:

1. Person A: "More year-around contact and informing the
legislature instead of when one has to . more
university involvement and more key citizen
involvement."








2. Person B: "Get better communication between the SUS and
legislative leadership before legislative
committee positions in the House and Senate
are taken."

3. Person C: "Regular liaison with legislative staff and
individual legislators during the off season ..
sharing reports, asking and answering questions,
providing timely information."

4. Person D: "Budget presentation is too centralized to the
Appropriations Comiitte . question: is the
SUS worth new taxes? Each University should be
allowed to get support for its own budget,
especially with local legislators."

5, Person E: "Improve communication on a one-to-one basis . .
talking on particular issues . .particularly
with the leadership of the legislature."

6. Person F: "Vocational technical schools and community
colleges are positive, aggressive and excited
about what they are doing. K-12 and SUS are
negative, unhappy, always begging, sour-mouthed
.all the legislature ever hears is how bad
everything is. .chronic bitching. The SUS has
to sell their good products. .. the report to the
people laid nine big eggs . .sad program . SUS
must be more positive . now is the time to
emphasize quality."


Question 30a: In conclusion, please give a one or two sentence
description of the following: How a typical Florida
legislator views a State University System of Florida
official.

Only two of the PC (33%), one SUS representative and one legislative

representative perceived that there was a positive or respectful feeling

by legislators about SUS officials, while three (50%) of them felt legis-

lators looked at SUS representatives in a negative manner. These results

reflect a high degree of consensus even though the agreed upon description

is negative in substance. One person felt that SUS people were viewed

differently by legislators depending on how the local university impacted

the legislators' districts. The following are the responses received to


this question:









1. Person A: "Generally positive. . some probably feel that
we are not using resources as best as possible .
feel they are honest but could do a better job."

2. Person B: ". . with the same suspicion they view other
state officials."

3. Person C: "They (legislators) have a strong belief in
education and their local district institution,
but lost faith because of strange nomenclature,
formulas, etc., . they feel that SUS people
are noL giving accurate, timely and clear infor-
mation .. feel I.S. (Management Information
Systems), FTE (Full Time Equivalent), and man-
year concepts are ways to boondogle the legis-
lature."

4. Person D: "An SUS person is viewed proportionately as to
how he affects the legislators' district .. is
the University a force in his district"?

5. Person E: ". .with a great deal of respect . the person
achieved a goal and is well educated and know-
ledgeable about many issues the legislature may
not know about . if contact is for salary where
they benefit, then they are coming to the legis-
lature for selfish reasons."

6. Person F: "Generally not positive . .always asking for a
handout. .chronic bitching!"


Question 30b: In conclusion, please give a one or two sentence
description of the following: How a typical State
University System of Florida official views a
Florida legislator.

There appears to be considerable agreement in the perceptions of the

interviewees on this question, as five out of six (80%) of the descrip-

tions contain positive words, such as overall conscientious, as supportive

individuals trying hard, mutual respect, understanding, and generally in

good regard. Person D responded in a neutral fashion to this question.

The following are the responses received to this question:









1. Person A: "Overall conscientious, want to do what is
riclht if they have the facts . will be
reasonably fair . under pressures from
constituents not to raise taxes and under
pressure from agencies for more money."

2. Person B: "As a supporter of the SUS who is not will-
ing to take any vigorous support with his
constituents and views each legislator as
an individual with his own personality
quirks."

3. Person C: "An individual trying hard to represent his
district, who needs a lot of information and
cultivation and who probably would be support-
ing higher education as long as he is given
good information describing needs."

4. Person D: "Those with no contact with legislators
generally have low opinion of legislators.
Those with contact with legislators under-
stand legislators' problems and constraints
for a legislator must get elected. Generally,
faculty are very naive about the legislative
process, and therefore, cannot understand
the issues."

5. Person E: "With mutual respect . .are aware of legis-
lators' problems and how they get to where
they are through campaign and election. No
one ever came to him in a derogatory manner.
Familiar with the process."

