<%BANNER%>

Factors Influencing Faculty Migration to Department Chair Positions in Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences


PAGE 1

1 FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY MIGRATION TO DEPARTMENT CHAIR POSITIONS IN COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES By ELIO CHIARELLI, JR. A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Elio Chiarelli, Jr.

PAGE 3

3 To my parents, Elio and Nancy Chiarelli and my brother Gervasio Chiarelli, for their incredible love and support

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document would not have even begun if had it not been for se veral individuals who provided me with an unconditional amount of motivation, support, and guidance. To begin, I express my humble gratitude to Dr. Edward W. Osborne for seeing the potential in me as a student when I first visited the University of Florida and for his honest and patient guidance during my time as a graduate student. After losing most of my committee members half way through my graduate program, Dr. Osborne served as a confident voice and coach throughout the process to not only get my research back on track, but also develop it further than I expected! His de dication to students, commitment to excellence and expectation for superior work ethic drove me to finish this document with pride and conviction. It was truly an honor and a privilege to have been blessed wi th the opportunity to work with and learn from such an accomplished, respected, and faithful individual. I would also like to thank Dr Allen Wysocki as extraordin ary addition to my graduate committee by bringing constant insight and knowle dge of human resource management, as well as an understanding of leadership theory and management. His realistic and down-to-earth experiences in both agribusiness and higher ed ucation continually ch allenged me to conduct sound and practical research. From our firs t interaction in AEB 5757 I found Dr. Wysockis charisma and enthusiasm for student success second to none. It was a true privilege to call him a part of my committee. A final committee thank you goes to Dr. Kirby Ba rrick. Dr. Barrick wa s truly a wonderful addition to my graduate committee. He always brought realistic insight and experiences of higher educational administration, as well as knowl edge and understanding of leadership theory to my research. Dr. Barricks innovative and re alistic approach to problem solving and group interaction challenged me to conduct sound rese arch, and added diversity of thought to all

PAGE 5

5 aspects of my study. Although he is one of the hardest people to schedule a meeting with, I could always count on a warm smile, a shor t joke, and a solid coaching experience. A special thank you is also in order for some of the most amazing and wonderful friends a person could ever be blessed to have; Christy Windham, Barrett Keene, Brian Estevez, Katy Groseta, Carrie Pederio, Renee Durham, Chri s Vitelli, Katie Chodil, Ann DeLay, Jacob and Rebecca Mutz, and Rochelle Strickland. Each of these people made Gainesville a second home and a place I enjoyed for my time in Graduate sc hool. They each made me a better person in my faith, my friendships, and my schooling. I love each of them very much. I wanted to send out a special thank you to Br ian Estevez for instilling Gator Pride in me from the very start. Our early morning tailgate s, Gator football games, Archer adventures, fun road trips, and 408 shenanigans are memories I will keep for a lifetime. Thank you for becoming a friend for life! Lastly, I thank God for blessing me with my incr edible family, especially my parents, Elio and Nancy Chiarelli, as well as my brother Gerry. I first thank my mother, Nancy, for instilling a rock-solid faith in me from a very early age. I thank her for always believing in me and my ability to complete my graduate degree. W ithout her loving support a nd unconditional motherly love, I would have been lost. My father, Elio, has been a true influence on my work ethic, determination, and love for trying just about an ything. No matter what crazy idea I would come up with, he has always supported and guided me in any endeavor. Finally, my bro, I could not ask for a better sibling and friend. His cons tant support through random phone calls, quick visits, and someone to talk about anything with has been a larger part of my life than one can imagine. I have truly been blessed with the greatest family!

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......11 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............12 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14 Introduction of the Study...................................................................................................... ..14 Background of the Study........................................................................................................14 Problem Statement.............................................................................................................. ....17 Purpose and Objectives of the Study......................................................................................18 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................ ....18 Limitations of the Study....................................................................................................... ..18 Assumptions of the Study.......................................................................................................20 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................21 Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair.................................................................21 Leadership in Higher Education.............................................................................................24 Self-Efficacy.................................................................................................................. .........25 Self-Efficacy Research Releva nt to Career Decisions............................................................27 Expectancy Value Theory.......................................................................................................32 Chapter Summary................................................................................................................ ...34 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................36 Research Design................................................................................................................ .....37 Population..................................................................................................................... ..........39 Procedure...................................................................................................................... ..........40 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ .......43 Decision Information Questionnaire...............................................................................44 Department Chair Self-Efficacy Questionnaire...............................................................45 Demographic and Position Related Instrument...............................................................54 Pilot Study Data and Analysis.........................................................................................54 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ........56 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........57 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......58

PAGE 7

7 Objective 1: To determine the specific fact ors that led recently appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural and lif e sciences to pursue and accept department chair positions................................................................................................................ .....61 Decision Information and Gender...................................................................................62 Decision Information and Feelings on Serving another Term........................................65 Why Other Faculty Members Do Not Seek Department Chair Positions.......................66 Increasing Faculty Interest in Becoming a Department Chair........................................66 Events and Experiences Most Beneficial in Preparing for a Department Chair Experience....................................................................................................................67 Objective 2: To assess newly appointed depa rtment chairs self-reported degree of selfefficacy in executing their role s as a department chair.......................................................68 Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Gender..................................................................71 Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Serving another Term...........................................76 Department Chair Self-Efficacy and the Sim ilarity of their Current vs. Past Views Relating to the Roles and Responsib ilities of a Department Chair..............................76 Department Chair Self-Efficacy and First Position Held................................................78 Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Interim Position....................................................78 Objective 3: To examine the relationship be tween selected demographic characteristics and self-reported levels of self-efficacy as well as the degree of influence of factors in seeking department chair positions.....................................................................................79 Year achieved different ranks..........................................................................................79 Current Position and the First Departme nt Chair Position Held on a Permanent Basis.......................................................................................................................... ...83 Acting or Interim Department Chair Prior to Current Chair Position.............................84 Method of Appointment..................................................................................................84 Prior Administrative Academic Positions Held..............................................................85 Serving another Term as Department Chair....................................................................86 First Consideration of Becoming a Department Chair....................................................86 Number of Department Chair Positi ons for Which Respondents Applied......................87 Difference in Views of Roles and Respons ibilities of a Department Chair Now Versus Before Current Department Chair Appointment.............................................88 Relationships Between Variables....................................................................................89 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................94 Summary of the Study........................................................................................................... .94 Problem Statement...........................................................................................................94 Purpose and Objectives...................................................................................................95 Methodology....................................................................................................................95 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. .96 Findings....................................................................................................................... ....97 Objective One...........................................................................................................97 Objective Two..........................................................................................................98 Objective Three......................................................................................................100 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .......103 Discussion and Implications.................................................................................................104 Objective One................................................................................................................104

PAGE 8

8 A joy of working....................................................................................................104 The desire to have the status and prestige:.............................................................106 Management Issues................................................................................................107 Increasing Leadership............................................................................................108 Serving in Other Leadership Experiences..............................................................108 Objective Two...............................................................................................................109 Solicit Ideas............................................................................................................109 Remaining Current.................................................................................................110 Conducting meetings..............................................................................................111 Encouraging faculty participation..........................................................................112 Dealing with conflict..............................................................................................113 Department Chair Views........................................................................................114 Objective Three.............................................................................................................114 Females and minorities...........................................................................................114 Department Chair Respect.....................................................................................115 Recommendations................................................................................................................ .116 Suggestions for Future Research..........................................................................................117 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL.................................................................119 DEPARTMENT CHAIR CONTACT IN FORMATION REQUEST E-MAIL..........................120 Initial Newly Appointed Department Chair Contact Information Request..........................120 Newly Appointed Department Chair Cont act Information Request Follow-Up..................121 Newly Appointed Department Chair Contact Information Request 2nd Follow-Up............122 Newly Appointed Department Chair Contact Information Request Final Follow-Up.........123 SURVEY COMPLETION REQUESTS......................................................................................124 Pre-Survey Letter.............................................................................................................. ....124 Initial Contact E-mail......................................................................................................... ..125 Follow-up Contact E-mail....................................................................................................126 Final Follow-up Contact E-mail...........................................................................................127 ONLINE SURVEY.................................................................................................................. ....128 Approved Informed Consent................................................................................................128 Online Survey Web Pages....................................................................................................129 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................140 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................144

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 College of Agricultural and Life Sc ience Newly Appointed Department Chair Responses...................................................................................................................... .....41 3-2 Department Chair Roles and Respons ibility in the Leadership Category.........................51 3-3 Department Chair Roles and Respons ibility in the Management Category......................52 3-4 Department Chair Roles and Responsib ility in the Personnel Affairs Category...............53 3-5 Pilot Study Demographic Profile of Department Chairs (n=10).......................................55 3-6 Pilot Study Reliability.................................................................................................... ....56 4-1 College of Agricultural and Life Scie nces Newly Appointed Department Chairs by Participating Institution......................................................................................................60 4-2 Reliability for Study Constructs.........................................................................................61 4-3 Frequencies and Percentages of Factor s that Influenced Faculty to Seek a Department Chair Position.................................................................................................63 4-4 One-Way Analysis of Variance of D ecision Factor Information by Respondent Feelings on Serving another Term.....................................................................................65 4-5 One-Way Analysis of Variance of D ecision Factor Information Compared to Respondent Feelings on Serving another Term.................................................................65 4-6 Why Faculty Do Not Seek Department Chair Positions....................................................66 4-7 Themes for Increasing Faculty Intere st in a Department Chair Position...........................67 4-8 Themes for Experiences Most Benefici al when Becoming a Department Chair..............68 4-9 Leadership Self-Efficacy...................................................................................................72 4-10 Management Self-Efficacy................................................................................................74 4-11 Personnel Affairs Self-Efficacy.........................................................................................75 4-12 Independent T-Test Between Gender and Self-Efficacy...................................................76 4-13 One-Way ANOVA of Self-efficacy Rela ted to Leadership, Management, and Personnel Affairs by Intention to Serve another Term......................................................76

PAGE 10

10 4-14 Means of Self-efficacy Compared to the Si milarity of Current vs. Past Views of a Department Chair...............................................................................................................77 4-15 One-Way ANOVA of Self-efficacy Rela ted to Leadership, Management, and Personnel Affairs by Current vs. Past Views of a Department Chair................................78 4-16 Independent T-Test between Self-Efficacy and First Position as a Department Chair.....78 4-17 Independent T-Test betw een Gender and Self-Efficacy....................................................79 4-18 Demographic Profile of Newly Ap pointed Department Chairs (N=97)............................79 4-19 Frequency and Range Distribution for Rank Appointment Year (N=97)..........................81 4-20 Frequencies and Percentages of Responde nts by First Permanent Department Chair Position Held.................................................................................................................. ....83 4-21. Frequencies and Percentages of Re sponses by Interim Chair Position................................84 4-22 Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents Method of Appointment............................85 4-23 Frequencies and Percentages of Prior Administrative Academic Positions Held.............85 4-24 Frequencies and Percentages of Responde nts Serving another Term as Department Chair.......................................................................................................................... .........86 4-25 Position when First Considerati on of Department Chair Existed......................................87 4-26 Number of Department Ch air Positions Applied For........................................................87 4-27 Perceptions about Department Chai rs by Others with Higher Education..........................88 4-28 Different in Views of Ro les and Responsibilities of a Department Chair Now Versus Before Current Department Chair Appointment................................................................89 4-29 Correlations between Variables.........................................................................................92

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Model of Triadic Reciprocality..........................................................................................29 2-2 Conceptual Model Using Triadic Reciproc ality in the Faculty Migration Process...........31 4-1 Year Appointment Distribu tion for Assistant Professor....................................................81 4-2 Year Appointment Distribu tion for Associate Professor...................................................82 4-3 Year Appointment Distri bution for Full Professor............................................................82 4-4 Year Appointment Distribution for Tenure.......................................................................83

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY MIGRATION TO DEPARTMENT CHAIR POSITIONS IN COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES By Elio Chiarelli, Jr. May 2007 Chair: Edward Wayne Osborne Major: Agricultural Edu cation and Communication The purpose of this study was to identify and de scribe factors influencing the decisions of faculty members to migrate to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. This study was administered to newly appointed department chairs in 1862 land-grant colleges of agricultural and life sciences. The first part of the study was a pilot study of 10 current department chairs that were appointed be fore July 1, 2004. This pilot study was used to test the researcher developed in strument. This study was also us ed support the key findings of the reasons faculty members choose to take on unit leader positions in their respective departments as reflected in the literature. These administrators were also used to build additional support for the need for a study and justify its us efulness at the post-seco ndary education level. The population consisted of 131 one departme nt chairs from 1862 land-grant colleges of agricultural and life sciences from across the United States who had been appointed to their administrative positions on or before July 1, 200 4. These participants completed a researcherdeveloped web-based survey that contained a decision informati on instrument, a self-efficacy style instrument, and a demographic instrument. The dependent variables in the study were academic unit leader self-efficacy and department chair decision information. The independent variables were gender, ethnicity, age, and tenure in education. The participants were described

PAGE 13

13 in terms of their demographics, self-efficacy sc ores and decision information based on their choice to become a department chair. Participants in this study reported that they enjoying working with people. Participants identified a strong need for leadership within their profession. They also reported that an opportunity to build a great department, the pe rsuasion of other colleagues, having many ideas for change, looking for an opportunity to make a higher level impact, and being ready for a new challenge all had at least a moderate influence in their decision to pursue a department chair position. Participants felt moderately conf ident they could complete the roles and responsibilities of a department chair in the areas of leader ship, management, and personnel affairs. This study also found that 84.4% (n=81) of th e participants were male and 15.6% (n=15) were female. Also, 97.9% (n=94) were Cau casian. No significant differences were found between gender, ethnicity, and age with regards to the decision information or self-efficacy.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction of the Study The academic department chair is often view ed as the central building block of the American University (Trow, 1977, p.3). Co lleges and universities around the nation are undergoing rapid and demanding change (Kel logg Commission, 1996). According to the Kellogg Commission on the future of state and la nd-grant universities, change will present growing challenges for post-secondary institutions in the years ahead (1996). These areas of change are due in part to the external e nvironmental changes that state and land-grant universities are facing, incl uding changes in society, th e economy, technology, public perceptions, enrollments, demographics, and f aculty (Byrne, 2006). This study implemented survey research to specifically examine the fact ors influencing faculty migration to department chair positions in colleges of agricultura l and life sciences by studying newly appointed academic unit leaders across the United States. Background of the Study With the growing demand for post-secondary education and increasi ng student enrollment, understanding the shape of higher educational administration is crit ical (Evenlyn, 2004). Campus leaders around the nation cite the rising demand for quality leadership as the number one issue facing post-secondary institutions (Byrne, 2006). Another change is a seismic shift in public attitudes, and administrative leaders must be willing and able to guide the university and its departments through new demographics exploding technologies, student accountability, and external demands (Taking Charge of Cha nge: Reviewing the Promise of State and Landgrant Universities, 1996). This changing environment associated with universities illustrates that post-secondary institutions must become places that not only inspire and cultivate superior

PAGE 15

15 students who are ready to take on this new era, bu t also have the same impact on faculty and staff (Byrne, 2006). During an interview Cynthia Rodgers asked William F. Massy, President of The Jackson Hole Education Group, Inc., and a former professo r of higher education at Stanford University, What is the main challenge facing traditional co lleges and universities now? The answer was very clear. Massy said, I can sum it up in a si ngle word: competitionboth from abroad and in the U.S. (Rodgers, 2005). Just as in any other setting, this competition presents a new challenge and fosters an environment of growth and ch ange for faculty, admini stration, and staff at educational institutions ev erywhere. These changes i nvolve technology, communication, educational advancement, faculty developm ent, workload demand, publications, tenure, expectations, and much more. This means that the faculties and administrators at these institutions must not only be prep ared for these changes, they must also be willing to take on new leadership positions and responsibilities. These new and demanding positions will require leaders who possess excellent communication skills, expertise in management, the ability to organize groups of people, and the ability to collaborate with scholars from a vari ety of cultures, values, and traditions (Muhammad, 2002). According to Steven J. McGriff, mana ging this transformation has altered the way universities and colleges are administered and will be the key to their survival (2001). The alteration of business as usual has changed so much, that many higher educational institutions have very few current practices that parallel their original roots. Few issues are of greater concern for instit utions than the development of sustainable leadership for the future. In fact, Conger and Fu lmer (2003) suggested that over the past several years, a growing need exists for qualified individuals to pursue leadership roles in all aspects of

PAGE 16

16 business, education, and volunteerism. Within uni versities, research focused on motivation, selfefficacy, and career choices in pursuit of department chair positions has been limited. Recent changes in technology, communication, educatio nal advancement, faculty development, workload demand, and expectations documented in post-secondary educ ation have create a potential crisis in educational leadership in the United States (Boehl ert, 1999). A greater understanding of faculty career choices, especially in the area of academic unit leadership in post-secondary institutions, is a significant n eed (Report of the Task Force on Faculty/Staff Partnership, 1999). A faculty-staff development task force assembled by the University of California concluded that, Faculty often beco me administrators based on their academic achievements. More information is needed, especi ally at the department chair level (Report of the Task Force on Faculty/Staff Partnership, 1999). Identifying the variables that exert the greatest influence as faculty members decide to pursue department chair positions becomes a key part in reshaping the future of higher education (Tucker, 1993). Universities are comprised of multiple teachi ng and research facilities and departments constituting a graduate school and professiona l schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that aw ards bachelor's degrees. Each department within a university has an administrative leader known as the academic department chair or department head. With the documented changes in demand faced by higher education there is no question that an extensive re-de finition has taken place in the ro les and responsibilities facing a department chair (Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, Tucker, 1999). The people that will undoubtedly be responsible for managing and implementing this change are the academic department chairs (Tucker, 2006). Department chairs are faced wi th the challenge of assuming a multitude of roles while serving as front-line managers in many wa ys. Their roles include : being a spokesperson

PAGE 17

17 for the department faculty, staff, and student s; implementing and carrying out campus policy; implementing the mission of the institution a nd central administration; representing higher administration to the department; articulating the needs of the de partment faculty to the higher administration; managing budgets, enrollments, and classes; updating technology; generating publications; solving faculty, staff, and student problems; completing re ports; and focusing on the desires and expectations of the students whil e addressing priorities an d goals of the college (Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, Tucker, 1999). With su ch an extensive set of responsibilities, the question becomes, Why would a nyone want such a position? The answer has mostly focused on leadership and the desire to create a better future (Smith, 2005). A better knowledge of the factors contributing to faculty decisions to assume department chair positio ns is needed (Report of the Task Force on Faculty/Staff Partners hip, 1999). This knowledge would enhance recruitment efforts, potentially resulting in more successful searches. These influential factors could also be incorporated into faculty and administrative development programs. Problem Statement The problem addressed by this study was th e lack of understanding about why faculty members choose to become department chairs of academic departments in colleges of agricultural and life sciences and th e perceived shortage of qualified applicants to fill department chair positions. While there have been a multitude of studies that focused on the tasks, activities, roles, and responsibilities of academ ic department chairs, there sti ll seems to be a great deal of inconsistency in the literat ure as to the specific roles and respons ibilities of a department chair. A limited amount of research exists about facu lty migration to the department chair position (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). A review of literature showed a clear void in academic research and found virtually no re search in this specific area.

PAGE 18

18 The need for research at the department chair level was even more enhanced by the documented difference in leadership not only at the academic chair position but within the context of higher education as well. Instit utions of higher educa tion differ from many organizations, because academia follows the prin ciple of shared governance, and the decisions are made with input from both faculty and administration (Rowley, Sherman, 2003). In the private sector, a more hierarchical decision structure exists. Purpose and Objectives of the Study The purpose of this study was to describe the factors influencing the decisions of faculty members to migrate to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. The following research objectives were used to guide this investigation: 1. To determine the specific factors that led recen tly appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to pur sue and accept department chair positions. 2. To assess newly appointed department chai rs self-reported degree of self-efficacy in executing their roles as a department chair. 3. To examine the relationship between select ed demographic charac teristics and selfreported levels of self-efficacy as well as th e degree of influence of factors in seeking department chair positions. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined: Administration a branch of university or colle ge employees responsible for the maintenance and supervision of the institution and separa te from the faculty or academics, although some personnel may have joint resp onsibilities (Administration, 2006). Administrative Heads those individuals in pos itions recognized by the National Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges (NASULGC) as Administrative Heads of Agriculture. According to NASULGC, these indi viduals are the chief administrators of the member universities agricultural programs (Moore, 2003). For the purposes of this study, administrative heads were defined as the lead ad ministrator in the college of agriculture at each land-grant institution in the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Career goal mechanisms career plans, aspiration s, decisions, and expressed choices (Lent et al., 1994).

PAGE 19

19 Career-decision making efficacy confidence in a persons ability to make career-related decisions (Hackett, 1995). Decision making a process that involves problem identification, solution generation, evaluation, and implementati on (Delbecq & Mills, 1985). Department a university division, unit or other organizational entity, in which an employee is primarily employed. (Tucker, 1999). Department Chair and/or Head the individua l immediately responsible for management and leadership of the university department, divi sion, or unit (Tucker, 1999). In this study department chairs were the academic unit leader s in colleges of agriculture at land-grant institutions. Faculty the academic staff of a university such as senior teachers, lecturers, and/or researchers. The term also includes professors of various ranks, usually tenured or tenure-track in nature (Blackburn, Lawrence, 1995). Goal the determination to engage in a particular activity or to affect a pa rticular future outcome (Bandura, 1986, p. 468). Leadership the process by which influence is ex erted over individuals and groups in order to achieve goals (Yukl, 2002; Northouse, 2004). Recently appointed department chair an indi vidual appointed to a department chair or department head position on or after July 1, 2004. Self-efficacy a belief in ones capabilities to or ganize and execute the c ourse of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Shared governance a dynamic set of processes which provide a critical foundation that actively supports the university's two primary func tions, the creation and dissemination of knowledge. These processes openly receive i nput from all campus constituencies and students as well as provide advice, direc tion, and perspective to the institution's administrative leadership. This advice is mainly about issues, policies, and procedures that impact the direction and quality of the univers ity's instruction, research/creative activity, and service programs (Montana State University, 2003). Limitations of the Study The data analyzed in this study were colle cted from recently appointed academic unit leaders in colleges of agricultural and life sc iences, therefore genera lizations about other populations and other types of inst itutions should be used with caution. This descriptive study

PAGE 20

20 examined the factors that influenced newly appoi nted department chairs to pursue a department chair position at a partic ular point in time. Results may not be generalizable to other time periods. Another limitation was that only department chairs in coll eges of agricultural and life sciences at United States land-gr ant institutions were included in the study. Finally, the study sample included only those current department chai rs that had been in their position since July 1, 2004. Assumptions of the Study A number of assumptions were made in c onducting the study. First, the researcher assumed that the participants of the study hone stly and accurately completed the instrument without external influences. Th is included the assumption that th ey could accurately recall their feelings about accepting a department chair position just prior to beginning their administrative appointment. Although the activities of department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences at 1862 land-grant universities vary fr om department to department, this research assumed that all department chairs in colleges of agriculture carry out a similar set of basic responsibilities as leader s of their academic unit.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter presents a review of the releva nt literature as it relates to the academic department chair and individual self-efficacy. Th e chapter focuses on literature identifying the specific roles and responsibilities of an academic department chair, describes the effects of selfefficacy on faculty decisions to assume such a po sition, and presents the relevant theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Throughout this chapter, a number of general studies about self-efficacy is presented, as a limited amount of empirical research has been conduc ted on self-efficacy as it relates to the academic department chair. This ch apter also summarizes the literature on the roles and responsibilities of a department chair. This re view of literature is separated into the several major sections: roles and responsibilities of a department chair, self-efficacy, motivation, influence of demographics on self-efficac y, conceptual framework, and summary. Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair According to much of the lite rature, the responsibili ties of a department chair position can be grouped into a number of categories. An extens ive list of different ro les and responsibilities can be found for a department chair and a signif icant amount of research has been conducted in defining exactly what a departme nt chair does on a regular basis (CSDC, 1992). When scanning the literature for specific dutie s, a repetitive patter n occurred for the j ob description of a department chair. Several sources have been id entified that most clearly represent the detailed lists of department chair roles and responsibilities. The first was a book written by Allen Tucker titled Chairing the Academic Department Tucker reviewed the l iterature on the department chair responsibilities of the past a nd present. It is also interesting to note the impact that change has had on the academic department over the past several decades. Many workshops, seminars, and conferences can be found around the country that relate specifically to the important role a

PAGE 22

22 department chair plays in the university (Tucke r, 1993). This position has become even more vital because departments take the full force of responsibility and management. In addition, budgets continue to fluctuate, more tasks ar e added by upper level administration, and higher educational organizations have become more complex (Tucker, 1993). One of the key roles highlighted by Tucker is the importance of a depa rtment chair playing the central role and liaison between several groups of people at the university from faculty and staff to administration and committees (1993). Another interes ting facet of the department chai r is the front-line nature under which these chairs must function on a regula r basis. An academic department chair is often expected to take on several different ro les and live with each of their decisions daily. There is an expectation to create a family-like environment among the faculty and staff, while at the same time managing and making admini strative decisions (Tucker, 1993). A study conducted by the Center for the Study of the Department Chair (CSDC) at Washington State University, dealt with department chair positions. This study was selected for its sound research base and surv ey design that included 800 depart ment chairs in 100 research and doctoral granting institutions (CSDC, 1992). From the many responses of more than 540 department chairs around the count y, an extensive and complete li st of responsibilities and roles was identified. The CSDC highlighted the differen ces in the department ch air as a leader and the department chair as a manager. Several respons ibilities in each role we re identified, and the thoughts of a department chair in a given role were studied. The results fo llow the literature well by stating that, Leader chairs feel effective lead ing the department in both internal and external issues (CSDC, 1992). The CSDC went on furthe r to say that academic department chairs who view themselves as managers feel, Effective at the custodial activities of a department such as preparing budgets, managing department resources maintaining records, managing staff, and

PAGE 23

23 assigning duties to faculty (CSDC, 1992). The center also highlig hted two other roles that the department chairs identified; that of a scholar and faculty developer. In a more recent article written by Steven Gr aham, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Director of the President's Academic Leadership Institute, and Pam Benoit, Assistant Dean of the Graduate School and Professor, Department of Communication, University of Missouri, key roles that academic department ch airs serve in their position were identified (Graham, Benoit, 2004). Their clear and straight forward list of roles outlined each category and responsibility as well. The article divided an a cademic chairs roles into four main categories: administrative, leadership, interpersonal and resource development (G raham, Benoit, 2004). Under these four roles were several responsibilitie s and a description of each. These four groups of roles gave a well-rounded pers pective of the ch air position. The Department Chair As Academic Leader is a popular text in the area of higher education and department chair lite rature (Hecht, et al., 1999). This text was written by a panel of authors: Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, and Tucker This resource was chosen for the extensive outline and explanation of each category identified fo r a department chair. The authors research and experience added credibility to the body of li terature and assisted with creating a common list of responsibilities. The text also refers to the changing cont ext of higher education and the increasing list of duties in which a department chair must be proficient (Hecht, et al., 1999). The department chair is identified as the essentia l link between the administration and the faculty (Hecht, et al., 1999). The authors argue that there is an internal paradox created for the academic department chair by an ever-shifting balance be tween faculty, administration, external demands, and multiple constituencies. This paradox is listed as the cause for many of the complexities in the position and the growing range of roles and responsibilities (H echt, et al., 1999).

PAGE 24

24 In a recent assessment instrument of departme nt chairs and center directors published by Individual Development and Educational Assessme nt (IDEA) Center at Kansas State University several responsibilities were identified. This assessment provided general responsibility statements that can be used in the evaluation of the department chair position. Many of the responsibility statements summarize and combine the duties outlined in the body of literature reviewed thus far. There are a few responsibilit ies, however, that need to be added from this assessment. They are as follows: demonstrates effective use of advisory committees, shows commitment to international programs, demons trates strong support and understanding of the mission of a land-grant universit y, and provides intellectual philos ophical leadership of faculty, staff, and students for synergistic academic research, extension, and outreach programs (Individual Development and Edu cational Assessment Center, 2006). Collectively, the described five pieces of literature represent a complete look at the roles and responsibilities of an academic department chair. Each of these resources provides insight in the changing and demanding job description that is assessed in this study. From these resources, a better understanding of the practices of a department chair is outlined and can be further analyzed. Leadership in Higher Education Understanding the scope and multiple theories about leadership was beyond the limits of this study. However, it was necessary to pres ent a common definition of leadership for the purpose of this study. Leadership is simply the process by which influence is exerted over individuals and groups in order to achieve goa ls (Yukl, 2002; Northouse, 2004). This definition of leadership will be the one used as a foundation. More importantly, leadership at the university level, as applicable to the department chair, varies greatly from most other organizations and businesses (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). Th is difference must be addressed to fully

PAGE 25

25 understand the roles and responsibil ities of a department chair in an academic setting, as well as understand more about faculty migra tion to such a position. Departme ntal leadership at the chair level extends more effort on empowering ac tivities for multiple stakeholders around the university such as campus constituencies a nd students (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). Unlike their business and industry counterparts, academia follows the principle of shared governance; decision making involves both central administration, and the faculty members of a campus (Rowley, Sherman, 2003). Therefore, gett ing diverse input from everyone involved at all levels of the system without consequence because of the tenur e process is something that is not nearly as common among pr ofit-seeking organizations. Another significant difference is that of an open political system that departments within higher education exhibit. There are several internal and external constituencies that play into the decision-making process such as faculty, upper-l evel administration, the institutions governing body, legislative bodies, and other such groups (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). Profitseeking enterprises have many constituencies as we ll, however, the difference lies in the decision making influence and power of those external forces and the shar ed governance philosophy many department chairs must follow (Rowley, Sh erman, 2003). With this very unique and greatly influential leadership structure, it has been argued that the department chair position is one of the most underrated, yet most important positions in all of higher education (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). Self-Efficacy The theory of self-efficacy is a fairly new de velopment in the social sciences that began with Banduras (1977) publication, Self-Efficacy : Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. There is a natural tendency for humans to desire the ability to ex ercise control not only over their lives, but also the va riety of circumstances that ar ise on a regular basis (Bandura,

PAGE 26

26 1995). In the most elementary form, efficacy is the ability to produce th e necessary or desired results, or in other words, an individuals effectiveness. Fo r a more scholarly approach, the literature quickly turns to Bandura where self-efficacy is defined as, the belief in ones ability to organize and execute the course s of action required to manage prospective situations (1994). Or perhaps more importantly, self-efficacy is an individuals belief about his/her capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exer cise influence over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1994). The focus is clearly on ones belief. This is important to note because Bandura suggested that an indivi duals self-efficacy is fundame ntal to a persons success. Someone who has high self-efficacy is more likely to take on new experiences, challenges, and obstacles with high self confidence and a preset mind frame of success. On the other hand, a person looking at the same set of circumstan ces with low self-efficacy will tend to avoid challenging tasks and behaviors and approach them if necessary, with low confidence (Bandura, 1994). Also, when looking at response to failure Bandura (1995) argues that one with high selfefficacy will bounce back quickly and take on new tasks where a low self-efficacy individual will be hesitant to try again. Along this lin e of thought, it is important to note that how individuals interpret their performance results, environment, and self-belief will significantly impact their future achievement s and behaviors (Pajares, 1996). When making decisions and choices about future actions, a persons se lf-refection of past experiences becomes extremely important. Ones belief in their ability to perform a task has been found to have a direct rela tionship to that self reflection (Bandura, 1986). Naturally, people engage in behaviors and tasks in which they feel confident and competent (Pajares, 1996). Furthermore, the amount of effort and energy a pe rson spends on a given ac tivity is also related to their self-efficacy or self belief. This poi nt extends to challenges and obstacles as well,

PAGE 27

27 whereas a persons resilience will be greater when a perceived ability fo r a given situation is greater (Pajares, 1996). Frank Parajes presented the use of self-efficacy in a variety of contexts and areas of study. This theory was used to study phobias (Bandura, 1983), depression (D avis & Yates, 1982), social skills (Moe & Zeiss, 1982), asse rtiveness (Lee, 1983), and on at hletic performance (Barling & Abel, 1983). In the area of higher education a nd academic motivation, self-efficacy has begun to gain in popularity (Pintrich & Schunk, 1995). Much of this research has focused on student and teacher or faculty self-efficacies. Many of thes e evaluations used defined self-efficacy scales and questions that required partic ipants rate themselves in specific areas (Pajares, 1996). These studies have tested self-efficacy as it relates to perf ormance and ability in the classroom for students and instructors alike. A large body of res earch exists showing that self-efficacy is also a contributing factor in career ch oices and career decisions (Bandura, 1986). In general, research has shown a wider range of career options, and a greater interest in those options was exhibited by those persons with a higher perceived efficacy to fulfill educational requirements and job functions (Rocca, 2005). Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Career Decisions Self-efficacy as it relates to career decisions is represented in much of the research and literature through the Social Cogni tive Career Theory (SCCT) which emerged from the work of Lent et al. (1994) and is being us ed to further explain the decisions individuals make in reference to their career choices. The S CCT is applicable to the factor s influencing the migration of faculty members to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences using an emphasis on the three areas of focus that su rround a career decision: en vironmental factors, personal factors, and an individuals behavior (L ent, et al., 1994).

PAGE 28

28 The Social Cognitive Career Theory stems from the foundational work of Bandura (1986) and his Social Cognitive Theory and has been used in many aspects of social science and career research (Rocca, 2005). SCCT attempts to fu rther explain the process by which individuals develop an interest, make choices, and achieve varying levels of success in academic pursuits (Lent, et al., 1994). One of the most useful as pects of the Social Cognitive Theory is that humans are self-reflecting and self-reacting people who are d ynamic in their thinking and decision making (Bandura, 1997). The three areas hi ghlighted in SCCT begin to set up a pattern of thinking and behavior that people follow and ar e able to reflect upon. This pattern or Triadic Reciprocality can be seen in Figure 2-1. Usi ng Banduras concept of tr iadic reciprocality, the model suggests that variables within these dimens ions interact with each other to impact the person. Their reciprocal inter action can be observed in relation to performance outcomes in decision making (Bandura, 1997). Behavior within th is model is influenced by each of the three factors in a bidirectional manne r, and each factor has an impact on a persons decision making process. Personal decision characteristic variables re flect individual traits and predispositions, environment variables reflect those external f actors that impact the person, and behavior variables reflect the set of prac tices and behaviors that a person brings to the given situation (Pajares, 2002). Furthermore, a breakdown and definition of the three areas outlined in the triadic reciprocality model by Bandu ra is critical in the understa nding of how this model can be used across many disciplines and in higher educati on. Bandura (1999) suggest ed that in the past, human behavior is viewed and even studied in a very unidirectional fashion.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 2-1. Model of Triadic Reciprocality (Bandura, 1997) The thought is that a persons behavior can be ex plained by environmental influences or impacts in their life, or is a result of an internal motivation or personal factor. The Social Cognitive Theory explains that the reality of human behavior is far from unidirectional and is much more interlinked and triadic, as illu strated in Figure 2.1. Personal f actors, environmental events, and behavioral patterns influence human agency in a unique and bidirecti onal way (Bandura, 1999). Since Bandura first introduced the construc t of self-efficacy in 1977, researchers have been very successful in demonstrating that indi viduals' self-efficacy beliefs powerfully influence their attainments in diverse fields (Pajares 2002). Using Social Cognitive Theory as a framework in higher education is no exception. It is possible for universities to work on improving their facultys self-beliefs and ha bits of thinking about higher educational administration (personal factors), improve their leadersh ip and management sk ills and their selfregulatory practices (behavior), and alter the administrative and fac ility structures that work to undermine ones desire to pursue an administrativ e role (environmental factors) (Pajares, 2002). Since the triadic reciprocality model can also be used within higher ed ucation, the decision of faculty members to assume department chair pos itions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences can be studied as well. Figure 2-2 presents the concept model using triadic reciprocality in the faculty migration process. Behavior Environmental Factors Personal Factors

PAGE 30

30 Within the triadic reciprocality model, Bandura (1999) discusses each part individually. In no particular order, a further explanation can be gin with behavior. In reference to higher education, behavior can be viewed as the leadership and management skills of a department chair, as well as self-regulato ry practices (Bandura, 1999). The environmental factors piece of the triadic reciprocality model w ithin higher education can be desc ribed as the administrative and facility structures. Finally, the personal factors in the model would be the emotional states, selfbeliefs, and habits of thinking about higher ed ucation and administrati on (see Figure 2-2).

PAGE 31

31 Figure 2-2. Conceptual Model Us ing Triadic Reciprocality in the Faculty Migration Process Emotional states, self-beliefs, and habits of thinking about higher education and administration. Decision to Become a Department Chair Faculty Member Department Chair Continue on as Department Chair Dean or Other Higher Level Administration The Decision Behavior Environmental Factors Personal Factors Administrative and faculty structures. Leadership and management skills as well as self-regulatory practices. Retire or Exit the University System

PAGE 32

32 Expectancy Value Theory The Expectancy Value Theory of Achievem ent Motivation by Wigfield and Eccles has been used not only to understand, but also to explain motivations underlying a persons behavior (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The theory was firs t developed as a model to gain insight and understanding on early childhood achievement in mathematics (Eccles, et.al., 1983). Achievement motivation theories attempt to e xplain personal choice of tasks, persistence on those tasks, vigor in carrying them out, and quality of task engagement (Eccles, Wigfield, and Schielefe, 1998). According to Expectancy Value theory, behavior is a function of the expectations an individual has a nd the value of the goal toward which that individual is working. When a person is given the choice between one or more behaviors, that individuals choice will be the one with the largest combination of e xpected success and value (Britannica, 2006). Wigfield and Eccles pointed out the importance of intent on a decision to pursue a behavior. They also contended that intent was the immediat e precursor to a particul ar behavior (2000). The expectancy-value theory states that there are two kinds of belief. There is first belief in something, and then belief about something. A ccording to this theory, beliefs vary from attitudes, because they are evaluative. People usually believe that their behavior will lead to both positive and negative consequences. Their attitude is based on whether or not that end result is favorable. According to the Expectancy Value m odel of attitude theory, information can have three effects on attitude change. Firstly, information can change the weight of a particular belief. Secondly, information can effect th e direction of a particular be lief. Thirdly, information can add new beliefs (Wigfield, Eccles, 2000). This theory proposes that if one can determine the elements that impact intention, then one can more accurately predict whether an individual will engage in a particular behavior Likewise, it proposes that by changing an individuals perceptions of potential outcomes, one can alter the individuals intent (Wigfield, Eccles, 2000).

PAGE 33

33 The basis of the theory is that individuals choose be haviors based on the outcomes they expect and the values they ascribe to those expected outc omes (Borders, Earleywine, & Huey, 2004). The more attractive a particular outcome is to the individual, the more likely the person will engage in the behavior. Similarly, as the num ber of positive outcomes increases, the motivation to engage in the behavior incr eases. Expectancy itself is defi ned as, the measurement of the likelihood that positive or negative outcomes will be associated with or follow from a particular act (Mazis et al, 1975). Thus an individuals outcome expect ations affect ones attitudes towards the behavior. In addition to the expect ed outcome, the value th e individual places on the outcome influences the i ndividuals intentions. The Expectancy Value Theory has two sets of vi ews that often arise in the literature with similar titles; Weiners Attribution Model of Motivation and Vroo ms model of Work Motivation. Weiner (1985, p.555) stated that every major cognitive motivational theorist includes the expectancy of goa l attainment among determin ates of action (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995). This is also supported by the thought that achieve ment behavior is a function of the motive where people will strive toward success and generally avoid situations and behavior that lead to fa ilure (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995) Again, Maehrs and Braskamp (1986) support this thought by summarizing that, M otivation to perform a ta sk varies in relation to the meaning it has for an individual. Achievement motivation is based on the incentive value of the task (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995). The next view is that of Vroom (1964), where he applied general Expectancy theory to the workpla ce and stated that motivation to complete a task by an individual applying value to the work situ ation itself, such as wages and opportunities for promotionand less about their ab ilities and interests is impor tant (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995).

PAGE 34

34 Expectancy Value Theory of Achievement Motiva tion is not represented in the literature as flawless and does show some limitations. One of the main criticisms of this theory is the focus on limited cognitive processes (Cruz, 2005). Borders, Earleywine, & Huey (2004) found that individuals choose from a variety of alternatives and thus must examine a variety of expectancies before choosing to engage in behaviors. Among the potential variety of decisions that can be made, some appear more attract ive than others (Cruz, 2005). Chapter Summary In this chapter, the literature associated with the roles and responsibilities of a department chair was examined and summarized to provide a clear understanding of what a department chair within higher education is responsible for accomplishing. Although it can be observed that many different descriptions exist and can vary greatly among universities, common roles and responsibilities were identified a nd will be further examined in Chapter 3. This chapter also looked at leadership within hi gher education by first stating a common definition, and secondly citing literature that explained major difference be tween leadership at the department chair level and leadership at similar levels within profit-se eking organizations. Next a review of literature associated with Albert Banduras theory of self -efficacy was presented. This literature provided the background for a theoretical framework and defi ned self-efficacy as the belief in ones ability to organize and execute the course s of action required to manage prospective situations. The next theory presented was the Social Cognitive Ca reer Theory presented by Lent et al. and was added as another portion of the theoretical fram ework because it further explains the process by which individuals develop interest, make choice s, and achieve varying levels of success in academic pursuits. The final theory review ed was the Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation by Wigfield and Eccl es, because it has been used not only to understand, but also to explain mo tivations underlying a persons be havior. These three theories

PAGE 35

35 are the most appropriate to decipher factors contributing to the decision making process of a faculty member migrating to a department chai r position in colleges of agricultural and life sciences.

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Chapter 1 described the changing environm ent of higher education and provided the background for studying the factors in fluencing the decisions of faculty members to migrate to department chair positions in colleges of agricu ltural and life sciences. Chapter 1 also explained the significance of the study and identified its pu rpose. The chapter concluded by defining key terms and stating the assumptions and limitations of the study. Chapter 2 presented a discussion of the theore tical and conceptual frameworks that guided this study. Chapter 2 focused specifically on lite rature related to the fo llowing areas: (a) roles and responsibilities of a department chair, (b) self-efficacy, (c) Social Cognitive Career Theory, (d) Expectancy Value theory, and other variables related to the study. The literature contains a limited amount of research directly related to the self-efficacy of de partment chairs, thus establishing a greater need for additional research. This chapter describes the methodology used to answer the research questions presented in the study. This chapter also addresses th e research design, populations and sample, instrumentation development, data collection, and analysis. The following research objectives were addressed: 1. To determine the specific factors that led recen tly appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to pur sue and accept department chair positions. 2. To assess newly appointed department chai rs self-reported degree of self-efficacy in executing their roles as a department chair. 3. To examine the relationship between select ed demographic charac teristics and selfreported levels of self-efficacy as well as th e degree of influence of factors in seeking department chair positions. The purpose of this quantitativ e study was to examine and describe factors influencing faculty member migration to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life

PAGE 37

37 sciences. The dependent variables in the st udy were academic unit leader self-efficacy and decision influences. The independent variable s were gender, ethnicit y, age, and previous leadership experience. Research Design This study employed census survey research, a very popular type of quantitative research (Ary et al., 2002). The census survey instru ment was developed by the researcher. Census survey research is a data gathering method accomplished by asking a series of categorized questions to a group of respondents that represent all individuals in the population being studied (Ary et al., 2002). In this study, the population was defined as newly appointed department chairs in 1862 Land-grant colleges within the United States. A ccording to Ary et al. (2002), a census study of intangibles such as motivati on, achievement, and other such psychological related assessments can be used (Ary et al., 2002). Some discussion must surround the validity of such design with an instrument that was developed by the researcher. According to Ca mpbell and Stanley (1966), validity, specifically internal validity, must be addressed for conclusi ons to be drawn from a given study. Ary et al. (2002) defined internal validity as the extent to which the change s in a dependent variable are, in fact, caused by the independent variable in a particular experi mental situation rather than by some extraneous factors (p. 281) Eight extraneous variables th at could pose a threat to the internal validity of the study and research design. These eigh t variables included: history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, statistical regression, differential selection, mortality, and the interaction of these threat s (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Since the research design in this study was based on a researcher-dev eloped questionnaire, the largest threat to inte rnal validity was instrumentation. The threat s of history, maturation, testing, and mortality were controlled through the selection of the censu s that represented all the possi ble individuals in the given

PAGE 38

38 population and each surveyed one time. By includi ng all possible individuals in this census, it ensured that participants were selected based on the strict defi nition of the study parameters and not characteristics determined by the researcher. Since the measurement instrument has been developed by the researcher, validity was further assessed and examined. According to Ar y et al. (2002) internal validity based upon the instrument can be separated into four categories that must be addressed: face validity, content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity. For the purposes of this study, a panel of experts reviewed the instrument to ensure several types of va lidity. This panel was composed of five university faculty members from th e Departments of Agricultural Education and Communications and Food and Resource Economi cs. Each of these panel members has extensive experience with department chairs and th e position characteristics. Face validity is defined as whether or not the instrument appe ars valid for the intended purpose (Ary et al., 2002). Content validity, or the degree to which the data from an instrument are representative of some defined domain, was also addressed (Ary et al. 2002). Threats to content validity were eliminated by a careful examination by the expe rt panel through review of the pilot study questionnaire completed prior to the survey di stribution. The pilot study included 10 department chairs and is described in the pr ocedures section that follows. These pilot study individuals were approved by the panel of three e xperts as an appropriate represen tation of the actual population. The third aspect, construct validit y, is the extent to which an instrument assesses something that is not itself directly measurable but that explains obser vable effects (Ary et al. 2002). Due to the fact that a construct is based upon the measurability of a complex fact or it is difficult to establish complete validity. However, in the areas of so cial and psychological science, many of these constructs such as motivation, anxiety, satisfaction, efficacy, and self concept have been

PAGE 39

39 measured (Ary et al. 2002). As a best possibl e attempt to control for construct validity, the researcher used a panel of experts, reviewed th e literature that provided empirical evidence of the constructs, and observed internal consistency of the pilot study instrument. The final threat, criterion-related validity, in the case of a census survey is the determination whether the answering of questions on the instrument was the correct way to measure the constructs (Ary et al. 2002). To determine that this was not an issue that caused a threat to internal validity, the panel of experts was again consulted and the lite rature was reviewed for empirical evidence of the criterion-related validity of the instrument. Population The population of this study consisted of newly appointed department chairs at universities established by the Land-grant Ac t of 1862. Each of these uni versities had a college of agricultural and life sciences with distinctive departments or comparable units in which a leadership position was established and well kn own as a department chair. The newly appointed department chair was defined, for the purposes of this study, as an academic department chair in a college of agricultural and life sc iences that has been appointed to their position as of July 1, 2004 and was serving as the department chair at the time of this study. Interim and temporary positions were not included in this study. Division directors and center directors were also not included in this study. The territories of the United States that have been granted a land-grant university under the land-grant act of 1862, Northern Marianas College, University of Guam, American Somoa Community College, and the University of Puerto Rico were not included in this study due to their unique and varied struct ures and leadership hierarchy. The responding institutions and th eir contributions to the populat ion can be found in Table 3-1.

PAGE 40

40 Procedure Prior to the collection of the primary data for this study, a pilot test was conducted. The pilot test was a necessary step in this research study for the purposes of establishing reliability and validity for the researcher-developed instrume nt. Prior to the collec tion of data, a proposal to conduct the study was submitted to the Univers ity of Florida Institutional Review Board for non-medical projects (IRB-02). The proposal was approved (Protocol #2006-U-1140). A copy of the informed consent form that was sent to participants of the pilo t study and the main study was submitted to the IRB along with the proposal. The informed consent form described the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and informed participants of any potential risks and/or benefits associated with participating in the study. Once approval to conduct this study was grante d by the IRB, the survey was administered to the pilot study particip ants and the data were collected a nd analyzed by the researcher and the panel of experts. The test survey group was a convenience sample that consisted of 10 current department chairs at land-grant universities within their respective college of agricultural and life sciences. The following three in stitutions were utilized for the pilot study group: The University of Florida, The Pennsylvania State University, an d The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. All of the pilot study pa rticipants were Caucas ian with a gender breakdown that exhibited 80% male (n=8) and 20% female (n=2) and ranged in age from 46 to 59. This pilot test group was representative of the actua l census population by being just beyond the July 2004 cutoff date which defined a newly appointed department chai r, but not in th eir current position longer than 6 years. The test survey was completed and the resear cher, along with the expert panel, reviewed the test data. Data were collected for the census population starting in January of 2007.

PAGE 41

41 Table 3-1. College of Agricultural and Life Science Newly Appointed Department Chair Responses Institution Newly Appointed Department Chairs Auburn University, Auburn, AL 3 University of Alaska, Fairbanks AK 0 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 3 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 0 University of California, Davis, CA 0 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 2 University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 2 University of Delaware, Newark, DE 0 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 5 University of Georgia, Athens, GA 1 University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI 0 University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 3 University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 3 Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 3 Iowa State University, Ames, IA 2 Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 4 University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 2 Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 0 University of Maine, Orono, ME Did Not Respond University of Maryland, College Park, MD 5 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA Did Not Respond Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 2 University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 1 Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 1 University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 3 Montana State University, Bozeman 4 University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 5 University of Nevada, Reno, NV 0 University of New Hampshire, NH 5 Rutgers State University, New Brunswick, NJ 7 New Mexico State University, Las Cruses, NM 4 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 6 North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 11 North Dakota State University, ND Did Not Respond Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 4 Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 1 Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 5 Pennsylvania State Universi ty, State College, PA 4 University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 6 Clemson University, Clemson, SC 0 South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 1

PAGE 42

42 Table 3-1. Continued Institution Newly Appointed Department Chairs University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 0 Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 2 Utah State University, Logan, UT 2 University of Vermont, Bu rlington, VT Did Not Respond Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 4 Washington State University, Spokane, WA 0 West Virginia State Univ ersity, Morgantown, WV 0 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 11 University of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY 4 Total Population Number 131 Since there was no existing data base for newly appointed department chairs at land-grant universities in the United States, additional contac ts needed to be made to obtain such population contact information. The researcher used personal contacts from seven of the institutions in the population and then sent an electr onic mail request to the deans of the remaining universities that requested the contact information for newly appoint ed chairs since July 1, 2004. From the first electronic mail request, thirteen institutions resp onded with the necessary contact information (see Appendix B). A second elec tronic mail request was sent to the remaining institutions and seven more institutions were collected (see Appendi x B). A third and final request was sent and six institutions were collected. The remain ing newly appointed department chair contact information was collected using personal phone ca lls to the college of agricultural and life sciences staffs. Each institutions response to the contact information request which included a brief explanation of the study was used as their willingness to participat e in such a study. After the contact information was received, a pe rsonalized electronic mail letter was sent to each newly appointed department chair on January 12th, 2007 (see Appendix C). The purpose of the letter was to inform the participant that a web-based survey would be sent to them via

PAGE 43

43 electronic mail and their particip ation would be greatly apprecia ted. This was the pre-notice letter that provided a personalized, positive, and tim ely notice that a survey would be sent shortly (Dillman, 2000). The second contact was made on January 24th, 2007, twelve days after the prenotice letter was mailed. During this second communication, a web-based survey developed on Survey Monkey, was sent to the participants via electronic mail (see Appendix C). The survey was sent in January, which has been shown to be included in the window of the highest response rates (Dillman, 2000). No incentives were provided for respons e to the survey instrument. On January 31st the third contact was sent out to only those included in the population that did not yet respond (see Appendix C). This is within th e one week window that is suggested by expert survey researcher, Don Dillman (2000). On February 12th, 2007 the fourth contact was sent only to the non-responding participants by way of electronic mail via the Survey Monkey program (see Appendix C). The electronic survey closed on February 20th, 2007. Once the responding data was collected it was then analyzed by the researcher. Instrumentation A three-part instrument was used in this study to accurately assess the independent and dependent variables as well as to target the specific objectives of the research. An existing instrument that was accurately ta ilored to determine the factors c ontributing to the migration of faculty member to department chair positions and/or their existing self-efficacy of the job requirements was not available. Therefore, a researcher-developed instrument was developed and utilized. The first part of the instrume nt was a decision information questionnaire, the second part was a newly appointed department chair self-efficacy assessment and the final piece was a demographic instrument.

PAGE 44

44 Decision Information Questionnaire Since academic administrative careers follo w no regular pattern, except for beginning down the academic line, the fact ors contributing to such positi ons are important to identify (Blackburn & Lawerance, 1995). A variety of authors have suggested several reasons why faculty members may choose to assume a depa rtment chair position (see Blackburn Lawrence, 1995; Tucker, 1993). Also, discussion between th e researcher and graduate committee members led to the development of additiona l possible factors. The factors identified in the literature and developed with the graduate committee members as possible reasons faculty members migrate toward department chair positions are listed below. 1. Positive experience chairing important committees 2. Test their ability as a leader withou t completely leaving a faculty role 3. Feel they can do a better job than the current administrator 4. Persuaded by another such as colleague s, deans, current department chairs 5. Feel their research and publication skills are not as good as their leadership skills 6. Sense of pride and accomplishment 7. Status and prestige 8. Challenge of leadership 9. Successful leadership experience at other levels 10. Positive previous experience as an acting or interim department chair 11. New challenge and/or fresh start 12. Opportunity to lead home department without moving to another institution 13. Opportunity to build a great department 14. Enjoy working with people and seeing them succeed 15. The strong need within profession for effective department leadership 16. Opportunity to make a higher level and/or greater impact 17. Many ideas for change and improvement 18. Salary increase 19. Geographical preference From these possible factors, the first part of the instrument was developed (Appendix G). The questions in this part of the instrument were based on a 7point Likert-type scale and asked respondents to select the appropria te rating level of influence that each of the above factors had on their decision to assume an academic departme nt chair position. After the above factors there

PAGE 45

45 was also space provided for additions there were not listed. The responses were assigned point values from No Influence (1 point) to Major Influence (7 points). Individual scores for the different itemized factor-based questions were calculated through a summ ation of the 21 items. The higher the score on each question indicated a greater influence of that given factor. Department Chair Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Five scholarly resources were used in the development of the specific roles and responsibilities of a department chair. These sources were se lected because of the several commonalities that were apparent in the lists and descriptions of the role s and responsibilities of the chair position. From these sources, three majo r categories were utilized in the development of the self-efficacy instrumentation. Each list of roles and responsibilities can be found below by individual resource as they we re written and described. The first list is from Allen Tucker and his text titled Chairing the Academic Department Tucker outlined the following eight categorie s and responsibilities for each category: Department governance (Tucker, 1993) o Conduct department meetings o Establish department committees o Use committees effectively o Develop long-range department programs, plans, and goals o Determine what services the departme nt should provide to the university o Implement long-range department programs, plans, and goals o Prepare the department for accreditation and evaluation o Serve as an advocate for the department o Monitor library acquisitions o Delegate some department administrative responsibilities to individuals and committees o Encourage faculty members to communicate ideas for improving the department Instruction (Tucker, 1993) o Schedule classes o Supervise off campus programs o Monitor dissertations, prospectuses, and programs of study for graduate students o Supervise, schedule, monitor and grade department examinations o Update department curriculum, courses, and programs

PAGE 46

46 o Faculty Affairs (Tucker, 1993) o Recruit and select faculty members o Assign faculty responsibilities, such as teaching, research, and committee work o Monitor faculty service contributions o Evaluate faculty performance o Initiate promotions an d tenure recommendations o Participate in grievance hearings o Make merit recommendations o Deal with unsatisfactory f aculty and staff performance o Initiate termination of a faculty member o Keep faculty members inform ed of department, college, and institutional plans, activities, and expectations. o Maintain morale o Reduce, resolve, and prevent conflict among faculty o Encourage faculty participations Student affairs (Tucker, 1993) o Recruit and select students o Advise and counsel students o Work with student government External Communication (Tucker, 1993) o Communicate department needs to the dean and interact with upper-level administrators o Improve and maintain the departments image o Coordinate activities with outside groups o Process department corresponden ce and request for information o Complete forms and surveys o Initiate and maintain liaison with external agencies and institutions Budget and resources (Tucker, 1993) o Encourage faculty member to submit pr oposals for contracts and grants to government agencies and private foundations. o Prepare and propose department budgets o Seek outside funding o Administer the department budget o Set priorities for use of travel funds o Prepare annual reports Office management (Tucker, 1993) o Manage department facilities and equipment o Monitor binding security and maintenance o Supervise and evaluate the clerical a nd technical staff in the department o Maintain essential department r ecords, including student records

PAGE 47

47 Professional development (Tucker, 1993) o Foster the development of each faculty members special talents and interests o Foster good teaching in the department o Stimulate faculty research and publications o Promote affirmative action o Encourage faculty members to participat e in regional and national professional meetings o Represent the department at meetings of learned and professional societies The second list was obtained from the Center for the Study of the Department Chair at Washington State University and was arrang ed into the following four categories: Leader (CSDC, 1992) o Soliciting ideas to improve the department o Planning and evaluating curriculum development o Conducting department meetings o Informing faculty of department, college, and university concerns o Representing the department at professional meetings o Participating in college and university committee work Scholar (CSDC, 1992) o Obtaining resources for personal research o Maintaining a research program o Remaining current within their academic discipline o Selecting and supervis ing graduate students Faculty Developer (CSDC, 1992) o Encouraging professional development effo rts of faculty and encouraging faculty research and publications o Mediate the relationships of faculty to the institution through providing informal faculty leadership o Evaluate faculty o Recruiting and selecting faculty members Manager (CSDC, 1992) o Preparing and proposing budgets o Managing departmental resources o Maintaining departmental records o Managing staff o Assigning duties to faculty The third source written by Steven Graham Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Director of the President's Academic Leadership Institute; and Pam Benoit, Assistant

PAGE 48

48 Dean of the Graduate School and Professor, Department of Communication, University of Missouri identified the following list: Administrative roles (Graham, Benoit, 2004) o Fiscal overseer o Schedule coordinator o Report generator o Staff supervisor Interpersonal roles (Graham, Benoit, 2004) o Counselor o Coach o Mediator o Climate regulator Leadership roles (Graham, Benoit, 2004) o Visionary o Internal advocate o Internal intermediary o External liaison o Curriculum leader o Role model Resource development roles (Graham, Benoit, 2004) o Faculty recruiter o Faculty mentor o Faculty evaluator o Resource warrior The fourth resource written by Hecht, Higge rson, Gmelch, and Tucker highlighted the following list of roles an d responsibilities: Front-Line Managers Primary departmental spokesperson for faculty, staff, and students Implement and carry out campus policy and mission of the central administration Serve as the link between administration and faculty Interpret and present information and arguments that accurately reflect the intent of each constituency Consensus builder Budget wizard Superb manager Effective communicator Implement university policy Recognize and understand external demands of the departme nt (Hecht, et al., (1999)

PAGE 49

49 The final and fifth source of information came from the Individual Development and Educational Assessment Center at the Kansas Stat e University. This assessment was originally designed for deans in colleges of agricultural a nd life sciences to assess department chair and center directors. The follow is a list of res ponsibilities that are to be assessed and includes responsibilities that are exclusive to the land-gr ant university system of teaching, research, and extension. Provides vision and progressive leadership in planning, developing, and implementing departmental/center programs in teaching, research, and extension Provides intellectual philosophical leadership of faculty, staff, and students for synergistic academic, research, extension, and outreach programs Demonstrates leadership in recruiting a nd also in fostering academic growth and professional development of faculty, staff, and students Administers department/center human and financial resources widely Provides leadership for continued acquisition of internal and external resources, including private fund raising Administers state, national and international programs of the department/center Demonstrates effective use of advisory committees Assigns responsibilities of faculty and staff, and evaluate s their performance, and resolves performance and behavioral i ssues effectively and timely Represents departmental and faculty interest s with administrators, other departments and units, outside agencies, state and federal agencies, partners and collaborators, and individuals and groups in industry Collaborates with the senior vice president, de ans, associate deans, other IFAS chairs and research and education center directors, and other administrators in providing leadership for delivering integrated programs to meet th e needs of students, extension clientele, research sponsors, and other stakeholders Effectively lead and manages multidisciplinary programs Demonstrates effective administrative leader ship and managerial skills in defining organizational objectives; developing strate gic approaches to planning, managing human, fiscal, and physical resources; generating a nd managing grant funds in support of teaching, research, and extension; a nd securing private funds Listens effectively, communicates, and re presents the department/center with administrators, agencies, industry, an d on-and-off campus interest groups Demonstrates strong commitment to undergradu ate and graduate stud ent recruitment and retention Interacts well with students, facu lty, staff, administrators, and external stakeholders within the university and state, federa l, and international levels

PAGE 50

50 Demonstrates commitment to continued pers onal professional development for self and faculty and staff Shows commitment to international programs Demonstrates strong support and understanding of the mission of a Land-grant university Ensures the new faculty and staff are mentor ed effectively (Individual Development and Educational Assessment Center, 2006) From these scholarly sources, three major categories have been identified from the literature and used to develop the self-efficacy surv ey instrument. The three categories chosen to represent an academic department chairs roles an d responsibilities can be found in Tables 3-2 to 3-4. This table represents the literature and highlights the common repeating roles and responsibilities that each of the sources and th e literature reflected. Wh en formulating the three categories, repeating or similar items were co mbined and less common ones were excluded to keep the lists concise and accurate ly representative of the body of literature. Since this was the grouping procedure, not all of the exact roles and responsibilities we re utilized, however all were represented. In the above lists of roles and responsibilities found in the five pieces of selected literature each item is listed in its original form. To measure perceptions of self-efficacy rela ted to the roles and responsibilities of a department chair position, a rese archer-developed self-efficacy assessment was created using the proven and exact guidelines established in the Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales by Albert Bandura (2001). This gui de specifically addressed cont ent validity, phrasing of items, response scale, and self-efficacy dimension guidelines that are to be followed when creating selfefficacy instruments (Bandura, 2001). The instrume nt that was developed by the researcher can be found in Appendix I. The 37-item self-efficacy instrument used a 7-po int Likert-type scale ranging from I could not do at all (1 point) to I could do with absolute certainty (7 points).

PAGE 51

51 Table 3-2. Department Chair Roles and Re sponsibility in the Leadership Category Leadership Description of Role and/or Responsibility Foster the development of each faculty members special talents and interests and promote solid and innovative teaching Promote affirmative action Encourage faculty members to participate in regional and national professional meetings Represent the department at mee tings of professional societies Be a visionary, and create and sustain a positive and forward looking culture and work environment Solicit ideas to improve the department Serve as an internal advocate within the university Serve as a role model Serve as a primary departmental spokesperson for faculty, staff, and students as well as be an external liaison Be an effective communicator Recognize and understand external demands of the department Represent the department at professional meetings Participate in college and university committee work Remain current within their academic discipline Determine what services the department should provide to the university Implement long-range department programs, plans, and goals Demonstrate strong support and unde rstanding of the mission of a Land-grant university Provide intellectual phil osophical leadership of faculty, staff, and students for synergistic academ ic, research, extension, and outreach programs

PAGE 52

52 Table 3-3. Department Chair Roles and Re sponsibility in the Management Category Management Description of Role and/or Responsibility Conduct department meetings Establish and ensure effectiv e operation of departmental committees Prepare administrative reports for the department Evaluate and supervise staff Prepare the department for accreditation and evaluation Delegate some department admini strative responsibilities to individuals and committees Coordinate activities with outside groups Process departmental correspondence and request for information Respond to inquiries and requests for information Encourage faculty member to submit proposals for contracts and grants to government agen cies and private foundations. Prepare and propose department budgets Manage department facilities and equipment Maintain essential department r ecords, including student records Implement and carry out campus po licy and mission of the central administration Oversee course offerings within the department Serve as a link between administration and faculty Demonstrate effective use of advisory committees

PAGE 53

53 Table 3-4. Department Chair Roles and Respons ibility in the Personnel Affairs Category Personnel Affairs Description of Role and/or Responsibility Recruit and select faculty members Assign faculty responsib ilities, such as teaching, research, and committee work Evaluate faculty performance Initiate promotions an d tenure recommendations Make merit recommendations Deal with unsatisfactory f aculty and staff performance Initiate termination of a faculty member Reduce, resolve, and prevent conflict among faculty Encourage faculty participati on in department decisions Mentor faculty, students, and staff Counsel faculty, students, and staff Coach faculty, students, and staff This self-efficacy assessment asked the responde nts to review the given lists of roles and responsibilities of a department chair and then to think back to the time of appointment to indicate their level of confidence with each item. Individual scores for the different itemized constructs were calculated through a summation of the 37 items. The higher the score on each construct indicated a greater perc eived confidence in ones ability to complete that specific role and responsibility of a department chair at the time of appointment (Bandura, 2001). Evidence of internal consistency was provided by the analysis of the pilot test, which showed an estimated alpha of .907 (n=97). To de scribe a participants level of a department

PAGE 54

54 chairs efficacy score the researcher categorized the scores for each construct as high, moderate, or low. Demographic and Position Related Instrument The instrument used to collect data on the demographic characteristics of participants was developed by the researcher. An expert panel of five faculty members from the Department of Agricultural Education and Co mmunications and the Depart ment of Food and Resource Economics reviewed the multiple item demographic and position related instrument to insure and establish face and content validity. Each of the demographic measurements was approved as accurate, ready-made answer based questions that did not take away from the other components of the survey nor did they ask in formation that was easily accessible by other methods (Dillman, 2000). Therefore, this survey posed little threat to the reliability based on the review process (Dillman, 2000). The data collected included participants age, gender, ethnicity, highest degree, appointment information, and pe rsonal perceptions abou t their position. This instrument provided a descrip tion of demographic characteri stics of the newly appointed department chairs in the colleges of agricultu ral and life sciences in cluded in the census population. Pilot Study Data and Analysis Prior to the collection of the primary data for this study, a pilot test was conducted. The pilot test was a necessary step in this research study for the purposes of establishing reliability and validity from the researcher developed inst rument. Once approval to conduct this study was granted by the IRB, the survey was administered to the pilot study participan ts and the data were collected and analyzed by the researcher and th e panel of experts. The pilot study group was a convenience sample that was made up of ten curr ent department chairs (n=10) at land-grant universities within their respective college of ag ricultural and life sciences. The following three

PAGE 55

55 institutions were utilized for the pilot study group: The University of Florida, The Pennsylvania State University, and The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Within the pilot study group, 90% ( n =9) were male and 10% ( n =1) were female. In terms of ethnicity, 100% ( n =10) were Caucasian. Table 3-5 pr ovides the detailed description of the descriptive statistics shows the age of the participants ranged form 51 to 63. The mean age of participants was 57. This pilot test group was a close represen tation of the actual cen sus population by being department chairs within colleges of agricultura l and life sciences who we re appointed to their positions within the last 6 years. Table 3-5. Pilot Study Demographic Prof ile of Department Chairs (n=10) Characteristic Frequency Percent Gender Male Female 9 1 90 10 Ethnicity Caucasian 10 100 Age 50-60 60-65 8 2 80 20 First Department Chair Position Yes No 8 2 80 20 In Table 3-6 displays the reliabilities for the three self-efficacy scales and the decision information scale that range from .744 to .874. Within the decision information scales, one item was deleted to raise the reliability from .699 to a .744. This item was I wanted the opportunity to lead my home department without moving to another institution. This deletion brought the decision information set of items to 18 questions. The leadership self-efficacy scale exhibited a .843 reliability and no question items were deleted. The management self-efficacy scales initial reliability was a .607 and therefore need to be examined closer. After running a scaled

PAGE 56

56 Cronbachs Alpha it was determined that deleti ng the item, prepare and propose department budgets raised the reliability to .831. Although th is was determined to be a very important responsibility of a department chair, prepare and propose department budgets was deleted to increase the reliability to an acceptable level. Tabl e 3-6 exhibits the scaled reliability statistics. Finally, the personnel affairs sel f-efficacy scale exhibited a .8 74 reliability and therefore no changes or deletions were made to the items After the above men tioned corrections and deletions, each reliability was st atistically significant enough to proceed with the primary data collection. Table 3-6. Pilot Study Reliability Characteristic n Reliability Department Chair Decision information Leadership Self-Efficacy Management Self-Efficacy Personnel Affairs Self-Efficacy 18 18 9 10 .744 .843 .831 .874 Note. All reliability coefficients were estimated using Cronbachs alpha Data Analysis Data were analyzed using the SPSS for Windows statistical package. Likert-type items were treated as interval data (Clason & Dorm ody, 1994). As part of the description of the variables in this study and prior to any inferential analysis, vari ables described us ing descriptive statistics. Inferential analys is was conducted to gain a bette r understanding of the data and differences that might exist. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a co llection of statistical models, and their associated procedures, in wh ich the observed variance is partitioned into components due to the different explanatory va riables (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). A Pearson Correlation was also used to measure possible as sociations among the variables as well as the strength and relationship among the quantitative variables (Agresti & Fi nlay, 1997). Finally, a T-Test was used to assess whether the means of groups were statistically different from each

PAGE 57

57 other. This analysis was a ppropriate when comparing the means of two groups (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). Summary This chapter described the methods used to study the specific obj ectives identified in Chapter 1. Chapter 3 discussed the research design, population, procedures, instrumentation, and data analysis. The design of this research was a census population resear cher developed survey study. The dependent variables in the study were academic unit leader self-efficacy and contextual influences. The independent variab les were gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in education, and previous leadership experience. The reliability a nd validity of this study were also discussed and addressed. Finally, a summary and description of the pilot study analysis was addressed and outlined.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 1 described the background for studying faculty migration to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. It also described the purpose and significance of the study. The primary purpose of this study was to: describe the factors influencing the decisions of faculty members to mi grate to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. The following research objectives were used to guide this investigation: (1) to determine the specific factors that led recen tly appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to pursue and accept department chair positions; (2) to assess newly appointed department chairs self-reported degree of self-efficacy in executing their roles as a department chair; and (3) to examine the relationship between selected demographic characteristics and se lf-reported levels of self-efficacy, as well as the degree of influence of factors in seeking department chai r positions. Chapter 1 also provided operational definitions of key terms and identified the limitations of the study. Chapter 2 presented the theoretical and con ceptual frameworks for this study based on previous research related to se lf-efficacy and department chair l eadership. Chapter 2 focused on research related to the followi ng areas: (a) roles and responsib ilities of departme nt chairs; (b) self-efficacy; (c) department chair leadership; (d ) social cognitive theory; and (e) expectancy value theory. Chapter 3 described the research methodology ut ilized to accomplish th e objectives of the study. Specifically, chapter 3 described the re search design, population, instrumentation, survey development, and data collection and analysis procedures. This chapter presents the findings of the study. It begins with the presentation of population demographics and reliability tests. Then, the results sp ecifically address the

PAGE 59

59 objectives of this study in determ ining the factors that influence a faculty members decision to assume a department chair role. The population of this study consisted of all newl y appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences within the Un ited States, which were de fined as being appointed on or after July 1, 2004. A census sample of a ll these individuals was used that totaled 131 newly appointed department chairs. At the conclusion of the primary data colle ction procedures via a web-based survey outlined in Chapter 3, usable responses were collected from 97 newly appointed department chairs representing 46 states (s ee Table 4-1). The 97 individual s who responded to the survey represented a response rate of 74.0% (n=97) with 92% (n=47) of the institution responding. After analyzing the responses of the newly appointed department chairs, in some isolated instances single items were missing. In this case, the missing data were replaced with the mean of the responses within that scale (DeVaus, 1990) In a few very isolated situations where participants left multiple items blank or failed to respond to an entire scale or demographic question, the variable was coded as missing data and completely excluded from the data analysis. Findings are organized by the research objectiv es of the study identified in Chapter 1. Table 4-2 presents the reliabilities of the f our scales being measured by the instrument; department chair decision information, leader ship self-efficacy, management self-efficacy, and personnel affairs self-efficacy. Due to the low number of survey responses in the pilot study group, more reliability evidence was needed afte r the primary data were collected. When comparing the two, each of the reliabilities gained more statistical evidence, with a notable increase in the department chair decision inform ation reliability from a .744 to a .842. With

PAGE 60

60 these reliability scores, all four scales bei ng measured in this study were deemed reliable (Agresti, A., Finlay, B., 1997). Table 4-1. College of Agricultural and Life Sc iences Newly Appointed Department Chairs by Participating Institution Institution Number of Newly Appointed Department Chairs Number of Respondents Auburn University, Auburn, AL 3 2 University of Alaska, Fairbanks AK 0 0 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 3 1 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 0 0 University of California, Davis, CA 0 0 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 2 1 University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 2 2 University of Delaware, Newark, DE 0 0 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 5 5 University of Georgia, Athens, GA 1 0 University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI 0 0 University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 3 1 University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 3 0 Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 3 2 Iowa State University, Ames, IA 2 1 Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 4 4 University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 2 1 Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 0 0 University of Maine, Orono, ME Did Not Respond University of Maryland, College Park, MD 5 5 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA Did Not Respond Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 2 2 University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 1 0 Mississippi State Univers ity, Starkville, MS 1 1 University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 3 3 Montana State University, Bozeman 4 3 University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 5 3 University of Nevada, Reno, NV 0 0 University of New Hampshire, NH 5 4 Rutgers State University, New Brunswick, NJ 7 3 New Mexico State University, Las Cruses, NM 4 2 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 6 3 North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 11 9 North Dakota State University, ND Did Not Respond Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 4 3

PAGE 61

61 Table 4-1. Continued Institution Number of Newly Appointed Department Chairs Number of Respondents Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 1 1 Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 5 5 Pennsylvania State Universi ty, State College, PA 4 4 University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 6 6 Clemson University, Clemson, SC 0 0 South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 1 1 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 0 0 Texas A&M University, Co llege Station, TX 2 2 Utah State University, Logan, UT 2 2 University of Vermont, Bu rlington, VT Did Not Respond Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 4 4 Washington State University, Spokane, WA 0 0 West Virginia State Univer sity, Morgantown, WV 0 0 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 11 8 University of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY 4 3 Total Number 131 97 Table 4-2. Reliability for Study Constructs Construct n Reliability Department Chair Decision information Leadership Self-Efficacy Management Self-Efficacy Personnel Affairs Self-Efficacy 18 18 9 10 .842 .915 .888 .917 Note. All reliability coefficients were estimated using Cronbachs alpha. Objective 1: To determine the specific fact ors that led recently appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sc iences to pursue and accept department chair positions. This objective specifically targeted the f actors contributing to faculty migration to department chair positions in colleges of agricu ltural and life sciences. From the literature and the described panel of experts, 18 decision inform ation factors emerged and were used in this analysis. The participants were asked to ra nk each decision information question based on the amount of influence that factor had on their d ecision to assume a department chair position.

PAGE 62

62 Table 4-3 displays the frequencie s and percentages of the individual factors (1 = no influence, 7 = primary influence). This scale was used ba sed on the guidelines of Albert Bandura (2001). A scale constructed in this manne r can be assumed to have equa l degrees of assurance between values and therefore can be treated as interval data (Bandura, 2001). The data in Table 4-3 are presented in descending order by the mean score. The definitions for the means were as follows: 1.00 to 1.49, no influence; 1.5 to 2.49, little influe nce; 2.5 to 3.49 some influence; 3.5 to 4.49, moderate influence; 4.5 to 5.59, considerable in fluence; 5.5 to 6.49, substa ntial influence, and 6.5 to 7.0, absolute influence. The four factors with the highest means were reported as having a moderate influence, I enjoy worki ng with people and seeing them succeed ( M =5.32), There was a strong need within my profession for effective department leadership ( M =5.09), I wanted the opportunity to build a great department ( M =4.85), and I was persuaded by another such as colleagues, deans, and/or cu rrent department chairs ( M =4.85). It is noteworthy that three of the factors exhibited means that indi cated some influence. The two factors with the lowest means, or those having almost no influen ce were, I had a positive previous experience as an acting or interim department chair and I wanted the stat us or prestige of such a position with means of 1.96 and 1.95, respectively. Decision Information and Gender An independent t-test analysis was conducted on the summated mean score of the decision factor information scale and gender to determine if a significance existed between the two gender groups. Results of the t-test an alysis indicated that there was no significant difference between males and females and the self-reported decision factor information (t=1.860, p>.05). Therefore, both males and females had similar responses on the influence of the decision factors.

PAGE 63

63Table 4-3. Frequencies and Percentages of Factors that In fluenced Faculty to Seek a Department Chair Position Decision Information Question Item Likert Rank Response M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I enjoy working with people and seeing them succeed. 1 (1.0) 2 (2.1) 10 (10.3) 7 (7.2) 26 (26.8) 34 (35.1) 17 (17.5) 5.32 1.34 There was a strong need within my profession for effective department leadership. 6 (6.2) 5 (5.2) 6 (6.2) 10 (10.3) 24 (24.7) 22 (22.7) 24 (24.7) 5.09 1.75 I wanted the opportunity to build a great department. 7 (7.20) 3 (3.1) 9 (9.30) 14 (14.4) 24 (24.7) 26 (26.8) 14 (14.4) 4.85 1.67 I was persuaded by another such as colleagues, deans, and/or current department chairs. 10 (10.3) 4 (4.1) 8 (8.2) 13 (13.4) 20 (20.6) 19 (19.6) 23 (23.7) 4.84 1.91 I have many ideas for change and improvement. 5 (5.2) 6 (6.2) 14 (14.4) 22 (22.7) 20 (20.6) 25 (25.8) 5 (5.2) 4.45 1.54 I was looking for the opportunity to make a higher level/greater impact. 9 (9.3) 9 (9.3) 9 (9.3) 21 (21.6) 13 (13.4) 24 (24.7) 12 (12.4) 4.44 1.84 I was ready for a new challenge and/or a fresh start. 11 (11.3) 7 (7.2) 8 (8.2) 21 (21.6) 18 (18.6) 19 (19.6) 13 (13.40) 4.41 1.85 I was looking for the challenge of leadership. 12 (12.4) 13 (13.4) 11 (11.3) 16 (16.5) 14 (14.4) 23 (23.7) 8 (8.2) 4.11 1.90 I had successful leadership experiences at other levels. 8 (8.2) 16 (16.5) 9 (9.3) 24 (24.7) 14 (14.4) 20 (20.6) 6 (6.2) 4.07 1.75 I felt a sense of pride and accomplishment. 15 (15.5) 15 (15.5) 12 (12.4) 17 (17.5) 19 (19.6) 17 (17.5) 2 (2.1) 3.71 1.78 I wanted to test my ab ility as a leader without completely leaving a faculty role. 32 (33.0) 13 (13.4) 4 (4.1) 12 (12.4) 20 (20.6) 12 (12.4) 4 (4.1) 3.28 2.04 I wanted the opportunity to increase my salary. 20 (20.6) 19 (19.6) 14 (14.4) 23 (23.7) 12 (12.4) 8 (8.2) 1 (1.0) 3.16 1.63 I felt I could do a better job than the current administrator. 45 (46.4) 5 (5.2) 6 (6.2) 13 (13.4) 10 (10.3) 9 (9.3) 9 (9.3) 3.01 2.20 I had a positive experi ence chairing important committees. 34 (35.1) 10 (10.3) 16 (16.5) 15 (15.5) 9 (9.3) 12 (12.4) 1 (1.0) 2.95 1.83

PAGE 64

64Table 4-3. Continued Decision Information Question Item Likert Rank Response M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I felt my research and publication skills were as good as my leadership skills. 41 (42.2) 8 (8.2) 9 (9.3) 15 (15.5) 13 (13.4) 11 11.3) 0 (0.0) 2.85 1.87 I was attracted to the geographical location. 65 (67.0) 4 (4.1) 6 (6.2) 5 (5.2) 6 (6.2) 9 (9.3) 2 (2.1) 2.15 1.87 I had a positive pervious experience as an acting or interim department chair. 65 (67.0) 10 (10.3) 2 (2.1) 9 (9.3) 4 (4.1) 6 (6.2) 1 (1.0) 1.96 1.65 I wanted the status of prestige of such a position. 50 (51.5) 25 (25.8) 9 (9.3) 6 (6.2) 4 (4.1) 3 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 1.95 1.32 Summated Mean Total 66.6* Note. Values presented as frequency / (%). Scale: 1= no influence; 2 = little influen ce; 3 = some influence; 4 = moderate influe nce; 5 = considerable influence; 6 = subst antial influence; and 7 = absolute influence. *The summated mean total for this ca tegory could have ranged from 18 to 126.

PAGE 65

65 Decision Information and Feelin gs on Serving another Term A one-way analysis of variance revealed that the influence in which the factors related to a faculty members choice to assu me a department chair position, F (3,93)=7.183,p<.05, was statistically significant as a f unction of whether or not they would serve another term as department chair (see Table 4-4). Table 4-4. One-Way Analysis of Variance of Decision Factor Information by Respondent Feelings on Serving another Term Source df F Sig. DescInfo Between Within 3 93 7.183** .000 Note. **p<.01 Since a one-way analysis of variance revealed the influence that the factors related to faculty members choice to assume a department chair position was found to be statistically significant as a function of whethe r or not they would serve anothe r term as department chair, a post-hoc analysis was conducted to identify the sp ecific groups in which the difference existed. Table 4-5 shows the means and the standard deviations for the groups. Tukeys post hoc analysis revealed the differences to be between three pairs of groups. Th e first pair was, yes with no reservation with respec t to definitely not. The second pair showing a difference was, yes with some reservation with respect to, def initely not. The final pair was, probably not with respect to, definitely not. These data i ndicated that the factors influencing their decision to pursue a department chair posit ion were less influential for t hose chairs who indicated they would definitely not pursue another term. Table 4-5. One-Way Analysis of Variance of Decision Factor Information Compared to Respondent Feelings on Serving another Term Source n M SD Yes, with no reservation 28 70.71 14.59 Yes, with some reservation 45 68.96 15.57 Probably Not 19 62.26 16.11 Definitely Not 5 38.60 11.15

PAGE 66

66 Why Other Faculty Members Do Not Seek Department Chair Positions An open-ended response item was included that asked participants to respond to a question that asked, Why do you feel other faculty member s do not seek department chair positions? This item received an 88.7% (n=86) response rate From this response, six major themes were extracted from the individual responses and cate gorized by the researcher. Table 4-6 shows the frequencies of responses for each category and also includes an Other category that lists other responses that were not placed into the other six themes. Results indicated that the two primary reasons faculty members do not seek department chair positions that were indicated most frequently were, (1) Management issues relate d to budgets, workload, time demands, and dealing with people and (2) Faculty members enjoy thei r current positions and do want to leave their teaching and research appointments. Table 4-6. Frequency of Open-Ended Response Themes as to Why Faculty Do Not Seek Department Chair Positions Theme n Management issues related to, dea ling with budgets, in creased workload, increased time demand, and dealing with people. 31 Faculty members enjoy their current pos itions and do want to leave their teaching and research appointments. 31 Lack of monetary and financial benefit when compared to the type and amount of work. 10 A department chair/head position is a thankless job. 4 Serving as a department chair and/or head can ruin or destroy an academic career. 4 A lack of administrative training exists for faculty members 2 Other responses 4 Total Responses 86 Increasing Faculty Interest in Becoming a Department Chair An open-ended response item was included that asked participants to respond to a question that asked, What could be done to increase faculty interest in becoming a department chair? This item received an 83.5% (n=81) response rate. From this response, seven major themes were

PAGE 67

67 extracted from the individual responses and cate gorized by the researcher. Table 4-7 shows the frequencies of responses for each category and also includes an Other category that lists the extraneous responses that were not placed into the other seven themes. The three actions that were indicated most frequently by the participants as steps that can be taken to increase faculty interest in a department chai r position were, Incr ease the amount of leadership training and opportunities for faculty members throughout the department and university, Increase the amount of monetary compensation and resources given to department chairs, and Provide more administrative, staff, and facu lty support for department chairs. Table 4-7. Frequency of Open-Ended Response Th emes for Increasing Faculty Interest in a Department Chair Position Theme n Increasing the amount of leadership training and opportunities for faculty members throughout the department and university. 19 Increase the amount of monetary co mpensation and resources given to department chairs. 18 Provide more administrative, staff, and faculty support for department chairs 15 Reduce the current work load and demands of a department chair 12 Unsure of anything needs to be done to in crease faculty interest at this time 8 Develop a faculty mentor program or system 4 Other responses 5 Total Responses 81 Events and Experiences Most Beneficial in Preparing for a Department Chair Experience An open-ended response item was included that asked participants to respond to a question that asked, What events or experiences were mo st beneficial in prepar ing you for a department chair position before you accepted your current position. This item received an 85.6% (n=83) response rate. From this response, five majo r themes were extracte d from the individual responses and categorized by the researcher. Ta ble 4-8 shows the freque ncies of responses for each category and also includes an Other category that lists the extraneous responses that were not placed into the other five themes. The one event and experience that was indicated most

PAGE 68

68 often by the respondents was, Serving in anot her academic-based leadership and management role on committees, other administrative leadersh ip, or other higher education programs. This response was indicated by 53% (n=44) of the respondents. Table 4-8. Frequency of Open-Ended Response Them es for Experiences Most Beneficial when Becoming a Department Chair Theme n Serving in another academic-based leadership and management role on committees, other administrative lead ership, or other higher education programs. 44 Serving in another non-academic based leadership and management roles in the private sector or industry including non-prof it organizations. 12 Participating in leadership training pr ograms while obtaining a degree or as a faculty member. 12 Serving as a faculty member for an extensive period of time 6 Becoming a parent and having children 5 Other responses 4 Total Responses 83 Objective 2: To assess newly appointed depar tment chairs self-repor ted degree of selfefficacy in executing their ro les as a department chair. This objective focused on the self-efficacy of newly appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. As desc ribed in Chapter 3, three target areas of selfefficacy leadership, management, and personnel a ffairs were categorized and used in this analysis. The participants were asked to ra nk each role and responsibility under the three categories in terms of their perceived ability to complete that role at the beginning of their department chair appointment. These self-efficacy scales were used based on the guidelines of Albert Bandura (2001). Self-efficacy scales constr ucted in this manner can be assumed to have equal degrees of assurance between values and therefore can be trea ted as interval data (Bandura, 2001). Table 4-9 displays the frequenc ies and percentages of the individual fact ors for leadership self-efficacy which ranged from 1 (I could not do at al l) to 7 (I could so with absolute certainty).

PAGE 69

69 Table 4-9 is ordered in descending order of the mean scores for each item. The means for this item were defined based on the 7-point Likert type scale. The definitions for the means are as follows: 1.00 to 1.49, could not do; 1.5 to 2.49, coul d do with little certain ty; 2.5 to 3.49, could do with some certainty; 3.5 to 4.49, could do with moderate certainty; 4. 5 to 5.59, could do with considerable certainty; 5.5 to 6.49, could do with substantial certainty, and 6.5 to 7.0, could do with absolute certainty. The two items that displayed the highest means were, Solicit ideas to improve the department (M=5.64) and Demons trate strong support and understanding of the mission of a land-grant university (M=5.64) whic h indicated a reported self-efficacy for these two roles and responsibi lities to be completed with substa ntial certainty. Including those two tasks, fifteen other responsibilities achieve d means from 4.53 to 5.43 indicating a self-efficacy rating of considerable certainty or higher. Only one of the ei ghteen roles a nd responsibilities listed under the area of lead ership exhibited a mean of moderate certainty. The factor exhibiting this lowest mean was Remaining current within their academic discipline ( M =3.70). The summated mean for the leadership self-efficacy scale could have ranged from 18 to 126 and was reported as 90.72. This summated mean indicated that the respondents felt they could complete the roles and responsibilities of a department chai r, in the area of leader ship, with considerable certainty. When comparing the fr equencies, five of the top si x items with the highest means displayed responses that indicated a majority of the respondents could complete them with substantial certainty. Furthermore, it was observe d that sixteen of the ei ghteen leadership selfefficacy items could be completed with at least considerable certainty by a majority of the respondents. Table 4-10 displays the frequencies and percen tages of the individual factors for the selfefficacy area of management and ranged from 1 (I could not do at all) to 7 (I could so with

PAGE 70

70 absolute certainty). Table 4-10 had nine roles and responsibilities that were included in the collection and are ordered in descending order of the mean scores for each item. The definitions for the means are as follows: 1.00 to 1.49, could not do; 1.5 to 2.49, c ould do with little certainty; 2.5 to 3.49, could do with some certainty; 3.5 to 4 .49, could do with moderate certainty; 4.5 to 5.59, could do with considerable certainty; 5.5 to 6.49, could do w ith substantial certainty, and 6.5 to 7.0, could do with absolute certainty. The item that exhibited the highest mean was, Conduct department meetings (M=5.62). This indicated that newly appointed department chairs felt that they could complete this ta sk with considerable certainty. Four other management roles and responsibil ities had a calculated mean of greater than 5.00, or a feeling self-efficacy relating to considerab le certainty or greater. The remaining four roles exhibited means of moderate certainty rangi ng from 4.62 to 4.99. The task that exhibited the lowest mean, but still in the considerable certainty category, was Prepare the department for accreditation and evaluation ( M =4.62). The summated mean for the manage ment self-efficacy scale could have ranged from 9 to 63 and was reported as 46.06. This summated mean indicated that the respondents felt they could complete the roles and responsibilities of a depa rtment chair, in the area of management, with considerable certai nty. When comparing the frequencies in the management category, the top two items mentione d also indicated that a majority of the respondents could complete them with substantial certainty. Furthermore, it was observed that all nine of the management items listed in Tabl e 4-10 could be completed by a majority of the respondents with at least considerable certainty. Table 4-11 displays the frequencies and percen tages of the individua l factors relating to personnel affairs and ranged from 1 (I could not do at all) to 7 (I c ould so with absolute certainty). Table 4-11 contains the ten roles a nd responsibilities in th is self-efficacy category

PAGE 71

71 and is ordered in descending order of the mean scores for each item. The definitions for the means are as follows: 1.00 to 1.49, could not do; 1 .5 to 2.49, could do with little certainty; 2.5 to 3.49, could do with some certain ty; 3.5 to 4.49, could do with m oderate certainty; 4.5 to 5.59, could do with considerable cert ainty; 5.5 to 6.49, could do with s ubstantial certainty, and 6.5 to 7.0, could do with absolute certainty. Six of th e ten roles and responsibi lities exhibited means of 5.00 or greater and fell under the considerable certainty category. The item displaying the highest mean was, Encourage faculty participati on in department decisions (M=5.59). Three of the roles and responsibilities we were ranked as I could do with moderate certainty and had means ranging from 3.58 to 4.27. The factor ex hibiting the lowest mean was, Initiate termination of a faculty member ( M =3.48). The summated mean for the management selfefficacy scale could have ranged from 10 to 70 a nd was reported as 48.41. This summated mean indicated that the respondents felt they could complete the ro les and responsibilities of a department chair, in the area of personnel affairs, with moderate certainty. The personnel affairs item with the highest mean could be completed by a majority of the respondents with substantial certainty, whereas seven out of the ten personnel a ffairs items could be completed with at least considerable certainty. Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Gender An independent sample t-test was conducted to examine the relationship between the three selfefficacy scales and gender. Table 4-12 displays th e results of the t-test. Results of the t-test analysis indicated that there was no significan t difference between gender and self-reported levels of leadership, management, and personnel affairs self-efficacy.