6. Person F: "Hold the legislator in generally good re-
gard .. .feel that legislators meddle a
little."



Special $10 Million Library
Improvement Funding Issue


The issue of a special $10 million appropriation from capital out-

lay bond money for library improvement funding tied for second in im-

portance as determined by the preliminary poll, receiving three votes

as most important issue in the session, one vote as second most important

issue, and two votes as third rmoFr important issue. This issue was









important as it represented a special commitment by the legislature to

improve the quality of SUS libraries. The preliminary poll also re-

vealed that there were five persons who were PC in this issue. Two of

the PC in this issue represented the SUS and three represented the

legislature (one from the House and two from the Senate). The two SUS

representatives had been in their current positions for three and seven

years, respectively, while those from the legislature held their positions

for 11, 1 and 5 years, respectively. All five PC considered legislative

issues concerning the SUS part of their fonnal job or legislative re-

sponsibilities. Persons AA and BB are the SUS representatives while the

PC from the legislature are lettered CC, DD, and EE. An analysis of the

PC responses to the remaining questions is discussed in the following

paragraphs.


Question 4: In previous interviews, the subject of the $10 million
Special Library Improvement Funding issue was determined
to be a significant issue. In your opinion, how signifi-
cant was the subject?

As shown in Table 11, four of the five PC (80%) perceived this

issue to be very significant, indicating a high degree of consensus.

One legislator perceived the issue to be significant.

Table 11

PC Responses to Significance of the
$10 Million Special Library Funding Issue

Very Somewhat Not Very Not
PC Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant

AA x
BB x
CC x
DD x
EE x









Question 5: Briefly, in your opinion, what was important about
this issue?

In response to this question, the perceptions of the PC were unani-

mous. All PC recognized that there was a real need for special funding

to improve the SUS libraries.

1. Person AA: "It provided substantial resources to
accommodate some of the most serious and
underfunded areas of the system."

2. Person BB: "Became a breakthrough .. getting legis-
lature to recognize a qualitative difference
and attempt to meet the need."

3. Person CC: "The legislature needed to show a commitment
to the academic community and to express their
displeasure on the use of construction money
.. the building stage (in the SUS) is mostly
over."

4. Person DO: "This was unique .. never before the ear-
marking of a large amount of money for
library books. Libraries needed help to
catch up to other prominence uniersities...
also significant was the use of the capital
outlay money (for this purpose)."

5. Person EE: ". . trying to provide money to let libraries
catch up because they did not have enough
money in the past."


Question 6: In these same interviews, several people, in addition
to yourself, were identified as being principal or
influential in the issue. In your opinion, how in-
fluential were these other people?

There was general consensus of opinion (see Table 12) that persons

AA and CC were very influential in this issue, and that Person BB was

not influential at all, as they were cited as such by three of the other

four PC. This lack of influence on the part of BB is substantiated

throughout the rest of the questions. The other two PC were judged to

be not very influential or somewhat influential, with neither receiving









enough votes to determine clearly their amount of influence. Out of 20

possible responses, seven (35%) of the PC perceived the others to be

very influential. Six (30%) of the PC perceived the others to be some-

what influential.


Table 12

PC Responses to the Degree of Influence of the Other PC
Not Do
Very Somewhat Not Very Not Involved Not
PC Influential Influential Influential Influential At All Know

AA 3 1
BB 1 3
CC 3 1
DD 1 2 1
EE 1 2 1

Note. Numbers refer to number of times cited by the other PC.



Question 7: In your opinion, were there any other people in the legis-
lature or representing the State University System who
were very influential in the issue?

These five PC identified seven other people as being very influ-

ential in the issue; however, none of them met the necessary conditions

put forth in Chapter I to be considered for an interview. Therefore, the

researcher believes that the preliminary poll was quite accurate in

identifying the people interviewed on this issue as being, in fact, the

PC.


Question 8: In your opinion, and briefly, why were each of these
people involved or interested in this issue?