PAGE 72

72Table 4-9. Frequencies and Percentages of Department Chair Leadership Self-Efficacy Leadership Self-Efficacy Items Likert Rank Response M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Solicit ideas to improve the department 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (2.1) 17 (17.5) 19 (19.6) 35 (36.1) 24 (24.7) 5.64 1.10 Demonstrate strong support and understanding of the mission of a land-grant university 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0) 8 (8.2) 8 (8.2) 19 (19.6) 33 (34.0) 28 (28.9) 5.64 1.27 Represent the department at meetings of professional societies 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0) 6 (6.2) 17 (17.5) 21 (21.6) 30 (30.9) 22 (23.7) 5.43 1.25 Be an effective communicator 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (4.1) 13 (13.4) 33 (34.0) 34 (35.1) 13 (13.4) 5.40 1.11 Participating in college and university committee work 1 (1.0) 3 (3.1) 6 (6.2) 10 (10.3) 27 (27.8) 34 (35.1) 16 (16.5) 5.32 1.31 Serve as an internal advo cate within the university 0 (0.0) 2 (2.1) 9 (9.3) 17 (17.5) 18 (18.6) 33 (34.0) 18 (18.6) 5.29 1.32 Serve as a primary departmental spokesperson for faculty, staff, and students as well as be an external liaison 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0) 6 (6.2) 18 (18.6) 32 (33.0) 27 (27.8) 13 (13.4) 5.21 1.15 Be a visionary, and create and sustain a positive and forward looking culture and work environment 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 9 (9.3) 22 (22.7) 23 (23.7) 30 (30.9) 13 (13.4) 5.16 1.20 Serve as a role model 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 12 (12.4) 17 (17.5) 25 (25.8) 31 (32.0) 11 (11.3) 5.13 1.21 Recognize and understand exte rnal demands of the department 0 (0.0) 3 (3.1) 6 (6.2) 18 (18.6) 25 (25.8) 39 (40.2) 5 (5.2) 5.10 1.16 Provides intellectual philosophi cal leadership of faculty, staff, and students for syne rgistic academic, research, extension, and outreach programs 0 (0.0) 5 (5.2) 12 (12.4) 15 (15.5) 19 (19.6) 34 (35.1) 12 (12.4) 5.04 1.41 Encourage faculty members to participate in regional and national professional meetings 0 (0.0) 4 (4.1) 7 (7.2) 22 (22.7) 28 (28.9) 24 (24.7) 12 (12.4) 5.00 1.29 Guide faculty through the tenure and promotion process 1 (1.0) 3 (3.1) 9 (9.3) 22 (23.7) 19 (19.6) 33 (34.0) 10 (10.3) 5.00 1.35 Implement long-range department programs, plans, and goals 0 (0.0) 7 (7.2) 9 (9.3) 16 (16.5) 29 (29.9) 27 (27.8) 9 (9.3) 4.90 1.36

PAGE 73

73Table 4-9. Continued Leadership Self-Efficacy Items Likert Rank Response M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Foster the development of each faculty members special talents and interests and promote solid and innovative teaching 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0) 18 (18.6) 26 (26.8) 28 (28.9) 20 (20.6) 4 (4.1) 4.62 1.16 Implement affirmative action 4 (4.1) 6 (6.2) 9 (9.3) 23 (23.7) 24 (24.7) 25 (25.8) 6 (6.2) 4.61 1.48 Determine what services the department should provide to the university 0 (0.0) 4 (4.1) 17 (17.5) 29 (29.9) 24 (24.7) 17 (17.5) 6 (6.2) 4.53 1.26 Remaining current within their academic discipline 6 (6.2) 18 (18.6) 19 (19.6) 24 (24.7) 18 (18.6) 10 (10.3) 2 (2.1) 3.70 1.49 Summated Mean Total 90.72* Note. Values presented as frequency / (%). *The summated mean total for this ca tegory could have ranged from 18 to 126. Scale: 1 = could not do; 2 = coul d do with little certainty; 3 = could do with some certainty; 4 = could do with moderate certa inty; 5 = could do with considerable cert ainty; 6 = could do with subs tantial certainty; and 7 = could do with absolute certainty.

PAGE 74

74Table 4-10. Frequencies and Percentages of Department Chair Management Self-Efficacy Management Self-Efficacy Items Likert Rank Response M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Conduct department meetings 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0) 2 (2.1) 18 (18.6) 23 (23.7) 21 (21.6) 32 (33.0) 5.62 1.24 Respond to inquiries and requests for information 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0) 4 (4.1) 12 (12.4) 25 (25.4) 32 (33.0) 22 (22.7) 5.55 1.16 Process department corr espondence and request for information 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (4.1) 11 (11.3) 35 (36.1) 34 (35.1) 13 (13.4) 5.42 1.00 Delegate some department admini strative responsibilities to individuals and committees 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0) 9 (9.3) 21 (21.6) 24 (24.7) 27 (27.8) 15 (15.5) 5.15 1.25 Establish and ensure effectiv e operation of departmental committees 0 (0.0) 1 (1.0) 7 (7.2) 22 (22.7) 35 (36.1) 24 (24.7) 8 (8.2) 5.01 1.09 Prepare administrative reports for the department 0 (0.0) 6 (6.2) 9 (9.3) 18 (18.6) 22 (22.7) 31 (32.0) 11 (11.3) 4.99 1.38 Coordinate activities with outside groups 0 (0.0)0 (0.0) 10 (10.3) 30 (30.9) 29 (29.9) 17 (17.5) 10 (10.3) 4.86 1.15 Evaluate and supervise staff 1 (1.0) 4 (4.1) 9 (9.3) 21 (21.6) 30 (30.9) 25 (25.8) 7 (7.2) 4.84 1.29 Prepare the department for accreditation and evaluation 3 (3.1) 3 (3.1) 17 (17.5) 20 (20.6) 23 (23.7) 24 (24.7) 7 (7.2) 4.62 1.45 Summated Mean Total 46.06* Note. Values presented as frequency / (%). Scale: 1 = could not do; 2 = coul d do with little certainty; 3 = could do with some certainty; 4 = could do with moderate certa inty; 5 = could do with considerable cert ainty; 6 = could do with subs tantial certainty; and 7 = coul d do with absolute certainty. The summated mean total for this ca tegory could have ranged from 9 to 63.

PAGE 75

75Table 4-11. Frequencies and Per centages of Department Chair Personnel Affair s Self-Efficacy Personnel Affairs Self-Efficacy Items Likert Rank Response M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Encourage faculty participation in department decisions 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (2.1) 15 (15.5) 26 (26.8) 32 (33.0) 22 (22.7) 5.59 1.07 Serve as a faculty mentor, counselor, coach 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (3.1) 4 (14.4) 34 (35.1) 28 (28.9) 18 (18.6) 5.45 1.05 Initiate promotions an d tenure recommendations 0 (0.0) 3 (3.1) 7 (7.2) 14 (14.4) 28 (28.9) 31 (32.0) 14 (14.4) 5.23 1.25 Make merit recommendations 1 (1.0) 5 (5.2) 4 (4.1) 14 (14.4) 28 (28.9) 29 (29.9) 15 (15.5) 5.19 1.36 Recruit and select faculty members 1 (1.0) 0 (0.0) 9 (9.3) 16 (16.5) 33 (34.0) 29 (29.9) 9 (9.3) 5.09 1.17 Evaluate faculty performance 0 (0.0) 3 (3.1) 6 (6.2) 23 (23.7) 32 (33.0) 22 (22.7) 11 (11.3) 5.00 1.21 Assign faculty responsibili ties, such as teaching, research, and committee work 1 (1.0) 0 (0.0) 15 (15.5) 17 (17.5) 28 (28.9) 28 (28.9) 8 (8.2) 4.93 1.26 Reduce, resolve, and prevent conflict among faculty 1 (1.0) 8 (8.2) 17 (17.5) 27 (27.8) 31 (32.0) 8 (8.2) 5 (5.2) 4.27 1.29 Deal with unsatisfactory facu lty and staff performance 3 (3.1) 13 (13.4) 21 (21.6) 24 (24.7) 15 (15.6) 14 (14.4) 7 (7.2) 4.08 1.56 Initiate termination of a faculty member 10 (10.3) 25 (25.8) 17 (17.5) 14 (14.4) 11 (11.3) 15 (15.5) 5 (5.2) 3.58 1.78 Summated Mean Total 48.41* Note. Values presented as frequency / (%). Scale: 1 = could not do; 2 = coul d do with little certainty; 3 = could do with some certainty; 4 = could do with moderate certa inty; 5 = could do with considerable cert ainty; 6 = could do with subs tantial certainty; and 7 = coul d do with absolute certainty. The summated mean total for this ca tegory could have ranged from 10 to 70.

PAGE 76

76 Table 4-12. Independent T-Test Between Gender and Self-Efficacy Source t df F Sig. SELead -.179 95 .392 .858 SEMan .080 95 .063 .936 SEPers 1.247 95 1.689 .215 Note. Equal variance assumed Self-efficacy in leadership, F (3,93)=2.590,p>.05, self-efficacy in management, F (3,93)=1.765,p>.05, and self-efficacy in personnel affairs, F (3,93)=.853,p>.05, were not statistically significant as a func tion of whether or not the res pondents would serve another term as a department chair. Since a one-way anal ysis of variance did not reveal statistical significance, a post hoc analysis was not completed. Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Serving another Term A one-way analysis of variance revealed that a faculty members self-efficacy in leadership, management, and personnel affairs wa s not dependent on whether or not they would serve another term as department chair (see Table 4-13). Table 4-13. One-Way ANOVA of Self-efficacy Related to Leadership, Management, and Personnel Affairs by Intention to Serve another Term Source df F Sig. SELead Between Within 3 93 2.590 .057 SEMan Between Within 3 93 1.765 .159 SEPers Between Within 3 93 .853 .469 Department Chair Self-Efficacy and the Similari ty of their Current vs. Past Views Relating to the Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair After a one-way analysis of variance was completed and a statistically significant difference was observed in all three self-efficacy ar eas with respect to current versus past views relating to the roles and responsib ilities of a department chair, a post-hoc analysis was conducted

PAGE 77

77 to determine the specific groups in which a di fference occurred. The means for the groups are reported in Table 4-14. Tukeys post-hoc analysis revealed that all three self-efficacy areas leadership, management, and personnel affairs were statistically significant different in one pair. The pair that was same for all groups was 1, ve ry similar 2, somewhat similar. No other comparisons exhibited a significant difference. Th ese data indicates that their self-efficacy and their current versus past views relating to the ro les and responsibilities of a department chair were more influential for those chairs who indi cated that their views were somewhat or very similar. Table 4-14. Means of Self-efficacy Compared to th e Similarity of Current vs. Past Views of a Department Chair SELead n M SD Very Similar 35 96.60 12.715 Somewhat Similar 55 86.93 15.060 Slightly Similar 5 92.20 4.970 Not Similar At All 2 85.00 12.728 SEMan Very Similar 35 50.31 7.251 Somewhat Similar 55 43.44 7.769 Slightly Similar 5 45.40 5.225 Not Similar At All 2 43.50 4.950 SEPers Very Similar 35 54.09 10.001 Somewhat Similar 55 45.31 8.346 Slightly Similar 5 46.00 8.031 Not Similar At All 2 40.00 15.556 A one-way analysis of variance revealed that a faculty members self-efficacy in leadership, management, and personnel affairs was statistically significant as a function of the similarity of a newly appointed department chai rs current views as co mpared to their views before assuming their positi on (see Table 4-15).

PAGE 78

78 Table 4-15. One-Way ANOVA of Self-efficacy Related to Leadership, Management, and Personnel Affairs by Current vs. Past Views of a Department Chair Source df F Sig. SELead Between Within 3 93 3.576 .017 SEMan Between Within 3 93 6.146 .001 SEPers Between Within 3 93 7.391 .000 Department Chair Self-Efficacy and First Position Held An independent sample t-test was conducted to examine the differences between the three self-efficacy scales and whether or not this was the first position ever held as a department chair. Results of the t-test analysis can be found in Table 4-16 and indicat ed that there was a significant difference between the first position served as a de partment chair and self-reported levels of selfefficacy in management (t=2.638, p<.05), and self -efficacy in personnel affairs (t=2.188, p<.05). This indicated that the part icipants self-efficacy was reported as being higher for those individuals that indicated this wa s their first position held as a de partment chair. There was not a significant difference found for self-efficacy in leadership (t=1.951, p>.05). The numeric coding of the variables was 1 = no and 2 = yes. Table 4-16. Independent T-Test between Self-Effi cacy and First Position as a Department Chair Source t df 1st Position Not 1st Position Sig. M SD M SD SELead 1.951 95 98.17 18.19 89.59 13.69 .054 SEMan 2.638 95 51.58 8.26 45.24 7.74 .010 SEPers 2.188 95 54.17 9.18 47.59 9.82 .031 Note. Equal variance assumed Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Interim Position An independent sample t-test was also conduc ted to examine the differences between the three self-efficacy scales and whether or not th e respondents served as an interim chair before assuming their current position. Results of the ttest analysis are pres ented in Table 4-17 and

PAGE 79

79 indicated that there was no signi ficant difference between servic e as an interim chair before assuming their current position and self-report ed levels of leadership, management, and personnel affairs self-efficacy. Table 4-17. Independent T-Test be tween Gender and Self-Efficacy Source t df F Sig. SELead 1.273 95 .629 .206 SEMan 1.271 95 .095 .207 SEPers .660 95 .667 .511 Note. Equal variance assumed Objective 3: To examine the relationship betw een selected demographi c characteristics and self-reported levels of self-efficacy as well as the degree of influence of factors in seeking department chair positions. Of the 97 newly appointed department chairs who participated in this study, 84.4% (n=81) were male and 15.6% (n=15) were female. In terms of ethnicity, 97.9% (n=94) were Caucasian and 2.1% were Hispanic (n=2). Table 4-18 shows the age of the participants ranged form 42 to 71. The mean age of participants was 53 ( SD = 5.05, n = 96). Table 4-18. Demographic Profile of Newly Appointed Department Chairs (N=97) Characteristic Frequency Percent Gender Male Female 81 15 84.4 15.6 Ethnicity Caucasian Hispanic 94 2 97.9 2.2 Age 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ 21 67 7 1 21.9 69.1 7.2 1.0 Year achieved different ranks The newly appointed department chairs were aske d in the survey to identify the year they achieved the different ranks within higher educati on from assistant professor to full professor as

PAGE 80

80 well as when they were tenured and was appointed to their current chair pos ition. In terms of the year the newly appointed department chairs were appointed to their cu rrent position the range was from 2004 to 2007. This was expected base d on the population and a test of the population to ensure each participant fell within the defi ned newly appointed rang e of July 2004 until time of survey or February 2007. From Table 4-19 it can be observed that si x participants did not respond to the question which reports a response rate of 93.8% (n=91). In terms of the year that th e participants achieved the rank of assistant professor, 88.7% responded (n=86) with a year range from 1967 to 1996 [see Table 4-19]. Figure 4-1 shows the overall distribution of years and that a 35.1% (n=34) of the partic ipants were appointed to the assistant professor rank between the years 1984 to 1989. The year that the participants achieved the rank of associate professor, ranged from 1971 to 2005 that exhibited a response rate of 89.7% (n =87) [see Table 4-19]. Figure 4-2 shows the overall distribution of years and that 35% (n=34) of the partic ipants were appointed to the associate professor rank between the years1989 to 1994. For the full professor rank, the data were skew ed slightly toward the right indicating a more recent appointment to full professor. As shown in Table 4-16, 84.5% responded (n=82) with a 30-year range from 1976 to 2006. Figure 43 shows the overall dist ribution of years and that 36.1% (n=35) of the participants were appoi nted to the assistant professor rank between the years from 1995 to 2000. Finally the reported tenure year of the participants responded to was spread over the largest range from 1969 to 2005. This item showed a re sponse rate of 90.7% (n=88) [see Table 4-19]. Figure 4-4 shows the overall distri bution of years and that a 41.2% (n=40) of the participants were tenured between the years1990 to 1995.

PAGE 81

81 Table 4-19. Frequency and Range Distribu tion for Rank Appointment Year (N=97) Rank of Appointment FrequencyPer cent Earliest Year Most Recent Year Current Chair Position Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor First Tenured 91 86 87 82 88 93.8 90.7 89.7 84.5 90.7 2004 1967 1971 1976 1969 2007 1996 2005 2006 2005 1967 1970 1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996YrAsstP 0 2 4 6 8 10Frequency YrAsstP Figure 4-1. Bar Graph of Rank Year Appointme nt Distribution for Assistant Professor

PAGE 82

82 1971 1975 1976 1978 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005YrAsscP 0 2 4 6 8 10Frequency YrAsscP Figure 4-2. Bar Graph of Rank Year Appointme nt Distribution for Associate Professor 1976 1979 1981 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006YrFullP 0 2 4 6 8Frequency YrFullP Figure 4-3. Bar Graph of Rank Year Appoi ntment Distribution for Full Professor

PAGE 83

83 1969 1975 1976 1978 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005YrTen 0 2 4 6 8 10Frequency YrTen Figure 4-4. Bar Graph of Rank Year Appointment Distribution for Tenure Current Position and the First Department Ch air Position Held on a Permanent Basis The participants also reported whether their current department chai r position was the first chair position they have held on a permanent basis. Out of th e 97 respondents, there was a 100% response rate (n=97). In this item, 85 participan ts indicated that this was the first department chair position they have held on a regular basis and 12 participan ts (12.4%) reported that this was not their first permanent departme nt chair position [see Table 4-20]. Table 4-20. Frequencies and Per centages of Respondents by First Permanent Department Chair Position Held Response Frequency Percent Is current position the 1st permanent chair position Yes No 85 12 87.6 12.4

PAGE 84

84 Acting or Interim Department Chai r Prior to Current Chair Position In reference to whether the re spondents served in the capacity of acting or interim chair any institution prior to their cu rrent department chair position, the data were more evenly distributed between the two choices. This item e xhibited a 100% response rate (n=97). Out of the 97 participants 30.9% i ndicated that they were an acting or interim chair at one point prior to taking on their current chai r position, whereas 67 participants (69.1%) repo rted that they have never held an interim department chair position prior to their current appointment [see Table 421]. Table 4-21. Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by Interim Chair Position Response Frequency Percent Held a prior interim or acting chair position Yes No 30 67 30.9 69.1 Method of Appointment The participants were asked what the method of appointment or selection was used for their current chair position. For this item, ther e were five options to choose from: rotational appointment from within the department, appoint ed by the Dean, elected by the faculty, elected by the faculty with approval of the Dean, and other. There was an overall 100% response rate (n=97) for the method of appointment. A rota tional appointment within the department was selected by 1% of the respondent s, 42.3% of the respondents indi cated they were appointed by the dean, 2.1% were elected by the faculty, 44.3% i ndicated that they were elected by the faculty with approval of the dean, and 10.3% were appoin ted in some other way. As shown in Table 422, a nearly equal distribution between appointed by the Dean and elected by the faculty with approval of the Dean was found. These two it ems represented 86.6% of the responses.

PAGE 85

85 Table 4-22. Frequencies and Percentages of Respondent s Method of Appointment Response Frequency Percent Rotational appointment from within the department Appointed by the Dean Elected by the faculty Elected by the faculty with approval of the Dean Other 1 41 2 43 10 1 42.3 2.1 44.3 10.3 Prior Administrative Ac ademic Positions Held When asked about any administrative academic positions held prior to assuming their current department chair appointment, a 41% resp onse rate was achieved (n=39). For this item, there were four options to choose from: assistan t or associate department chair, assistant of associate center director, assistan t or associate dean, and other with an open response option. Previously holding an assistant or associate department chair was selected by 16.5% of the respondents (n=16), 4.1% (n=4) of th e respondents chose that they he ld an assistant or associate center director position, whereas 3.1% (n=3) chose that they prev iously held an assistant or associate Dean position. Finally, 19. 6% (n=19) of the participants indicated that another type of appointment was help. Within the open item Other response 4 of the 19 participants indicated a no or none as a response. Additionally 6 of the 19 indicated that they were previously an assistant director or director of a program area. As shown in Table 4-23, the most chosen was the other response at 19% (n=19). Out of the 97 participants 55 did not respond to this item. Based on the limited number of op tions available for respondents to choose, a poor response rate was exhibited for this item. Table 4-23. Frequencies and Per centages of Prior Administrative Academic Positions Held Response Frequency Percent Assistant or associate department chair Assistant or associate center director Assistant or associate Dean Other 16 4 3 19 16.5 4.1 3.1 19.6

PAGE 86

86 Serving another Term as Department Chair Each participant was asked about their feeli ngs toward their current department chair position in reference to whether or not they woul d choose to serve another term as department chair. The responses for this item were as foll ows: yes, with no reservation; yes, with some reservation; probably not; and definitely not. This question recorded a 93.8% response rate (n=91). As recorded in Tabl e 4-24, 28.9% of the respondents indi cated that they would serve another term as department chair with no reserv ations, 40.2% of the respondents indicated that they would serve another term with some reserv ation, 19.6% of the respo ndents said they would probably not serve another term, a nd 5.2%, indicated that they woul d definitely not serve another term. As a summary, it can be noted that a ma jority, or 69.1% of the respondents would serve another term as department chair with some or no reservation. Table 4-24. Frequencies and Per centages of Respondents Serving another Term as Department Chair Response Frequency Percent Yes, with no reservation Yes, with some reservation Probably not Definitely not 28 39 19 5 28.9 40.2 19.6 5.2 First Consideration of Becoming a Department Chair Each participant of the survey was given a ques tion that related to their first consideration in becoming a department chair in reference to the period of their higher education program they felt the initial thought occurred. The options were fairly basic and included before or during graduate school, as an assistant pr ofessor, as an associate professo r, as a professor, and other. This item received a 97.9% response rate (n=95). Only 6.2% of the respondents indicated that they first considered a department chair positio n before or during graduate school, 5.2% first considered such a position as an assistant profe ssor, while 27.8% indicated associate professor as the time they first considered a department ch air position, also, 51.5% sel ected that their first

PAGE 87

87 consideration came as a professo r, and finally 7.2 indicated o ther as a response of first consideration [see Table 4-25]. Over one-half of the respondents indica ted that they first considered a department chair position as a prof essor, and 79.3% indica ted this consideration first occurred as an associate or full professor. Table 4-25. Position when First Consider ation of Department Chair Existed Response Frequency Percent Before or during graduate school As an assistant professor As an associate professor As a professor Other 6 5 27 50 7 6.2 5.2 27.8 51.5 7.2 Number of Department Chair Positi ons for Which Respondents Applied In response to a question item asking how many department chair positions each respondent applied for in conjunc tion with their current chair appointment a 91.7% response rate (n=89) was achieved. The four options given to the respondents were only my current position, my current position plus 1-2 other such posit ions, my current position plus 3-5 other such positions, and more than five other department chair positions. This question exhibited a frequency distribution that was sk ewed to the lower number of pos itions in which they applied. The first choice of applying for only their curre nt position indicated th e highest response of 71.1% (n=69). The second choice or one to two ot her positions was much less at 16.5% (n=16). Also the third option of three to five other positions recorded 3.1% (n=3), while the final option of applying for five or more pos itions did not exhibit any res ponses (n=0) [see Table 4-26]. Table 4-26. Number of Department Chair Positions Applied For Response Frequency Percent Only current position Current position plus 1-2 other such positions Current position plus 3-5 other such positions More then five other department chair positions 69 16 3 0 71.1 16.5 3.1 0

PAGE 88

88 With regard to department chairs in genera l, the respondents were asked how they felt a department chair was viewed by others in higher education. The choice were that they are well respected by faculty members, they are well re spected by administration, they are better as teachers and researchers then they are as departme nt chairs, and they are generally ineffective. In this item, respondents were aske d to check all that they felt a pplied to the question. This item did exhibit a total response rate of 91.8% (n= 89). A majority of th e respondents felt that department chairs are well respected by faculty members (64.9%) and administrators (63.9%). The response that suggested that department chairs were better te achers and researchers they are department chairs was indicated 20 times (20.6%), whereas the response that indicated that they were generally ineffective was selected 6 times (6.2%). Table 4-27. Perceptions about Department Chairs by Othe rs with Higher Education Response Frequency Percent They are well respected by faculty members They are well respected by administration They were better as teachers and researchers then they are as department chairs They are generally ineffective 63 62 20 6 64.9 63.9 20.6 6.2 Note: Totals do not equal partic ipant number (n=97) or 100% because this items permitted respondents to check more than one response. Difference in Views of Roles and Responsibi lities of a Department Chair Now Versus Before Current Department Chair Appointment Participants were asked to respond to a final question with a Likert-T ype response of very similar, somewhat similar, slightly similar, or not similar at all in reference to how similar their current views on the roles and responsibilities of department chairs are now compared to their views prior to becoming a department chair. This question item record ed a response rate of 97.9% (n=95). Out of the 95 respondents, 37.1% indi cated their current views were very similar, 54.6% recorded their current views as somewhat si milar, 5.2% indicated th eir views as slightly similar, while only 1% indicated that their current views of the roles and responsibilities of a

PAGE 89

89 department chair compared to th eir views prior to thei r appointment were as not similar at all [see Table 28]. Table 4-28. Different in Views of Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair Now Versus Before Current Department Chair Appointment Response Frequency Percent Very similar Somewhat similar Slightly similar Not similar at all 36 53 5 1 37.1 54.6 5.2 1.0 Relationships Between Variables In order to further describe the variables in this study, analyses were conducted to identify correlations that may have existed between variab les. The magnitudes of the correlations are presented and discussed using the ranges proposed by Miller ( 1994). Correlation coefficients between .01 and .09 are consider ed negligible, correlations between .10 and .29 are low relationships, correlation s between .30 and .49 are moderate relationships, correlations between .50 and .69 are substantial relationships, correlat ions above .70 and considered very high. Pearson r was used for all continuous data in all of the analyses. As reflected in Table 2-29 a high corre lation was found betwee n the self-reported management self-efficacy and leadership self-effi cacy (r = .721), personnel affairs and leadership self-efficacy (r = .752), and personnel affairs se lf-efficacy and management self-efficacy (r = .753). High correlations were also found between year the rank of full professor was attainted and year tenured (r = .833), year the rank of associate professor wa s attained and year tenured (r = .934), year the rank of associate professor was attained and year rank of full professor was attained (r = .931), year the rank of assistant prof essor was attained and year tenure was achieved (r = .922), year the rank of assistan t professor was attained and ye ar rank of full professor was

PAGE 90

90 attainted (r = .899), and year the rank of assistant professor wa s attained and year rank of associate professor was attainted (r = .983). Substantial correlations were found to exist be tween age and year te nured (r = -.509), age and the year the rank of full professor was attain ed (r = -.605), age and the year the rank of associate professor was attained (r = -.544), age and the year the rank of assistant professor was attained (r = -.537). Since the actual year in wh ich a professorial rank was obtained was used as the data point for this variable, a lower value wa s associated with an earlier promotion year. Thus, older respondents tended to achieve each rank in earlier ra ther than more recent years, which led to negative correlation values. A moderate correlation was found to exist be tween leadership self-efficacy and the decision information (r = .434), management se lf-efficacy and the decision information (r = .309), and personnel affairs self-efficacy and th e decision information (r = .329). Also a moderate correlation was found between the number of positions applied for and the decision information (r = .348), indicating that department chairs who reported a higher level of influence of the decision factors had a moderate tendency to apply for more positions. A moderate relationship was found between resp ondents similarity in their cu rrent view of the roles and responsibilities versus their past views and thei r self-efficacy in the area of leadership (r = .321), indicating that department chairs who reported a higher similari ty in their views of the roles and responsibilities of a department chair had a moderate tendency to have higher reported selfefficacy score in the area of leadership. Respondent s similarity in their cu rrent view of the roles and responsibilities versus their pa st views and their self-efficacy in the area of personnel affairs (r = .352), indicating higher similarity in their views of the roles and responsibilities of a department chair had a moderate tendency to ha ve a higher reported self-efficacy in the area of

PAGE 91

91 personnel affairs. The final not ed correlation was whether or not the respondent would serve another term as a department chair and the de cision information (r = 3.58), indicating that department chairs who reported a higher level of in fluence of the decision factors had a moderate tendency to intend to pursue a second term as department chair. As seen in Table 4-29, a number of low a nd negligible correlations were also found between variables.

PAGE 92

92Table 4-29. Correlations between Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Decision Information -2 SE Leadership .434* -3 SE Management .309* .721* -4 SE Leadership .329* .752* .753* -5 Year Appointed as Chair .028 -.047 .055 .037 -6 Year Tenured -.025 .211* .208 .209 .141 -7 Year Appointed as FP -.103 .078 -.002 .035 .084 .833* -8 Year Appointed as Assc.P -.026 .116 .086 .087 .111 .934* .931* -9 Year Appointed as Asst.P -.043 .147 .075 .095 .054 .922* .899* .983* -10 1st Position held as DC .151 .196 .261* .219 -.018 .063 .026 .010 .060 -11 Served as interim .006 -.129 -.129 -.068 .057 .045 -.026 .003 -.037 -.223* 12 Number of positions applied .348* .213* .092 .173 .226* -.145 -.077 -.206 -.133 .085 13 Current vs. Past Views .016 -.228* .321* .352* -.182 -.114 -.002 -.040 -.003 -.233* 14 Willingness to serve another term -.358* -.236* -.358* -.236* -.158 -.117 -.139 -.132 -.162 -.129 15 Age -.100 -.042 .056 .079 -.025 -.509* -.605* -.544* -.537* .077 Note. p<.05 SE = Self-Efficacy, FP = Full Professor, Assc .P = Associate professor, Asst.P = Assistant Professor DC = Department Chair

PAGE 93

93 Table 4-29. Continued Variable 11 12 13 14 15 1 Decision Information 2 SE Leadership 3 SE Management 4 SE Leadership 5 Year Appointed as Chair 6 Year Tenured 7 Year Appointed as FP 8 Year Appointed as Assc.P 9 Year Appointed as Asst.P 10 1st Position held as DC 11 Served as interim -12 Number of positions applied -.071 -13 Current vs. Past Views .159 -.172 -14 Willingness to serve another term -.141 .033 -.045 -15 Age .044 .048 .031 .149 -Note. p<.05 SE = Self-Efficacy, FP = Full Professor, Assc.P = Associate Professor, Asst.P = Assistant Professor, DC = Department Chair

PAGE 94

94 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter summarizes the study and discu sses the conclusions, implications and recommendations that have been drawn from the study. The purpose of this study was to describe the factors influencing the decisions of faculty members to migrate to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences The first section of the chapter provides an overview of the study, including the purpose a nd specific objectives, methodologies, and findings. The remainder of the chapter disc usses specific conclusions from the findings, implications of the findings, and reco mmendations for future research. Summary of the Study Problem Statement The problem addressed by this study was th e lack of understanding about why faculty members choose to become chairs of academic de partments in colleges of agricultural and life sciences and the perceived shortage of qualified applicants to fill department chair positions. Furthermore, limited research has been conduc ted on the factors that influence a faculty member's decision to pursue a department chai r position (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). In regard to land-grant universitie s and colleges of agricultural a nd life sciences, the review of literature showed a clear void in academic res earch and found virtually no research in this specific area. The need for research at the department chair level was even more enhanced by the documented differences in leadership among acade mic chair positions, as well as the different leadership approaches exercised in higher edu cation when compared to other organizations. Academia follows the principle of shared govern ance, and decisions are made with input from both faculty and administration (Rowley, Sher man, 2003). Decision making within the private

PAGE 95

95 sector and industry is very repr esentative of those who are presen t and not always inclusive of everyone. Moreover, the views of those absentees are often distorted and sometimes ignored all together (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Purpose and Objectives The primary purpose of this study was to descri be the factors influencing the decisions of faculty members to migrate to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. This study also described current ne wly appointed department chairs in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, and higher educational st atus. The following research objectives were used to guide this investigation: (1) To determin e the specific factors th at led recently appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to pursu e and accept department chair positions; (2) To assess newl y appointed department chairs self-reported degree of selfefficacy in executing their roles as a department chair; and (3) To examine the relationship between selected demographic characteristics and self-reported levels of self-efficacy, as well as the degree of influence of factors in seeking department chair positions. Methodology This study employed a census survey research technique that is a ve ry popular type of quantitative research (Ary et al., 2002). The surv ey instrument was developed by the researcher. The census survey research technique is a data gathering method accomplished by asking a series of categorized questions to a group of respondents that represent all indi viduals in the population being studied (Ary et al., 2002). In this st udy, the population was define d as newly appointed department chairs in 1862 land-gran t colleges within the United St ates. According to Ary et al. (2002), a census study of intangibles such as motivation, achievement, and other such psychological assessments can be used (Ary et al., 2002). The population of this study consisted of newly appointed department chairs at the universities established by the Land-grant Act of

PAGE 96

96 1862. Each of these universities has a college of agricultural and life sciences w ith distinctive departments or comparable units in which a l eadership position is established and commonly referred to as a department chair. "Newly a ppointed department chairs were defined, for the purposes of this study, as current academic department chairs in a college of agricultural and life sciences that were appointed to their position on or after July 1, 2004. Responses were obtained from 97 of the 131 individuals in the accessible popul ation for a response rate of 74.05%. All of the 97 responses contained usable data for analysis. Data for this study were collect ed using a three-part instrume nt to accurately assess the independent and dependent variables as well as to target the specific objectives of the research. An existing instrument that was accurately tailore d to determine the factors contributing to the migration of faculty member to department chai r positions and/or their existing self-efficacy of the job requirements was unavailable. Therefore, a researcher-developed inst rument was utilized. The first part of the instrument was a questionn aire targeting the factor s influencing a faculty members decision to assume a chair position, the second part was a newly appointed department chair self-efficacy assessment, and the fina l section contained demographic questions. Data Analysis Data were analyzed using the SPSS for WindowsTM statistical package. Likert-type items were treated as interval data (Clason & Do rmody, 1994). As part of the description of the variables in this study and prior to any inferential analysis, vari ables described us ing descriptive statistics. Inferential analys is was conducted to gain a bette r understanding of the data and differences that might exist. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a co llection of statistical models, and their associated procedures, in wh ich the observed variance is partitioned into components due to the different explanatory va riables (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). A Pearson Correlation was also used to measure possible as sociations among the variables as well as the

PAGE 97

97 strength and relationship among the quantitative variables (Agresti & Fi nlay, 1997). Finally, a T-Test was used to assess whether the means of groups were statistically different from each other. This analysis was a ppropriate when comparing the means of two groups (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). Findings Objective One Objective one sought to determine the specific factors that led recently appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural a nd life sciences to pursue and accept department chair positions. The factors that were found to have a considerab le influence on their decision to assume a department chair position included: th ey enjoyed working with people and seeing them succeed, they felt there was a strong need with in the profession for effective departmental leadership; they wanted the opportunity to build a great department; and they were persuaded by others, such as colleagues, deans, and/or curren t department chairs to seek a department chair position. Additional factors were reported as ha ving a moderate influence. These included: respondents reported that they had several ideas for change and improvement, were looking for the opportunity to make a higher level/greater impact, were rea dy for a new challenge and/or a fresh start, were looking for the challenge of leadership, and felt a sense of pride and accomplishment from successful leadership experi ences at other levels. Seven of the decision factors had only some influence on the decision to assume a department chair position. These included: wanting to test their ability as a le ader without completely leaving a faculty role, wanting the opportunity to increase their salary, feeling like they c ould do a better job than the current administrator, having a positive experien ce chairing important committees, feeling that their research and publication skills were as good as their leadersh ip skills, being attracted to a specific geographical location, and having a positive pr evious experience as an acting or interim

PAGE 98

98 department chair. Finally, only one factor had no influence over faculty members' decisions the status and prestige of such a position. As a whole, the factors influencing the decisi on to pursue a department chair position were more influential for those chairs who indicated they would defin itely not pursue another term as chair. Objective Two Objective two sought to assess newly appointed department chairs' self-efficacy in relation to their expectations and choice to assume su ch a position. As described in Chapter 3, selfefficacy for the roles and responsibilities of a de partment chair was divided into three categories for the purposes of this study: leadership, mana gement, and personnel affairs. For leadership self-efficacy, there were two tasks that newly ap pointed department chairs reported they could perform with substantial certainty: soliciting idea s to improve the department and demonstrating strong support and understanding of the land-grant mission. Res pondents indicated that they could perform a majority of the other tasks analyzed with cons iderable certainty. Being an effective communicator, being a visionary, creati ng a positive work environment, implementing long range department programs, and guiding facu lty through the tenure and promotion process were among those tasks. Ther e was only one role and responsi bility that newly appointed department chairs felt that they could only perform with some cer tainty, remaining current within their academic discipline. For the leadership self-efficacy scale as a whole, newly appointed department chairs felt they could complete the tasks with considerable certainty. For management self-efficacy, the tasks that ne wly appointed department chairs felt they could complete with substantia l certainty were co nducting department meetings and responding to inquiries and requests for information. Res pondents reported that th ey could complete the remaining management related tasks with consid erable certainty. The task reported to possess

PAGE 99

99 the least amount of self-efficacy, but still in the considerable certainty category, was preparing the department for accreditati on and evaluation. Again, accordi ng to the data obtained by the survey instrument, respondents reported that they could perform the collective set of management responsibilities with a considerable degree of certainty. In the area of personnel affairs, respondents in dicated that they c ould complete only one task with substantial certainty encourage facu lty participation in department decisions. Respondents indicated that they could complete the remaining personnel affairs roles with moderate certainty. These roles included in itiating promotion and tenure recommendations, making merit recommendations, evaluating facult y, recruiting faculty, and assigning faculty responsibilities. Those tasks with the lowest self-efficacy a self-re ported ability to complete the task with only moderate certainty were reduc ing, resolving and preventing conflict; dealing with unsatisfactory performance; and terminatin g the employment of a faculty member. As a whole, respondents indicated that they coul d complete the personnel affairs tasks with a moderate degree of certainty. When comparing self-efficacy to newly appointed department chairs' past views of their roles and responsibilities versus their current views after being appointed to a chair position, those respondents with somewhat similar or very similar views had a higher self-efficacy level in all three areas. A significant difference was found between the fi rst position served as a department chair and self-reported levels of self-efficacy in management (t=-2.638, p<.05) and self-efficacy in personnel affairs (t=-2.188, p<.05). This indicat ed that the participants self-efficacy was reported as being higher for those in dividuals that indicated this wa s their first position held as a

PAGE 100

100 department chair. No significant difference wa s found between self-effic acy in leadership and whether this was their first departme nt chair position (t=-1.951, p>.05). Objective Three Of the 97 newly appointed department chairs who participated in this study, 84.4% (n=81) were male and 15.6% were female. In terms of ethnicity, 97.9% were Caucasian and 2.1% were Hispanic. The age of the participants ranged from 42 to 71 years, with a mean age of 53 years. In terms of the year that the newly appoi nted department chair achieved the rank of assistant professor, 35.1% were appointed to th e assistant professor rank between the years 1984 to 1989. For the associate professor rank, 35% of the participants were appointed between the years 1989 to 1994, while 36.1% of the participants were appointed to the full professor rank between the years 1995 to 2000. Fi nally, 41.2% of the participants were tenured between the years 1990 to 1995. A large majority of newly appointed department chairs (87.6%) indicate d that their current position was the first department chair position they have held on a re gular basis. Twelve participants (12.4%) reported th at they had previously held a permanent (versus acting or interim) department chair position. Out of the 97 respondents, 30 (30.9 %) indicated th at they were an acting or interim chair at one point prior to accepting their current chair position, whereas 67 participants (69.1%) had never held an interim or ac ting department chair position. In reference to the method of appointment by newly appointed department chairs, a rotational appointment w ithin the department was selected by 1% of the respondents, 42.3% of the respondents were appointed by the dean, 2.1 % denoted they were elected by the faculty, 44.3% of the participants indicated that they we re elected by the faculty with approval of the dean, and 10.3% were selected in some other way.

PAGE 101

101 Holding a previous appointment as an assistan t or associate chair wa s selected by 16.5% of the respondents, 4.1% of the respond ents indicated that they had he ld an assistant or associate center director position, wh ereas 3.1% selected that they previous ly held an assist ant or associate dean position. Finally, 19.6% of the participants reported previous experience in another type of administrative appointment. Of the newly appointed department chairs surveyed, 28.9% of the respondents indicated that they would serve another term as department chair with no reservations, 40.2% of the respondents indicated that they would serve another term with some reservation, 19.6% of the respondents said they would probably not serve another term, and 5.2% indicated that they would definitely not serve anot her term. A majority of the respondents (69.1%) reported that they would serve another term as departme nt chair with some or no reservation. The responding department chairs first deci ded to become a department chair at the following points in their careers: before or dur ing graduate school (6.2%), as an assistant professor (5.2%), as an associate professo r (27.8%), and as a professor (51.5%). With regard to department chairs in general, when asked how they felt a department chair was viewed by others in higher education, 64.9% indicated they fe lt department chairs are well respected by faculty, 63.9% felt they are well respected by admi nistration, 20.6% indicated that department chairs are better teachers and resear chers than they are chai rs, and 6.2% felt that department chairs are viewed by other in higher education as ge nerally ineffective. In reference to their current views on the roles and responsib ilities of department chairs now as compared to their views prior to beco ming a department chair, 37.1% indicated their current and previous views are very similar, 54.6% recorded th eir current views as somewhat similar, while 5.2% indicated their views as slig htly similar, and only 1% reported that their

PAGE 102

102 current views of the roles and responsibilities of a department chair co mpared to their views prior to their appointment were not similar at all. A high, positive correlation was found between management self-efficacy and leadership self-efficacy, personnel self-efficacy and leadership self-efficacy, and personnel self-efficacy and management self-efficacy (r = .75). In addition, high, positive correlations, ranging from .83 to .98, were found between year tenured and y ear promoted throughout all three ranks. Substantial correlations were found to exist be tween age and year tenured (r = -.51), age and the year the rank of full professor was attain ed (r = -.61), age and the year the rank of associate professor was attained (r = -.54), age and the year the rank of assistant professor was attained (r = -.54). (Note: Si nce the actual year in which a pr ofessorial rank was obtained and was used as the data point for this variable, a lower value was associated with an earlier promotion year. Thus, older respondents tended to achieve each rank in earlier rather than more recent years which led to negative correlation values.) A moderate, positive relationship (r=.43) was found between leadership self-efficacy and the degree to which the listed factors influen ced the respondents' decision to become a department chair (r = .43). Similar relationshi ps were found between the influence of these decision factors and management self-efficacy (r =.31), personnel affairs self-efficacy (r=.33), and number of department chair positions for wh ich they applied (r = .35). Thus, department chairs who reported a higher level of influence of the decision factors had a moderate tendency to apply for more department chair positions. Respondents who found their current position to be similar to their previous views of a department chair position ha d a moderate tendency to report higher levels of leadership se lf-efficacy (r = .32) a nd personnel affairs self-efficacy (r = .35).

PAGE 103

103 Finally, department chairs who reported a higher level of influence of the decision factors had a moderate tendency (r=-.36) to not intend pursuing a second te rm as department chair. Conclusions This quantitative study was a census study of newly appointed department chairs of colleges of agricultural and life sciences in landgrant universities within the United States. The following conclusions were drawn based upon the findings of the study: A joy of working with people and seeing them succeed, a strong need for departmental leadership within a given profession, the oppor tunity to build a great department, and a persuasion by another individual such as a coll eague, dean, and/or department chair have a considerable influence on a faculty member's decision to seek a department chair position. The desire for status and pres tige, as well as prior experi ence as an acting or interim department chair, has little influence on a faculty member's decision to seek a department chair position. Faculty members do not seek department chair positions due to management issues related to dealing with budgets, increased workload, increased time demands, and dealing with people, as well as faculty members enjoying their current positions and not wanting to leave their teaching/research appointments. Increasing the amount of leader ship training opportunities fo r faculty members throughout the department and university, increasing the amount of moneta ry compensation and resources given to department chairs, a nd providing more admini strative staff support might increase faculty interest in becoming a department chair. Service in other academic and non-academic l eadership capacity (i.e. committee chairs, administrative leadership positions, higher education programs, non profit groups, and industry) helps to prepare faculty members to assume department chair positions. Newly appointed department chairs are modera tely confident in thei r ability to execute their leadership, management, and personnel affa irs responsibilities as department chair. Furthermore, individual newly appointed department chairs te nd to hold similar views of personal self-efficacy across all th ree areas of responsibility. Newly appointed department chai rs are substantially confident in their ability to solicit ideas to improve their departments, and de monstrate a strong support and understanding of the land-grant mission. Newly appointed department ch airs are concerned about thei r ability to remain current within their academic discipline while serving as a department chair.

PAGE 104

104 Conducting meetings and responding to i nquires and requests for information are management tasks of an academic chair that newly appointed department chairs can complete with substantial certainty. As a rule, department chairs decide relatively late in their academic careers to pursue a department chair position, with many achievi ng the rank of professor before making this decision. Dealing with conflict and unsatisfactory perf ormance among faculty and staff, as well as initiating the termination of a faculty me mber, are areas of lower self-efficacy among newly appointed department chairs. These depart ment chairs are also more likely to apply for multiple department chair positions. Furthe r, department chairs with a clearer, more accurate view of the department chair posit ion as a faculty member tend to be more confident in their ability to perform their duties once they assume a department chair position. Newly appointed department chairs whose view s of the position prio r to the appointment align with their current views are more c onfident in their ability to execute their responsibilities as department chair. Females and minorities are underrepresented am ong newly appointed department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. Newly appointed department chairs feel that department chairs, in general, are well respected by faculty members and administrators. Discussion and Implications Objective One Determine the Specific Factors That Led Recently Appointed Department Chairs in Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences to Pursue and Accept Department Chair Positions. A joy of working: A joy of working with people and seeing them succeed, a strong need for departmental leadership within a given profession, the opportunity to build a great department, and a persuasion by another individual such as a colleague, dean, and/or de partment chair have a considerable influence on a faculty member migrating to a department chair position. Since many of the factors influe ncing a faculty members decision to assume a department chair position relating to people and building a positive environment were repeated in the literature, it was not surprising to see a joy of working with people and seeing them succeed, a strong need for departmental leadership within a given profession, the opportunity to build a great department, and a persuasion by another individual such as colleague, dean, and/or department chair rise to the top of the list among the most influe ntial factors. The department

PAGE 105

105 chair is many times reported as the front-line ma nager that serves a variety of people within the university (Tucker, 1993). There is almost an expectation for the department chair to create a strong family-like environment to build each other up, be inclusive in the decision making process and encourage excellence of one another (T ucker, 1993). This is not an easy task, but one that is placed in the hands of the academic department chair on a regular basis (CSDC, 1992). The influence of persuasion by others to encourage faculty to assume chair positions is also a key finding and one that corresponds with th e department chair literature (Graham, Benoit, 2004). Many other factors had a moderate influe nce on faculty members decisions to assume chair positions, also expected based upon the literature. These factors exhibited in this conclusion also fit extraordinarily well with the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). Social Cognitiv e Career Theory attempts to further explain the process by which individuals de velop an interest, make choices and achieve varying levels of success in academic pursuits (Len t, et al., 1994). Furthermore, Bandura (1997) suggested that the pattern of decision making can be broken dow n into three parts, which include personal factors, behavior, and environmen tal factors or what he calls triadic reciproc ality. These three factors do influence on deci sion making independently but ra ther have a co-dependent and interchangeable influence. Each of the top f our factors found to influence faculty members decisions in their careers tie dire ctly to Banduras three areas. The first one, a joy of working with people and seeing them succeed, is directly tied to what Bandura would describe as a selfbelief or habit of thinking (Bandura 1999). Th e second and third factors, a strong need for departmental leadership within a given profession and the opportunity to build a great department are what the SCCT w ould explain as an environmental factor or the existing structure of administration and facilities. Finally, persuasion by another in dividual, such as a colleague,

PAGE 106

106 dean, and/or department chair is a behavior of leadership by others, as well as a self-regulatory practice that is fostered by an outside environment. Findings of this study support th e literature which suggests that these above factors do influence a faculty member to become a department chair. This suggests that if colleges of agricultural and life sciences desire to increa se the number of faculty members applying for department chair positions, it woul d be critical to encourage t hose quality faculty members who enjoy working with people and who regularly have quality input within their respective disciplines to apply for vacant department chair positions. The desire to have the status and prestige: The desire for status and prestige, as well as prior experience as an acting or interim department chai r, have little influence on a faculty member's decision to seek a department chair position. The academic department chair is one of the most influential positions within the higher educational system operating under a shared governance system (Row ley, Wheeler, 1993). Since this kind of position is seen as such a keystone within the post-secondary educational system, this finding can be misleading and seen as an inaccurate representation of influencing factors. However, with closer examination of the literature, it has been argued many times that the academic department chair is one of the most underrated positions in higher education, having one of the most complex job descriptio ns (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). Knowing this information, it becomes clear why faculty members would not be in fluenced by the status and prestige of a chair position. Also, after serving as an inte rim chair, a faculty member is exposed to not only the complex lis t of roles and responsib ilities that come w ith the job, but also the ambiguity and lack of structure that co mes with an interim position (CSDC, 1992). It is difficult to determine a viable soluti on to improving the status and prestige of the department chair position without targeting the overall structur e of higher education. Faculty

PAGE 107

107 members serving as interim chairs in a seamle ss and inviting capacity without the help of everyone in the department becomes a significant challenge. Therefore, it becomes critical for deans and other higher level administrators to reward department chai rs for excellence and achievement in a public and significant manner. When the long list of tasks is managed at a high level of proficiency, other faculty members must also bring praise to the chairs and not just complaints and/or suggestions. Furthermore, in times of transition, interim chairs should be carefully selected by seeking faculty who have th e qualities necessary to take on the demands of a chair. They should also provide them with th e resources and coaching needed to enhance their experience while in an interim role. Management Issues: Faculty members do not seek depa rtment chair positions due to management issues related to dealing with budgets, increased wo rkload, increased time demands, and dealing with people, as well as faculty me mbers enjoying their current positions and not wanting to leave their teach ing/research appointments. As the literature indicated, the growing management demands of an academic department chair are quite extensive and cau se current chairs a significant amount of stress (Tucker, 1993; CSDC, 1993; Graham, Benoit, 2004; Hecht, et al., 1999). When asked why more faculty members do not seek department ch air positions, management relate d issues arose in nearly onethird of all the responses in this study. These responses would be ve ry consistent with rise in the management-related demands associated with hi gher educational administration. Also, these types of tasks consume a majority of the time of an academic department chair and leave little room for flexibility (Hecht, et al., 1999). Responding to long lists of electronic mail, balancing ever-changing budgets, and dealing with a never endi ng stream of people related issues, while at the same time attempting to complete the other roles and responsibilities associated with an academic chair position, are viewed as very difficult or sometimes impossible tasks.

PAGE 108

108 In the same respect, many faculty member s truly enjoy their teaching and research appointments and find themselves not wanting to give up those duties for an administrative role that could potentially pull them from their own discipline. It was also mentioned by several respondents that a department chair position is seen as a thankless job w ith little reward and can even destroy an academic career. These results provide a very candid, yet powerful, indicator that some changes in higher educati onal administration must be implemented. In many cases it is not the lack of a salary increase, but rather the separation fr om teaching and research and lack of administrative support that prevents faculty members from seeking department chair positions. Increasing Leadership: Increasing the amount of leadership training opportunities for faculty members throughout the department and unive rsity, increasing the amount of monetary compensation and resources given to department chairs, and providing more administrative staff support might increase faculty interest in becoming a department chair. This conclusion ties together a few key findi ngs of this study. The first deals with providing leadership training opport unities for faculty members. The results of this study show that newly appointed department chairs indicated that leadership training at both the university and department level were very helpful and in fluential in becoming department chairs. The second finding relates to compensation and reso urces. Newly appointed department chairs indicated that they did not feel the monetary compensation and resources provided to them were enough to cover the demands and scope of the pos ition. Finally, increasing administrative staff support was mentioned as a fey factor to raising the interest of faculty to take on department chair positions. This finding also supports a pr ior conclusion that th e management challenge faced by department chairs is a deterrent when faculty members are considering such a position. Serving in Other Leadership Experiences: Service in other academic and non-academic leadership capacity (i.e. committee chairs, admini strative leadership posi tions, higher education

PAGE 109

109 programs, non profit groups, and industry) help s to prepare faculty members to assume department chair positions. Leadership experiences are most often the most dramatic and influential sources of moral lessons, as well as the basis of what people value and how they react to situations (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The more opportunities that are provided for faculty members to practice their skills in the area of leadership, the more pr epared they feel to accept the challenge of administration. These findings align with Bandura s (1994) theory of self-efficacy, where it is important to note that how individuals interpre t their performance resu lts, environment, and experiences significantly impacts their future achievement and behavior. Objective Two: To Assess Newly Appointed Department Chairs Self-Efficacy Variance in Relation to Their Expectations and Their Ca reer Choice to Assume Such a Position. Solicit Ideas: Newly appointed department chairs are m oderately confident in their ability to execute their leadership, manageme nt, and personnel affairs responsibilities as department chair. Furthermore, individual newly appointed department chairs te nd to hold similar views of personal self-efficacy across all three areas of responsibility. Due to the fact that higher education is r un through a system of shared governance and a very open political system, it is easy to see why soliciting ideas to improve the department exhibit high levels of self-efficacy among newly a ppointed department chairs (Seagan, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). Soliciting ideas and gauging the f eelings of other faculty becomes a great skill of newly appointed department chairs. Also, demonstrating a strong su pport and understanding of the land-grant mission is something that f aculty advancing through colleges of agricultural and life sciences can do very we ll. The three part land-grant mission of research, teaching, and extension are actively taught and pr acticed within colleges of agricu ltural and life sc iences due to the nature of the academic work being performed. With these two factors in mind, it is comforti ng to say that newly appointed chairs feel well prepared to operate in a sh ared governance system and unders tand that a time of transition

PAGE 110

110 can become a convenient time to make necessary changes for the department. By advancing through the professor ranks in coll eges of agricultural and life sciences, the land-grant mission becomes very evident and is well understood among faculty and therefore ca rries over with them into their chair role. Remaining Current: Newly appointed department chairs have the ability to remain current within their academic discipline with a moderate amount of certainty. Publish or perish was a phrase that began seve ral years ago and referr ed to the tenure and promotion process, as well as the recognition of f aculty in academia. Faculty are also publishing more articles and books than ever before (Blackburn, Lawrence, 1995). Furthermore, universities generate more res earch and new knowledge than all other agencies. Combine that with the rapidly changing technologies of current times, it was not surprising that individuals in chair positions find it difficult to stay current within their academic disciplines ((Blackburn, Lawrence, 1995). This study presented an exha ustive list of roles and responsibilities of a department chair, and examined self-efficacy with many of those tasks. It is evident that newly appointed chairs are not sure they will be able to keep pace in the research and publishing world that has become modern academia. Extraordinary academic chairs that exhibit prof iciency in a majority of the tasks placed on their shoulders are limited to the amount rese arch and publication they can produce. The challenge of remaining current within a given ac ademic discipline undoubtedly adds a great deal of stress and pressure upon faculty thinking a bout such a position. In addition, many faculty prefer not to give up their give n areas of research or even teaching to pursue a career as a department chair position. The culture in a cademia has moved away from teaching and has taken a drastic turn toward the famous publis h or perish slogan of the past (Blackburn,

PAGE 111

111 Lawrence, 1995). It would be very detrimental to department chairs of the future if the same trend spills over into de partmental administration. Conducting meetings: Conducting meetings and responding to inquires and requests for information are management tasks of an academic chair that newly appointed department chairs can complete with substantial certainty. The conclusion that management tasks assigne d to department chairs, such as conducting meetings and responding to requests for inform ation, perhaps not as novel as any researcher would hope, provides more insight into the scop e of the workings of self-efficacy in higher education. The Expectancy Value Theory of Achievement Motivation by Wigfield and Eccles (2000) explains the phenomenon observed in this conclusion. According to the Expectancy Value model of attitude theory, information can have three effects on attitude change. First, information can change the weight of a particul ar belief. Second, information can affect the direction of a particular belief. Third, information can add new beliefs (Wigfield, Eccles, 2000). This theory proposes that if one can determine the elements that impact intention, then one can more accurately predict whether an individual will engage in a part icular behavior. Likewise, it proposes that by changing an individuals per ceptions of potential outco mes, one can alter the individuals intent (Wigfield, Ec cles, 2000). The basis of the theo ry is that individuals choose behaviors based on the outcomes they expect and the values they ascribe to those expected outcomes (Borders, Earleywine, & Huey, 2004). As newly appointed department chairs, being able to respond to requests for information with substantial certainty is expected, because they know the extreme value in information management, and the Expectancy Value Theory informs us that information is a powerful way to change the beliefs of others. Also, confidence in the conduct of meetings undoubtedly comes from past experiences, but also from the expectation

PAGE 112

112 that valuable information to make better decisions comes from multiple perspectives in a meeting. On the surface, it would seem that most a nyone in higher education would have a high level of self-efficacy in the area responding to re quests for information and conducting meetings. However, a deeper understanding of a foundatio nal theory of this study reveals that an individuals outcome expectations affect ones attitudes towards the a given behavior (Mazis et al.,1975). Encouraging faculty participation: As a rule, department chairs de cide relatively late in their academic careers to pursue a department chai r position, with many achieving the rank of professor before ma king this decision. The mean self-efficacy score for encouraging faculty participation within the academic department was significantly highe r than the other roles and res ponsibilities with in the area of personnel affairs as a whole. This finding is so mewhat consistent with the findings of Seagren, Creswell, & Wheeler (1993). In their study, departmental leadersh ip at the chair level extends more effort on empowering activities with multip le stakeholders around the university, such as faculty, staff and students. Peterson, Dill, & Mets (1997) also found that, The degree of autonomy for most faculties is decreasing, while the amount of accountab ility is increasing (Peterson, Dill, & Mets, 1997, p.480). What these two studies show is that encouraging faculty participation within the department is simply a function of good leadership and something practiced by many. Over the past several years there has been a shift of responsibility to the faculty members to show accountability on a more regular basis. Newly appointed department chairs are not only aware of this culture, but they also naturally have a hi gher self-efficacy based on past experiences. This is also consistent with Banduras findings of increased self-efficacy through experience and pa st behaviors (1994).

PAGE 113

113 Dealing with conflict: Dealing with conflict and unsatisfa ctory performance among faculty and staff, as well as initiating th e termination of a faculty member are areas of lower self-efficacy among newly appointed department chairs. These department chairs are also more likely to apply for multiple department chair positions. Further, department chairs with a clearer, more accurate view of the department chair position as a faculty member tend to be more confident in their ability to perform thei r duties once they assume a department chair position. Participants perceived ability to complete tasks relating to dealing with conflict and unsatisfactory performance among fa culty and staff, as well as in itiating the termination of a faculty member, is not surprisingl y low. This stems from the f oundational theoretical model that surrounds this study self-efficacy. This self -efficacy model illustrates that when making decisions and choices about future actions, a persons self-reflecti on of past experiences becomes extremely important. Ones belief in their abilit y to perform a task is shown to have a direct relationship to that self-reflecti on (Bandura, 1986). It would not be too bold of a statement to conclude that there is a very limited number of positive experiences and memories associated with conflict, unsatisfactory performance, and term ination. The very nature of these tasks brings intrinsic red flags that naturally make department chairs want to avoid such situations (Tucker, 1993). Since there is a lack of pos itive history involved in such tran sactions, even if not directly related to the department chair, Bandura would argue that self-efficacy in this area would be comparatively low. With this conclusion, it must be highlighted that a department chair has the ability to minimize such interactions, grieva nces, and other conflicts by assi gning responsibilities in a clear and purposeful way (Tucker, 1993). Chairper sons can also ensure open channels of communication within and outside of the department. It can also be helpful to provide a process for faculty and staff to arbitrate assignments and tasks, as well as provide regular evaluations of faculty and staff based upon their specifi c roles and assignments (Tucker, 1993).

PAGE 114

114 Department Chair Views: Newly appointed department chairs whose views of the position prior to the appointment align with their current views are more confiden t in their ability to execute their responsibilities as department chair. One of the most useful aspects of the Social Cognitive Career Theory is that humans are self-reflecting and self-reacting people who are dynamic in their thinking (Bandura, 1997). This concept begins to explain the above phenome non well. When individu als have fairly sound ideas of what a task consists of, such as performing as a department chair, they are more likely to have a greater self-confidence about what they ar e able to complete. Higher self-efficacy among newly appointed chairs whose view s of the roles and responsibiliti es of a department chair were similar to their views even after being appointed is consistent w ith the Social Cognitive Career Theory. Furthermore, someone who has high self-efficacy is more likely to take on new experiences, challenges, and obstacles with hi gh self-confidence and a preset mind frame of success. On the other hand, a person looking at th e same set of circumstances with low selfefficacy will tend to avoid challenging tasks and behaviors and approach them, if necessary, with low confidence (Bandura, 1994). Also, when looking at response to failure, Bandura (1995) argues that one with high self-efficacy will bounce back quickly and take on new tasks, whereas a low self-efficacy individual will be hesita nt to try again. Along this line of thought, it is important to note that how i ndividuals interpret th eir performance results, environment, and self-belief will significantly impact their futu re achievements and behaviors (Pajares, 1996). Objective Three: To Compare and Contrast Demographi c Differences and/or Similarities Among the Newly Appointed Department Chairs in Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Females and minorities: Females and minorities are underrepre sented in colleges of agricultural and life science newly appointed department chair positions. In this study, 84.4% (n=81) of the participants were male and 15.6% (n=15) were female. When analyzed by ethnicity, white males comprised a very large majority of the population. In

PAGE 115

115 this study, 83.5% (n=81) were white males, 14.5% (n=14) were white females, 1.0% (n=1) Hispanics and African Americans accounted for only one percent of the accessible population of newly appointed department chairs in colleg es of agricultural and life sciences. While the majority of the participants in this study were white males, when compared to past studies of department chai rs in general, this study found th at the number of females in department chair positions is increasing. Va n Valey and Tiemann ( 1990) conducted a study of graduate department chairs in general and tracked gender from 1969 to 1985. They found that the average percentage of males in any given ye ar was 90.6%, and in no year did that percentage change more than 3.8% in either direction. T hus, this result indicated that there are more females assuming department chair positions today than two decades ago. The findings of this study are encouraging in terms of the percentage of females slowly increasing, however several concerns still remai n. Findings of this study suggest that diverse populations in newly appointed de partment chair positions in co lleges of agricu ltural and life sciences are not underrepresented as a function of self-efficacy and the decision factors. It is possible that women and minorities are underreprese nted for other reasons besides self-efficacy and the prescribed influencing f actors. Further research should be conducted as to why the number of females and minorities is extremely low and the motives of females and minorities who do not seek department chair positions. Department Chair Respect: Newly appointed department chairs feel that department chairs, in general, are well respected by facu lty members and administrators. The Expectancy-Value Theory states that there ar e two kinds of belief. First, there is belief in something and secondly, belief about something. According to this theory, beliefs vary from attitudes because they are evalua tive (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In the case of this study, by assuming a department chair position, in most cases voluntarily, (only 1% based on a rotational

PAGE 116

116 appointment) there is more of a likelihood of be lief in the position and the higher educational system in general. Then, once in the position, the above conclusion suggests that there is a tendency to develop a belief about the position. Other faculty memb ers and administrators are in the same higher educational system as the newl y appointed department chairs, and therefore follow the same phenomenon described by the Expectancy-Value Theory. Recommendations For department chairs to perform well in a very inconsistent and complex environment, they must have the support of the faculty with in the department, as well as administration. Clear guidelines for proficiency should be co mmunicated upfront and on a regular basis. Feedback from departmental c onstituents and university administration is vital. Furthermore, deans should shar e the list of roles and respons ibilities from this study with newly appointed department chairs. The three areas of roles and responsibilities in this study leadership, management, and personnel affairs should be used as guide lines for evaluation and job description development for department chairs in coll eges of agricultural and life sciences. College administrators and professional societies should use the list of roles and responsibilities to proactivel y identify, prepare, and motiv ate faculty members to seek department chair positions. The relative conf idence of newly appointed department chairs in performing the multitude of responsibilitie s associated with the department chair position, as found in this study, should be used by college administra tors for assigning workshops to support newly appointed department chairs. When seeking out faculty for a department chair position, administration and search committees should seek those individuals who enjoy working with people and seeing them succeed, as well as those who have the abil ity to provide visionary thinking for the department. It is also critic al to recruit highly qualified faculty who would excel at the department chair level by making genuine a nd respectful efforts of persuasion and selfconfidence. Deans should focus on evaluating the manageme nt responsibilities of department chairs and find ways to assist them in completing these tasks. Th is assistance could include, but is not limited to, leadership and manageme nt training, adequate support staff, role definitions, and limiting job res ponsibilities of academic chairs. An innovative and participatory method of a ssisting department chairs of colleges and agricultural life sciences in remaining current within their academic disciplines should be implemented by the faculty of their department This participatory method should include faculty reporting to the depart ment chair as an updating method. This can be done on an annual or quarterly basis.

PAGE 117

117 A leadership preparatory system and/or program is a necessary and vital component to any college of agricultural and life sciences in or der develop and prepare faculty for the everchanging demands of higher educational leader ship. Furthermore, a quality leadership development program specifically targeti ng low self-efficacy points among leadership, management and personnel affairs tasks w ould encourage and promote more qualified faculty to pursue department chair positions. Professional societies should focus on faculty leadership development, as well as utilizing resources to provide opportunities for and prepare faculty for effective depart ment leadership and management. In this study, gender had no relationship to overall self-efficacy and decision factor influence or perceived ability to complete th e roles and responsibilit ies of a department chair. This finding further supports giving equal consideration to male and female candidates when filling department chair posit ions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. Programs to support and promote underrepresen ted ethnic groups to seek and assume positions at the department chair level should be implemented. Suggestions for Future Research Since this census study targeted newly appoi nted department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences and included mostly white males, additional research needs to be conducted with a larger population that could perhap s include more diversity. This study used a self-reported self-efficacy scal e system in three major areas related to the roles and responsibilities of a department chair. Further research should be completed using department chair superiors and subordina tes to gain validation of the self-reported scales. More research needs to be conducted on gender and ethnic diversity in the area of higher educational leadership and the academic departme nt chair. More information is needed on perceived barriers and reasons why more gender and ethnic diversity do es not exist at the newly appointed department chair level within colleges of agricultural and life sciences. This study identified the factors influencing faculty migration to a department chair position. More information is needed on th e barriers to assuming department chair positions. Perhaps a study of faculty member s who choose not to assume such positions would gain further insi ght into the process. Newly appointed department chair self-efficacy in three major areas was assessed in this study through self-reported scales More research is needed to discover why department chairs had high self-efficacy in some areas wh ile reporting low self-efficacy in other areas. Research should be conducted to examine the effectiveness of leadership development programs designed to prepare faculty members for department chair positions. Similarly, research should be conducted to determine the extent to which previous administrative

PAGE 118

118 leadership experience contributes to effectiv eness as a department chair or decision to become a department chair. An in-depth qualitative study should be under ta ken to more closely examine the work and degree of satisfaction held by department chai rs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. Research should be conducted to design and te st an instrument that provides a valid and reliable mechanism for selecting and/or predicting future department chairs among associate professors and professors. The factors that contribute to success and longevity as a department chair should be identified and incorporated into professiona l development programs for current department chairs.

PAGE 119

119 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

PAGE 120

120 APPENDIX B DEPARTMENT CHAIR CONTACT INFORMATION REQUEST E-MAIL Initial Newly Appointed Department Chair Contact Information Request I nstitute of F ood and A gricultural S ciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communications September 11, 2006 Dear [prefix] [LastName], I am writing to request you assistance in the in formation gathering pro cess of a nationwide study of newly appointed department chairs in 1862 Land-grant Universities and Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences. This study will help determine the factors contributing to faculty member migration to department chair positions. You have been identified as a valuable contac t person to obtain the contact information (name, address, and e-mail) of all newly appointed department chairs in your college across all departments. Newly appointed department chai rs for this study are being identified as any assuming a department chair position on or after Ju ly 1, 2004. Interim and temporary chairs will not be included in this study at this time. Unfortunately, if you do not have any newly appoint ed department chairs as of July 1, 2004 than your institution will not be eligible to particip ate in this study. However, I would really appreciate your response so that your instit ution can be removed from my contact list. While the sharing of newly appointed departme nt chair contact information is completely voluntary, I would greatly apprecia te you assistance with this impor tant study. If you are not the correct person to provide such information, pleas e accept my apologies and I ask that you please forward this e-mail to the correct faculty or staff member. Thank you in advance for your assistance! Sincerely, Elio Chiarelli Jr Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant Agricultural Education and Communication Department University of Florida 408 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540 Gainesville FL 32611 T: 352.392.0502 Ext. 244 F: 352.392.9585 elio1@ufl.edu

PAGE 121

121 Newly Appointed Department Chair Co ntact Information Request Follow-Up I nstitute of F ood and A gricultural S ciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communications September 24, 2006 Dear [prefix] [LastName], Hello, I hope this message finds you doing well. I am writing to you today as a reminder request for you assistance in the information gathering pr ocess of a nationwide study of newly appointed department chairs in 1862 Land-grant Univer sities and Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences. This study will help determine the fact ors contributing to facult y member migration to department chair positions. You have been identified as a valuable contac t person to obtain the contact information (name, address, and e-mail) of all newly appointed department chairs in your college across all departments. Newly appointed department chai rs for this study are being identified as any assuming a department chair position on or after Ju ly 1, 2004. Interim and temporary chairs will not be included in this study at this time. Unfortunately, if you do not have any newly appoint ed department chairs as of July 1, 2004 than your institution will not be eligible to particip ate in this study. However, I would really appreciate your response so that your instit ution can be removed from my contact list. While the sharing of newly appointed departme nt chair contact information is completely voluntary, I would greatly apprecia te you assistance with this impor tant study. If you are not the correct person to provide such information, pleas e accept my apologies and I ask that you please forward this e-mail to the correct faculty or staff member. Thank you in advance for your assistance! Sincerely, Elio Chiarelli Jr Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant Agricultural Education and Communication Department University of Florida 408 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540 Gainesville FL 32611 T: 352.392.0502 Ext. 244 F: 352.392.9585 elio1@ufl.edu

PAGE 122

122 Newly Appointed Department Chai r Contact Information Request 2nd Follow-Up I nstitute of F ood and A gricultural S ciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communications October 15, 2006 Dear [prefix] [LastName], Hello, I hope this message finds you doing well. I am writing to you today as a friendly reminder for you assistance in the information ga thering process of a na tionwide study of newly appointed department chairs in 1862 Land-grant Universities and Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences. This study will help determine the factors contributing to faculty member migration to department chair positions. You have been identified as a valuable contac t person to obtain the contact information (name, address, and e-mail) of all newly appointed department chairs in your college across all departments. Newly appointed department chai rs for this study are being identified as any assuming a department chair position on or after Ju ly 1, 2004. Interim and temporary chairs will not be included in this study at this time. Unfortunately, if you do not have any newly appoint ed department chairs as of July 1, 2004 than your institution will not be eligible to particip ate in this study. However, I would really appreciate your response so that your instit ution can be removed from my contact list. While the sharing of newly appointed departme nt chair contact information is completely voluntary, I would greatly apprecia te you assistance with this impor tant study. If you are not the correct person to provide such information, pleas e accept my apologies and I ask that you please forward this e-mail to the correct faculty or staff member. Thank you in advance for your assistance! Sincerely, Elio Chiarelli Jr Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant Agricultural Education and Communication Department University of Florida 408 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540 Gainesville FL 32611 T: 352.392.0502 Ext. 244 F: 352.392.9585 elio1@ufl.edu

PAGE 123

123 Newly Appointed Department Chair Contac t Information Request Final Follow-Up I nstitute of F ood and A gricultural S ciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communications October 15, 2006 Dear [prefix] [LastName], Greetings! I hope this message finds you doing well. During the past several weeks, you have probably gotten familiar with my e-mails request ing your assistance in the information gathering process of a nationwide study of newly appoint ed department chairs in 1862 Land-grant Universities and Colleges of Agricult ural and Life Sciences. Well, do not worry; this is the final friendly reminder asking for your participation. Please know that this study will truly help determine the factors contributing to faculty me mber migration to department chair positions. You have been identified as a valuable contac t person to obtain the contact information (name, address, and e-mail) of all newly appointed department chairs in your college across all departments. Newly appointed department chai rs for this study are being identified as any assuming a department chair position on or after Ju ly 1, 2004. Interim and temporary chairs will not be included in this study at this time. Unfortunately, if you do not have any newly appoint ed department chairs as of July 1, 2004 than your institution will not be eligible to particip ate in this study. However, I would really appreciate your response so that your instit ution can be removed from my contact list. While the sharing of newly appointed departme nt chair contact information is completely voluntary, I would greatly apprecia te you assistance with this impor tant study. If you are not the correct person to provide such information, pleas e accept my apologies and I ask that you please forward this e-mail to the correct faculty or staff member. Thank you in advance for your assistance! Sincerely, Elio Chiarelli Jr Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant Agricultural Education and Communication Department University of Florida 408 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540 Gainesville FL 32611 T: 352.392.0502 Ext. 244 F: 352.392.9585 elio1@ufl.edu

PAGE 124

124 APPENDIX C SURVEY COMPLETION REQUESTS Pre-Survey Letter I nstitute of F ood and A gricultural S ciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communications January 12, 2007 [Address] Dear Dr. [LastName], Greetings! I hope this letter finds you doing well. A few m onths ago, you or your dean was contacted with a request for the contact inform ation of all the recently appointed department chairs in your college from July 2001 until now. Fr om this request, you have been identified as someone who currently holds a department chair position. In a few days, you will be receiving an e-mail with Department Chair Inventory in the subject line. In this e-mail will be a link to an on-lin e survey. As we are aware of the significant demands of department chairs, this is a brief su rvey that is only expected to take about 15-20 minutes. This survey is completely voluntary and therefore you will also have the ability to optout if you wish by clicking on an opt-out link at the bottom of the e-mail. If you should have any questions about this survey please feel free to contact me anytime. Thank you in advance for your participation, Elio Chiarelli, Jr. Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant Agricultural Education and Communication Department University of Florida 408 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540 Gainesville FL 32611 T: 352.392.0502 Ext. 244 F: 352.392.9585 elio1@ufl.edu

PAGE 125

125 Initial Contact E-mail I nstitute of F ood and A gricultural S ciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communications January 24, 2007 Dear Dr. [LastName], Greetings! I hope this message finds you doing we ll. A few months ago, you or your dean was contacted with a request for the contact inform ation of all the recently appointed department chairs in your college from July 2001 until now. Fr om this request, you have been identified as someone who currently holds a department chair position. Below is a link to The National Survey for Recently Appointed Department Chairs that is being conducting and your participation w ould be greatly appreciated. Th e purpose of this study is to examine and describe factors influencing the deci sions of faculty members to assume department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences and to fi nd out more about what impacted their final decision. As we are aware of the significant demands of depa rtment chairs, this is a brief survey that is only expected to take about 15-20 minutes. Here is a link to the survey: [SurveyLink] We thank you in advance for your participation, Elio Chiarelli, Jr. Dr. Edward Osborne Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. [RemoveLink]

PAGE 126

126 Follow-up Contact E-mail I nstitute of F ood and A gricultural S ciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communications January 31, 2007 Dear Dr. [LastName], Greetings! I hope this message finds you doing well! This message is simply a friendly reminder asking for your participation in a National Survey for Recently Appointed Department Chairs that is being conducting and your pa rticipation would be greatly appreciated. The purpose of this study is to examine and describe factors influencing the decisions of faculty members to assume departme nt chair positions in co lleges of agricultural and life sciences and to find out more a bout what impacted their final decision. As we are aware of the significant demands of depa rtment chairs, this is a brief survey that is only expected to take about 15-20 minutes. We thank you in advance for your time and participation! Here is a link to the survey: [SurveyLink] Thanks for your participation, Elio Chiarelli Jr and Dr. Edward Osborne Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. [RemoveLink]

PAGE 127

127 Final Follow-up Contact E-mail I nstitute of F ood and A gricultural S ciences Department of Agricultural Education and Communications February 12, 2007 Dear Dr. [LastName], Greetings! I hope this message finds you doing we ll. During the past three weeks, you have probably gotten familiar with the Department Chair Inventory Survey e-mail requesting your participation. Well, do not worry; this is the final friendly re minder asking for your participation. Below is the link to The National Survey for R ecently Appointed Department Chairs that is being conducting and your partic ipation would be greatly appreci ated. The purpose of this study is to examine and describe f actors influencing the decisions of faculty members to assume department chair positions in colleges of agricu ltural and life sciences an d to find out more about what impacted their final decision. As we are aware of the significant demands of depa rtment chairs, this is a brief survey that is only expected to take about 15-20 minutes. Here is a link to the survey: [SurveyLink] Thank you SO much for your participation, Elio Chiarelli, Jr. Dr. Edward Osborne Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. [RemoveLink]

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX D ONLINE SURVEY Approved Informed Consent

PAGE 129

129 Online Survey Web Pages

PAGE 130

130

PAGE 131

131

PAGE 132

132

PAGE 133

133

PAGE 134

134

PAGE 135

135

PAGE 136

136

PAGE 137

137

PAGE 138

138

PAGE 139

139

PAGE 140

140 LIST OF REFERENCES Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. American Farm Bureau Federation. (2004). Farm facts. American Farm Bureau Federation. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed.). Blemont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Bandura, A. (1983). Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fear s and calamities. Journal of Personality and Social Psycology 45, 464-469. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Pre ss. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. Sa n Diego: Academic Press, 1998). Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies New York: NY Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2 21-41. Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Barling, J., & Abel, M. ( 1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and tennis performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 265-272. Blackburn, T. R., & Lawrence, H. J. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Bolman, G.L., Deal, E. T. (2003) Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 3rd-ed, 195. Borders, A., Earleywine, M., & Huey, S. (2004) Predicting problem behaviors with multiple expectancies: Expanding Expectancy Value Theory. Adolescence. 39, 539-551. Byrne, J. V. (2006). Public higher education reform five years after The Kellogg Commission on the future of state and land-grant universities. National Association of State Universities and land-Grant Colleges and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

PAGE 141

141 Clason, D.L. & Dormody, T.J. (1994). Analyzing da ta measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education 34(4), 31-35. Conger, A.J., & Fulmer, M. R. (2003). Developing your leadership pipeline Harvard Business Review OnPoint Enhanced Edition. Davis, F. W., & Yates, B. T. (1982). Self-efficacy expectancies versus outcome expectancies as determinates of performance de ficits and depressive affect. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 23-35. Delbecq, A.L., & Mills, P.K. (1985). Mana gerial practices th at enhance innovation. Organizational Dynamics, 14 24-34. DeVaus, D. A. (1990). Surveys in social science research (2nd ed.). London: Unwin Hyman. Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Evelyn, J. (2004, April 30). Colleges at a crossroads. The Chronicle of Higher Education Expectancy-value theory. (2006). Encyclopedia Britannica Retrieved on November 15, 2006 from http://www.britannica.com/eb/a rticle-12708/motivation Graham, S., & Benoit, P. (2004). Constructing the role of the department chair American Council on Education: University of Missouri. Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career c hoice and development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Selfefficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hecht, W.D.I., Higgerson, L.M., Gm elch, H. W., & Tucker, A. (1999). Roles and responsibilities of department chairs The department chair as academic leader (Chapter 2). Phoenix, AZ: ACE Oynx Press. Individual Development and Educat ional Assessment Center. (2006). Assessment of department chairs and center directors Manhattan, KS: The Kansas State University. Kellogg Commission. (1996) Future of state and land-grant universities. Washington DC: NASULGC. Kouzes, J., Posner, B. (2002) The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lee, C. (1983). Self-efficacy and behavior as predictors of subsequent behavior in an assertiveness training program. Behavior Research and Therapy, 21, 225-232. Lent, R. W., Brown, S.D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45 79-122.

PAGE 142

142 Mazis, M., Ahtola, O., & Kippel, R. (1975). A co mparison of four multi attribute models in the prediction of consumer attitudes Journal of Consumer Research 2, 38-53. Moe, K. O., & Zeiss, A. M. (1982). Measuring self-efficacy expectations for social skills: A methodology inquiry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6 191-205. Montana State University. (2003). Presidents statement on shared governance. Montana State University: Bozeman. Retrieved on December 4, 2006 from http://www.montana.edu/sharedgov/ Moore, L. (2003). Leadership in the cooperati ve extension system. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2003. Miller, L.E. (1994). Correlations : Descriptions or inferences? Journal of Agricultural Education 35 (1), 5-7. Muhammad, H. P. (2002). Leadership in highe r education for the new millennium. ERIC Document Reproduction Servi ce (Report No. ED 459-665). McGriff, S. J. (2001). Leadersh ip in higher education: Instru ctional designers in faculty development programs. ERIC Document Repr oduction Service (Rep ort No. ED 470-160). Northouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings Review of Educational Research 66 (4), 543-578. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html Peterson, W. M., Dill, D. D., & Mets, A. L. (1997). Planning and management for a changing environment San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1995). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Report of the task force on faculty/staff pa rtnership. (1999). University of California Rocca, J. S. (2005). Predicting preservice agriculture teache rs intentions to teach utilizing person inputs, contextual influences, te acher efficacy, and outcome expectations. Doctorial dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Rodgers, C. (2005). Competition drives reassessment of U.S. higher education. EduExec, 24 (11), 3-3. Rowley, J. D., & Sherman, H. (2003). The special challenges of academic leadership Management Decision Journal, 44( 10), 1058-1063.