There was a consensus of opinion, three of the other four (or 75%),

that Person AA and EE were interested in this issue because it was their

job and that Person CC should be credited with the idea. Persons BB and








DD were not clearly perceived by the group as to why they were involved

or interested.


Question 9: Should each person have been involved?

The interviewees were unanimous in their perceptions that each per-

son should have been or should not have been involved in the issue. The

PC felt that Person BB should not have been involved. Person BB was not

really a PC in the issue (see Question 5 and Table 12). Only one person

(25%) indicated that BB should have been involved.


Question 10: Should anyone have been involved in this issue who
was not?

Only one of the PC interviewed felt that there should have been some-

one involved in the issue who was not and, therefore, this person did not

meet the requirements of the study for inclusion. The consensus of

opinion on this question was that no one else should have been involved.


Question 11: Should you have been involved or interested in this
issue and why?

The response as to whether these people should have been involved in

the issue was unanimous. Three of them felt it was their job to be

interested, while the other two were interested because they felt cither

the libraries or undergraduate education in general needed help and this

was one way to provide that help.


Question 12: How well do you know each of these people?

In general, the PC felt that they knew each other fairly well or very

well (see Table 13). There was general consensus that Person BB was not

known at all by the PC, thus reaffirming early findings. Out of 20

possible responses, eight (40%) indicated very well, while five (25%)









indicated fairly well. The degree of familiarity among the PC involved

in this issue was less than in the full funding of faculty salaries

issue.


Table 13

PC Responses to the Degree
Familiarity Each Had With the


of
Others


very Fairly Not Not Not At
PC Well Well Very Well Well All

AA 2 1 1
BB 1 3
CC 1 2 1
DD 2 1 1
EE 2 1 1

Note. Numbers refer to the number of times each person was
cited by the other PC.


Question 13: In your opinion, to what degree do others regard the
opinion of these people?

The PC interviewed felt everyone except BB was fairly well regard-d.

In fact, their perceptions tended to very well regarded (see Table 14),

indicating a high degree of consensus. Since Person BB was generally

not known by the PC, a valid opinion could not be cast for him concern-

ing how \iell others regarded his opinion. This is confirmed by three

individuals who indicated they could not answer this question for this

particular reason. Out of 20 possible responses, ten (50%) selected

very well regarded, while six (30%) chose fairly well regarded.


-- -"-r









Table 14

PC Responses to How Well Each PC Was Regarded by Others

Very Well Fairly Well Generally Not Very Well Not Well
PC Regarded Regarded Regarded Regarded Regarded

AA 2 2
BB Ta
CC 2 1 1
DD 2 2
EE 3 1

Note. Numbers refer to the number of times each person was
cited by the other PC.
a Three of the PC could not respond to this question concerning
Person BB.



Question 14: In general, to what degree of agreement do you find
yourself with (each person)?

The interviewees tended to perceive that they usually agreed with

Person DD, sometimes agreed with Person CC, were evenly divided between

sometimes agree and usually agree with Person AA, and sometimes agreed

with Person EE (See Table 15). The interviewees could not rate Person

BB. Usually agree was the answer given eight (40%) times, while some-

times agree was also given eight (40') times.


Table 15

PC Responses to the Degree To Which Each Found
Himself In Agreement With the Other PC

Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
PC Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree

AA 2 2
BBa 1
CC 1 3
DD 3 1
EEa 1 2
a
Three PC could not respond to this question concerning Person BB
while one PC could not respond to this question concerning Person
EE.









Question 15: In your opinion, did the following people support
or oppose the issue?

As reflected in Table 16, there was 100% agreement by all five PC

that each of them supported the issue.



Table 16

PC Responses to Whether or Not the Other
PC Supported or Opposed the Issue

PC Supported _Opposed

AA 4
BD 4
CC 4
DD 4
EE 4



Questions 16 and 19: To the best of your recollection, which of
these people initiated communication to you
in some way about this issue and approximately
how many times?