PAGE 143

143 Smith, B. (2005). Why chair or head? All things academic 6(1). Seagren, A., Creswell, W. J., & Daniel, W. W. (1993). The department chair: New roles, responsibilities, and challenges. ( ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.1). The George Washington University. Taking charge of change: Reviewing the promis e of state and land-grant universities. (1996). Kellogg Commission on the future of state and land-grant universities, National Association of State Universi ties and Land-grant Colleges. Trow, M. (1977). Departments as contexts for teaching and learning in academic departments. Edited by D.E. McHenry and Associat es. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Tucker, A. (1993). Chairing the academic department (3rd ed.). Phoenix: Oryx Press Tucker, A., et al. (1999). The department chai r as an academic leader. Phoenix: Oryx Press. Trowler, P. R. (1998). Academics responding to change. New higher education frameworks and academic cultures London: Society for Resear ch into Higher Education. Van Valey, L. T. & Tiemann, K. (1990) Chairs of graduate departments: a structural profile. Teaching Sociology, 18 15. Warner, R. L. (1988). Career paths in higher ed ucation administration. Mi chigan U.S. pages; fiche 35 ED 294 506. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Devel opment of achievement motivation [electronic resource] San Diego: Academic Press. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectan cy-Value Theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 68-81. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 144

144 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Elio Chiarelli, Jr. was born in Finleyvill e, Pennsylvania, on June 1, 1981. He lived in Finleyville, Pennsylvania until the 1st grade when his family moved to McDonald, Pennsylvania where he was raised on his familys 110-acre family farm. He graduated from Fort Cherry High School in May, 1999. Mr. Chiarelli earned his undergraduate degree fr om the Pennsylvania State University in agricultural education an d leadership development in May, 2005. In 2001, Elio was elected as an officer for the National FFA Organization where he served as vice president. During his year of service, Chiarelli met thousa nds of FFA members and travel ed over 100,000 miles to promote agricultural education, le adership, and the FFA. In August, 2005, Mr. Chiarelli entered the graduate program in the Department of Agricultural Education and Commun ication at the University of Fl orida where he specialized in agricultural leadership with a minor in food and resource econo mics. During his time in the graduate program at the University of Florida he served as a graduate te aching assistant where he assisted in the instruction of three different agricultural courses as well as the undergraduate honors colloquium. He also assisted with multip le research and training programs within the department.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101112_AAAAEU INGEST_TIME 2010-11-12T22:45:59Z PACKAGE UFE0020152_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 21712 DFID F20101112_AACXHC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH chiarelli_e_Page_048.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
dfd992ccc0b325503c6b4cb8178a4664
SHA-1
6622add3a8a0aba2ea7aa55778cdcb05a2e9bed9
7182 F20101112_AACXGO chiarelli_e_Page_120thm.jpg
2d3de977b1280325efce49aa8e4fb719
57a0c732b445691576e276b7c4510900646a8362
13640 F20101112_AACXFZ chiarelli_e_Page_137.QC.jpg
2395a27c1a716e7bdb67ab9fcc7b9118
d6276d18b494af6905e5004f291a4f3ca85624c5
123170 F20101112_AACWEA chiarelli_e_Page_141.jpg
04c5818509a493b3734edb2d4f054c88
1f42b3fdeb1266baada261c9ecd478d27436e6d3
75017 F20101112_AACWDM chiarelli_e_Page_127.jpg
0b5be13e5aff497bda9d5062a74c456f
4249bd718f934ba3c5cbf6fa80b7df756191a9a3
14291 F20101112_AACVYG chiarelli_e_Page_134.QC.jpg
38403681b88308fcee25e8dfab5fc51b
1e287ec526cc1b7585a36b9c172aad758eba506b
105674 F20101112_AACWCX chiarelli_e_Page_112.jpg
5bee3cf1ac8afb45511174050e103998
9e0ffb6748f592c2ccabc69446e43ffd0117e8c8
788 F20101112_AACVXR chiarelli_e_Page_118.txt
b3d6a9d81ec485b01ce377cbf0a5514b
c930c77430222084cf63caaf17331741e2678810
8545 F20101112_AACXHD chiarelli_e_Page_019thm.jpg
0ed0cb1121b5b5a1360cae6aa5ea8a04
3126305fb830c25abc97cc0d8a0926d43b4703bb
9128 F20101112_AACXGP chiarelli_e_Page_105thm.jpg
9548a395212cb247959f360d0111d774
516b27e8676b54c28e6f740d3ff02f6b241e05e2
122706 F20101112_AACWEB chiarelli_e_Page_142.jpg
1a16e99a786b4df1e1bd2250b124e63f
b09ebfa82278f930bcefcba7a5d54c17b0f2e21d
111226 F20101112_AACWDN chiarelli_e_Page_128.jpg
37a62a436473d6f0d957c2fd812d8803
a45d32f2ec279a2f9712a4b836da6e688d21780a
1054428 F20101112_AACVYH chiarelli_e_Page_064.tif
44ad7daf8cb6aa7095960726ab66c383
543f3b7908d8d068fa558171ed0078f54dfe02ff
118056 F20101112_AACWCY chiarelli_e_Page_113.jpg
4e8d66e319fb2e3e76b7ef65a00e59bb
0ceb41f1e3bc3f786dca4d08b68d4efc2cb70a4d
8515 F20101112_AACVXS chiarelli_e_Page_100thm.jpg
4cc73bfc87dae83ac84901c322cf5040
0e37698b460f73b21009ca069c404609e250683b
8873 F20101112_AACXHE chiarelli_e_Page_024thm.jpg
dfde3c011af5105006f92baad4cd9d52
28442b5319aa386abd049f4d948fc7031d275925
32064 F20101112_AACXGQ chiarelli_e_Page_045.QC.jpg
4c79cfc243aebe7d37cf973e0c2d98fe
0faf445cd1f6b800bb1a8b8fbc93b2140c921be1
63531 F20101112_AACWDO chiarelli_e_Page_129.jpg
d6c037676667df86f563f001bdfb86dd
cf82a769a716baa82dbec9851572b82a4c2d1c01
50071 F20101112_AACVYI chiarelli_e_Page_043.pro
b7df8a49795a2fcdae7efba99fb82db1
1c85d0433656bf09f2cdad428552349f89cdf8c8
120841 F20101112_AACWCZ chiarelli_e_Page_114.jpg
1dd15ab0bb37396255e00bf60b981665
f459184e601dd913f9bf4dfee4050a93836f4bb2
806329 F20101112_AACVXT chiarelli_e_Page_127.jp2
c5c1eedbfdbb2e4139e950d621cefbe1
92d74dac4618d3b832e44d7788cbddf38e378b99
73612 F20101112_AACWEC chiarelli_e_Page_144.jpg
b1c97645f3fc2fe9400528ec7e710262
6ec1e5d86455ff586fc748500176ce72ba761ce8
9400 F20101112_AACXHF chiarelli_e_Page_142thm.jpg
b245a469b77c99742bff4dd4b0ee3347
cac6b766c2a23b3d2ba0d3aa46d6c21f70047d6f
33427 F20101112_AACXGR chiarelli_e_Page_087.QC.jpg
9c884d364a0c51f206dc84684246a4c2
fb8cfa6487766035e54b792a7f6f8093b58b886b
47185 F20101112_AACWDP chiarelli_e_Page_130.jpg
1734995647708cfa1e90f2445d77b931
a59e177ee0b7655c07ad2687b20a34e1fcacaf6e
2055 F20101112_AACVYJ chiarelli_e_Page_054.txt
2cb157657d6c25c7de6cd37fc51c8d52
a6d38413d4d724e884199f7f4c1b60e510415aea
52357 F20101112_AACVXU chiarelli_e_Page_054.pro
34f202d7617ceea9999da27c16931b1f
dee9083ef16e8e07315482ebddecb4534b9e2f3a
26027 F20101112_AACWED chiarelli_e_Page_001.jp2
cd13f8e3f2e1c48cad064d533555f788
b59455d62b71a84cee242e0abcd29b685082d949
34565 F20101112_AACXHG chiarelli_e_Page_027.QC.jpg
a165e3285a8730274cb3de604f62c39b
e49b700d67b99ad424f31b38c297ab572a919f31
8609 F20101112_AACXGS chiarelli_e_Page_068thm.jpg
bd15f0c4dabc985f08d18a33092a35d0
cb256b7c23dc14eaac3c7c578beb60870710a21e
48363 F20101112_AACWDQ chiarelli_e_Page_131.jpg
121bfb65bfd4836999df91dfa25df4f9
2f7272b214f8fdb02d6af0141e9abbfdda2240b9
54292 F20101112_AACVXV chiarelli_e_Page_095.pro
6b82dcc065f997679e653bc66f178b5c
3089d2cbacc70e285138998745a8558a1ce9eebe
5020 F20101112_AACWEE chiarelli_e_Page_002.jp2
8a12362b86ef4ad1a9ecc1a65d8392fd
ff1ec9fc78cd7498df3cfef2b7504d034d9c16df
4433 F20101112_AACXHH chiarelli_e_Page_074thm.jpg
d93b2887ed09e87eb4de43918270d81f
f8053919d305eae7b47f4455c643fa01b312a995
28090 F20101112_AACXGT chiarelli_e_Page_128.QC.jpg
9249512144aa04f364669766f80e2848
04064d8bd9da1ac741b89401ccdea8272dc09804
48465 F20101112_AACWDR chiarelli_e_Page_132.jpg
2d8d920f7243fd372f97c39615d21d7d
a8fe691fe7c5159883f0da5e46b3ae0665bc03f8
114882 F20101112_AACVYK chiarelli_e_Page_107.jpg
3d7dc202ab47d621d37e3217e5582529
b54da6301febfd15e28141abceb3b517f6088b9c
80963 F20101112_AACVXW chiarelli_e_Page_129.pro
0b791fc364f172a39851857e607d3ce7
1668eb9976385cc1f2969cdff46f84412c640586
10196 F20101112_AACWEF chiarelli_e_Page_003.jp2
f54b8b29b090a1d73bdfdefa31af406c
1ba7095c493f190949741a4332662fe0d21fff57
6461 F20101112_AACXHI chiarelli_e_Page_128thm.jpg
f01fc063a1ae2f1019390cebaf4f7299
ac873af34a9c8c34afe38f81d83e03011ddeffec
33766 F20101112_AACXGU chiarelli_e_Page_056.QC.jpg
792c69e1ee919f649b8c16309dc7ce98
98ba4b7066d7240e72cee884c4294c8c0c97551c
126624 F20101112_AACVZA chiarelli_e_Page_008.jpg
abeab4c39439bc98e21136baddcd8a95
5bae2308e9dccb0425093fb7e9f543b55a8fe08b
52500 F20101112_AACWDS chiarelli_e_Page_133.jpg
1e35645920ee14bc306167f189a9b8d6
8a4c1ac3d973f7b99ccb6e0ffe6ad74627c334a3
1977 F20101112_AACVYL chiarelli_e_Page_132.txt
17eda3579bd2d5729692698cefd0006c
298ee896e5d0e96c0e4313873ae95ef497f70b45
32962 F20101112_AACVXX chiarelli_e_Page_059.QC.jpg
f65e5f2b699268f8df923ce4d6c2da96
dd0a60753dba8f8ce55954c4e7e2e36bfd7aaf33
115365 F20101112_AACWEG chiarelli_e_Page_004.jp2
a8aec6892555dc66bbaca1654431d2e6
0bc0e1aac476178218ad9da93f58abf25ca046eb
15469 F20101112_AACXHJ chiarelli_e_Page_057.QC.jpg
3ec060f53e5e3ea16534cfe42e16fb6c
12b3b6cf86a86749dc987629d0f43415ac589b8f
8330 F20101112_AACXGV chiarelli_e_Page_036thm.jpg
e29001ecc3f0685154994e9a83652cad
21afdf0fd628ac25493d9013ec904937e50d9302
120955 F20101112_AACVZB chiarelli_e_Page_009.jpg
a5617c7ef309d94a664fbc27be2d9411
3b356503e3b8c5cc1202e2ce1409324f1650ef5d
48522 F20101112_AACWDT chiarelli_e_Page_134.jpg
bc6efbdc9d20e7af1f36709764d2a6e8
dd579666f2f1c0069d688c22b3990f7a242b1242
32013 F20101112_AACVYM chiarelli_e_Page_020.pro
da7414d26e88f943aaff5fd284ab11a7
f61d3db98482c153a9aee3ad5fd84db5da995795
4164 F20101112_AACVXY chiarelli_e_Page_137thm.jpg
87d62cbfcb28427da0621851eff4ba22
d2a5fddbeb1cd14d06646caebceb7f02297fe86f
107846 F20101112_AACWEH chiarelli_e_Page_005.jp2
8dbfef594ed3558ca043086b2b518458
ef15617bbbda46a94a6cd7cac753664908540a9f
5765 F20101112_AACXHK chiarelli_e_Page_127thm.jpg
d7af077d1d6a2499097d04200858d6bf
5c6cecfc6dce44510e8c769b755c1c9662245135
108920 F20101112_AACVZC chiarelli_e_Page_010.jpg
3403bed0768f56bb184da8e539fbdb68
fd6b5b3cb3713c703af4518bae340f91bce70e52
105441 F20101112_AACVYN chiarelli_e_Page_054.jpg
bfa40624ad382206199c8afa2ced0417
a5df8ca6d56113f4e11b1d2dd04a683913aa5aa6
147857 F20101112_AACVXZ chiarelli_e_Page_049.jp2
9c0b3f64bd03476509b8c50d6c71c36b
d49b7da4e0c7294cf053b8f6b265b92c1f5b8680
1051978 F20101112_AACWEI chiarelli_e_Page_006.jp2
95f387d60a1ab057636082ea82287770
d33a70b6b013c7648449c90030c40c04167e60df
14243 F20101112_AACXHL chiarelli_e_Page_135.QC.jpg
d050eda9de2f604b0017331514091a80
b445b557cc9dac38ddae0d5cec942e367098afef
35828 F20101112_AACXGW chiarelli_e_Page_086.QC.jpg
420e97542165af2ec0c1403244d1fa17
3f4299793241e2f8f6188fa00bf15b71553fef1e
36092 F20101112_AACVZD chiarelli_e_Page_011.jpg
26316d47e9562e61dfcb2fc0f10793d7
52f4eaa36228ca22217c81460203c37fd1e9aea6
48873 F20101112_AACWDU chiarelli_e_Page_135.jpg
7af4e2e840264d83a6d7e56f0eb9b16d
c73c8e14bfada2e77d46c7c6297564649edd9143
1053954 F20101112_AACVYO chiarelli_e_Page_076.tif
0df1d5c97421ef34242348cea4fc23a5
a5e743efabbc3404a073ea91d0563311f8d002b6
1051985 F20101112_AACWEJ chiarelli_e_Page_007.jp2
1a310eadf621f83d8745043aad422168
584765c8eaf14720b2dc5f7ebbff7934e5d4fa2f
3044 F20101112_AACXIA chiarelli_e_Page_118thm.jpg
75aa083f7b18e8d3d78db1bcf3611462
2722e94d1a57a42383f57775d83f24723e12200e
27113 F20101112_AACXHM chiarelli_e_Page_041.QC.jpg
0aab528aca98a6f695d3b9d07d7c5b30
74400793aeab967055fcaf96855fa25114860099
32840 F20101112_AACXGX chiarelli_e_Page_014.QC.jpg
d31b3aeafde5d14f16223591b2665244
ad3947981b716ef188ca988e10ed8be4f6815031
106014 F20101112_AACVZE chiarelli_e_Page_012.jpg
27c3e36ba1a10584ee7d4ceede84aac7
8f606593a3d6fdc8e8aefe816d20381f164120b8
34864 F20101112_AACWDV chiarelli_e_Page_136.jpg
7ddce12ccaa47b075ad30ee885e031f1
8907397e9d6056d9d0d4869976fb66d411daf49b
23381 F20101112_AACVYP chiarelli_e_Page_124.QC.jpg
e15b93a2437357e4bf45854ab6be3415
ac5c3702186f46057eb906856eab94b219de821b
1051981 F20101112_AACWEK chiarelli_e_Page_008.jp2
ea6e590be2e9e0838139ffab266573ff
53ca04486e110577c812b64d664c78c7178be64c
25552 F20101112_AACXIB chiarelli_e_Page_046.QC.jpg
f74348ab4394f6df9e0aaccbdebb31c7
26ff8a4e97920b660795e8123d0d693e5b3045c8
523 F20101112_AACXHN chiarelli_e_Page_002thm.jpg
b9c2384efc22d55b9b30ff99fa0d9fa4
88810620fa8b0e915e3ee15fd9b2c634e5fcf016
5673 F20101112_AACXGY chiarelli_e_Page_125thm.jpg
85b4ff1733eb71e60d8f338f3617e615
20d44c1f332c6281bbec67bbf9c522ebcd816041
58632 F20101112_AACVZF chiarelli_e_Page_013.jpg
574d60a8ed9e232e81d96d49c9a2a310
debdabc0ad4140cc7a0e7362f0d9ea63e68efbda
45541 F20101112_AACWDW chiarelli_e_Page_137.jpg
a4f24095653163950ffd2b6c145e2c30
cf8bc76dc6f4929df061ccd74b3e2f86eba2f9c2
168686 F20101112_AACVYQ UFE0020152_00001.mets FULL
61d1ce07f19411ce17a34f3a8168c736
a9e473d62c8d3f88e971901c8ee97cff77b3d419
1051983 F20101112_AACWEL chiarelli_e_Page_009.jp2
84c8ae2b7bfbfb91f851a37455f232da
777865968cf90b6fe1a34c2f86d122bd9dda7a01
218602 F20101112_AACXIC UFE0020152_00001.xml
6fef0a4f282c1b8013b53e9fc1e062d3
956efffa5e2fda1f0a3e133edb595c74f5022d88
37378 F20101112_AACXHO chiarelli_e_Page_026.QC.jpg
b466464d5d639cd0e9602da370bb16fa
0a9344fb0e9d998d939a9faac9707bbbc428797b
8897 F20101112_AACXGZ chiarelli_e_Page_040thm.jpg
133e3b4e8b5a93ee4196fc8580460f6c
a3e149013af6fe0c8674d8188b2dfbe65575c024
101974 F20101112_AACVZG chiarelli_e_Page_014.jpg
5bcad18761c736156965f7337da5f7c4
ba0b99ef0e7ec2943eafdc9679aacd60f18c7217
43760 F20101112_AACWDX chiarelli_e_Page_138.jpg
588ac02e471a748d288f7890da0b4f5f
56be7b3c5aabde40a265d9cd4fa659461d9fb1c6
118214 F20101112_AACWFA chiarelli_e_Page_024.jp2
3f883273e00605e367ef259c0135f595
1d29aef6bea68f93bbd1f2c32e33b9cb1d05a7ef
1051966 F20101112_AACWEM chiarelli_e_Page_010.jp2
e0c6cac9c81368090dfc3dbc73cf5961
aab5dfe6da00336b268cb398b6c82811a4d5f3f8
39199 F20101112_AACXID chiarelli_e_Page_007.QC.jpg
ad9539ce653c970685f0917933f0cf13
8d00a59c563a69b0ae0854ed863acc770b229dbe
11545 F20101112_AACXHP chiarelli_e_Page_139.QC.jpg
807352de22c84e8f4fe150e0f5147dde
e3ef04c8d47792323f8bc4ec32b32c6a3022a758
105180 F20101112_AACVZH chiarelli_e_Page_015.jpg
060e4ef5f6807f08b27fb72a1e20ef5b
038efd071e055507653f01cef58995820e5a3801
36922 F20101112_AACWDY chiarelli_e_Page_139.jpg
870159b72321b1d94326714800d358ba
c4f825db452b681f617f55968cbee581f207f191
118537 F20101112_AACWFB chiarelli_e_Page_025.jp2
d7cd87595a7be3d548950479de346f15
a2e1cf9daf607ac425d10a488397de682aa15fba
617647 F20101112_AACWEN chiarelli_e_Page_011.jp2
4a9163fcab971bc3fbb05cd445e6cc14
a3a01d046db6430feae1c6dc3eebfcb12e652932
4992 F20101112_AACXIE chiarelli_e_Page_013thm.jpg
e6133d4506a04a661a5cb8444ddba336
057ec58f7f87066ea425fe9fc76f94a9e2d72bbd
36308 F20101112_AACXHQ chiarelli_e_Page_067.QC.jpg
32ed33f17efe765436a0b9ce90cf3899
426ca47d0f845785c55e233716c95ea4c5960155
112854 F20101112_AACVZI chiarelli_e_Page_016.jpg
64ea5ce538a443dd540b6d0c4ec08cb6
73c7d16b43cf8dcbd78870d4b1768659ce124f9b
119335 F20101112_AACWDZ chiarelli_e_Page_140.jpg
d74e41445b5ffc5faf7fc57d5589d85f
976f146b822388dc210dba5cbe38b9d2e09dffd5
27436 F20101112_AACVYT chiarelli_e_Page_001.jpg
f2e8b9b2432cdbfeaac6d39dfd84b6ae
5a55bcb1cc783f2e6e8e611e8123f315605fd217
121730 F20101112_AACWFC chiarelli_e_Page_026.jp2
2870980f7049a690d7b2e34e38b77484
7fe329c85aa14eafe124a7a58e1b5c5cad31c852
109443 F20101112_AACWEO chiarelli_e_Page_012.jp2
436f32ae92896c454a6c58cc7d7c2402
15d0c3f845143a40037af818980d4ca99c229a19
8575 F20101112_AACXIF chiarelli_e_Page_015thm.jpg
9389127d78de6e68d66295149fbb375e
ac3b0267ea885ed44b20f2961d39aa3562b5b88c
5742 F20101112_AACXHR chiarelli_e_Page_072thm.jpg
2f5ee2de3f14bd7138005e2bf7df0a8d
04aaf4814e23b0fc3fde8adc656c32f490addcde
109444 F20101112_AACVZJ chiarelli_e_Page_017.jpg
65cc19ba37c8dac8f82e2305b624688d
3907df7a350be6a846678f11546414e5a1debee2
3963 F20101112_AACVYU chiarelli_e_Page_002.jpg
67f6c30d2af242fb8fe58f43cd44fcbe
773febce0d4c5dfd1903c760c0a91f5df817942e
114697 F20101112_AACWFD chiarelli_e_Page_027.jp2
06ee4fd1363eea9200c5f3308b2b2696
ffc897376ef22d39f35f59fc216033d424ee0939
62857 F20101112_AACWEP chiarelli_e_Page_013.jp2
a13cfbede4d25878dc7795eabede144b
17d77dbacdbaca092d30030871f0a93089484efa
8935 F20101112_AACXIG chiarelli_e_Page_021thm.jpg
e23aaea2281ee4eb848040f2d75bca63
d3dedf35ad5f0d77ef2b783bf82c59debb6cd088
33961 F20101112_AACXHS chiarelli_e_Page_050.QC.jpg
244bac326e1a3ccf3c809cda7a507807
2724eb0e276c70241686b9738c7f3ec5f7078a16
115454 F20101112_AACVZK chiarelli_e_Page_018.jpg
ceaf2356ccd348a8af0f388a54ca97ca
405682d03e2247887b98d80762092da2f44ea1b8
8914 F20101112_AACVYV chiarelli_e_Page_003.jpg
2bf25867a2fa16845b15bf364d1d232e
a0d55c4b04532b4cb853799c40e93a126db379fd
106905 F20101112_AACWFE chiarelli_e_Page_028.jp2
eea3b1771c4d4ae4b32e7e9e146ab6d5
bdcc75faa2a3d89d2bf63affe839e6bf7eaaa164
108484 F20101112_AACWEQ chiarelli_e_Page_014.jp2
1b4e10d01fff1ee7dc9a61aa9e97006b
a7af954c7126f1ec11b04fef263829acb27008b3
36410 F20101112_AACXIH chiarelli_e_Page_025.QC.jpg
058744987a4f9badebf73f5b12de6f88
2202da1cbec14a7303454203d44b35c05451c3af
7032 F20101112_AACXHT chiarelli_e_Page_122thm.jpg
692fbe44b144af4b4cdadc4cb0de3bd4
c5ead562fb2e78492e683024c64815fe28173368
108331 F20101112_AACVYW chiarelli_e_Page_004.jpg
b7949d42e2fbe154aaa16697b67f3e95
c698533d36dbc4b009c1cc89ef9669ff0e543138
96629 F20101112_AACWFF chiarelli_e_Page_029.jp2
392e602a75f92d256829535687112ded
5338084f301dac7fca280fa0186410c780a8378d
113646 F20101112_AACWER chiarelli_e_Page_015.jp2
e0183eb6579c1f1e264417b7e2d6c01e
d8be9ad36cb04dea8391b47ac36096eb49f4f9cb
9163 F20101112_AACXII chiarelli_e_Page_026thm.jpg
cbc8824bd1f19d29506a87f24f7bdd46
bf7d9e235454a2f6a534772d6bdb3b9dafca2663
28628 F20101112_AACXHU chiarelli_e_Page_121.QC.jpg
497f428b7d1534964cd8856801356178
71db097fc96b41b513a1418c8cd71db19dc969ab
120673 F20101112_AACVZL chiarelli_e_Page_019.jpg
8b9baba2080f4c45015a598defee6877
7405ebbb975b775610cafd5e5deec284bdcf3ce5
103898 F20101112_AACVYX chiarelli_e_Page_005.jpg
4f7f4dec5e84c56e0b4cd32c06579122
bbae8b95fe1bcb2075d0cf865286875c33f4ecca
41246 F20101112_AACWFG chiarelli_e_Page_030.jp2
faa4c91be94d6c3fc4401934ce4b1c4e
cfa676bf0c1745618bdb1c5a4ecf1c0597488886
121379 F20101112_AACWES chiarelli_e_Page_016.jp2
7b511cff6e9baeccf4f29f51f30abc16
9e6dcefb449edf5923473177e7510a9460c56026
7949 F20101112_AACXIJ chiarelli_e_Page_028thm.jpg
68cc36ca255b51903f3c77513c55d7b2
fd5079652a7508645e601b41f31a9d2257a08669
5166 F20101112_AACXHV chiarelli_e_Page_126thm.jpg
2b7f7d5825c7812cd6638ca2c024ac2c
f703e811bed117e9711410899bac790d4978be16
66122 F20101112_AACVZM chiarelli_e_Page_020.jpg
9c93b70d6dc762ed8d2d0bc851eb94da
adb6722843135c2758f9a754d7ee8a41817bb545
108877 F20101112_AACVYY chiarelli_e_Page_006.jpg
7f438b5ab8d61d8a009f21dfaefc0116
5ba535c9e0e9fb694dad6c7a997305efaa899c27
46057 F20101112_AACWFH chiarelli_e_Page_031.jp2
db2fe2d7ed3d634f608e5c22d113260c
08a4555381f383e75c25b8774715cb32a89ce715
117399 F20101112_AACWET chiarelli_e_Page_017.jp2
3029e5e306004cedf0a5c9dad701265a
88b906804e94340533dd644709158a821ded00c0
29935 F20101112_AACXIK chiarelli_e_Page_029.QC.jpg
6105a81c1e04ec2b65eefe5348334d9b
08ad928dd2f2cb83269296add1aa0f23988f3bbc
9189 F20101112_AACXHW chiarelli_e_Page_091.QC.jpg
766b2302273e2e050e7cd14a54e87c91
43d2ed56fae1e3ce05b053d39d450d0a9f4c0465
111113 F20101112_AACVZN chiarelli_e_Page_021.jpg
cacf08e2dcba22be47ac6a16af0f72dd
517ddeacbe8af9dc0069c0c68c272a95aff0bf78
175260 F20101112_AACVYZ chiarelli_e_Page_007.jpg
88ae95ab6215c63b947db98ec1327248
32046c9e9a8ad3b17c0b245e505b36cc8a729d96
123714 F20101112_AACWFI chiarelli_e_Page_032.jp2
173f58831276bc69447bd4a9b46ffbc3
b73981782b8d4c7a033790854ec2d4b7a0164d58
128130 F20101112_AACWEU chiarelli_e_Page_018.jp2
49c2d8a2a250d61f0e4f2be2f580e3de
c32a93ff5d150e6a72d9b631ce6f0f4d166537a0
11713 F20101112_AACXIL chiarelli_e_Page_031.QC.jpg
b3747d624a19d1c23114a5d6702c93a1
c29039f4fc378474b81c734277004b32b5ee2f70
115376 F20101112_AACVZO chiarelli_e_Page_022.jpg
c230aa92967781eda7dc05c08b6ff09a
d35c049b850bc1981e4551a25d4d4ad02acc5b04
115083 F20101112_AACWFJ chiarelli_e_Page_033.jp2
2162e2b321824fc22d3b541b4435c21e
63ab98553f85dd8e6449d08f42ed241be71c8a7a
8405 F20101112_AACXJA chiarelli_e_Page_058thm.jpg
7750815cc6ea9594d1211fcc4e247fdf
7b9a1ca29c0b78daebb771d69b19a37b6564b1b8
35634 F20101112_AACXIM chiarelli_e_Page_033.QC.jpg
eb5cd55277e70b68722052556ee02dff
8f49e638ad1b76be104414a75eb01d8a354e14cf
21906 F20101112_AACXHX chiarelli_e_Page_125.QC.jpg
40872f063af9cecb4bf4d5c3a48ed5ac
339891906d556fb56be993edf5525bc8213fd608
112982 F20101112_AACVZP chiarelli_e_Page_023.jpg
d9e12de3d99564918243cf23b0fcf8bb
8e9d645fa63b5554fbfa58a022a0832ffb928895
123109 F20101112_AACWFK chiarelli_e_Page_034.jp2
632f589868f2a918f94ed0d20df79187
e197ad3779febf9cea6c56236f25559949c14bbb
128716 F20101112_AACWEV chiarelli_e_Page_019.jp2
3b2228265419166a19c2b52ca4d0787c
db57d8699bdc746bb5a37f89f2dc4e7679423e2c
7829 F20101112_AACXJB chiarelli_e_Page_061thm.jpg
1997e976f181d8b3d9f317b3040b08a3
fabd3c27811cdaa72f5b11b576f77ca8ad5f4bf6
1355 F20101112_AACXIN chiarelli_e_Page_035thm.jpg
cf4e91260f781adbb8af0dc63ff59b73
68be5c2714a1e134e8b7c83cdda72d64832bdc32
9050 F20101112_AACXHY chiarelli_e_Page_088thm.jpg
20477c19b3805ca47b4a4e995ba1b649
d058d2bb813ddd893ee4b7f89b7de9c0b2814175
109966 F20101112_AACVZQ chiarelli_e_Page_024.jpg
bf40d92fd375c04bc35b306b42dbd620
e00ab41d184adde2ffb5036887249d9eba713ff3
15031 F20101112_AACWFL chiarelli_e_Page_035.jp2
7a1ee6dc34cd8174e9bca9e28e33d3ff
40061f15318844be22e883a845eb7592dd4b633b
70436 F20101112_AACWEW chiarelli_e_Page_020.jp2
423e2cf217647b4d8e12c9f79679c6e7
c078d6e66a214236f97085b395be78e2ad8701f6
23776 F20101112_AACXJC chiarelli_e_Page_063.QC.jpg
38b1ecb24199caa75f249b9a77c93ffc
742c6947251d48e5143e0eb7735d16a678b85bae
36887 F20101112_AACXIO chiarelli_e_Page_037.QC.jpg
cbc0ae7c364015b9df1ff8a447de1c31
7b7907fb67634d38d5202287f82122e5ffe9209b
32757 F20101112_AACXHZ chiarelli_e_Page_085.QC.jpg
676a622e0bf81706646e4d3f35790d8b
99aad81accbba86e26d47767f595ef0833087a98
111272 F20101112_AACVZR chiarelli_e_Page_025.jpg
e93b7129f51701181108a90635a92b55
0ef3e7e870b5389d64505f61db12d3fd181e86b5
81162 F20101112_AACWGA chiarelli_e_Page_051.jp2
8233f09bdbad11d8a43bb8600a9fdd8f
a3f7defbc277ccc65d0b00ae5ea0951563c4fbca
113167 F20101112_AACWFM chiarelli_e_Page_036.jp2
c82de14489b176bb0f98f5634eb9c863
cda06dff7897d6c29589821b42c8d8973bc60f73
117862 F20101112_AACWEX chiarelli_e_Page_021.jp2
b71631c4aa6491846fbbe57ef78e65b4
76c9782f13901431fc8b45aba314556ca1003a1a
2875 F20101112_AACXJD chiarelli_e_Page_064thm.jpg
2c54111565008ae39d9c9e3454aa9f49
f455b67415e1e2557e6b944d21dcf01512f2d10a
6211 F20101112_AACXIP chiarelli_e_Page_041thm.jpg
297cf8c0638354d02fccae70f56d1bae
a9921b188b5a3cb074225e3f3ecf76ece110e88f
114336 F20101112_AACVZS chiarelli_e_Page_026.jpg
925429a31c1325fddf5a82d22d277c75
41e8f5d71eca8080bc4ec2ea97b3b37831c48509
68714 F20101112_AACWGB chiarelli_e_Page_052.jp2
ea090a7d7ca8340ebe8340202534cebe
36061c93c8497325988576222538cdc999cab221
118001 F20101112_AACWFN chiarelli_e_Page_037.jp2
e9cd48f054a46236698c735f8ebe582a
84fa738b3fd35c5f7e6b4f4d599ab5ac71c6f621
122499 F20101112_AACWEY chiarelli_e_Page_022.jp2
555ddb574ff789a436063380c88d806e
c7cae8b2230224ca88e5b6f30450104ccfa12d42
36391 F20101112_AACXJE chiarelli_e_Page_070.QC.jpg
f7b39943bc9f68f20715cb905dd6ab30
96703e2015229d8f3e3a97ac2460c859645f4307
32858 F20101112_AACXIQ chiarelli_e_Page_042.QC.jpg
bbc43a36054bdf50ab01242536b3d6d3
b0595e6139f5813d0590a4794256616382cccfa0
105806 F20101112_AACVZT chiarelli_e_Page_027.jpg
6d01ca1d86c2b1fbf67eb9c63f51c71d
b3e97da819a4953a573d3cb04f58a166fbfa2bd6
83814 F20101112_AACWGC chiarelli_e_Page_053.jp2
2c56fd12b8151808b3ac309751f77fad
6fe9991005e9d70b8cb75ee62deccd42324b4668
120330 F20101112_AACWFO chiarelli_e_Page_038.jp2
55dfcbb3d2c134c256a07896dfdbb15c
3c33d2b31acc297821ac6e6e79c63d8344da6a4b
120254 F20101112_AACWEZ chiarelli_e_Page_023.jp2
db6a4e775f3b4a983cab8af85bd23fa0
b22428c75e62df4508a7d5e1fe843e0071a8e750
8844 F20101112_AACXJF chiarelli_e_Page_070thm.jpg
6bb16f5ae780c06ccb32ba4b2995827d
7b09a29adb0df5650453ccbb803d99159ef9bcc4
8045 F20101112_AACXIR chiarelli_e_Page_043thm.jpg
a13288cd2da8024118e540c05982a55e
4644d9e700156825d09241d739d0560119d4d55e
101258 F20101112_AACVZU chiarelli_e_Page_028.jpg
87504a9174797f8f954c12cdfcd4e37f
c7c3c589292d85686d599715355757a597578d06
113635 F20101112_AACWGD chiarelli_e_Page_054.jp2
4a8d3bc4f2e3f4d82d21bc60d6a6a4ea
c92226034f8d6c6c0dbe4039d23e201dbb1df54d
109168 F20101112_AACWFP chiarelli_e_Page_039.jp2
64e7b35f53fd145ef3af98ecaeba2709
e52dc847d2eee30e2382d885d73ed247ad4a7d5b
4891 F20101112_AACXJG chiarelli_e_Page_075thm.jpg
e18609b17faf114369e7ebdc33c180b0
e082636b4cdb0c2a8fe24d4328f68434abe35f78
7284 F20101112_AACXIS chiarelli_e_Page_047thm.jpg
74069b912f6a1dcf82bd73fc0bb1fb4e
2abbe8ca3e1dd19b80ee29a48b19eff5bebb9914
91971 F20101112_AACVZV chiarelli_e_Page_029.jpg
2cf0985485105e322876dfef5bcdc5d6
28ce219bff94a7780e39dd054d1fba941bea9c85
93964 F20101112_AACWGE chiarelli_e_Page_055.jp2
f417043054a42aeaa2c48e4f6a29ef47
fff32ae7dcab35ec6f4e24d21dbfd4522bdd471c
113424 F20101112_AACWFQ chiarelli_e_Page_040.jp2
a4cf5952c26d13cab90e4fd3de26d388
1ba3aa7f24bc736569f3ed1012c652857b51e87b
6859 F20101112_AACXJH chiarelli_e_Page_077thm.jpg
fd19c9ba6357911240693ec9259d8c67
d3ff682b0a570f8e1e442c9538604b9a03b8005e
9157 F20101112_AACXIT chiarelli_e_Page_049thm.jpg
4637f15896d122466e94fd1234913cf6
d43d97d02532b106937b087f6b65049b82c8a4cf
37969 F20101112_AACVZW chiarelli_e_Page_030.jpg
b30f861536a2db3adfe30da05ca05a41
91f4987b37ca58cb2e32bca32fbbcb442f2185eb
111517 F20101112_AACWGF chiarelli_e_Page_056.jp2
d1d778acabb8c68a12addc082a167225
3f505e55400dc6bd24ce9c772555698d3b5e19db
103371 F20101112_AACWFR chiarelli_e_Page_041.jp2
3004723576741f9b9936b0cb2c2de539
028ed4993c1bc26a24eb96dbefb0c7e3050eccb2
33395 F20101112_AACXJI chiarelli_e_Page_078.QC.jpg
0165825b1b107fcbb99d75493963c694
14604097d496af8dad7dcfcc2b4b57521ce87eae
8644 F20101112_AACXIU chiarelli_e_Page_050thm.jpg
6349cb7246e08607978742d71765fa27
32d39442db55aaa20ae1cbe63f5e33db0d73da6f
34017 F20101112_AACVZX chiarelli_e_Page_031.jpg
417a385ec32e556ef52190bd87757311
124883e548fe79946cfc01330725495657e8b701
49020 F20101112_AACWGG chiarelli_e_Page_057.jp2
df4a90bb8a8eefe1dd1483d24905d4ae
24b240721699216dffbd659012feaab8511824a8
110739 F20101112_AACWFS chiarelli_e_Page_042.jp2
4b07b3f9c75578f2ccfd3da26d8cca48
01e0f40130ab951d706785a6cac3798583ee46c4
27884 F20101112_AACXJJ chiarelli_e_Page_079.QC.jpg
951c6efc8f31a18cc49cded19662ff6c
aa42cc40cf32b579e7cc1de942ab6e7243d32665
5403 F20101112_AACXIV chiarelli_e_Page_052thm.jpg
00d2a3a03d568484c18cc5bda84a90ee
cf2d9b4d5cb3de8b9196d9e148931104d0939301
116770 F20101112_AACVZY chiarelli_e_Page_032.jpg
ae18036a516412cf4cb8dfa634583808
33196863a6c6c9735832c8e968370e1559911965
111815 F20101112_AACWGH chiarelli_e_Page_058.jp2
fb2dfcdc6a8595a22d18c9be40325009
d171a8985681170fbb97c2f650c640c827aee57e
109037 F20101112_AACWFT chiarelli_e_Page_043.jp2
d08d5c5c7b7028355c59269df3258def
0bdbf7ebe61da5b686dae19564776d6c4ab14322
7204 F20101112_AACXJK chiarelli_e_Page_079thm.jpg
6c6beef117c81be47e4765d7fe9ea606
f538e13f9eaae925c60b860d232c4b4cd620f9c0
6468 F20101112_AACXIW chiarelli_e_Page_053thm.jpg
ffad7d819bfe5915321693ce3fb5e065
7b9076da83912b2e808bd44a7b8a3bd827ea3957
109360 F20101112_AACVZZ chiarelli_e_Page_033.jpg
25c4baa1704d59caa30874f70d62570b
d627dba78fb65c3df57aaec891605c6dcf6d986d
110222 F20101112_AACWGI chiarelli_e_Page_059.jp2
255bec5cd00afed435514621876a78f1
ef015af1232a9e18d08c203880f35115b46279f9
119947 F20101112_AACWFU chiarelli_e_Page_044.jp2
c26efb09649b266258af798cf7feef99
f2de7d593b1d55e35c7b920085c2f5aa88f02e36
15225 F20101112_AACXJL chiarelli_e_Page_082.QC.jpg
e3800057b8c0c09c641c52b140fcc409
f21265a1b41e379d179f9f4e8474ca899c730ed9
7354 F20101112_AACXIX chiarelli_e_Page_055thm.jpg
6b81706bbf58ab5325b1ed9f2ae1e505
27eb976ffadf9e9d6b5c6912f89af7c44b8112e2
103038 F20101112_AACWGJ chiarelli_e_Page_060.jp2
a379e78a919f38fc899a0b4f560207b4
2d1ef2e725d00b17abb74aa01ca044cb75b8f6bf
115857 F20101112_AACWFV chiarelli_e_Page_045.jp2
afe51d66737183c8a99fcd7366cf2ff5
3b477b2657af2559f439262467e01693c9294b85
36075 F20101112_AACXKA chiarelli_e_Page_113.QC.jpg
d41d06d84cd4118c4585282a3d01b963
c24bc2997e7e2c9333bfd0d4ca24d2658c4314fe
5267 F20101112_AACXJM chiarelli_e_Page_082thm.jpg
67d7278dc65b001b0f6ccc9c34650158
0b2fede2fc9226e80d1b21dccabcfb8a25b90916
104329 F20101112_AACWGK chiarelli_e_Page_061.jp2
6816ed4be2de5937056502a4afa5a2ac
0213a1e636dc50d6f7dab406702c580988cf06c1
8509 F20101112_AACXKB chiarelli_e_Page_113thm.jpg
1a9aaa04f64e7948f23da7644a551d79
e297a2dc2d542c90a3a401c1ef95fb3bc7070fae
22886 F20101112_AACXJN chiarelli_e_Page_083.QC.jpg
b619c5323a83d27bf10aae13a8fe5990
95d228063a1a91e4ae30a7dab7f1ccae1cc7700e
8190 F20101112_AACXIY chiarelli_e_Page_056thm.jpg
b450f480af8d237aa8caddb7015997dd
8aabc16b7df509dfbcab8ca4ac0e823f6cf4c19d
112442 F20101112_AACWGL chiarelli_e_Page_062.jp2
a258e0a3b3dd2034c7e2dccaf26c11b3
63f6339a10aade7539fe2ff832106d8c38068885
100171 F20101112_AACWFW chiarelli_e_Page_046.jp2
6edf1fa4f44e174e5c00f9e4cb6c9623
61fc6e1e6a784999d7657bea20cdc4659d450261
38791 F20101112_AACXKC chiarelli_e_Page_117.QC.jpg
12d29432c1979fdbb13e2c631b699d15
d6228cfe84b10be76e66aff34fd83c7db5d420b4
7919 F20101112_AACXJO chiarelli_e_Page_084thm.jpg
e6762c98e61e3eec61552fb23c38cc1f
2a7c570c41e2ff6dc34d8e1e9682fb2e1eb57815
3992 F20101112_AACXIZ chiarelli_e_Page_057thm.jpg
f4a7bc636596a3c4f5d827fe5f5e67be
23463ded52d54a532266282ce13f8d5a13cbdf99
119356 F20101112_AACWGM chiarelli_e_Page_063.jp2
589bbf15a69b5ceb14bc05875e51f2df
a123b34efbed92c36748cf86da1df45799c95bfe
103045 F20101112_AACWFX chiarelli_e_Page_047.jp2
62727d6281535ea880908535f55dbafd
931be3528bb2ec1fdfccc6817ad4980ca24cc093
91083 F20101112_AACWHA chiarelli_e_Page_077.jp2
c824a4657e389310c54aa393101958aa
5b74d523650cc9e2921c096ad0282b1f2a295d94
7022 F20101112_AACXKD chiarelli_e_Page_121thm.jpg
72b63a5fc0bbbf04dfb6a1b7e5c5db80
d96e28a9f86a99337fa6b5b18f0c9b3027d28241
8763 F20101112_AACXJP chiarelli_e_Page_086thm.jpg
253dc4a253071eb1bd8b7b22d85b6d80
e18b2a4c3c5504daf16ef193809f0e5eca717dfb
56996 F20101112_AACWGN chiarelli_e_Page_064.jp2
734fdcf9033115c6bcd66d3a35a94aa8
0d04fcd107d1275959f868eb689e8805e1172ff9
75304 F20101112_AACWFY chiarelli_e_Page_048.jp2
529489704a55ff531784945520de95ca
de2bc0dabca402b2ab1d890800423db88fbe80a0
107367 F20101112_AACWHB chiarelli_e_Page_078.jp2
e641a553c6d2091697772b4973a5dfbd
e99153bc23dded1955ecf0f4c1145a6097b1db17
19121 F20101112_AACXKE chiarelli_e_Page_126.QC.jpg
32132ea6b558c0d8a1920a807c9b18c1
a37e528c1354f6be993ad5bf60c10fc8e54ed6ec
7885 F20101112_AACXJQ chiarelli_e_Page_089thm.jpg
5a4d0b9b8e3e8be82bd22b8505534fa6
60dbc6a2f7bae030de94ca1ccabb8172d0f7ffbc
107774 F20101112_AACWGO chiarelli_e_Page_065.jp2
4bc3ed63c4aaf48e574f17375c440d39
b5bb5bf3192f4b06bc46662c7c028f7af34a9cc3
116059 F20101112_AACWFZ chiarelli_e_Page_050.jp2
62a2f6a03426721783077fe9224d4623
a68a365315fb079b4dd3355029229a988dcffbcf
86282 F20101112_AACWHC chiarelli_e_Page_079.jp2
7355156fe6b74c73197fda42b61dc2b9
3b1815b51766d2dd1999d368e7f5fcbb6f58e112
21555 F20101112_AACXKF chiarelli_e_Page_127.QC.jpg
6b3f96591cc8183f369f614f883ad031
b146c9b7166d85271eaa19cbebd67fe2c4c3db95
13036 F20101112_AACXJR chiarelli_e_Page_092.QC.jpg
a5030c8f21dc867adeef59acec9f0ec0
0b92736eff610cf0e589f005ef656e555a4dd7ee
115162 F20101112_AACWGP chiarelli_e_Page_066.jp2
00bb810ecc6dde0524aff0f3755cec61
68beccdd25fee51978e1e81e820f68ac0a12b05d
112083 F20101112_AACWHD chiarelli_e_Page_080.jp2
917be3a3ebf0c99171566468e1f7120a
79d6ea7b33c214a81cc6f5da450e9007e17bd4e3
16725 F20101112_AACXKG chiarelli_e_Page_129.QC.jpg
fef60311bd69a18344d1ffbe16ae88c3
e4ba08f1ea1a1ff83e61336dc41519f4f6a26b23
32169 F20101112_AACXJS chiarelli_e_Page_094.QC.jpg
e343953c3ab58c7d7139ec70f6c56795
e3bbccdac8d9a2fae2116acf08b7980fe9722c2c
121363 F20101112_AACWGQ chiarelli_e_Page_067.jp2
8982a6c7c46ba6e4fb012680a32d061b
e2a0509ff8c09e7f731d044166182af9e4331a3e
434944 F20101112_AACWHE chiarelli_e_Page_081.jp2
0eb143af9fe85378290e30e85e22e5f7
db0fae60ac3f49328c0b0463d776731c6a4c39a0
13689 F20101112_AACXKH chiarelli_e_Page_130.QC.jpg
9590d294b2690b0ce0c92e20cc3830b5
6d9c44eabe37ee43d11e3237969292dadc01e256
36522 F20101112_AACXJT chiarelli_e_Page_095.QC.jpg
6e5665f70d928ce2d15658ceeb940199
bb4fcdc1c2b6730946a9b8f5d1a5c2b5dd7e4365
116052 F20101112_AACWGR chiarelli_e_Page_068.jp2
21bfe30ee33beea9e2aefc0eff1ea884
46e542abb1b009baefe37eb23411eb1c04f67235
431288 F20101112_AACWHF chiarelli_e_Page_082.jp2
5dfa015c0bc4b522e568dac828743029
f471993ae10d765641110e41d8ef6643e9b11c53
3892 F20101112_AACXKI chiarelli_e_Page_130thm.jpg
d92697c7b2aace734f4cc2ef41611d98
cd92242f29313a6420aef653b385a709d02823c7
8835 F20101112_AACXJU chiarelli_e_Page_095thm.jpg
ce8468b54b09e6b88995537017d88953
04c41c278e8666696bb0e7c3675eedfb370660a5
118663 F20101112_AACWGS chiarelli_e_Page_069.jp2
8155e99910962bf73e3c1ee22b535f4b
b4bb8f0ba7a89ec945a3b373bb71990960d3d73e
674687 F20101112_AACWHG chiarelli_e_Page_083.jp2
3f722ad37d324646a98dad1b45e03ec4
d0054ae3022386486545a08dabf9a94b36a2ecd2
13938 F20101112_AACXKJ chiarelli_e_Page_131.QC.jpg
3ef28bb0a931d8a3715b2eb178dc869e
fdfc972fb2e2acdade98f5083875f34616598235
8554 F20101112_AACXJV chiarelli_e_Page_097thm.jpg
2fb39573eb567b07c831e0da32eb2d69
68fbc25074b1d04d4e979e6e7139ab2474f2a21a
118605 F20101112_AACWGT chiarelli_e_Page_070.jp2
76652c978e48c2891a42cb64219a1c08
063c954fe1bd406802e24321544e16fa0331c721
102386 F20101112_AACWHH chiarelli_e_Page_084.jp2
bbe9a4b6cfb7de4e72119f65fc5cde7a
cfd3567ef3e41aa8ad06a67747e12218b0466fa2
4236 F20101112_AACXKK chiarelli_e_Page_133thm.jpg
5ad85ac50e1d621efd9ce198495b6a45
6db2adabd76885b640b45e962b530f01caf77069
34761 F20101112_AACXJW chiarelli_e_Page_100.QC.jpg
82290adb61170777106d8888e9a085d6
55a9feef8f0a22f749f3d8abca5ccb61773ef280
104829 F20101112_AACWGU chiarelli_e_Page_071.jp2
49fa442fce40da5932b9a3b3cf943bab
7cb1fa6f9aeb978969da3a3473b4ff3bd211676f
107229 F20101112_AACWHI chiarelli_e_Page_085.jp2
0b0e0b6fbe4fe3cc41de2e67527fb955
e8bab5e294ef3194f0879fd3c563c9f9db03caf8
26142 F20101112_AACXKL chiarelli_e_Page_143.QC.jpg
c47054780791283bdc042101709cf7fd
d99877fe198f7e43fcac5f36dd873cc6ebd8110c
8915 F20101112_AACXJX chiarelli_e_Page_103thm.jpg
0c8f1ea6006ce93749d62d123fc338d9
774f93958c2c5ac232959393cf6235393d98af23
124146 F20101112_AACWGV chiarelli_e_Page_072.jp2
1f3c5322722526f6fa13c73ff548a163
9f24098c7fcdbe747ed57d4d228308a83a2433c5
116148 F20101112_AACWHJ chiarelli_e_Page_086.jp2
cb50429458ef6e148dfa23fa693ae22a
2df47a4b574396c3c5b60dfcc1b787c9bebe0471
23285 F20101112_AACXKM chiarelli_e_Page_144.QC.jpg
c09e977a5b2d6574d3b7532119e0afce
25ee7397002396ef7713c132f6a2b00b9a0d2897
37235 F20101112_AACXJY chiarelli_e_Page_105.QC.jpg
cfbc3e2decc0e4ec8b5114ecbe1a2a77
b290c370862f909e2ec32191e8f82f0d3c294de4
63836 F20101112_AACWGW chiarelli_e_Page_073.jp2
af015837c182ca07e5ea2156fc933acc
ca6158fbea17ce752ac4e712570526e575c3801c
106114 F20101112_AACWHK chiarelli_e_Page_087.jp2
25599a264f9d599326731d8c7877a274
bdd694905909e305c9a5a254f6f1dfd56e6a12fe
124239 F20101112_AACWHL chiarelli_e_Page_088.jp2
13497387ba599e51138beb3db10c8711
f0e6b965d6df582138bdbab57903ef803e61b48d
8623 F20101112_AACXJZ chiarelli_e_Page_111thm.jpg
fab382d3510539602f6faea35386bdd4
76d5bcf951d85c77583f9e109b82b2cc8024a719
98295 F20101112_AACWGX chiarelli_e_Page_074.jp2
c1317b94dd8ba42cfb756f465478cfc6
a60c323f417c16a3f5eae25f671c3009b258a20d
141671 F20101112_AACWIA chiarelli_e_Page_103.jp2
14dc5a8a36642d537d6d08bafaa85bb9
be970abd4acf7df9d323c1aad51a6cdf002b706f
103501 F20101112_AACWHM chiarelli_e_Page_089.jp2
cd0f0e3ea9d54f995dd698b16b220091
1e4e622bface94c820eaba4dc041df34f0258fd4
102711 F20101112_AACWGY chiarelli_e_Page_075.jp2
bf2f86088f5c0c95cf1aaac42a26e3db
759ef0b20f629a5df38c2df138e1e179eab3eb4f
140432 F20101112_AACWIB chiarelli_e_Page_104.jp2
6eb78dcd80efe56cfd071a7931225b5f
6f92914ce7ae7a52609965b9fd00f4c6d56d74e5
116505 F20101112_AACWHN chiarelli_e_Page_090.jp2
be1373c4ded19bd635dc126f10733a5e
f9ad78f2b9b2b460027c982e55d99810784ec473
96656 F20101112_AACWGZ chiarelli_e_Page_076.jp2
e7f1e0cbc67fc6380d3009e5676d2462
093fd9eaf93c831047929f68dc7231a13f10b9ef
120426 F20101112_AACWIC chiarelli_e_Page_105.jp2
93b69cbc05750b279efd9d3d61994da6
5e8c84af0b21aa1da6ce4e2f2368077e721ee4fa
28989 F20101112_AACWHO chiarelli_e_Page_091.jp2
932fde793d1fe23f347308e7deb4be2b
7f206f1ec7db7104e59856eab6ba955d808e37ae
119021 F20101112_AACWID chiarelli_e_Page_106.jp2
8875e2463a88ff94dcee65d399e76949
1ad006d2ae722b46fc96c775cd7e5b0332b19aa3
64895 F20101112_AACWHP chiarelli_e_Page_092.jp2
27914406f392a856a471e86d89a54559
ec4edfd9242f10f75b134fc802dab3b98f87d382
121741 F20101112_AACWIE chiarelli_e_Page_107.jp2
fec78564d06ae0440ec11ab9b7858fb1
fa2752f53a2f1da17ef7c33b94cdc4e566bfb5e2
36123 F20101112_AACWHQ chiarelli_e_Page_093.jp2
173f739de09df464306a781cbe3b1342
a5fd6921a43540c2562c7452ad00d37b509a984b
125241 F20101112_AACWIF chiarelli_e_Page_108.jp2
aa18166180553efccfd4320bcda80144
4b5ffea56e66df5d72af7b237448e8756f95dd9c
107493 F20101112_AACWHR chiarelli_e_Page_094.jp2
e54f869b372e849c212758b693f19126
f487d24bce89a968d91d1a41522bc3582c8e46e2
127385 F20101112_AACWIG chiarelli_e_Page_109.jp2
c834d2ba6c607728834c01fa11a6830a
541094948b553044c48193255b3b0c65fe2f4620
118461 F20101112_AACWHS chiarelli_e_Page_095.jp2
cbf29b810f78b5f1320f2379a0db8d3d
b9933bacaa2e582f83875a1f8766b6fbfb1e109b
112839 F20101112_AACWIH chiarelli_e_Page_110.jp2
c36c4f53e9c1ca94761e7f1fd907e2a2
bb62435d822f4e4c1b150c3334b2b2533b8fbc82
122972 F20101112_AACWHT chiarelli_e_Page_096.jp2
bd357ee938d26ed79ac5e4d5fc5a4f07
eb0e7faea4f305b1f92ea9e13c97d42dcdaa5cf7
117174 F20101112_AACWII chiarelli_e_Page_111.jp2
d2b6ee2b2c7f2ccf39ce75b34717669c
8a4458aaba6be3aac60ab0cdfee1675bc66a4a55
116029 F20101112_AACWHU chiarelli_e_Page_097.jp2
9e6aa7e0e51dba562c006b7b1c4cc3cb
556733b129fa6e37b12fb61f7c152745087f6e76
112928 F20101112_AACWIJ chiarelli_e_Page_112.jp2
bd51b3fa1f8704beba274522e1102717
9355ec63b06f0204c92de975ebc3e8bede1775ca
116833 F20101112_AACWHV chiarelli_e_Page_098.jp2
3524b765a41af5056fb1eeaabe153172
9c0e0760ff02ddc8c22bbe922806359a2ffb1e17
125645 F20101112_AACWIK chiarelli_e_Page_113.jp2
c8d0bc081e829c51e3427713bc3b64b7
7d424f0c5f93376c308fa2c54ae1ac96b3fe566d
108724 F20101112_AACWHW chiarelli_e_Page_099.jp2
9ac284ae2ead2287afe8b9b2736914e3
f2b6b8a38d49b748914813e471753bc20e6615a4
127798 F20101112_AACWIL chiarelli_e_Page_114.jp2
f9b53740df5bbbaf183f59cfac22cd68
bbcfbb07d51ba2d457c0e16db36dc6c806f0746a
112136 F20101112_AACWHX chiarelli_e_Page_100.jp2
51d4e862cedbd5c3dc85f4459fb23bdc
9629cf459b136f2ef9e635071360c741b6e1261f
122507 F20101112_AACWIM chiarelli_e_Page_115.jp2
5cca0902a70bd72ff8ec806eeab44cc8
69379d2e59b71f749a4a5377adb1b4ddacee7e25
1051982 F20101112_AACWJA chiarelli_e_Page_131.jp2
75c8cbb3bd9ed82397357955055a8d0b
c6e6f346c51cc7bf84f237611b6cdefa40848c2f
153050 F20101112_AACWIN chiarelli_e_Page_116.jp2
ed65a1f4b34f76fc74687bbccd162fc7
b2f5b148d519a4ad8bed0d9b437226060075f335
117947 F20101112_AACWHY chiarelli_e_Page_101.jp2
cd5a7ddd8b7536ae76729d0dc2750ef4
6b65a6de9f15ae021ee30478279a7b0f38124fa1
1051977 F20101112_AACWJB chiarelli_e_Page_132.jp2
dc40ce834ef6c4940c43de877cee33a3
e8f0929f23973b81397029274c6fe6f11b7dfead
160031 F20101112_AACWIO chiarelli_e_Page_117.jp2
4c37e046d1316f7569968177f678d9ef
d78f2edf40075d5a46615a1c6d05fe874d183c14
112227 F20101112_AACWHZ chiarelli_e_Page_102.jp2
50134f636aeaddf51ce7c2be49e260dc
982e8b59ebf7b0c835558e982b8c76d0ba3cc13a
1051967 F20101112_AACWJC chiarelli_e_Page_133.jp2
bb9f3e2c053f41b35839e0e57ff09d0e
3235de8d381049be639c87354ac0327cf81a5844
42406 F20101112_AACWIP chiarelli_e_Page_118.jp2
b0ae7440d22fe69aaad350ca6bcad005
a8171bd1cb6a50ccd625489312576afdd4820bea
1051855 F20101112_AACWJD chiarelli_e_Page_134.jp2
2672800f9c0f99323fa9d5b2bd662d8b
c5f832be36dbd0ffcf954f2fe31dd269dcdba116
838870 F20101112_AACWIQ chiarelli_e_Page_119.jp2
5aaf91a25ffea9e112e4ad5316e34d0e
248a11a87da1061f5e76c09365e6599b2cbe491e
1051980 F20101112_AACWJE chiarelli_e_Page_135.jp2
27a511c0fc7180d07dc7383cbc915366
3009946427478f53ed4fc399d39966f02cf2efbc
1051913 F20101112_AACWIR chiarelli_e_Page_121.jp2
7192f1d15f22a54cf2d66036dc18d749
05bca04c9c5aeeab7ca4b1e0fe97308c4429070e
766021 F20101112_AACWJF chiarelli_e_Page_136.jp2
345cf162f0be432914f356f93bbea4e7
a5b02e1ef6a57c629ebcf1a7a93abe6c554ae217
1051945 F20101112_AACWIS chiarelli_e_Page_122.jp2
42782ba4813ee5288c5df4d1c8100276
3a81e42571414be6f08fb72fd5b7881e7c73c5dc
F20101112_AACWJG chiarelli_e_Page_137.jp2
d4d5bd002df2a2cc164fdc1d7dc7f9d2
126d242bcec55c865e0b995188d9a4a99e4eb8c2
1051957 F20101112_AACWIT chiarelli_e_Page_123.jp2
15fc5f37ef0eb53943a3b5ccea9264cf
ca7125bdb5830420fa45b269a555f6c087bed035
1051960 F20101112_AACWJH chiarelli_e_Page_138.jp2
23d4faa5f2be2c29ab2bfb033621f500
65d99d160b5e01ab7ba9f8ba448431c56a17061b
866462 F20101112_AACWIU chiarelli_e_Page_124.jp2
30c4e593f008e38e0ad03bbcac0c620b
89d5ae962a02b10e17e6c79e80b9f7f74112418f
768987 F20101112_AACWJI chiarelli_e_Page_139.jp2
39ec4e0aa9c06f6117a192cd007c963e
85dd2959a362556313fd3c1bd41b7686003531ab
831219 F20101112_AACWIV chiarelli_e_Page_125.jp2
0874f992164c5b089795b00a3ace8fca
71ced2ad728778bf2850fdd99cfc4c454605f61a
127062 F20101112_AACWJJ chiarelli_e_Page_140.jp2
64a3652d2de2c6c26ebd5b479f8aab96
4238a568a5c2f84927d65e35ab0d47b74214f936
729689 F20101112_AACWIW chiarelli_e_Page_126.jp2
c759fef0e13722511f89ad6be5a5a865
e467a11e1716320b304ab5aabc23b10165249812
1051942 F20101112_AACWJK chiarelli_e_Page_141.jp2
76f6e8bfc5c6413f657dcd2e32891d84
96dac358dfe341672cfadf95b199fc831e2803db
1051901 F20101112_AACWIX chiarelli_e_Page_128.jp2
53709fcaf5741c37943754209560bdd1
088afddbee12aa05c3f4bdfb3ae5be679787d632
1051976 F20101112_AACWJL chiarelli_e_Page_142.jp2
e35b993a93234c3cdb8f0358707788e4
4fbbcb742794a8b59e56c4c5aeab3d1e782f4a06
1051860 F20101112_AACWIY chiarelli_e_Page_129.jp2
e17bd8a24cfa2b41fa6ddbbfff9d10d2
ea916d38ea654dfcdd8c9297896ddb1361e51bb4
F20101112_AACWKA chiarelli_e_Page_013.tif
a44b16a04984955c607952c5abe302e9
8788cb31d8788d922d1f5d2f143ef2279673e9f1
93465 F20101112_AACWJM chiarelli_e_Page_143.jp2
12de023aaf3cc61c1647c88f551108b0
15b20e86e74a9fb1efb4166f374c9cc7eb5af345
F20101112_AACWKB chiarelli_e_Page_014.tif
7e852d359cf7d5beb36bf195e8fe8f14
5e86e1483335039047e809edf0b73e30103903f2
77316 F20101112_AACWJN chiarelli_e_Page_144.jp2
fd70779ab0ef6797e5711298f0389402
4c29607a2d073f58243971baefab1f94a822d912
F20101112_AACWIZ chiarelli_e_Page_130.jp2
a1646b220aa0dea545d267addd3c745c
f4518f701116196e4de7f7ee13ba4dc72cbc2457
F20101112_AACWKC chiarelli_e_Page_015.tif
8558f83f5d8cad997f67f3651b845ddf
bc073e37c3afe3acd1152fcf4ca0f38f7911e17c
F20101112_AACWJO chiarelli_e_Page_001.tif
bd413c5acc6f91c4b975a2fef9e97d32
5fac0101906cda12a530d2ca8d2ca56377f17e8d
F20101112_AACWKD chiarelli_e_Page_016.tif
5bcd35f955be689e29351460794fc1dd
52eed09c04825f77ee08a3a90a5c4d9af2d9f8f4
F20101112_AACWJP chiarelli_e_Page_002.tif
ef7fec0b30c033392de39ac7cce508fc
3be3fc3629dd15cc52fb400181a802c7453a2c65
F20101112_AACWKE chiarelli_e_Page_017.tif
daf2346bacbc666c50452f35237cab3d
7e973781553d756aa9cf251ac1f2dce5523a41ae
F20101112_AACWJQ chiarelli_e_Page_003.tif
d80c663a45227d12dcbb2506c0125e72
64e313a9d7fab0cd3e8b10a6cbeaba01ee424cb2
F20101112_AACWKF chiarelli_e_Page_018.tif
672236209f71cedaec7423570fb917c5
15d0994aacb394950c22edcbd9e4dda076497335
F20101112_AACWJR chiarelli_e_Page_004.tif
b363031b834ad4c0a1d3900525d929e8
958349b78f759572957cdb57fdcd3a4338b7aec0
F20101112_AACWKG chiarelli_e_Page_019.tif
3e9e5c0ff916b68eb74245fc33a8a852
1efafe0ff933cba310b5c66c317558ee19a4f3fb
F20101112_AACWJS chiarelli_e_Page_005.tif
d08a787718c0b6125f51302a398ea143
494348f6e58906ad40149aed4e0ccc85de54502b
F20101112_AACWKH chiarelli_e_Page_020.tif
efbb8f88da9acb1143b5b67c0c6b3c7f
c3886fe00a3c20c2b0058deb74bc3c146f80afc0
25271604 F20101112_AACWJT chiarelli_e_Page_006.tif
37b9c2e7444b7dd5ef855377817518fd
b0ece72f8efcecf092ab78b4e37274b09d47e414
F20101112_AACWKI chiarelli_e_Page_021.tif
363e06e08da9cdced94c8c42fb4f9fe8
d947919666306f517c4c844f84617d448aab1677
F20101112_AACWJU chiarelli_e_Page_007.tif
eddda7a0db59642f1af198ae323067be
7ed373b264dec49325f7dfc98d296f56b46e2b53
F20101112_AACWKJ chiarelli_e_Page_022.tif
d8f503be4f356f34abc6c8be2c28c7e4
a7c60fcb57dbfe1d8b37d5ee62bab7d9f88b3059
F20101112_AACWJV chiarelli_e_Page_008.tif
c964d17c815f0da412dab9dae6e364b5
556b0b023158969af7b0b970f0d868e98845dd69
F20101112_AACWKK chiarelli_e_Page_023.tif
e8ef70f764f2a90fa219a830825f4804
dfb75bd002fc161e75c98d88f9e78fcbb7edc6fc
F20101112_AACWJW chiarelli_e_Page_009.tif
a1015f2ad085c765898d84bdeaeae5ea
e74db96c7c13261664577e9e30a8a3579deb43b3
F20101112_AACWKL chiarelli_e_Page_024.tif
db7354ca3104efc70d46e107917ca655
7a205e252dd3acbb066a65c0f1d85af9e3ca6e16
F20101112_AACWJX chiarelli_e_Page_010.tif
a1f53eb11c0577c88e8c8a0704ee209d
2f50b6b8326b8e605de1ab200468846188af009d
F20101112_AACWLA chiarelli_e_Page_039.tif
4afe5d04ab6f1fc6bda0db3025aae116
9b464771fed9c1408f3ce7e21daaa0961ea6e616
F20101112_AACWKM chiarelli_e_Page_025.tif
fa9406481b5656a26ad059cc00e6dbbb
1db52fee6ba89f4372265bdec6c282df620c85f2
F20101112_AACWJY chiarelli_e_Page_011.tif
435c2e6940993098c3c85dd1b1d33173
f94a8eeb2ff36a80f80f32984462d85889a8bef0
F20101112_AACWLB chiarelli_e_Page_040.tif
be940783ffcec040a68eaf883c3c13cb
8cc6e089a2c08ca75993790c9dafc216bc240760
F20101112_AACWKN chiarelli_e_Page_026.tif
b17a093f78adfdc1c11def0a755c0d32
0dd657fe70b2503137878bfec969f7149558ba85
F20101112_AACWJZ chiarelli_e_Page_012.tif
a40b9ae0da35d30553040812fb2a9d0e
c2193197c52ffbefa2d390d02c4721178940ada1
F20101112_AACWLC chiarelli_e_Page_041.tif
dfe295a46386d73effa175b347a51794
fcec6685472bb9434e25b7b1655a814b5eba2d52
F20101112_AACWKO chiarelli_e_Page_027.tif
4026072abde90b5c0a5c82e552b048af
e962bc9569808202b80f16eb850c749aceebb397
F20101112_AACWLD chiarelli_e_Page_042.tif
0cae066547b7c86058ce218da301decf
58454a15183b51f464d8d3a6b3e447d59473b736
F20101112_AACWKP chiarelli_e_Page_028.tif
f90dd817bf6b4f06ada415485334fbfc
dd71d6bc9ec0e4ab0e2a7cf1fe235d30a1e1a449
F20101112_AACWLE chiarelli_e_Page_043.tif
2fdce2474d8d1f8685feaa2a29ef7e03
8b8dca1bedd8d384f8c9657f225238bf89e97887
F20101112_AACWKQ chiarelli_e_Page_029.tif
f4756c5782c803e91068404171a21166
31382852dabc5d87719db218a8af5577db69168d
F20101112_AACWLF chiarelli_e_Page_044.tif
3d44a892ff27e4660d07782c471e37e5
28a1d696bc00969a3912f6e83c41f4633e2116f6
F20101112_AACWKR chiarelli_e_Page_030.tif
4945ac1296270b654b157d3f8242db30
cc062c7e55d6044cfff9cb5cf9b5d3137f791035
F20101112_AACWLG chiarelli_e_Page_045.tif
d72226d6248ba44a56afc7d00d72397c
d5e94d7f37996c6485d998247a6321893c3b8319
F20101112_AACWKS chiarelli_e_Page_031.tif
0fec7013ac4964d06698682c9f8ff4d6
15ffa3f217a5d5efeb7bd78392fcedd9c84d9bf5
F20101112_AACWLH chiarelli_e_Page_046.tif
683249614db5bd2865ba1983b82a3f10
f3eee932373e16a66f8118ba7932b937a51fb201
F20101112_AACWKT chiarelli_e_Page_032.tif
f1165da48801127ca72aa98a6e352297
b578c75ab99a5469cb4bedc5ced8f7f9f2194ba4
F20101112_AACWLI chiarelli_e_Page_047.tif
27f54ab15d36894961ac8ef5511a4bb9
c60e6c95ed77a0585a9283889da6e181259c63ea
F20101112_AACWKU chiarelli_e_Page_033.tif
80d22ccade2716a79826745cca13a568
2d654adfb612811c58bc4fc35ac2d5188cf4bb5b
F20101112_AACWLJ chiarelli_e_Page_048.tif
93dc413333c3bd25355de3505fdffd08
428c6ac8f985e82a181b240e51a297f1f8e9c366
F20101112_AACWKV chiarelli_e_Page_034.tif
97550a4f7c00ddafaf3b5882eabd6693
c3779e9b9c58dee64755ba0dd47fe82408a7f6f2
F20101112_AACWLK chiarelli_e_Page_049.tif
a5b0b8feddc6daec18f9a7a412a774ab
6d7728574f641e4afaf7b3960e74d36428eac15d
F20101112_AACWKW chiarelli_e_Page_035.tif
1f5ac0b168f210955a5fabea9a5cdef0
14b36a4c846cbf28469783a8a6f847ec3f7e9174
F20101112_AACWLL chiarelli_e_Page_050.tif
82d6cb1dfe307a1d8e0e5663794b1c88
4000c132611cd55f8c6ce950c13e0ca6d9a620bb
F20101112_AACWKX chiarelli_e_Page_036.tif
b0135ecbf4a286de2a4a7b60ae3b15be
4bcae9db3a0f558c60d3b5780a180cb796191467
F20101112_AACWLM chiarelli_e_Page_051.tif
52095bc8fdfeef893580962894954175
bc172d2f8753d5b0ffe5c92868bc0b871e1eb157
F20101112_AACWKY chiarelli_e_Page_037.tif
37006523726ed7f870dff2f4de70899e
cef6475768a385463ccac86672e2f20ae3947e72
F20101112_AACWMA chiarelli_e_Page_066.tif
499fa70895944465cbc228070851b2d9
cdaa902a5ad5a1a7fef20eecf55a1a71c0909e54
F20101112_AACWLN chiarelli_e_Page_052.tif
9d47d97d9453a21c9d8a780174937c24
58b3b1b281453e0d0c8f380c133c359dd2014043
F20101112_AACWKZ chiarelli_e_Page_038.tif
c012360d79214f36bc68307382535591
c09b15c126c0080e7193c2f9441542677ae7e9af
F20101112_AACWMB chiarelli_e_Page_067.tif
969b5b3d67733b992b7e4ebd2cd53619
1f84c81d921218b25fc1a150b6d22d91f9c7a57e
F20101112_AACWLO chiarelli_e_Page_053.tif
dc37a2101f4d137dcfcdc4ef6eb8f6eb
a109e737e42334a7d238c2350f734093ab4c6bbc
F20101112_AACWMC chiarelli_e_Page_068.tif
1edac84035e44285c0c61a26c36b4428
d041c32bfe25bb1231688ac41b160d20f09a9661
F20101112_AACWLP chiarelli_e_Page_054.tif
26ae529bf595db0e67340932c29e01c8
779014957d7ad0ac8a3349c04133def1bda36404
F20101112_AACWMD chiarelli_e_Page_069.tif
82b17626302aafc3d27bea3578d79d03
ef2e0d8be06dec653199975f319a9dc96ad164c1
F20101112_AACWLQ chiarelli_e_Page_055.tif
c95f49ba08566f460f2809faa39bf642
08ffa607ad37e266bb9b328b7ca60f4232cc23c3
F20101112_AACWME chiarelli_e_Page_070.tif
8387ca5fc63c775631c29ce9c4a629f9
2d33b73b3b6f6131b96abad03a202dfa74b79537
F20101112_AACWLR chiarelli_e_Page_056.tif
c35011282895048c8741844d6c033333
647baec354f6579627ca25b012c94bde157c54ef
F20101112_AACWMF chiarelli_e_Page_071.tif
c3bf045afcaf16cd5ffb26646185910e
441d1a452fb2c5af78ec2053c827c0d7bc6b8d05
F20101112_AACWLS chiarelli_e_Page_057.tif
f5f47aec189173150a8868423ef5433f
e5e44528f47a40090c79b25861a0dbce1b8fdac3
F20101112_AACWMG chiarelli_e_Page_072.tif
583f4bb1c8d37eb4777f723c42b3b345
d16de65fc4db267ff1fc7c17ae5bb0f894611f5b
F20101112_AACWLT chiarelli_e_Page_058.tif
8bd1bd237017c5cc808aa78f40d13897
7c074f9702d70ae07a890869486295c13a3024f9
F20101112_AACWMH chiarelli_e_Page_073.tif
22e58b488c41fe1aa1403d560261bbe0
1363de7bc64fb7443432944e5ea21f25283c672f
F20101112_AACWLU chiarelli_e_Page_059.tif
8c7d620661bdea16c636d083cc33fc04
6fe7a4d22c467965f71f44cc868c443780c4cca6
F20101112_AACWMI chiarelli_e_Page_074.tif
a4452ddf63f4e844a5a4528c52d6a7ce
bfeab817f1f596a1f9822f3df0f075fea85151a5
F20101112_AACWLV chiarelli_e_Page_060.tif
82dcf925539f1e41ae6edb29e625bb98
937dd3612d6e25fa30775b2a28d92b9bc27cf213
F20101112_AACWMJ chiarelli_e_Page_075.tif
4a43b31637cada7ac1ad68d3e8d25825
ddabc5165ce14296f250d5d851507362b40febdf
F20101112_AACWLW chiarelli_e_Page_061.tif
ab20cbd348723c91ded5cd90702e79db
c14125192d464614e58b16d09dc4557e4ef9b424
F20101112_AACWMK chiarelli_e_Page_077.tif
5e8ec4c8364863bd70a1f14e12669504
e989db6ea81c52cf97bf1d842e094e8d16252155
F20101112_AACWLX chiarelli_e_Page_062.tif
b9a7bb6b6fdead685d37fdaced920327
26453ca27c3077157f6a4ebd0c666c61be28c610
F20101112_AACWML chiarelli_e_Page_078.tif
b22e0e70e0b3f2912169ee1712ec78ff
14fb65904ea1751400e7a2cc35d83e14f154957b
F20101112_AACWNA chiarelli_e_Page_093.tif
2ece97a0864aa232648b153628764621
adb631d4fed4524f8fbe9137f6ff4b1b5277eb93
F20101112_AACWMM chiarelli_e_Page_079.tif
1e5a400c2c6b1b71a9e78ab93a084ab6
a26ffbe79e1da44d80e3ee16cfeb767d1878304f
F20101112_AACWLY chiarelli_e_Page_063.tif
5fbe4bd3dd51dbc8186f10dcd7e5b0f4
da04f12bfa915dabb6098ef5d4f18f97362107b5
F20101112_AACWNB chiarelli_e_Page_094.tif
e1d6ba612b78cbde0b6ae4f8e30ee5db
aa44ada657229ed2f58190cd027d881c435441b4
F20101112_AACWMN chiarelli_e_Page_080.tif
379134e8c6aea070e16a10e0c6e8c035
17226ff863f14827f272162b258fa0959572d247
F20101112_AACWLZ chiarelli_e_Page_065.tif
86cebcbfdbe5cb2eacc0aeae24ad46d5
6fe060473db1bcd1a83bf80e1fb40cef21d5bba1
F20101112_AACWNC chiarelli_e_Page_095.tif
f3b1cd344f769fd531afed77d821eb57
c9aad2aa70bbdd01e5585e5fa6d5ca1b986bbdad
F20101112_AACWMO chiarelli_e_Page_081.tif
aa88fa453126b1466f124bc83fee170d
3d5984626d7011a0d483eebf3108890ae57707f5
F20101112_AACWND chiarelli_e_Page_096.tif
66e8b6a6f43ab52b4e19662b5d982e8f
9600c86052cb97e1e57262a2c4af6780cfd608f7
F20101112_AACWMP chiarelli_e_Page_082.tif
d542e60b8acc052b07fc1e342cbe1249
0ef362c0ca9b88555938f1feccb680fe2ddbfb2a
F20101112_AACWNE chiarelli_e_Page_097.tif
d5d2a91a8a16d7c5c4afbe54f9ca625e
30fddbe019e3146321bc9b0006c083fdfde792c5
F20101112_AACWMQ chiarelli_e_Page_083.tif
f796b2c11fa1e87e54420e529a10a78d
3d868abd91b5c63443c19e76c6014656d2bdc232
F20101112_AACWNF chiarelli_e_Page_098.tif
ab711e4ea97a9fdb1a4368f2d8dcd9a3
232ed694b2a54723d1079c4c8868611acab506da
F20101112_AACWMR chiarelli_e_Page_084.tif
4fdd0b1e8c522a779971bd3ece7abbbb
f12ddba40d7e8c68fc0a0a417806e43be5d2c520
F20101112_AACWNG chiarelli_e_Page_099.tif
8857c8a85c5e6217cf967f0ca0e30bf8
0a3212bbdabba4ad596e3efc10e67f3db1cceb1c
F20101112_AACWMS chiarelli_e_Page_085.tif
715852c86a9f226dfc113e46deceeda8
69bed2b6ebff1081b00c053f7f12a7e197b1dea1
F20101112_AACWNH chiarelli_e_Page_100.tif
0f99317448fc70902cc908e28c548320
77c272f437925a872c3dd71eabd4887753c0f49b
F20101112_AACWMT chiarelli_e_Page_086.tif
6771e6ae71844c7624fcdfeb9617f140
8eee42404f200b4058853865b9c22625587921e6
F20101112_AACWNI chiarelli_e_Page_101.tif
f5b499c2e1b8c4424b4e4257097b20ba
1b6e56ed1b73b31b1db56b0c3ea6fb3d49544fa2
F20101112_AACWMU chiarelli_e_Page_087.tif
21fad44ca990be483439ece82e9bd543
f7d9c107c15f9ff2a841695177563d067b37f5e3
F20101112_AACWNJ chiarelli_e_Page_102.tif
afc7f799e64534ed5b03b9135e797244
46521a41881700ff50ca21819976be010bf3deb4
F20101112_AACWMV chiarelli_e_Page_088.tif
5efb299166cb2e985c53a6b29a06c06d
9e65234e313179f522833a2ead9c2405f163722a
F20101112_AACWNK chiarelli_e_Page_103.tif
79e263a0b2a741f543dee09ddc9cc40d
dab60a064f8979703dc22bf91b3e77ff8557bc35
F20101112_AACWMW chiarelli_e_Page_089.tif
312218a41c5da801d8afd9dde930bac7
6ca964191d83bf25d689380f585f46f59658ba97
F20101112_AACWNL chiarelli_e_Page_104.tif
528c390427ff90b1d246d7e0425cd2e6
53c659b4a23d98b3dbd4c3d11bd6203064c8b0df
F20101112_AACWMX chiarelli_e_Page_090.tif
54a3022fe3a3c8d7b5f08e8b80000c3d
3aadab74cd8001873cfef4ca0ac68f3746620cf1
F20101112_AACWNM chiarelli_e_Page_105.tif
11a653857900fa9dada232b132ef2ab8
308679375c28f980f76cb2390053159c67e3b019
F20101112_AACWMY chiarelli_e_Page_091.tif
da2a9055c6284a10bd7d8d03689f60ed
b4410cac949594c0431f6b36910d7c65aded3021
F20101112_AACWOA chiarelli_e_Page_119.tif
72bd521450fe557699442342ee23573f
37440d8e658d9077381c99b9a44d8a66ee9f9316
F20101112_AACWNN chiarelli_e_Page_106.tif
c7b46c1d39c35e216d5fd700dd84b0d3
f2c9097f1a5ad7ffd223d20dc8511e96308ef38d
F20101112_AACWMZ chiarelli_e_Page_092.tif
e27da1a762df5a0d7b2f3f34e6a195c4
e94ab4e34e5ecb95883738890947bfe1c9419c1e
F20101112_AACWOB chiarelli_e_Page_120.tif
12ab48f0e0c63995cc4dcfe56f980a2d
13606b8ae6a2f4876e554a82b729d5b255c71902
F20101112_AACWNO chiarelli_e_Page_107.tif
64cfb91e6cc6d42125a4871ee0efd8c3
685aa03f461bb625da85ff9853e9ce3f7dc7650b
F20101112_AACWOC chiarelli_e_Page_121.tif
dddb8cf0bf588bf99eead05486edf598
9e9c2d1bd698f7934db91f32a9c8d6b29692e55f
F20101112_AACWNP chiarelli_e_Page_108.tif
8de6000cb6cd4d50e3b77e6a6ff36f0b
0269529f9e07280b5346a7d1694b8ca29a8a2008
F20101112_AACWOD chiarelli_e_Page_122.tif
e4b9c6c8d2288a426926f676946e2548
e7b184b831080dc7f56c4be496241118338359b4
F20101112_AACWNQ chiarelli_e_Page_109.tif
958c23da3702ba4cb1b1b5d6c0d33fce
7e1d59086121b12ba7987ef92e93f0d9d30dbff8
F20101112_AACWOE chiarelli_e_Page_123.tif
2ff05b529fcfbe9beb74ebdee2011e7c
1f830483f7ab4e716f584fcc26b64763af1b2e8e
F20101112_AACWNR chiarelli_e_Page_110.tif
c114f60508e73eb7f888dbd0174f2398
3376f598500fa3db5d22e0336ed3442a7b949dc4
F20101112_AACWOF chiarelli_e_Page_124.tif
e9c1a5cb1e8c56f9321d7fefe665c371
3f52cee64624e0effc025bfecbc962b9d3abe2bf
F20101112_AACWNS chiarelli_e_Page_111.tif
54a1fe762ab73267d15b7e2ea95e0953
b6c5f361a06d04a3303b9401480a65c8c51aa819
F20101112_AACWOG chiarelli_e_Page_125.tif
d1e9085ca3db8ac9c691d05df0f682b0
fd6ff655a0a1cd5b3abb9d6b9de396286fc352f3
F20101112_AACWNT chiarelli_e_Page_112.tif
f94a1d81f7f0d1518e456eb47aff890a
928a07da49c266d6b747f557e6d2dc1980fb1154
F20101112_AACWOH chiarelli_e_Page_126.tif
ee1fe7b93f60c2fd8eecca658f83ab6b
638a7ed74441229f8c4d7891602c3d50eff1f57b
F20101112_AACWNU chiarelli_e_Page_113.tif
60af7476e55e46d01b0c357fd9552e8b
b451b3fa20ccdf834ea171f35af092b877f5a522
F20101112_AACWOI chiarelli_e_Page_127.tif
c313928817df5dddab702c9d680e77a3
95f020ee5055bfb1e33fffc377ef93bc4c1b0a50
F20101112_AACWNV chiarelli_e_Page_114.tif
edf7e23968da73bb70cd8f311cb3804b
2c216f4fcdb9058ef9c804d214138e3d074c9fd0
F20101112_AACWOJ chiarelli_e_Page_128.tif
0965e88869f48dbc5037d16a8b16405d
5fc2b989b5c2406b5f2c77155c04c54bf2affc3a
F20101112_AACWNW chiarelli_e_Page_115.tif
e3a7d35b047ae0a1d43860eb81bbdcad
eefc5ee8fbfc1faa2c4a412e53debb9bcd73914c
25265604 F20101112_AACWOK chiarelli_e_Page_129.tif
d573c0df8823ad47ed675bc5eeb7b65a
8a3d9b389d2613e93fdf6d28844c4f590461bacb
F20101112_AACWNX chiarelli_e_Page_116.tif
38bcf02b8207c22547a43dfa6a331139
e63be8ff6391c71270cef64d3500d0bb104232c1
F20101112_AACWOL chiarelli_e_Page_130.tif
ecf949634b94bcb96f131256786f9c62
fad8da821e51bc029f2bcd18f55c80070354692f
F20101112_AACWNY chiarelli_e_Page_117.tif
9462df88675b49cbbede4938d272bec9
9977c2fcb5ef326e0506b7938dd0c2d76f479ac0
8948 F20101112_AACWPA chiarelli_e_Page_001.pro
57e4fd494859fc7c866f107580be7254
4ac6ea23c85b28c8de18efa6014a0f48248666f9
F20101112_AACWOM chiarelli_e_Page_131.tif
455cdb41aeec59b1caac25f85fa1f0d2
3f434cce5318e46b6b72a8762ad31efec42cea97
F20101112_AACWNZ chiarelli_e_Page_118.tif
8a162931cc0c751391d401e9ec0f19a3
fd91764ab5e5471389252136b0eb76e3f84aaf1a
968 F20101112_AACWPB chiarelli_e_Page_002.pro
ed5569eca1456f3484cbd56484e95e4c
09d54b3c499bb840fcfe0eccbb37db542fc399bc
F20101112_AACWON chiarelli_e_Page_132.tif
4712fdf99d8fd483a111931bfbbb6d71
0e74164aedf4b669bd1c5b55afa43dc243d3c90e
3217 F20101112_AACWPC chiarelli_e_Page_003.pro
ec1f66908390a41f6bd09370f30da78d
9938f52b93202aea004b26e40824746f81041c4f
F20101112_AACWOO chiarelli_e_Page_133.tif
797d756abc0c57747bd48a6fd8eb2f0d
d4a8d277f3954c0f9d657cc4ad988fc2865efaaf
53543 F20101112_AACWPD chiarelli_e_Page_004.pro
f6e0b5fda2ca50c30f822acde9add7a8
6a38813e4abb6131fa32f971eecf57c4f4a9d28a
F20101112_AACWOP chiarelli_e_Page_134.tif
f143e27481f3a27e12a35b8d6b535164
19dfcc0ce793071195ed235a9b3ebeef1352a72b
50583 F20101112_AACWPE chiarelli_e_Page_005.pro
aae55151c554fe008cc3ef6fd6433999
2bec1818ca7a9239733b7acfbb44a86d2f4dca76
F20101112_AACWOQ chiarelli_e_Page_135.tif
b5b8db2f856742ce1379d552763cee70
785df7e3684db7e21067db83fa9041d6e5dacc38
93469 F20101112_AACWPF chiarelli_e_Page_006.pro
19d3466df63af916d88b3fddc20b5545
af59f427b233277a48a182377e0bdca01d41eb96
F20101112_AACWOR chiarelli_e_Page_136.tif
14ca6b831e7f1d48f6b03f059c894e47
5cf1dc4c8d6b972f04c56546e2154e1486a5c222
121821 F20101112_AACWPG chiarelli_e_Page_007.pro
c6e869af1b5bb98803613a649d1e6b7f
e909bb4e68aef1b82fbcdb2a993b1b2a60e96141
F20101112_AACWOS chiarelli_e_Page_137.tif
d696668732b46680927624839dc2f092
e2d54d9d0abf94a7fe79e4934734399aeb4e61f0
92197 F20101112_AACWPH chiarelli_e_Page_008.pro
b6b999d390117ce83ec69f4ed01ba63a
d9d15e68ab3a224bb16f842cff7ec932b9df670f
F20101112_AACWOT chiarelli_e_Page_138.tif
50bc0a041811b376b5c1ff3d098c5151
5811749744c4642f321d3bff5324a6c32403a83a
70960 F20101112_AACWPI chiarelli_e_Page_009.pro
6a11c31b61dc3741d2020dcb4b3619a9
ab73a4476235d2fabd47313ee164299d386434ff
F20101112_AACWOU chiarelli_e_Page_139.tif
11137404941f386a8779126b9e17b0fd
2a5b5588b3c4f8a5e067ff8a06c5f6131c38f8af
53349 F20101112_AACWPJ chiarelli_e_Page_010.pro
cae716216045d06479c51fb9d0aed5d1
a2bc5bdc637e4b5c9f9503680db18cf413877d9d
F20101112_AACWOV chiarelli_e_Page_140.tif