To the best of your recollection, to which
of the following people did you initiate
communication in some way about this issue
and approximately how many times?

These two questions are interrelated and must be considered first

separately and then together to determine whether or not the perceptions

of the PC agree. First, Question 16 is discussed.

Table 16 shows that four of the five PC claimed to have received

coinrunications, one or more times, from the other PC, resulting in six

different combinations of people. None of the PC claimed to have re-

ceived any communications from Persons DD and EE, and Person CC claimed

to have received no communications at all. The total number of communi-

cations events ranged from 10 to 16. Note that the amount of








communication events reflected by this question differs greatly from the

previous issue where the range was 86 to 95+.



Table 17

PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and From Whom
Each Person Claimed to Have Received Communication

Person Person Receiving Communication
Initiating
Communication AA BB CC DD EE

AA 3-4 1-2 1-2
BB 1-2
CC 1-2 3-4
DD
EE

Note. Numbers indicate PC estimates of the number of
communications received.



In response to Question 19, and as shown in Table 18, three of the

five PC claimed to have initiated communications. These three PC

communicated one or more times to the other PC, resulting in nine

different combinations of people. Again, the level of communication

is much lower than in the previous issue as the range of communication

events was from 18 to 27 (as compared to 69 to 84+).



Table 18

PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and To Whom
Each Person Claimed to Have Initiated Communications
-Persons Persons Initiating Communication
Receiving
Commlunicaticns AA BB CC DD EE
AA 1-2) (1-2)
-- f-----------0-'- 2-)--- 2'2)
BB (1-2)
CC (5-7) (3-4)
DD (1-2) (1-2)
E (3-4) (1-2)
Note. Numbers indicate PC estimates of the number of communications.









The importance of Questions 16 and 19 is found when matching up

the two sets of responses. Table 19 reflects the composite responses

to the two questions.

There were a total of ten combinations where one or two PC claimed

communications occurred between PC. In two of these combinations, both

the senders and receivers involved agreed perfectly on who communicated

and how many times (ex. AA'DD). In five combinations, there was total

disagreement (ex. BB'AA). In three combinations, both people had very

similar perceptions (ex. CC'DD). There were ten blank combinations

where both people in the combination confirmed that neither of them

initiated communication to the other.

In general, the researcher feels there was a fairly high degree of

consensus among the PC because in five of the ten combinations (50%)

there was very similar to perfect agreement involving four of the five

PC. Interestingly, Person CC did not recall that anyone communicated to

him and none of the three PC recalled that Person DD communicated to them

and Person EE claimed not to have initiated any communications and the

other PC agreed perfectly with him.


Table 19

Composite PC Responses Identifying the Frequency and to Whom
Each Person Claimed to Have Received or Initiated Communications

Person Person Receiving Communi cations
Initiating
Communication AA BB CC DD EE
AA -341-2) (5-7) 1--2(T-2) 1-2(34
BB' 1-2
CC' 1-2(1-2) 3-4(1-2)
DD' 1-2 (3-4) (1-2)
EE'
Note. Responses to Question 19 are in parentheses.
a Use of the prime symbol is to help the reader avoid confusion
when reading the text.









Questions 17 and 20: Briefly, and to the best of your recollection,
what was the main theme or point made by each
person who initiated communication to you?

Briefly, and to the best of your recollection,
what was the main theme or point that you made
to those people to whom you initiated communi-
cations?

These questions must be considered together to determine if per-

ceptions agree.

In response to Question 17, five of the six (83%) indicated that the

general themes or points made were what might be classified as mainten-

ance communications. They were communications which tended to maintain

the movement of the proposal through the legislature, that is, keeping

up-to-date on the proposal's status, requesting legal assistance, request-

ing documentation, and so forth. The only communication which differed

from this was that received by EF from AA where AA communicated the need

for the proposed funding.

With regard to Question 20, the communications again appeared to be

maintenance type communications where each PC worked toward the success-

ful passage of the proposal. Everyone seemed to believe the proposal

was good and all seemed to support its successful conclusion.