054caebf14144440ce7c93a71318efc4
376c84f5ae554da9080e7f0ac8f1bab6cbc6b6fb
19340 F20101112_AACWPK chiarelli_e_Page_011.pro
a230835bbcd02ec2f5c4a7b8f5af3a32
0eba9e89de6a0e4c120655b28cca5dab4f6d169d
F20101112_AACWOW chiarelli_e_Page_141.tif
ab131080614b61d820e39af869c95ab1
1d5199c6e5eb632966a22c47808d4fe40091e1b7
49299 F20101112_AACWQA chiarelli_e_Page_028.pro
ef1474e738a816c83b481a1fedb5a854
2caa1601f4ffe9ee6ab215eebb1aaf1813f87510
50379 F20101112_AACWPL chiarelli_e_Page_012.pro
39470449e38c6ff857f369cb13b48f4f
e4382f2fd323b290973f5e326e23936600353390
F20101112_AACWOX chiarelli_e_Page_142.tif
b758ab8ea42c5fd0f25a7925f565cb5f
fe210c78a416f248cf915f3f54802e4ac9c8c9f2
27719 F20101112_AACWPM chiarelli_e_Page_013.pro
b61708151ad3f31f27e6882bb6550d51
d4b72db1eb18070dc985ea56d12f764d81b4ab0f
F20101112_AACWOY chiarelli_e_Page_143.tif
770734dc2fc1d63185069ccce345a95a
981ce3b668558073836d549e36aa6a7f8f39463b
44719 F20101112_AACWQB chiarelli_e_Page_029.pro
88042ab16f4b07351b98ae8648c7cb8a
bcc0309fb6e1aa1117c737ca97dd4a2787f7b698
49327 F20101112_AACWPN chiarelli_e_Page_014.pro
416677fa2e1be915ac96d02309769db5
5f7b4b8c09736bda8df3c2bcc91280ba4cc01a35
F20101112_AACWOZ chiarelli_e_Page_144.tif
664723cb53b3fd311a541af4336cb6eb
75d9f31cc96b21ce4c2a3147b42c0731e7c2b8d1
17540 F20101112_AACWQC chiarelli_e_Page_030.pro
d2a345bb5de306d6f8580818a8481fc3
838c3d959f07e12ee75dc954b18e4b05dc92e413
52664 F20101112_AACWPO chiarelli_e_Page_015.pro
2785c2a1c82de4d881535afba5bdc93c
911e7c447f1a7c6dd1a9d36e7a5fb9d35006c895
11081 F20101112_AACWQD chiarelli_e_Page_031.pro
1da6f3e19237fdd666c07f78e6a7566c
8d7443c7ac62f1b70f8208b2c64f4291dd38ec93
55808 F20101112_AACWPP chiarelli_e_Page_016.pro
49c0ebf073cbdd625a570486674ab529
f3179aa634f3d9c6dc2e92b9f84915e748bca97b
57774 F20101112_AACWQE chiarelli_e_Page_032.pro
698ab0cc32cd32aba3bb0413fc8b3c07
2877f26afb500cc00d830bc71fed216cbd2f108d
54351 F20101112_AACWPQ chiarelli_e_Page_017.pro
3d94a85d4a2082b54810b45e7d5b3d01
ca5edf15f276a24d5c36254dd75c1bd3120f0519
53560 F20101112_AACWQF chiarelli_e_Page_033.pro
9e847dd593b18c85e30837d0b7e098de
1339d4803ed0188fefaffa52cea463ed7585a568
61186 F20101112_AACWPR chiarelli_e_Page_018.pro
d146600720863f9c377d31f4d307d5ab
1f3c9d629bc61c6d8e2af118c33151ce6da726c2
57036 F20101112_AACWQG chiarelli_e_Page_034.pro
6410aa381cb1bda57a52d7ff4b4df6d0
b78dec86af884aa46cec51d58e694910db8e0d50
62273 F20101112_AACWPS chiarelli_e_Page_019.pro
95d008cc527e0d6c02d37df2a9c84d9f
0adde638ff9b3c30e57e72c7c7d9656418bf1e51
5416 F20101112_AACWQH chiarelli_e_Page_035.pro
5fb7b79c767760a7266a69d656486587
fa4b5cc8b4e7a085e2f757910ecb2500c9dc4a07
55531 F20101112_AACWPT chiarelli_e_Page_021.pro
b9b139787008e76d1503623e46c6196f
e20ae32b04e32c035f57898af0fab9f7008f02db
52523 F20101112_AACWQI chiarelli_e_Page_036.pro
7013e6cc6eb798b8b8f097e82240e61a
129c9c93ae714c66b15788c118c6c78e9ad0b9b7
57067 F20101112_AACWPU chiarelli_e_Page_022.pro
a2b49fadf0359ea77965d1c3dac97473
ab24d9a9daddc42d2a4d4635224e15e6e437ccb4
55051 F20101112_AACWQJ chiarelli_e_Page_037.pro
0cb76cea6efc0dac6ad8ee28ee7f3411
54dbf7bf5f344385e41c4342d8c9df42ca6ed0e6
56401 F20101112_AACWPV chiarelli_e_Page_023.pro
fd6f9ae13ebacd1c2de9825baa2340b0
e04745169c2528c1d9f9250820c52f7c1c47eeeb
56773 F20101112_AACWQK chiarelli_e_Page_038.pro
13120faad877b8aebb5cc60601ab6c86
bb86d9fffe1fa7cbb2bed945d1c515b419fe9254
55006 F20101112_AACWPW chiarelli_e_Page_024.pro
1e26130ca3f8135386bd83f0e93f45b6
b6f80135cca2116046fa5e5aa0d2cc30d387ded8
51502 F20101112_AACWQL chiarelli_e_Page_039.pro
b6f95b53dbfd8243eea7eecb123062ac
4075f4dca21e645659fa04f896662e606054ba2f
55098 F20101112_AACWPX chiarelli_e_Page_025.pro
b1350ac6c1f1535f8eebb0cc0b9cc367
c5d83987ed76e4d030c055448587aef9a9d267d9
53702 F20101112_AACWRA chiarelli_e_Page_056.pro
ae4ca73ad7aa1d289d0396b6cb3fb467
b0c7694cd944769475e00feb7638d353829f7a92
52820 F20101112_AACWQM chiarelli_e_Page_040.pro
27ad882db94fc218dfa483a8f3fda9a8
7d8a3bfba98a501c68d679b4d3ef6761bfddc156
57256 F20101112_AACWPY chiarelli_e_Page_026.pro
38176dad48948cbe9648872f2fd9802f
874fc6e48265482c6abe5b9c05916bfc037a3c49
20721 F20101112_AACWRB chiarelli_e_Page_057.pro
b19a420eb230e57e12f16fbae2bb3387
ebd23422059a5e877f4617639d32b11d807655c8
49622 F20101112_AACWQN chiarelli_e_Page_041.pro
1916b6bd0fa5aad5e4eec4b9cd594ef1
21e3b4460a33c39d4020b28f5cbe74c92d4c3ed0
53039 F20101112_AACWPZ chiarelli_e_Page_027.pro
905fb9da0de3ee86539dc15cd34e3746
62f1a186f3cb2adff95a40a13b363f60ad8465dc
55368 F20101112_AACWQO chiarelli_e_Page_042.pro
3e61db41a6393fff556c31a0d42876ce
b3957031af31e8a565017f06ad869352ea53e46c
51451 F20101112_AACWRC chiarelli_e_Page_058.pro
3e5b51d6e0d5e10f161fbe827b9835f9
4366f771f18289406305af59f6575cc7aa47ab76
56565 F20101112_AACWQP chiarelli_e_Page_044.pro
ec19dd6b062e1fae5448fcc30a7404cc
a5452f2bd6fcb2bf55a7ee3a0302f0f731057e3c
50928 F20101112_AACWRD chiarelli_e_Page_059.pro
a0ca05a6b537489b49df0148aab87f71
ce7a6aafbdf62c6da3ba43de7aca6965c5525a7b
54417 F20101112_AACWQQ chiarelli_e_Page_045.pro
74272c307e6b98f2cdf432f3b2f87fbd
f0452f395496c109a34d251caf1679260dab0491
47472 F20101112_AACWRE chiarelli_e_Page_060.pro
f9b3f292a393a925d8ae87a4ee0f812b
40882f629d8ce0ecae04171462b4ec32a7ef5349
47477 F20101112_AACWQR chiarelli_e_Page_046.pro
91c01b57d73eb9a3525537aee3be8dd5
5dc87386f8d9433dabdbffac8c443ca587a79932
54352 F20101112_AACWRF chiarelli_e_Page_061.pro
5a87337fd4bc0ce942df6e8bb1da2ade
2079b193ecf11377a68ddc72a3137402cd228332
47318 F20101112_AACWQS chiarelli_e_Page_047.pro
27b539dcd615fba22270f9f9d34f4322
120fb8d25c2f3a4e29c27eefc91a232f039107a4
52188 F20101112_AACWRG chiarelli_e_Page_062.pro
49fc98467ef68a222a7ece4e0086e57d
0102a1ed19592aa7f3e22ddabc938e9eedf5d69d
35518 F20101112_AACWQT chiarelli_e_Page_048.pro
21dbca34d03667643965a641b1f4b2e4
b033a402f4af9d91293824534b710400dbc9d199
71106 F20101112_AACWRH chiarelli_e_Page_063.pro
969552c60e17910108be8fd4fc02ce96
472a6934fbdeb5b1bf539611035a9c06c7f5d4d9
72401 F20101112_AACWQU chiarelli_e_Page_049.pro
06d887c15127350e733d5430f89bb423
fc0165e928adbcf29e13fe2d74cffab81cd67a62
31611 F20101112_AACWRI chiarelli_e_Page_064.pro
92f8300ea86449639d813e567f6771ab
c9eb7d308fd4d54d4a5eddac8cc0b5263766ddf2
53519 F20101112_AACWRJ chiarelli_e_Page_065.pro
92c6cd7ea2ce3686a3226e32fd3b1ec8
bb8547c28ccc0177f94f70d002c620dd10e903bf
53986 F20101112_AACWQV chiarelli_e_Page_050.pro
5dde524a7be60d875410dd580c3afdc4
82f6d0bfead5bc89ba21d612fdcfb218bf5cc7c3
55324 F20101112_AACWRK chiarelli_e_Page_066.pro
cbe56bb26be2cdb4ec8042b41801f824
fe3decb2e55f5c0b7c7d7ce1bbe78c5386020c29
36477 F20101112_AACWQW chiarelli_e_Page_051.pro
b7a081a27c8be52a8c8a877a01065a0d
f2541229c931edb2821d80dd66d59a6695299ba3
9896 F20101112_AACWSA chiarelli_e_Page_082.pro
d3b951a2b2aae2e63437fc2375935960
b275e3c9fdd531b563ef0c62827b074a8feffd01
59712 F20101112_AACWRL chiarelli_e_Page_067.pro
ba51e432075c10759382f4e35dba6e8d
2916bc42d3e8fbd228c966efdcbfe43b6f7bece7
29395 F20101112_AACWQX chiarelli_e_Page_052.pro
8a53a08507f0a23ccae14e8b77fa70b7
698409046178671e529fed963ea4a6f286bf4e36
27117 F20101112_AACWSB chiarelli_e_Page_083.pro
b6f9ec2f86d3749f2fae49ed0aa347e5
182d6a2811fe6809785ea4b7e1047914ed172a3f
56361 F20101112_AACWRM chiarelli_e_Page_068.pro
5fb8568ee4bfb602b0fe7f84f8f5910a
92fecd17b25f32bda852efadfb4904a1ddec539c
37864 F20101112_AACWQY chiarelli_e_Page_053.pro
ee5a21cf6e6b06b870a77460a700b097
796606dcead08e4b9fc1a23904645cab80de4ce7
49047 F20101112_AACWSC chiarelli_e_Page_084.pro
739f2ac3ae73f81cbce20c1ceec57e77
3c083550aa2701d446142d77ae901c9df9f96e74
55748 F20101112_AACWRN chiarelli_e_Page_069.pro
ce68adcc2a1c4a42a207c64352b2b5d8
c4e9c45b14288e437a5d2edb8fec8b2eda73c52f
48753 F20101112_AACWQZ chiarelli_e_Page_055.pro
28f05d5dd33a73a56f0a53f33ed45623
8eadecfd88f6fdcdebffe23ea5956e34c3488be8
56000 F20101112_AACWRO chiarelli_e_Page_070.pro
09339cb11617eb87d001d52cbc799ad4
31ea102667e5d8a3aeb46b7ef213ab8b117bd922
55655 F20101112_AACWSD chiarelli_e_Page_085.pro
fac02fc7adde4ae17725cc84e127c28b
45acf76d90f57f5768de991b69633906123dced5
48752 F20101112_AACWRP chiarelli_e_Page_071.pro
fc9fb48b42af7794f6231d2083e5ebcb
0dc3f60a43ac63de42082bbd5f9e48a1ff07752d
57035 F20101112_AACWSE chiarelli_e_Page_086.pro
7bcc3752eb45cda9c17303797716511a
6483673e0972465ba6c6b992192b95027d97df3f
70515 F20101112_AACWRQ chiarelli_e_Page_072.pro
76fc6ef35bfe62c222998036671e99d2
b72514b98786daa2bdf7e358e9419d735de508e3
60173 F20101112_AACWSF chiarelli_e_Page_088.pro
8e9d1e8bcf4b2c48184f70495c1f9756
a1dfc09e84816deb57c34b2fe883ac538e6170e2
33583 F20101112_AACWRR chiarelli_e_Page_073.pro
4b9cb7bab8f54a8e7a03cc93dc7654a4
766a6be7ecab26b8831aaace269970bd02555e88
51730 F20101112_AACWSG chiarelli_e_Page_089.pro
9c275a638accbcfc765f9434ff98dbd2
3686576d6fa7cf85d12938d1a271370015d34a81
49964 F20101112_AACWRS chiarelli_e_Page_074.pro
372de315c566eb9328f10e5ed9b393e8
4903c64dd208021ef86d7ad00e0c847b49a665ef
55463 F20101112_AACWSH chiarelli_e_Page_090.pro
f08f62157cbf0dd66e9823aefe11a21f
03a0101de5ec1b600679d6a71dfc82c14c07e816
57740 F20101112_AACWRT chiarelli_e_Page_075.pro
da36d24735118fcdcbb29ac99655d0db
a024e87d60713a4b9a64980dadf9e4a2750a8489
12039 F20101112_AACWSI chiarelli_e_Page_091.pro
9406e6b75e2f57f402c8b12282184415
e92d602e9a24d07760225a9974ace017893ca1ff
49196 F20101112_AACWRU chiarelli_e_Page_076.pro
a2759d48be18f55ae25fbf2db0afb229
e912b26acfecc553a68fbc22629837e0ca9f815f
34109 F20101112_AACWSJ chiarelli_e_Page_092.pro
1d2aad48d907294c765fa579e561eede
2dd5bdf7ea09b709bb86ce3db124d2c018f29d2c
49044 F20101112_AACWRV chiarelli_e_Page_077.pro
111c257d8c9c22c37a3596a4ebc1fa7f
0d4b32c6858c956242047106bc61156defafd186
17577 F20101112_AACWSK chiarelli_e_Page_093.pro
247d931f5c065c576e66168b97b4e4d9
ac780965414c65bf401e0f1e24fff1ed17964bdf
53943 F20101112_AACWRW chiarelli_e_Page_078.pro
f4ec05c2acc0c8b688dc9b0516019dbd
26445bc20a93c722970287821e936357a9293cfd
48589 F20101112_AACWSL chiarelli_e_Page_094.pro
ad422da46c3eb025974431cb2dc15235
5c66a6f248f25989e0e75afb6b59e44ea4d5b415
42818 F20101112_AACWRX chiarelli_e_Page_079.pro
eb442655592e61727e9818d4fbeb80bb
db3e719b68b1ce09848bf72ee85ce83d11771b09
52666 F20101112_AACWTA chiarelli_e_Page_110.pro
4bef8f6b2e0010d1ecd1459785499c7e
14099a2d87ae3ef2b9acf3f6dc98117fad103dce
57249 F20101112_AACWSM chiarelli_e_Page_096.pro
e88012653594163e871cd5a9564103e5
acb0b910b4ebd8180b47431ba88067727dd1a418
51615 F20101112_AACWRY chiarelli_e_Page_080.pro
3e1282c6124fbcb1345eef008183c268
45a35c46bb3f35c1453b3a0656e9afc3081ca64a
54093 F20101112_AACWTB chiarelli_e_Page_111.pro
fb1931ec02ee2a0fc46ce33cbc93a949
f109761eb5803d6237c7ea34525b9f2794e4a627
53806 F20101112_AACWSN chiarelli_e_Page_097.pro
0e26eb98a9a0aa727b0a200d83d674df
015208a84ed029bc63a07951215a472336863c80
17147 F20101112_AACWRZ chiarelli_e_Page_081.pro
eebe99456796497c9984e3c67f858889
16b5f72e0d8fa7c79aaa4b20ff8606326968f214
52404 F20101112_AACWTC chiarelli_e_Page_112.pro
f741c20926ebe88246711840b14d0f06
8a20299b2220e2bdfc431421a977ece6544715d5
53971 F20101112_AACWSO chiarelli_e_Page_098.pro
dc64eaed44abdad9c222949a86234bc3
634861380bc1792e908fdfa08d88ca1c43d1c55c
60202 F20101112_AACWTD chiarelli_e_Page_113.pro
1c130ad1b679fa73b16f261b13408152
c01dab37ffc5637176106ec8dc826b8e2289be52
50164 F20101112_AACWSP chiarelli_e_Page_099.pro
2e79702a3d07507a21c0df125aff9dee
8a1032bd61fa108cf4d57370427c8c9e7318ac9f
50959 F20101112_AACWSQ chiarelli_e_Page_100.pro
47ae6a2720ba57d14be770607ee77b97
f4aaee07325d62bd5fa7b6ab903315680d09ae71
59830 F20101112_AACWTE chiarelli_e_Page_114.pro
96cb797a026ff539e6ee643100c47930
5818e0ba71e401bb68558cf6f8ac2b461f57fc02
54068 F20101112_AACWSR chiarelli_e_Page_101.pro
089efd64b6fc51d68cc4e838f50ed549
c9e7af2ee33a287ed634907c18cba9edbf6efa56
56595 F20101112_AACWTF chiarelli_e_Page_115.pro
851abe7d3ebf5c14be3348232a073d2b
7e76a36a021f6180b9f66a1d4557bb86ec4ae4ee
52681 F20101112_AACWSS chiarelli_e_Page_102.pro
81a55c20229ff1ded12ee7d85a213e96
4f33d3fb1a67a1e1b80a6872bb6e24a7e9737cd1
79130 F20101112_AACWTG chiarelli_e_Page_117.pro
536243908da42e970ccf4e460dd4a6ab
d00b90761c559e1c190868aa0abed846fad67533
69165 F20101112_AACWST chiarelli_e_Page_103.pro
f21e8dd8b7db7b495f87143f3d0315a0
764f7d2e984dce2f60455bc593862856e9fd9350
18637 F20101112_AACWTH chiarelli_e_Page_118.pro
7a1747080345dbf9cdb06831eb601fe8
e11d8c2843ba5c448fde21eeede9ce0ceb269000
67960 F20101112_AACWSU chiarelli_e_Page_104.pro
cd93b871e52d52c76c0ba0ed4c545f66
28c915f243fdd6f3b60c8a9329dbe35d5c900b3c
42281 F20101112_AACWTI chiarelli_e_Page_119.pro
53db3a28d07cf055795312f68774a8c2
da13899a8c13e215b91cdfacbdc1d1d8f2148d5e
56530 F20101112_AACWSV chiarelli_e_Page_105.pro
8d7d77d94805b5274034e42cb9203f94
16d88b4bbb0b1bb98042bff50a90b4a7648a4b42
52163 F20101112_AACWTJ chiarelli_e_Page_120.pro
68b44e1b9b3a9e222b1aa26ead2c0fc9
4ad81a0d99bbd77fccf33a6b34ce5430c490c064
56188 F20101112_AACWSW chiarelli_e_Page_106.pro
3f734d82a322762782d10ad1e1831e66
08cebf3f6e4c7d8d7c26a1e290a5ddcf6f5fce3a
52448 F20101112_AACWTK chiarelli_e_Page_121.pro
8a9bb35801195ee1852f06d74ca5bc35
e36e8dfe637b39ebefde74de8e07d002dfa7a9d8
56645 F20101112_AACWSX chiarelli_e_Page_107.pro
5826c5dda2d23ea049b01b7fdc1e79d8
86e7addf9c35fbe9dc414993ed75c3be8f5d17c2
35736 F20101112_AACWUA chiarelli_e_Page_138.pro
c31852615a07a14d4c7e68f9d1721e57
db6a7e79f8380f21ba6b9328af30a3dabb038892
52543 F20101112_AACWTL chiarelli_e_Page_122.pro
5693150391a621c16970fc0ca4d0750e
ac75048b4f26a6d39905a6ff3a8d0c62ea0dacc5
58932 F20101112_AACWSY chiarelli_e_Page_108.pro
fae68571f8a5e2f78fd39d2730188867
7edcb72e6b4613a2062b9d4d48a6d782c60b86e4
21851 F20101112_AACWUB chiarelli_e_Page_139.pro
102bb94cfe07ec6f961fbd016eba4c8f
6dfbe35ce044aaa549c74b4adeb3c82d2446c699
56551 F20101112_AACWTM chiarelli_e_Page_123.pro
0aa03a024ba372544d07057a6a541515
adc32a6adad1389e4e743bd08581604e0b0f922a
59785 F20101112_AACWSZ chiarelli_e_Page_109.pro
1e0fb67ba47a23ba269be46b29475a31
a2c5314f390b232670849b5573d53cd798ca0240
57506 F20101112_AACWUC chiarelli_e_Page_140.pro
43206eb7634f231483d32d679b3d2d67
4e1e9196e4bf9dd88fffb225c415f83200636a8e
37548 F20101112_AACWTN chiarelli_e_Page_124.pro
bd47e62b948c8064d312f6d6cfd05119
91b2b38b3f93650b38cb68168ba076fad765ebbf
59636 F20101112_AACWUD chiarelli_e_Page_141.pro
00ae64200be2bfce4fa0f0a95d435dbf
bc4a5957fc4d01ea885ed7acb327e8304a14786a
36687 F20101112_AACWTO chiarelli_e_Page_125.pro
e0b34f21c137780ee0b1628730294bb4
bb73edc7282dd661e6d8a5aacf900e732435f148
60183 F20101112_AACWUE chiarelli_e_Page_142.pro
cec45ca27df8db64ed73498f7778fe02
42dd7136b97027427172557bd4398ba4ea3a566b
31727 F20101112_AACWTP chiarelli_e_Page_126.pro
40d142359844fb5d79690b70e389de79
2160d27d246a331e0def039ac7a86a4a0ea0c1d3
35304 F20101112_AACWTQ chiarelli_e_Page_127.pro
86b04ead9a30961c26abaffeadb9ae07
3331e91407e704ba8de33c8e692110c1c71dbedc
41320 F20101112_AACWUF chiarelli_e_Page_143.pro
c7bd6aa22775aef379d83910d0c4a52a
00e43769a4955efbe3703026d665f21edd56e427
71899 F20101112_AACWTR chiarelli_e_Page_128.pro
1914f148c2609dab5aed13df72eb0f66
10bcba870cb0ad7d9c5273ab618027327be0c056
34941 F20101112_AACXAA chiarelli_e_Page_019.QC.jpg
6b5aeea8670eb7989b929dc26cc27276
9d4d218c9547e2749d9635b2829619de39b544b5
34357 F20101112_AACWUG chiarelli_e_Page_144.pro
28f10dbe10986d653e58a6354914cafd
e19e6b017241903142995ad37f69b2ff1a2216a9
35721 F20101112_AACWTS chiarelli_e_Page_130.pro
69e214c987d2e96bbce57e9ec2a2af07
bed969e084ac5539a644d512eb5a6b8c0dfff28a
8911 F20101112_AACXAB chiarelli_e_Page_067thm.jpg
81216c7f4ea5b6a6088ac3ce1bc80bbd
5547accfcf55d53d6c6490241797c52ad1d5b6f4
504 F20101112_AACWUH chiarelli_e_Page_001.txt
cde916c6687cd639da8ce1faee230eac
908a95010d8bc882475e568e5839c0dc9015e05a
44932 F20101112_AACWTT chiarelli_e_Page_131.pro
343d9ab8037ab50b360b006d429620b3
c0e0f49db41d10882b16e2ae3bcef96a0a830b89
8874 F20101112_AACXAC chiarelli_e_Page_106thm.jpg
aaa94c9fb23cdbf675b99f7fde4afa2f
932fa9fbc9f0ce9a8478b7477af5b1276f4b0d73
93 F20101112_AACWUI chiarelli_e_Page_002.txt
3af7aea1fb57c21c5d7277d312dca063
2492295357b5c14628bcd6bc73bd09e218d42ce6
40824 F20101112_AACWTU chiarelli_e_Page_132.pro
596f284697cc7e70539292ca3010ae1f
8993849be8a24886d84af25bbaec84f776e3ddbc
6591 F20101112_AACXAD chiarelli_e_Page_008thm.jpg
ebe707e504f5a70016cf2225e5844b9c
583616e63745812fab642896d90ad3fec08b792c
202 F20101112_AACWUJ chiarelli_e_Page_003.txt
a0821dde76a8ca30d52a61ee2fda8278
a2e2f1e37b66bec919c803f1428eb6e64da8b797
42926 F20101112_AACWTV chiarelli_e_Page_133.pro
e3459e9b23f053e0926578a8892a8f6f
adf2f51af8f30874f8098d4b072dbe368097d634
35235 F20101112_AACXAE chiarelli_e_Page_101.QC.jpg
f9278d1fc03f86e4246fff5cc3ac0f65
f6b613e393c5955b6018c5d020180833d706034e
2144 F20101112_AACWUK chiarelli_e_Page_004.txt
ec4434cc3d68d3e27cedc79278856cd1
662c04d62c3a8089d6bf924b44494f01087f1206
41276 F20101112_AACWTW chiarelli_e_Page_134.pro
b6c2f3b2d9a279304164e9e2178e37d4
fb43e196e9b56af047c31cbe3ade369995170779
1010 F20101112_AACXAF chiarelli_e_Page_003thm.jpg
6b8276d02961a42439ca2c8fe0d48a5f
3d6e952563b1da42d3dd4a44cac54fab3c651594
1310 F20101112_AACWVA chiarelli_e_Page_020.txt
94ae5e4cb7cdd711966c159147d9ed40
4edcc3d9a8660f1521945d8a602c4b0f35c9a86e
2001 F20101112_AACWUL chiarelli_e_Page_005.txt
83f4dbf9ed985f86c0a2fe1d65cb927d
8671ea11c0f37d9ecb65be38dc9bee5c77a6198a
42070 F20101112_AACWTX chiarelli_e_Page_135.pro
b5582896839daeeacbbe7bf51743c12a
145e25f7cd0955c09fc29e90dd4a7163c505b03f
33611 F20101112_AACXAG chiarelli_e_Page_039.QC.jpg
75bca68aaf8796612842c4102f2f2c0d
4ec6c7b7be06009f67439f159fa8b51e259596cc
2268 F20101112_AACWVB chiarelli_e_Page_021.txt
fcab8d4edc4d4ba95913c36a9d76a39c
585dd8f1eb918646ff87def9ca83dd5b754cfcec
3859 F20101112_AACWUM chiarelli_e_Page_006.txt
54373932f82987262444904bedd8104a
d15a34a22711134b0bf318a41a12c876a0eaa9c8
23899 F20101112_AACWTY chiarelli_e_Page_136.pro
3f4a86dfe4942f405a69692aadfc104a
f0657a0f140175f612b884f3c48743eb4c1324a5
36787 F20101112_AACXAH chiarelli_e_Page_141.QC.jpg
06702d5f10540a9fe038de480e01c097
f29e43957c8e68b7b834fb9129a37cafe5495915
2232 F20101112_AACWVC chiarelli_e_Page_022.txt
f5e565c7fc7f302a6aa2f9cb6c37fadc
94f2415a34b303bb110fffe3705d6145a3408f3e
4969 F20101112_AACWUN chiarelli_e_Page_007.txt
2fa0bcbb9708a9745c021e440159590b
6ae238b79fd7750fabf7ad273edc001877f4bf4c
38624 F20101112_AACWTZ chiarelli_e_Page_137.pro
9a1bbffb24c4bc112f90bb23a47f0cc7
c1e76efc07c5742a2b755ef5818a6865b54f2bd2
3617 F20101112_AACXAI chiarelli_e_Page_136thm.jpg
e14ecac0cce64712b004493843d6062a
41b46e55c1ff98907da9dba5055063791a2ae710
2212 F20101112_AACWVD chiarelli_e_Page_023.txt
731f28689a1202dddf82f71171914bf3
fab5acacd550aa5e75b3abbc754f391a53fdc0d9
3833 F20101112_AACWUO chiarelli_e_Page_008.txt
55c3f8b0fab0bd15d17f78df52b5cba1
35d3f68e63d750206666baa16cc7272ca8c3be82
3287 F20101112_AACXAJ chiarelli_e_Page_073thm.jpg
51b703c64cd57893d1bb6ea5dac3bd58
aa29688fcc3c4c4d96692f18432ef8e8597c9746
2189 F20101112_AACWVE chiarelli_e_Page_024.txt
ecc112a59b8e0cd4492fb6aeb8d11803
f9d5be8e8052972bd831b088fad81977b1dfb215
2855 F20101112_AACWUP chiarelli_e_Page_009.txt
f362de9121db14c107ffbf484d42dc31
95c76ed7cc57baeaf1b0109436ae4abd3e5f5d4b
33070 F20101112_AACXAK chiarelli_e_Page_099.QC.jpg
7ed99a569d81156224c52d7392da8118
460a5707ed6f486a0641c67aaa64ca11dc88bea6
2202 F20101112_AACWVF chiarelli_e_Page_025.txt
27184c7dd6346ca48db87046be50441c
d9610dc8ba81e267d50e5e95f65db2bad90dc608
2132 F20101112_AACWUQ chiarelli_e_Page_010.txt
c77fc65850b3389ebe456dee10fe66a4
ceb7d44c5e3db480d18d3972dcd3e2429a3b512c
9176 F20101112_AACXAL chiarelli_e_Page_141thm.jpg
dc3956d8a625c2bc54468db8b2b9b87e
1deacfba12b68cb49d1e64e6efa579e63c239ccc
801 F20101112_AACWUR chiarelli_e_Page_011.txt
27f1d72d66ef840f9147b508cba1551e
15d6732962f84d1f4f3d02d7ec1ff3fd86c4c833
35228 F20101112_AACXBA chiarelli_e_Page_017.QC.jpg
9db6cf2ec2e5c774525d7ab4b14b5e8f
fd29a03f97c4162877b3f653855553558eabc2f5
8257 F20101112_AACXAM chiarelli_e_Page_042thm.jpg
4d0f572df1014a3d02cc857b9c869d4a
dee76a39f74b000f0f85ee3fb10350e85eb4fa76
2239 F20101112_AACWVG chiarelli_e_Page_026.txt
da1c0bf6e38afe32090a7499fb7e860d
31b012075fc2327f4b7676c409329308837bcd6f
2177 F20101112_AACWUS chiarelli_e_Page_012.txt
49a9471f270ab143a9bd9d252fdd81f0
40620051cae28e6406d3d36b7b5543c8a1d339fa
8368 F20101112_AACXBB chiarelli_e_Page_112thm.jpg
cbd3ac76d2f40883e539d0848167f6a1
153f20d6d1601eef50f83ae738582631068a7034
4414 F20101112_AACXAN chiarelli_e_Page_129thm.jpg
3c1377e856ec2fa57d4d5ba0d3766fa0
6ce314c1f3896c4ea2a1c99da042a52f21db339b
2085 F20101112_AACWVH chiarelli_e_Page_027.txt
bfa1fd892ec4572e8d6a41e03b18b144
70a65fbf1f031fd6a5e05d23486cc650258425b1
1113 F20101112_AACWUT chiarelli_e_Page_013.txt
7570fb558730d5d6f0c7241a33a456ee
f030d749f80dcf3aa96f70e546cd7be3e0dbde11
7455 F20101112_AACXBC chiarelli_e_Page_010thm.jpg
0d5564c2d4255b8094e0607571862121
0cfd55e5a973d1797cdc71253988ed4db55043c7
37321 F20101112_AACXAO chiarelli_e_Page_049.QC.jpg
a5821e128528fc712950da12e13d61a9
5adaf6f7acbc1050c4872d375c0b9cfaf7071870
1950 F20101112_AACWVI chiarelli_e_Page_028.txt
f0636095c378da2075c8d8812e0ec420
a1757015b99a911def1813b4ec582f14f645eb8b
2081 F20101112_AACWUU chiarelli_e_Page_014.txt
021713909ca28fb548871cb730a0a213
2d6194f3864565f6070130bab588a574cb0e101a
29831 F20101112_AACXBD chiarelli_e_Page_061.QC.jpg
1b3d64ce5c80c8f01683333a614de1c3
b92d2a09c719ad616726ce6e2a64e9ff53cb75fa
8280 F20101112_AACXAP chiarelli_e_Page_094thm.jpg
38dd850eeb88778c4353977e023046f9
536401585092c82c2b63cbdc36ac533aa682b9ad
1829 F20101112_AACWVJ chiarelli_e_Page_029.txt
d52a2996fbb439024117e71ee98fa1c7
03ad3e9ece07d0892c7c06e43048fcd0de3a3393
2076 F20101112_AACWUV chiarelli_e_Page_015.txt
e5ce1c27a055b86fc37e4c0830528c11
2b1f82b99a0b7808b468661d3b4dadc85b6ff93d
5375 F20101112_AACXBE chiarelli_e_Page_119thm.jpg
15df89344b6817b9e4c3951cfbbfb196
5968e7ccc6ebec00229097ef0a1e802577b28273
701 F20101112_AACWVK chiarelli_e_Page_030.txt
620c1d21de298bee944c6b4c732752fd
1bced5295557d0dab6bfba8e4ab3e42987e89d1f
2184 F20101112_AACWUW chiarelli_e_Page_016.txt
46cf05592c6add4aa45a369c7d27d228
aba6f9f29400f30480e62a8124e9e47ce2f845c5
F20101112_AACXBF chiarelli_e_Page_009thm.jpg
9dfd6c4cf5a8eabdd6e9d6cb2144f568
808aa8b8f3acbbff59965412732585f28d731896
7747 F20101112_AACXAQ chiarelli_e_Page_076thm.jpg
78b82adf15aedd1423f259aa42609231
11794d915f945ed55c3285f3edb0a6c9d6053d4f
444 F20101112_AACWVL chiarelli_e_Page_031.txt
6efa680f77046e0361925779fe7d2474
65813e6551d154d1b1ab73fb76916237a9306187
2166 F20101112_AACWUX chiarelli_e_Page_017.txt
ba32e2f92bb74892c1b9853f59d1f365
a3da12789d6821b2614a634bb83cc469876d22f8
8851 F20101112_AACXBG chiarelli_e_Page_140thm.jpg
33688038d9e9504dddb57cebe2616421
4ab1ec9f695620d3a72157d327f55e44586bdfc6
2244 F20101112_AACWWA chiarelli_e_Page_046.txt
0259eb9e6ab2bec5eb7029d68c9cc439
11bae100c46338c8a18af58a64eb9aa304f19522
23793 F20101112_AACXAR chiarelli_e_Page_006.QC.jpg
171c4bf8b2bb1ae6c36009a49f607761
0af347aa5aef281e39711538336fe3342962dffc
2287 F20101112_AACWVM chiarelli_e_Page_032.txt
ad3de5e40a0f285534dacffba15c2b69
dfeb702f0fdf11de97564bfba8e1047765aacde8
2532 F20101112_AACWUY chiarelli_e_Page_018.txt
958d01dd58e659c5f6850bed1efa3531
619b8c982f0c8ed9b3765ac91dd6df2da6516ae9
9214 F20101112_AACXBH chiarelli_e_Page_022thm.jpg
a1cd8ce9d98a48b942eaebffbfc86426
7fce2bd2108dfbb18a54891d9d69f0c0b1c2bda2
2160 F20101112_AACWWB chiarelli_e_Page_047.txt
75c86355f0ef2611ee232cbb15125c80
d0aebe9d664076d1ac72f36eec69b6a9ae02ffc3
8546 F20101112_AACXAS chiarelli_e_Page_018thm.jpg
8aa17a79b15571f3d80423dfc12773e7
05ad1b27bfe1976f011832aa34a618481edacb8e
2103 F20101112_AACWVN chiarelli_e_Page_033.txt
d66d3a6e8036ef83a673afa3b70f4053
9661b578338abd91c5b9d0c1bebed8a56f24430b
2567 F20101112_AACWUZ chiarelli_e_Page_019.txt
a5a71ab89ad1287185822d6ab0f085c7
038422166fbc2db48948a21955a12061dab1e316
35347 F20101112_AACXBI chiarelli_e_Page_140.QC.jpg
667bbe01883af58f4f6335949403cf25
d2aaf9081685d8642514a57c42c39ba5bf95d596
1608 F20101112_AACWWC chiarelli_e_Page_048.txt
a48513e9b5edef3b7503e5c73ba93dbc
087bb2ba09c57061619365b041140694df529274
11051 F20101112_AACXAT chiarelli_e_Page_011.QC.jpg
4376e899b9b8fb8311e9fddbb98f4756
c210b8535827f4e45fc7a189700104cc90bc17aa
2270 F20101112_AACWVO chiarelli_e_Page_034.txt
be74dd5c645851dd037ff35d8a85a06b
8b10bd193cf63931acbd86d8c5bd4bf30f020ffd
27990 F20101112_AACXBJ chiarelli_e_Page_060.QC.jpg
3ac92e3fd1c83824576f572922c91bce
9567d5aa31224482f0a2cb34841e5f4ba320a7d6
2924 F20101112_AACWWD chiarelli_e_Page_049.txt
2f5d90d59d8c5e54fbdb6abb73e8ae97
88fb2c0f6c65694c4a061c556be1517beb18190c
8759 F20101112_AACXAU chiarelli_e_Page_066thm.jpg
ea040772c796ee7200b3c7d619a74b4f
298df28a47935475d8663fa34d75babb83571b93
221 F20101112_AACWVP chiarelli_e_Page_035.txt
ac6f598787487ba7663d6e8e9b2db257
fe634d09f8c34ddfc853fc4f4db30a225d2af2dc
34518 F20101112_AACXBK chiarelli_e_Page_062.QC.jpg
e03541214fea61ab740a45bbdff200c7
57b35938fc731591af712747e53e5b8917331529
2155 F20101112_AACWWE chiarelli_e_Page_050.txt
0a8a8eba3e6b7d103b1877d78dea2cc2
510f5774208d30504f48c05b496fe6b5506f8c8a
9289 F20101112_AACXAV chiarelli_e_Page_114thm.jpg
60a450dfc67bb74f8bc8c302db30514a
2b16526633ee5861d59456b0543855da8a6e3b94
2195 F20101112_AACWVQ chiarelli_e_Page_036.txt
c9a752393d8d88b76dcd7b8495dd1924
c220d13743ccd7ab80ae3700f0243f9b001323da
6137 F20101112_AACXBL chiarelli_e_Page_051thm.jpg
5986e75b918d3d0b047ac9231af459a8
0deb591e63e94c78ed98a6496b21952e2ea254e4
2023 F20101112_AACWWF chiarelli_e_Page_051.txt
cbdbae2c08fbf2b382bf90455f914e69
877baad782f20978b0169ed59eded1303e54ce6e
8881 F20101112_AACXAW chiarelli_e_Page_034thm.jpg
2ce2ba7d75ca2dad16f4bf2189e386da
4b4672350d8f9be083d42044830f3eb948fd22b5
34400 F20101112_AACXCA chiarelli_e_Page_009.QC.jpg
f3acbf3a2f6ee918b07a9080f9d00a68
04b03db70bc8d9b884d0405af461d9912a118915
2194 F20101112_AACWVR chiarelli_e_Page_037.txt
103f282a57f14807a839afab5140f815
54a662bd62e62ca1b23280afcac0a79d5a35eab6
35219 F20101112_AACXBM chiarelli_e_Page_098.QC.jpg
06730bb1b027b8801b97ea2d8653b5e0
ba4c443e4568f5656dc5f0521d47a1ebce11af36
1644 F20101112_AACWWG chiarelli_e_Page_052.txt
4a2b8ed9a5d256c2f447006fc247d222
65c216f55962ef2a1873aeba3d4509fc36bd7721
8493 F20101112_AACXAX chiarelli_e_Page_005thm.jpg
435b2789ff9992d34962e7c9d34014f4
73cc4a5938197cc43ecaeeb4571e7c8364e8086c
36491 F20101112_AACXCB chiarelli_e_Page_021.QC.jpg
9f236efab68aaa649fa02ebe354318f2
3e452b05a22dd5a0bb6546c197a4ab057b365334
4048 F20101112_AACXBN chiarelli_e_Page_135thm.jpg
059b12c5e4093c5cd56c595e9e137e3d
ca0294818ef038fc69fd23f4d2b436d9b72e581b
24180 F20101112_AACXAY chiarelli_e_Page_072.QC.jpg
50ab8aed5488577bee7088ea4d50c635
4a198ed7150cd602c4209f0709f4c1667dd4aa3a
2220 F20101112_AACWVS chiarelli_e_Page_038.txt
64edf65db2c5d84d22967e8a716e86d7
0c7d30a8b97d274047e98baabd0a2a68bec512e1
3928 F20101112_AACXCC chiarelli_e_Page_138thm.jpg
fb2aaf1d36b0876aec37f8c2feb56e9a
3b57eaeeac7ffcaba408f5464222ad705d5ce3c8
5368 F20101112_AACXBO chiarelli_e_Page_020thm.jpg
7e342052dcc09e7763ee3e5782620f50
6504f03e6cfa69a53588ce5d77944da24f79c096
1786 F20101112_AACWWH chiarelli_e_Page_053.txt
359edca3c16d3a3a66d2f3f17be766fd
bc428bbfddf145ef5c469c3c54233bdb64fca47e
6795 F20101112_AACXAZ chiarelli_e_Page_060thm.jpg
8710f092bc927912f90e1cd569d2a4b4
a0e16a19dbb399493c3dce857f086a5cfbaafe64
2063 F20101112_AACWVT chiarelli_e_Page_039.txt
e695b6dcbce0938610141edfd3c5e485
a58c528801b3591be4fefb72ea51877f87b98bbb
32680 F20101112_AACXCD chiarelli_e_Page_084.QC.jpg
771268e6fc121269dd6b7d5aea6487e4
bf18ae1641dba93b8f3fd80007f34a71ee1b3591
32904 F20101112_AACXBP chiarelli_e_Page_071.QC.jpg
f087b604f11dac5e4730f095bc770aad
df2fa74683a19c97780fcde5531aaa8768361261
F20101112_AACWWI chiarelli_e_Page_055.txt
a8f4b9be5db107d7bdd72524317bab76
9ceea236396061b11c11ab18ae7ae5df91130f32
2130 F20101112_AACWVU chiarelli_e_Page_040.txt
439dab6e6040d108ce7af6c25a497ff4
9434616eb94a7ec62eb3877dad56e6b90fb14d43
15353 F20101112_AACXCE chiarelli_e_Page_133.QC.jpg
a8d2cd032a7273dae7d5bf1348047b4d
450b2d240fc1dac6876ab6a931b278f88c0c3140
9149 F20101112_AACXBQ chiarelli_e_Page_115thm.jpg
b38405b9ca10b8e991370e812ac6762b
6d15d2fdd5cacd30e887c66fc3753b63cb900975
F20101112_AACWWJ chiarelli_e_Page_056.txt
90e402306bac4bdd5b462f37d36e9db5
38c4bb3f6acdf475391dd30c8b02c0514b55c445
2237 F20101112_AACWVV chiarelli_e_Page_041.txt
eea032f79c42f73b97409de8c8ad6117
d4b9f419811259bde6f7f91aab4e2ed73f52d196
35794 F20101112_AACXCF chiarelli_e_Page_107.QC.jpg
f0c5cab46ff8e03ad06317a497fe6683
16303c0d68f38989bec6b83aa0cdaa45c62a6e05
874 F20101112_AACWWK chiarelli_e_Page_057.txt
5d33c6a88ccf4e5b99472a29af09881c
c9fb6309f78d7e6a49878769e4e98aaf5ca028d4
2375 F20101112_AACWVW chiarelli_e_Page_042.txt
26d0ea0e84e827420b7e078056d20559
abb2f0d7345c7ce331efae8a9a3eef14b671c61b
11411 F20101112_AACXCG chiarelli_e_Page_064.QC.jpg
77dd24fda739a760d3c4d3a50b086ab3
5c7226281bb2a2dde43d14d44429eb3668e7519a
2217 F20101112_AACWXA chiarelli_e_Page_074.txt
4680bd547d40f1282e85fc2ab53ca941
c8a0170f236aa3f9b841d3f7780bf483cb2bcc30
14414 F20101112_AACXBR chiarelli_e_Page_132.QC.jpg
32be4a84dbbd32354a46c484e5597a95
5331b354b88f8196f61e70b1a61b8d97e993e7dc
2117 F20101112_AACWWL chiarelli_e_Page_058.txt
9ce193afad0e182236f1eaaf48a82643
4430aacd6ef8ba90a56c4e793c2eda13f8610bb1
2011 F20101112_AACWVX chiarelli_e_Page_043.txt
15a3d850c4fdedcdac7e25348d09dc2c
7b5b8a2c27166d62b88f51f53ceb503fb242aec0
8028 F20101112_AACXCH chiarelli_e_Page_045thm.jpg
fe74da687c26014fdcb1da804c069f0f
6bc3ffa4125673a69090d95c7cbed11df57eceb9
3105 F20101112_AACWXB chiarelli_e_Page_075.txt
7c632b1b910ace04bcb4ad0dd9b9e50f
e3cf4b3f150515853250a3f37dc692be790a9a84
9313 F20101112_AACXBS chiarelli_e_Page_117thm.jpg
224621784ad71670cd402a546509cb0a
858c29671c544adaf4b8ca8813b8edcda431586a
2019 F20101112_AACWWM chiarelli_e_Page_059.txt
1a1ebc9d860f1107cedb5d7f61954c8c
4bee2f438e5f3dfc2e37bfa5a07d060a95064c39
2282 F20101112_AACWVY chiarelli_e_Page_044.txt
b929f3245273419072dfd9333d6a7aff