For the purpose of further analysis, the summarized responses to

each of these questions are listed below in such a way as to compare

what each receiver claimed to have received and what each sender claimed

to have sent. There are ten combinations.

1. AA claimed to have received from BB:
. information keeping AA briefed on BB's report and
task force communications.

BB claimed to have not initiated communication with AA.









2. AA claimed to have received from CC:
. communications to reflect CC's interest in the
proposal and to seek legal help from AA on the lawful
use of funds proposed for this purpose.

CC claimed to have sent to AA:
. information that this proposal would be a good
way to add money for a good cause and to emphasize
academic commitment (by the legislature).

3. BB claimed to have received from AA:
. request for documentation of the need for this
special funding.

AA claimed to have sent to BB:
. general information on the proposal and progress
reports on its status.

4. CC claimed to have received no communications.

AA claimed to have sent to CC:
. information on the concept of the proposal,
helped develop strategies for the legislature and
worked out the specifics of the request.

5. DD claimed to have received from AA:
. periodic checks to see if the issue was moving
along all right and to see if DD was still supportive.

AA claimed to have sent to DD:
. communications on the concept and significance of
the proposal to the SUS. Kept DD informed of the pro-
posal's progress in the legislature.

6. DD claimed to have received from CC:
. contacts to make sure the money was still in the
capital outlay budget and to maintain contact during
the session.

CC claimed to have sent to DD:
S. .communications to explain the purpose of the bill.

7. EE claimed to have received from AA:
. pleas for support because the SUS needed the funding
because.of rough budget times in the past.

AA claimed to have sent to EE:
. communications on the concept and significance of
the proposal to the SUS . kept EE up-to-date on the
proposal's progress.









8. DD claimed to have sent to AA:
S. communications to keep him informed, on a limited
basis, on what the capital outlay subcommittee was
doing.

AA claimed to have received no communication from DD.

9. DD claimed to have sent to CC:
. communications trying to assure him that the
proposed funding allocation was going well.

CC claimed to have received no communications from DD.

10. DD claimed to have sent to EE:
. tried to tell him that the appropriation was
important to a certain university and EE should
support the proposal.

EE claimed to have received no communication from DD.


Questions 18 and 21: To what degree were you able to understand
what each person was trying to communicate
to you?

In your opinion, now well did those people
to whom you communicated understand you?

In all instances, each PC claimed to understand very well what was

being communicated to them. Two of the three PC who initiated communi-

cation, representing six of the ten combinations (60%), claimed that

those to whom they communicated understood very well their messages.

Person AA initiated communications to the other four PC and AA felt that

each person understood the messages.


Questions 22 and 23: In retrospect, which two of these people gave
you the most useful information?

In retrospect, to which two of these people did
you give the most useful information?

These questions were interrelated. Of the 16 responses given, 14

cited PC in the issue. Two PC cited only one person each in response to

the first question and one PC did not cite anyone in response to the









second question. There was consensus on four of these combinations.

Consensus for these questions means that both people identified each

other as giving them the most useful information. A total of eight

possible combinations were discovered; therefore, there was mutual con-

sensus on 50%, reflecting that there was a high degree of consensus on

this question. It should be noted that Person AA was involved in all

four consensus situations, indicating that AA was a very strong and

influential person in this issue. Table 20 illustrates the results of

these two questions.


Table 20

Cross-Tabulations of PC Responses Concerning Who
Gave To Whom the Most Useful Information on the Issue

Receivers

Senders AA BB CC DD EE

AA AA(AA)a
BB BB AA(AA)a
CC CC(CC)a
DD (DD) CC (DD)
EE AA(AA)a

Note. This table does not show the four non PC who were cited
nor does it reflect the four instances where no people
were cited. Persons identified in parentheses relate
to Question 23.
a indicates consensus situations for both senders and receivers.



Question 24: Should any of these people have given you more
useful information?

The response to this question was a unanimous "No." Therefore, the

group perceived that no other people should have given them more useful

information.




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