c1ca5ca85faaa06e51295889504a5ce49e35386e
36908 F20101112_AACXCI chiarelli_e_Page_038.QC.jpg
eb9f9601b7f9eb706b24c3f699faa939
35226608e093bb55744842dede1ebe48d5cfcd78
2248 F20101112_AACWXC chiarelli_e_Page_076.txt
126347750936ee711b953eade9a589ed
09afc5b76328762a8780151f0ef61a4d9e8edda0
12181 F20101112_AACXBT chiarelli_e_Page_073.QC.jpg
7f4952bb874e4d429dee36c4c2f6d91b
45c06864f7353b546d3ff416d87f41e05b43c00a
2033 F20101112_AACWWN chiarelli_e_Page_060.txt
06c50f9731850a418b308c72ade6cd3a
90043ebabd259ed34e97c929f029bbec627480ab
2327 F20101112_AACWVZ chiarelli_e_Page_045.txt
1803d7a7481304b1309fc323789d41e6
65f67756be69370d1a6c912508e506539c58d6bb
6504 F20101112_AACXCJ chiarelli_e_Page_046thm.jpg
48efa944abefbf711bed52bfc73f6c2b
2f6410de82eb69ab6f940d9d49bb9e25a79133ed
37932 F20101112_AACXBU chiarelli_e_Page_034.QC.jpg
2f435f7c593f5ce9795ecdc96b2c1321
9e605e88707438b5164f56682abe3921c0d8d862
2259 F20101112_AACWXD chiarelli_e_Page_077.txt
81e7b9bb1edd33d92ca805794279ff97
79b8d85fe82567a9df325416621dab215721d1e4
2519 F20101112_AACWWO chiarelli_e_Page_061.txt
cfec48ef3ce77e544410c31cd3dddbcf
5cfadef66b29d343a14a445a63661fb7c44804f8
5448 F20101112_AACXCK chiarelli_e_Page_048thm.jpg
4a184607102b7f3eb19c0f7b7072871a
9c9815df6a1fc9d0b217e013bb29e9913b61ef41
5978 F20101112_AACXBV chiarelli_e_Page_006thm.jpg
f69d205850bbab2dec682ba13978431e
a4741c346da6b3efeb00d5046e602fd4243b57b3
2474 F20101112_AACWXE chiarelli_e_Page_078.txt
28fa78ada331e00ab980ddbc88d436e0
fa4d4bc8a98b285b9830c105bca034f24de2bd56
2050 F20101112_AACWWP chiarelli_e_Page_062.txt
36e29613f8ee059c62818896fb88ff13
1d2c764339d07a0fc6b382b05e0c0e136e814f24
37713 F20101112_AACXCL chiarelli_e_Page_088.QC.jpg
21bdd1740f4ba3e83a909e8ceb531d99
a1594b6eb565cd65caa2c99359c4bf2675f076b5
13239 F20101112_AACXBW chiarelli_e_Page_030.QC.jpg
ebbb0ad77f977c5ee2f1f30cbf7a09ce
81f5d10530c61aa76c5feae060729f3e6b41a4b2
1909 F20101112_AACWXF chiarelli_e_Page_079.txt
fe75d2a239d3aafd4baaf75a28aeb42c
498c92c4e4468472f0b971e51b4e4d8d90879ed8
3722 F20101112_AACWWQ chiarelli_e_Page_063.txt
cf918dc05ccf38858dfbd311bcbb7d24
cf9a137bcd41f85094c017659f1a4f3fbb030f25
3835 F20101112_AACXDA chiarelli_e_Page_139thm.jpg
ae2345b518e3fb9b5caaac437c84e770
9d196e3ce46e24ab77d657e6902a1b9e4cb763e6
8650 F20101112_AACXCM chiarelli_e_Page_098thm.jpg
6ad017d88bb2b4c7028b681906a4c2bf
08b0bc3861459166d6222881f551ad16ccc832c1
11305 F20101112_AACXBX chiarelli_e_Page_118.QC.jpg
dfa940516f6baf7141bb33808eab0ef7
7be95951a1bac178f91208cc75b7eeecc965ca82
2044 F20101112_AACWXG chiarelli_e_Page_080.txt
a8ea2a2e4d8b96702c0d92bd51c60979
fa12fd344e1808705a9fc2dcc68ee7b9e7e37743
1603 F20101112_AACWWR chiarelli_e_Page_064.txt
76d70ecd616d231e3e3f8f0ab9d5f7fc
f222bf3bb5ecdee23375c8285443b2b403eed3f8
13131 F20101112_AACXDB chiarelli_e_Page_138.QC.jpg
d7cec2274b14b5e830e932465ecae773
8a31d4c869af95d3449538fe2787bfad4aa93cf7
37210 F20101112_AACXCN chiarelli_e_Page_109.QC.jpg
9f4f96a5d2cd2b8357e2f426ababd11b
a52f2132419b4d52ef3f74a5f358c71c66e0859b
37264 F20101112_AACXBY chiarelli_e_Page_022.QC.jpg
af6d5a0dd0f2000d2bea2feaf174beaa
8c1107c456e67005d9c5cfd72ee33e51da602ac5
932 F20101112_AACWXH chiarelli_e_Page_081.txt
6efad642095a27f7c987cbdcf940afc7
6af0bc86e557190eab341a82ab08ef99231e2114
2336 F20101112_AACWWS chiarelli_e_Page_065.txt
7924f518f629df0c5015e2c46a48df11
3c281e9df2dc2541235ed02c7f827bfc84802645
8091 F20101112_AACXDC chiarelli_e_Page_014thm.jpg
05d8a0cf9dfbe0eaefb6a935d2e822fa
a14864d10f702ad5230cfdb124370cd5c1bbb30f
9074 F20101112_AACXCO chiarelli_e_Page_108thm.jpg
57ab6f34037cc309e0eea076ae2e2fcd
f3df082fe7c331857522880be27a42b88654fc60
18585 F20101112_AACXBZ chiarelli_e_Page_013.QC.jpg
556f6aa63bec83f793980c734c86e86f
163f2f1277e7813cd84cc6b4a276efb8ed598ba9
2442 F20101112_AACWWT chiarelli_e_Page_067.txt
1244fc984e568ff8fe5d37241097744d
005ba63d79141a5456695b583b4f936d7d70b3d5
114823 F20101112_AACWAA chiarelli_e_Page_034.jpg
6bf5464aa19d2b80bc3c518074752a5d
8cd615519ea5966dddbb02511a4222a230cc1118
36708 F20101112_AACXDD chiarelli_e_Page_024.QC.jpg
4817578d67a437a5dd298c3fbe18b0f2
9d7a1d9649188ee51073e988232c964f1dbbbbc8
11364 F20101112_AACXCP chiarelli_e_Page_093.QC.jpg
70230d507198f7a71d2abbd2fd68ce7c
9fa4662ab18ec14e251cc3dfd38992ef62295ee1
521 F20101112_AACWXI chiarelli_e_Page_082.txt
e2c39ce0edfd0de563f61463e46790aa
f64d07c430ed4ce633e46f7e0d3863ac881f4a4d
2325 F20101112_AACWWU chiarelli_e_Page_068.txt
160b5f061dcb7f54945c292c04997cf5
5bcaee914b5eae181c54d118de5fd0e683a76407
14125 F20101112_AACWAB chiarelli_e_Page_035.jpg
2fb7941f44fddb8b544263f5b5191d1d
9f7bf2b9439d06ef4ae975e0d774ad4b93d217bb
8231 F20101112_AACXDE chiarelli_e_Page_059thm.jpg
14761fa274f2cb9d3f68aa9d2972dbe3
ec731d76ed99bd6c65f535d10b57bf1e2f15c281
28377 F20101112_AACXCQ chiarelli_e_Page_008.QC.jpg
6212a199b232fc56426359195f64a279
312d89ae0bbb75f062e35e053ae2f5a4b577ce0e
1280 F20101112_AACWXJ chiarelli_e_Page_083.txt
a52c7f82ad501e2b2194adbfcd583263
2cccb9809bdfb3e306236a6e589cdfbcba33f0e6
2188 F20101112_AACWWV chiarelli_e_Page_069.txt
1305e70729cee1bddb8c8d20810cf7f1
8254c72162fe51c7c87ced4ad446bdbce5f98d22
102401 F20101112_AACWAC chiarelli_e_Page_036.jpg
821fe58c198865fea3e15908cc430753
9d6299300f5b9da3129ddcb809833f5a3c84060f
38031 F20101112_AACXDF chiarelli_e_Page_032.QC.jpg
b5e71fc70bcff3c3b5645c84664c051c
49d6275c69dd6608ba66e9c596080575c9b6933d
30907 F20101112_AACXCR chiarelli_e_Page_123.QC.jpg
9f150161064c392051331eeb8cb9c9ff
7cefd099d36368c6692c8c18e7e41da934683ef4
2031 F20101112_AACWXK chiarelli_e_Page_084.txt
871ddd26ff4dcd822b8583b5f59deb73
f9459ffd5b5c96301439da5a92235c7b1fd78e84
F20101112_AACWWW chiarelli_e_Page_070.txt
bf551734bf2df61328680efc1eddef1b
97e635346af6fc2486a12decac7be6671da2d008
109262 F20101112_AACWAD chiarelli_e_Page_037.jpg
81efe59cebbdb4700fa54a2234f8aeb7
c86a0a5506c254d3718c43f51a9191ad0fbf041b
8592 F20101112_AACXDG chiarelli_e_Page_017thm.jpg
c02c652fad06e93e37fe47b3655ba30e
1d08b45f2546326cacf679f6c4aa6498a444b85f
2383 F20101112_AACWXL chiarelli_e_Page_086.txt
5ae8a882eb0e16aa8202fd84b36a2c3f
850210ae9f81d39543dba55b565d2c413f053814
1918 F20101112_AACWWX chiarelli_e_Page_071.txt
f25ffd97bedf21d94986e1d1ebc59275
e5c12bb0e112cdb764b83fea60a871044fff9695
112911 F20101112_AACWAE chiarelli_e_Page_038.jpg
940dc9e158b0b951efbd99f03024c62b
5b4d0e5e749b1772a675b5fde92ebc7cd83eab7a
2141 F20101112_AACWYA chiarelli_e_Page_101.txt
0bd192d796888585f9efb2a940b8000e
18d7175d67e260f0f521ce0f116cf4d7a103fbbd
8891 F20101112_AACXDH chiarelli_e_Page_069thm.jpg
3aab9a5dd0669061f3a7be12dabd2d2a
e801af930f41f701646bbe3dd035c14ce750a929
28452 F20101112_AACXCS chiarelli_e_Page_077.QC.jpg
c766b104ca71c5c797b777c1f2bf7a2c
1d6ef2a57912cb1e6f2cecfefee45bf93078abe9
2452 F20101112_AACWXM chiarelli_e_Page_087.txt
5d7c146927acfc3cc66a4862739a40e0
90513ffe28b55db400c05a0b7e23df6cd9228626
3698 F20101112_AACWWY chiarelli_e_Page_072.txt
113c46ba32bc0f3796699ed007aa930a
6b556851f5a7da1bdb29e02838866dc98cbd86b4
103191 F20101112_AACWAF chiarelli_e_Page_039.jpg
14f78a80b78f66b5bf3a01d587f26573
9478f232ca3a47c54d89a7df49232c642d205462
2079 F20101112_AACWYB chiarelli_e_Page_102.txt
1f9487a33be5964dc31e22d681908e06
861c3dbf4b2cba9835bd7ff1e3881317b75a89fa
8180 F20101112_AACXDI chiarelli_e_Page_085thm.jpg
5d39ce0f83651905f9b2c8a405cf0950
957b85bf853b104bbbc038443b706e107c42c5e6
8336 F20101112_AACXCT chiarelli_e_Page_001.QC.jpg
d11148f9c5f6562f3abc68f9e642ca81
50b469ff0c0e44f87bf67a77750b83f6627d1b9c
2446 F20101112_AACWXN chiarelli_e_Page_088.txt
538b8388b5309a0d3f5046041ff407d8
17e822d38cfeb83508ee229e04c8066b2c4bd707
1725 F20101112_AACWWZ chiarelli_e_Page_073.txt
50bcb8251b987e7f9154b1e208dd3dc8
4087b15fd602e917c72712bef23f639206fc24a0
105978 F20101112_AACWAG chiarelli_e_Page_040.jpg
dafbe2aeab22f18b2a1f8637caef3b02
5ce7fab96420ff526fb84f39c14d2eea0c894e21
2853 F20101112_AACWYC chiarelli_e_Page_103.txt
ec55f0616c5de235375fb95f03323315
295be88277f772e2227a3acafdc65838b1d0a721
3165 F20101112_AACXDJ chiarelli_e_Page_030thm.jpg
9f88fa8703ebaed8729ab18bdfe90d28
a47b12bdd88d7a380ecdcdc747a0409f4d770028
28632 F20101112_AACXCU chiarelli_e_Page_122.QC.jpg
fffaa71f27218dc25e204c7f60131b48
b76fada88bc035ca7cf51d44b0f871c598c9582f
F20101112_AACWXO chiarelli_e_Page_089.txt
2f8e7be3317847398d92b2924a7588fe
bae942149a27dd4b4ad041fcf67585f1314aae21
99893 F20101112_AACWAH chiarelli_e_Page_041.jpg
9e51de016e994c94ce320c16ff6741e4
808d671309b9a5213c6dc3f60b58c2566775202a
2764 F20101112_AACWYD chiarelli_e_Page_104.txt
ebc145fb9185f728934575094f9ccae9
c74bc5aeb2b310dd49746764aebf986454e4e259
8513 F20101112_AACXDK chiarelli_e_Page_110thm.jpg
ccd33ec1c4444fc5e181861b8e6e7f27
b0f435e4cde30613b29e8edfebb9590f8e60e931
29101 F20101112_AACXCV chiarelli_e_Page_055.QC.jpg
738c94e34189dd20803d79966b902841
63f87ddfad9b54ea637d1064fdcd4e18c480edf4
2175 F20101112_AACWXP chiarelli_e_Page_090.txt
21a4fc7881e36a738a780b64156713db
8b92a9d4760eb885e9ac8399ce01b4012343a209
105937 F20101112_AACWAI chiarelli_e_Page_042.jpg
67e89a3128dc29865ca3e87ca0fdbf78
0fc9b4a4e3fd4ff2725d8335906a060b739a28ef
F20101112_AACWYE chiarelli_e_Page_105.txt
0e19e4aa2a7bfdcd5307814b5da2036a
61c13695dacd74544d84a55e99e9d03c9b1504b4
8667 F20101112_AACXDL chiarelli_e_Page_062thm.jpg
9ed1898ee6f8aacf216066c960fc588b
933f9ca23690c651fe057aa3aa736233f7908393
37042 F20101112_AACXCW chiarelli_e_Page_115.QC.jpg
7baa22e85c560cbbf725d3f2b64d5cf4
8a2ba14530b7fd3db9c33e8850eb3cd4dafd2236
487 F20101112_AACWXQ chiarelli_e_Page_091.txt
30898b51c630f28fd35c2c00d3120c06
f8aa82d2b99197064f211a735678004d13602d31
101762 F20101112_AACWAJ chiarelli_e_Page_043.jpg
1120ad8b449fd13c671e9da0346cf639
ec84b5dbca95dfb508940b8289e77ee0edbeac01
2209 F20101112_AACWYF chiarelli_e_Page_106.txt
8efe545caa98dae0cec60b12e7ef9d0b
d7ef4de3f12e4825861dd200464c2d1bd91913c7
20392 F20101112_AACXEA chiarelli_e_Page_075.QC.jpg
e62e394a48540e77f1417f61e6289017
212e1497168f8ae04db3d667ec38d17ed2392b38
8082 F20101112_AACXDM chiarelli_e_Page_012thm.jpg
c430c5d97ac83a3719adc7531398773f
d9c58300d9511753b83f8d86af38fded6a1054e7
8705 F20101112_AACXCX chiarelli_e_Page_027thm.jpg
dd08291a6a393c4ac14cfdc1ab037e8d
33cc4c4ac67b0c088297638eafd769c0190ef3b4
1477 F20101112_AACWXR chiarelli_e_Page_092.txt
a591eef4c9b31c0faeb483a1887bed2e
12bfc7c5ca8f007df26e4954ae153607c44fe4d7
111758 F20101112_AACWAK chiarelli_e_Page_044.jpg
a2d95a8062d0e7078cffa127a193732c
582eaf8e31af68553e4098c982fef4a933d16c29
2219 F20101112_AACWYG chiarelli_e_Page_107.txt
ed976c1399d7ecb8ed3d916117bab1de
f7e3c758efb2fda81b4e77c15ae9ba950973896f
35605 F20101112_AACXEB chiarelli_e_Page_097.QC.jpg
fa7f9d109136b7f2a5fbb603913ae2a7
dcfe45b5c83f24aaf5ee4968ece6187716557929
15868 F20101112_AACXDN chiarelli_e_Page_081.QC.jpg
15bfa8ead65a86745d8aea9644e73636
aa986c7f15e5a72edb0a8fed9dccf4332c1806da
26132 F20101112_AACXCY chiarelli_e_Page_053.QC.jpg
882f78234d7fd290a6bc3dba1fdefb65
5cdbc21d726c632e51e551f815a01cb53315ef99
755 F20101112_AACWXS chiarelli_e_Page_093.txt
1fd96c5ee663dee3da1411658076ed69
96bddfdba491c354c474d37703964fee07e32694
107364 F20101112_AACWAL chiarelli_e_Page_045.jpg
b329fdef6b24d3d4b99d00a021a16fdb
ec0200c2c5d529361d6547ad70afc2f74245692c
2306 F20101112_AACWYH chiarelli_e_Page_108.txt
8ab3b26a941351c7a07454ff50a23fab
410ce4136be3a1a63f7175915b304fca64d79e08
8105 F20101112_AACXEC chiarelli_e_Page_071thm.jpg
83df3ba47e88a27dd16b2764b9e12682
ac6d393306f3ef78c87dc584b921b20455c16c68
8249 F20101112_AACXDO chiarelli_e_Page_087thm.jpg
894a440fefbdccaf007c62cf7c67863b
18b8269464d005e723aee2864bcdac9a7a12e08e
35434 F20101112_AACXCZ chiarelli_e_Page_106.QC.jpg
cbabdbcb83178d2e39f012bd9f229fc2
678a7a3e57f338f4f03eff947bb2cddcb8868d66
2005 F20101112_AACWXT chiarelli_e_Page_094.txt
6f59a24c18e1d7922b819b48361277b9
ea52935b47ebc74686e43cb3b0ec681231297eb3
100077 F20101112_AACWBA chiarelli_e_Page_061.jpg
133641d56415c9f1503b357ccfc4bfe7
ecc805ae85e1a3c3e2552f8f4c0ba05858e2277c
92200 F20101112_AACWAM chiarelli_e_Page_046.jpg
c53aa38a5dfeb59265ef30f887089443
c7e4d51b80f408614f5b9b446b1b1ac18c8b24c0
2348 F20101112_AACWYI chiarelli_e_Page_109.txt
4c52478e6dc5eefdbe1a722dd669d8e2
304fbee13bf1e2887b974346a30e916ff895c284
34183 F20101112_AACXED chiarelli_e_Page_110.QC.jpg
0e8a87e6f7dbb8e201c737921e60804f
69f7280407499163516da810ee2fe326faaa1c88
8557 F20101112_AACXDP chiarelli_e_Page_078thm.jpg
368433123669c538c2737b0c34edcd5c
27e79e4d962c25d601bbc9f03336a25ac6f96e7e
F20101112_AACWXU chiarelli_e_Page_095.txt
ef13140e2debf034f154743fbe15053a
8c32d2f6a40d53920212b2cf9727fd5d7c191ce7
103663 F20101112_AACWBB chiarelli_e_Page_062.jpg
86b9d9ce015d3e1cd90aa9f89d9991c3
4a6423673a61c21bab18a26b82c58f6b33b12da2
94812 F20101112_AACWAN chiarelli_e_Page_047.jpg
afef02e0dce45904faeaf4037f67daf5
b811ae04bb0bb97aa6a9c661950b92a37541fbef
36592 F20101112_AACXEE chiarelli_e_Page_069.QC.jpg
dc293b84288a74524033684d7d2311c0
33890005d5d4736da3897ee91f16f38925ade06e
33622 F20101112_AACXDQ chiarelli_e_Page_080.QC.jpg
1c9f30e020d8677c8432c42b6af0363a
b2527bbded618269237e27a9f0536e628a67445f
2243 F20101112_AACWXV chiarelli_e_Page_096.txt
b507a5b13cf80885d67c0bc742e9c598
1ca190e4af43238c0b1b9805935c7f1d568d3cad
78056 F20101112_AACWBC chiarelli_e_Page_063.jpg
3ad927276c483fa4bc179eb9453a4914
ab721d94f98e7f0347864c76a93af36d5f4f0a7b
72606 F20101112_AACWAO chiarelli_e_Page_048.jpg
40711361176257d420d3b9aa1332c1d8
f3994134a9b5c3d234df438799fca29d118443cc
2074 F20101112_AACWYJ chiarelli_e_Page_110.txt
31560f28b2770a97926eac4d15f7aeed
77f749756904f3f2f496072a795b52efc2a0a09f
34418 F20101112_AACXEF chiarelli_e_Page_005.QC.jpg
538609a289887242ca855c39b2e3a086
cca52e9ce57d44d571df8834b4396826ef4e8906
3028 F20101112_AACXDR chiarelli_e_Page_011thm.jpg
6b28d3f5a8b9a7b5da561ae87538f331
3fcd57fa7cdf14a9f2a6bdbafc981ebb7a619c03
F20101112_AACWXW chiarelli_e_Page_097.txt
a677045fc4f612457cacc8ff91c2af66
8e0eca0d58ec175ee175173e73cc507725f89808
37902 F20101112_AACWBD chiarelli_e_Page_064.jpg
8cca55aa67870ee5357c7f771a83e86d
e18565adeb3c4d2f1e7276bc330556b056aef364
136144 F20101112_AACWAP chiarelli_e_Page_049.jpg
fd42d1e48519a717960d4aa7d2432c0c
b3e33a908d8f6549f6c9342637c5d66ccef14e85
2121 F20101112_AACWYK chiarelli_e_Page_111.txt
b340e6d445ac6d1efd3765443998d44c
a9031f2538345a320a36bbe17b4a3cad052d21cf
8859 F20101112_AACXEG chiarelli_e_Page_033thm.jpg
ff2e7cd742c43bffb920dc1aa3f93c26
fa5dbe174a606f301501ec8d775fb384e5a105fb
F20101112_AACXDS chiarelli_e_Page_132thm.jpg
22af040a5e4cc8fddc4edb18e97b4b1c
b9df56c5ac860f3bfb1d1095b9bd26e88ed28ed2
2122 F20101112_AACWXX chiarelli_e_Page_098.txt
f258196bda8e7a051abdc2b8ef213e66
6317ea28f99fa04578a6731292ef257f13d96a17
103780 F20101112_AACWBE chiarelli_e_Page_065.jpg
1e5e9e62614fb5d9d69edb247e8ff56d
4d3c69429bdcd1c58910d5f73b3cf8be2d72e618
107742 F20101112_AACWAQ chiarelli_e_Page_050.jpg
c974fb5aab5739e8e4d315a89463b1a8
7ab967eea8a5d0361bb1c5c1100001e32fee8cbb
3316 F20101112_AACWZA chiarelli_e_Page_128.txt
c9772f5e35fa0ceb0f675151ead82bbd
c78cc6a2b879b119ec7ce7b705f6173d828706b1
2060 F20101112_AACWYL chiarelli_e_Page_112.txt
e196567ba86cf5f1d86f2a8e46ed2dae
aec27e6b41665ed36dbca14c2140525ce3566a44
34048 F20101112_AACXEH chiarelli_e_Page_102.QC.jpg
f47be1634060ac21a8ad8387778e67ca
b52e7e5aa11a3a1f1075c61cddf36c07f8896acc
1983 F20101112_AACWXY chiarelli_e_Page_099.txt
307ba067040c83deff9de616af7cafa8
f740c1c66b87c128eb5450f6450d3845ff83fa51
109158 F20101112_AACWBF chiarelli_e_Page_066.jpg
7a2f6a4d863d18c042cd3139f4ab7cd1
8f32e212a3011e132fe2db2438f558d30f946e8b
3347 F20101112_AACWZB chiarelli_e_Page_129.txt
2ce891854dba0a06a86d7809bd2cb2a1
bac4cd0bdae27ac5e914549e161e545665bedc65
2360 F20101112_AACWYM chiarelli_e_Page_113.txt
7e1d24cb4e09fde2b4c864d2a39890ff
9634284b9ed74882d797beefc7ac25cfaa55b4a7
6191 F20101112_AACXEI chiarelli_e_Page_144thm.jpg
8b41e6bca4eba11ce4809309cb0b5d13
61d33f218fae8156e2b87634ba128da8c2146230
8801 F20101112_AACXDT chiarelli_e_Page_101thm.jpg
174ea9364324878e4d0a843ede95209f
092c11bab9e7b191089552d4eb59992a826ea3c1
2021 F20101112_AACWXZ chiarelli_e_Page_100.txt
e688d070286ae59463306196724ac07d
12ec87d4ecf5ba6abc34f3bea96b2129f80991ca
115721 F20101112_AACWBG chiarelli_e_Page_067.jpg
e8cd2f514149d0947230dfe609b2e3de
5f251e509562eb9f59e645bdc2c7e832fffb4b2a
76757 F20101112_AACWAR chiarelli_e_Page_051.jpg
7ce4b0af90c91ff0d9812f3db6220f3e
a756704b91969ee58470751d8218140f6ec1e344
1681 F20101112_AACWZC chiarelli_e_Page_130.txt
20a2d5c40821bd006c075edc9f034666
ee346426900352edff5dba7f75344b4131848692
2343 F20101112_AACWYN chiarelli_e_Page_114.txt
d8c381cf48c49f2eeec6f3b64469f2a5
fe1fe09e414e2d77a9ba3dbd71e9ee992ff27d4e
20914 F20101112_AACXEJ chiarelli_e_Page_052.QC.jpg
9a276475fa84fc26dc7e4353f3e97f5a
fb24b93678f850f5b86e324842a026ecaec49f62
33393 F20101112_AACXDU chiarelli_e_Page_065.QC.jpg
24535f0c8470c0630ce88e2ba1acfcd0
b177be4408511599d168e4411d922fede01f8707
107247 F20101112_AACWBH chiarelli_e_Page_068.jpg
fe9c3a9ca3e29463427445506f026d72
20d570b00e15290c673ebb31fa0c9da2f952817f
64609 F20101112_AACWAS chiarelli_e_Page_052.jpg
74b5776955723d779d2c0c25fe24dfbd
5a2739d01ed842a9aba81125f7d027489161aac0
2065 F20101112_AACWZD chiarelli_e_Page_131.txt
75d017dfc37137361328e7b5eb508fef
facd6cb921693578d0626656cd270093688dac6c
2225 F20101112_AACWYO chiarelli_e_Page_115.txt
22adc220dc210133e692803f1177c717
2bc246a8a7d18cf36bbcc0755a4739fec7d4f944
9183 F20101112_AACXEK chiarelli_e_Page_023thm.jpg
a2216f01869e6afb92f0db131040c4f0
b81561ad3476d3c7c145c8a4bc79c48f9d37e118
8967 F20101112_AACXDV chiarelli_e_Page_032thm.jpg
0a643ea234bc4ce5f403ffabb846bd8c
e79c92056a414d8ce67c55f81bfc126f80e8ae38
111389 F20101112_AACWBI chiarelli_e_Page_069.jpg
a4014796dc26939ada9c12f585ac6952
6379f22b973eaca088e4648e422c3a1bd5bd5fed
80167 F20101112_AACWAT chiarelli_e_Page_053.jpg
e24ce261044b777e2f7c407da9958467
62f9a900e98fcf7c40711209998459a47277ae8a
F20101112_AACWZE chiarelli_e_Page_134.txt
ded16fcf1027f55fed27cf3a029d1653
af55a214dcd7e8f7c551c4a628e5a5fe3b650d21
3127 F20101112_AACWYP chiarelli_e_Page_116.txt
998597998bccb79887c4cf7e67f976db
059b180cf0923b9b495048c85c53a5ca03194930
34134 F20101112_AACXEL chiarelli_e_Page_015.QC.jpg
165df7a126e372608d671746c64a638a
309de425907d54a635fc29fa05f81d1d0d2eb3e3
23501 F20101112_AACXDW chiarelli_e_Page_051.QC.jpg
7225e8dbf99bd804b1e15551f2a7c01e
b0b0be842c9351bf4f94cd7e7af348c5f35b2a86
112052 F20101112_AACWBJ chiarelli_e_Page_070.jpg
2fa7f807c7a189ca6f8ccd0b6554ee43
f833e708fb671353296750af23048d8cb1194190
88469 F20101112_AACWAU chiarelli_e_Page_055.jpg
7b3f4d1d5cac09730b9e6426a4ed80ca
515787e8b6138082f643202e166245fd0d23497f
F20101112_AACWZF chiarelli_e_Page_135.txt
1028a48fac69c650017bfacca0c781d8
8f1f1bd9a870d0a32516d28330f22ca3486a254e
3255 F20101112_AACWYQ chiarelli_e_Page_117.txt
c75850d0152b37129d3fb6ba6e5dd3af
d3ed4ecbc9eae73d1d66c8cb1dc5231e0c4c4c4d
9065 F20101112_AACXFA chiarelli_e_Page_104thm.jpg
14d767b6421adb8ed507552cf3ca858b
c3d546cb134207325309946b3b780d216faf14a2
5187 F20101112_AACXEM chiarelli_e_Page_035.QC.jpg
39183d174ce3451dcd20b06f65e6776e
25df3c43b1cc3f2314ac9ecdeb0dcd7cb865b9e6
8701 F20101112_AACXDX chiarelli_e_Page_025thm.jpg
3d14a99d7129363a0ad8a79a0b580b32
60732e6749d5c19e6fc60a5d14f2301bb7d1d92b
81679 F20101112_AACWBK chiarelli_e_Page_072.jpg
870a2117cd234a98d6c2d3645b3e4a18
f8b07b4881281e90a8140f1f348f23cdc3f388a1
102045 F20101112_AACWAV chiarelli_e_Page_056.jpg
e9ad3de737792b160399caff6b647ca6
58b34649648f099658c4478e714849f7c1b44fdd
1131 F20101112_AACWZG chiarelli_e_Page_136.txt
47d37b15ebc51dd5699a59491718bfe4
44f760b0a15e40df799810464b78520f3ddc60d3
1675 F20101112_AACWYR chiarelli_e_Page_119.txt
f81b2f24e78e3cfd16647db63e85572a
52448aa30b563e959131f42d9aa846f5b6f5b47e
36033 F20101112_AACXFB chiarelli_e_Page_104.QC.jpg
575b01ee66f1e855490d142096daafee
e714b4ea64dda57015b3f75d117233503c6a5fa8
4050 F20101112_AACXEN chiarelli_e_Page_134thm.jpg
4c6143f091d013ac32355e66becc3581
0be443be3ef0b824245fa844c7232f8f5b2f8425
33490 F20101112_AACXDY chiarelli_e_Page_058.QC.jpg
db74b1ba9e37e2e4ea0765a0561a715b
dad203d3ce01405f39c77f4d8abd10bcc2d7ebbd
42244 F20101112_AACWBL chiarelli_e_Page_073.jpg
2a18a9609fec39042c2fcc7edb1fbecf
61b571dbb174346e62488a28ef5ecef26fca89af
45107 F20101112_AACWAW chiarelli_e_Page_057.jpg
b430bad69ce8e6b7e7eb4b1a85017a7a
d128d566e6d998c8210c77daf201ce09be17808a
1884 F20101112_AACWZH chiarelli_e_Page_137.txt
f5ed0916c5dc8557b68f5025bcc41146
eee07abd5974f3bbe8b2e49156ca8e2a60fd5680
2102 F20101112_AACWYS chiarelli_e_Page_120.txt
7691a413db8bd78a70c04cab7c21d958
d9e196f56b5dbf7c369d1a1b5dd22b9f2d75555d
8932 F20101112_AACXFC chiarelli_e_Page_090thm.jpg
e14807d91b603ad15cf6678383f7dda5
73fb7187f1e28d0e4bca043e65f767139570b2e2
6662 F20101112_AACXEO chiarelli_e_Page_083thm.jpg
5ee6f825bdb093b36cd320b6ded46ed9
59115d3490ec40ed1d2c39cffbb6b550d1323597
35197 F20101112_AACXDZ chiarelli_e_Page_111.QC.jpg
1b7a49a41907ecab032c7fed728c9d62
6d078f298392d1757a9f1ce4a2a3daec2b6cb754
63165 F20101112_AACWBM chiarelli_e_Page_074.jpg
452e6093286d56b800afa84fdd09817a
094e22b93330d38f52df227ad2bd30effa867458
103966 F20101112_AACWAX chiarelli_e_Page_058.jpg
d80e004c36fc55354905ded6cdfdc996
1133e95fa9473af444d60b79c144d4df8197cfcd
1732 F20101112_AACWZI chiarelli_e_Page_138.txt
db2aac6357e9f50cbb1ed87a5fd3151e
9a299cf45f67f063c988d7718e31ecb724df9eaf
2068 F20101112_AACWYT chiarelli_e_Page_121.txt
0e0d15477117d8d881274a56670d23aa
6947e5451618d7b48908bbf4cae4e745914828fa
115811 F20101112_AACWCA chiarelli_e_Page_088.jpg
a37099ef5ed3f84ddf39b57acfec9144
378eda863261c60664d1ef2df5af293526859047
27178 F20101112_AACXFD chiarelli_e_Page_047.QC.jpg
78497c61139efbd8f2264bf188839d50
e61a95dbddb1f8c7ad71cf1ef5f31252b75692f7
35101 F20101112_AACXEP chiarelli_e_Page_054.QC.jpg
26829045cd4fd93a32d742f3bd54cc1d
00306e7d03e7a0d1cab877dd0989014cd0055d6b
67620 F20101112_AACWBN chiarelli_e_Page_075.jpg
2b762a25e23d3235f3b262e4d4953630
0f34c361504b4846e740fc4e4221c6225ccc249a
102943 F20101112_AACWAY chiarelli_e_Page_059.jpg
5454214e7e87d7030cc3b6c8b7b4ca0f
ef70beb575b96e14e0374fa17d9f6c04a84dd021
904 F20101112_AACWZJ chiarelli_e_Page_139.txt
50b6d7840c79dcc7160dc6b4d192f837
4e0895b3253629f104b7923a90c64bf26d006c88
2066 F20101112_AACWYU chiarelli_e_Page_122.txt
007b38ef1f8b43994eb03d5b625e88df
a87816f5485b074ebb52234ee5653048d767ec1c
99141 F20101112_AACWCB chiarelli_e_Page_089.jpg
404a51d29a35c93fd3aae66128e12d75
47ea80a3d087e44f1e7029a342b334ea0013ef01
8476 F20101112_AACXFE chiarelli_e_Page_004thm.jpg
7ab8118369086596a5c8a6f35d2b554a
8b2de4c418ba18eed7137004c99860fc4b0ce147
8023 F20101112_AACXEQ chiarelli_e_Page_044thm.jpg
8fde6368d27adbb31a1577fc3b0275f4
0658e77924b32d416f58e7bbc8aebd6adfe6c1a5
93395 F20101112_AACWBO chiarelli_e_Page_076.jpg
abd15e106a44f0486e00766b8852976a
6e71fc13d805f13ddf224f89c888fd26bec8ebfc
98479 F20101112_AACWAZ chiarelli_e_Page_060.jpg
6f8f8e9822c7c320a78c419d07bf27af
0bb74b56043211f0b55428da696768d5133d4e3a
2230 F20101112_AACWYV chiarelli_e_Page_123.txt
d8ea52b1d560a5f3c1e7639db0b80bb5
db320614382d4bc40ebc9779e88e371d62253836
108185 F20101112_AACWCC chiarelli_e_Page_090.jpg
a2cfa96ab1ac13cb29287940b1444cc9
bd0b7a21f627e197bd4a715758d0e6d69582d4b8
38854 F20101112_AACXFF chiarelli_e_Page_116.QC.jpg
f7fcaf684201cc1948a1b023e7251272
2970be7208ba6ae215bb0df94bf734fe576bf32d
37467 F20101112_AACXER chiarelli_e_Page_114.QC.jpg
5617c8806eb809125455d45ed71d5031
81e68e2e13b93d5f0d9219e310dc9ecd143ad1b1
85227 F20101112_AACWBP chiarelli_e_Page_077.jpg
132307b525e5b1b3b24b2fd8159e88c4
a484c896e839bb400858e22f5437d62537581076
F20101112_AACWZK chiarelli_e_Page_140.txt
87233ce6a918d9282d9ccca0c84686e6
127ee52f1dd770ab2155eafaa5488b844c054de6
1585 F20101112_AACWYW chiarelli_e_Page_124.txt
3545de964ec8feb997c1da520fe73734
41d4c48cb4f9663d8754c44decf746f38b45b444
26691 F20101112_AACWCD chiarelli_e_Page_091.jpg
9605a1c9c541ed122565b8527cd803b6
9c6cb2db9e12b78bd7077f736835acc4ef33e07e
32631 F20101112_AACXFG chiarelli_e_Page_044.QC.jpg
752233ad3a35b208f69ea7d357fb3eaf
e4db4fb0f613d06145b7c06931b3abcba8b067f4
35161 F20101112_AACXES chiarelli_e_Page_040.QC.jpg
cd6a1cc3d6c1aca9c99d7a763140bafa
bd338b959e1cfc7d10cfe9310a0816d3a1fc3764
104618 F20101112_AACWBQ chiarelli_e_Page_078.jpg
bad54df7fdaa8baba0d631bec5a7e506
bd21b2d43b9a0f799b774ce9b8b978abb34ddcc8
2395 F20101112_AACWZL chiarelli_e_Page_141.txt
21729c66433baa061a556e7afda8f775
94f4d3274edec8b0850708fb7f3119a4849bce6e
1463 F20101112_AACWYX chiarelli_e_Page_125.txt
89922509b3c640262a709e9ef4e321d1
1c416880412a2396a9679c22b6728c607e8d1560
42579 F20101112_AACWCE chiarelli_e_Page_092.jpg
ca74145fcad42cb0f08fee0da901b8fb
1307c8aee8812bca3902b6da138575a964441c2e
10848 F20101112_AACXFH chiarelli_e_Page_136.QC.jpg
eb3adb6f9fdf9ba008872e3757cfc9fb
5d561b9cde697a00efe1e71b0716a4272b4e7991
32728 F20101112_AACXET chiarelli_e_Page_036.QC.jpg
69929e5321d0450dae21be3171f57d9e
4cd81a3576924e5b318747e1cfb281d596a58003
83552 F20101112_AACWBR chiarelli_e_Page_079.jpg
d792e9abff68698541a525b29f3acfdf
408a3fd35222483a962efbca44167c7bcb30dbfc
2425 F20101112_AACWZM chiarelli_e_Page_142.txt
6234ecab5c7f67e6786a0d9a897b0135
e0a8ee6341ecad732d1c48686638265c0005c18a
F20101112_AACWYY chiarelli_e_Page_126.txt
ad50a3229f658c91113b4c3975be2255
dd66d68e561334f521777cbb2a265651e8f2aa0e
37217 F20101112_AACWCF chiarelli_e_Page_093.jpg
04b71e2778e1a08f42875c06ac73324a
06b19771a79605dde60e3a3f82c009d5cc0a90f6
31005 F20101112_AACXFI chiarelli_e_Page_089.QC.jpg
9dc929ad5cca4823d861c1a86e47a1a3
49f724a537ee8e9e3e761a9bddf98d832d41ad82
1677 F20101112_AACWZN chiarelli_e_Page_143.txt
d37711ce0a4bea2e32fe6f4fa10dfaa6
4b2d4a85c853ff6a5452b5c9f4abb014ea6cbb7c
1441 F20101112_AACWYZ chiarelli_e_Page_127.txt
d89fa70d5ec7ba49bc09bafde6f26a2c
92a0c3de48ad176336cbc304446a5cfff1c86e07
99629 F20101112_AACWCG chiarelli_e_Page_094.jpg
404973bc897937b9f28b96eec41bee08
dd7851b5edc969a8d76cb608aba0735ccc408937
32967 F20101112_AACXFJ chiarelli_e_Page_028.QC.jpg
a321d90528c80bfb444fad1746d54446
7a68b97ef0c0d0e0ebdeaf8744aaa0e21de8639f
6414 F20101112_AACXEU chiarelli_e_Page_143thm.jpg
8b194d042c05efe34284ee919d765cb3
6e7010b47a9de79d206b12fb9128bc44eaebd467
104565 F20101112_AACWBS chiarelli_e_Page_080.jpg
4acc17d913591f2ceae7c1df1aa9cbda
b85cc0b7472b5ed593e9279420f9f9d6b89aa8e9
1416 F20101112_AACWZO chiarelli_e_Page_144.txt
0ce01b15c97e05dfd60e59ce210895ab
bdae217346db8f640e4ebaba071ad4a239d91f37
110210 F20101112_AACWCH chiarelli_e_Page_095.jpg
f80b8cdf1aff2d8c166aeabdcfbcef8f
d5b36f6674eae3e9cbbd97f8dc22df3d85f9df24
8959 F20101112_AACXFK chiarelli_e_Page_007thm.jpg
995290d5ce6edca1ea45f24161540664
055ff73ee69cd7aa946285c9b49ffb0c602259e6
37848 F20101112_AACXEV chiarelli_e_Page_103.QC.jpg
cad924d9aaef6b1f99eb339b5c1de289
cbd523fa7af69561a83827c95310e26d5b8466e9
47920 F20101112_AACWBT chiarelli_e_Page_081.jpg
763380828cb556d8854f11c72a29c09d
a6605179c11dc003f4380a3e7f6f5a40af9ccd20
2003 F20101112_AACWZP chiarelli_e_Page_001thm.jpg
6b93f9470879cf183502170b1564e9f3
68c58e54623663d2c4aea870e9d1e881ddcc6c42
113300 F20101112_AACWCI chiarelli_e_Page_096.jpg
56c058edc901d07071aeb557af02cf73
74ff31ae6a0f370bfc61899ed0a88f0a4d38f83f
9098 F20101112_AACXFL chiarelli_e_Page_109thm.jpg
655c1b3d8602b0797f29c7ef9f02b239
d8887c8182d0c651178bef8968c538d73c513473
2755 F20101112_AACXEW chiarelli_e_Page_003.QC.jpg
49da2442f8c92115d85e09d7a4e5e2b0
b5c20eab6787d89b9828cd58e297ee9cc654aa71
46194 F20101112_AACWBU chiarelli_e_Page_082.jpg
fab131907941a760718878be754e1150
783db42c1c9b7c6a23447ef33c2c475a065db186
4246261 F20101112_AACWZQ chiarelli_e.pdf
31ce08e5e67ab64500e41b4bad483951
22bfa813604dfafbf73ab260f862dd975e613cde
107827 F20101112_AACWCJ chiarelli_e_Page_097.jpg
01c1a00a334afd2b34d04a337394b8e7
15324614b9f11aa8cfa8354dced79759008a558a
33258 F20101112_AACXGA chiarelli_e_Page_043.QC.jpg
78a60702c45c780676e3422d441367e4
b473afa722758d4c018d0ce6b525244a6e3e7a91
3261 F20101112_AACXFM chiarelli_e_Page_092thm.jpg
f557bee055645476759e2a923dd93db8
3296388f06573291904323262ddd5ec984e7bcdc
32464 F20101112_AACXEX chiarelli_e_Page_012.QC.jpg
d51428b2e47860e564df8799d8f855aa
fc5adfca2e636081b17c79c3f963b069f1b2ac0a
70014 F20101112_AACWBV chiarelli_e_Page_083.jpg
631599352f802d0c9e8ef66ca8d3acb2
770b15be2bfc6fffbf252a9dcb9b53c912bf2136
29459 F20101112_AACWZR chiarelli_e_Page_120.QC.jpg
8fa20ad650c36d6f7525841532d15b07
c270c3b4ec9206cb786ec01374eb1c3aa2adb4b0
108097 F20101112_AACWCK chiarelli_e_Page_098.jpg
93f4d2b99309c0939a5cd83efe19907c
10a0527986d94e540edacab2c456a32084de9b4b
36982 F20101112_AACXGB chiarelli_e_Page_016.QC.jpg
d119880cba9b26e80447b354b42f2da0
cbca0f26c5ccfdd59206932a82f30cdcb61aeb0c
2356 F20101112_AACXFN chiarelli_e_Page_091thm.jpg
480fbb2efa06d418b9ab5cdcb04b25e8
5dc3ca34399c97af5eefd7bb9a2f4deb6dcaf2cd
5666 F20101112_AACXEY chiarelli_e_Page_063thm.jpg
8becfd7df7f3a372a158328d838fb5f3
11890de4656c77f59e2ebf19670eefb0733d5574
97860 F20101112_AACWBW chiarelli_e_Page_084.jpg
55d85a7b84898933d53de292eb728385
2d45b3dd8b221be26e9ffa387ab8773de43a31a3
8334 F20101112_AACWZS chiarelli_e_Page_102thm.jpg
12411d5cdefc7fa0900047e738e07795
a5d750a41dbfdd797b9175a30cb3ed07d4dc127f
100646 F20101112_AACWCL chiarelli_e_Page_099.jpg
1917ef50c83ca88f109986db46d3da3f
3e0ef88331f48716a863d0a0fc44ff23fe05a7b9
7490 F20101112_AACXGC chiarelli_e_Page_029thm.jpg
a4a9438b52ccb001fd3652073dfb6a95
49b35599f51cf4e1525bcf0d5d067cd3b33d3b78
5972 F20101112_AACXFO chiarelli_e_Page_124thm.jpg
13af214138edbd52545942a07f5fc39a
46e93b24696ce0fdd738ec11dae35c81f233deb1
8571 F20101112_AACXEZ chiarelli_e_Page_054thm.jpg
d590ee9f01d9a546a2de94977809f4ca
ee18ab4b7c6d7cc3666cce6fd766a953b22c9aa3
103271 F20101112_AACWBX chiarelli_e_Page_085.jpg
2772e377c2f7b0b434964b8424054743
3abbb90ebc77659b93053281b31ae18c87e78881
1173 F20101112_AACWZT chiarelli_e_Page_002.QC.jpg
ed65351532a3c2cc3e6934e465a9766a
c9dbea14e58fbc674c0af853259a3146160b723b
113888 F20101112_AACWDA chiarelli_e_Page_115.jpg
94fa3b607d4e0182ead204cad76a28e3
dda44bd7abed5c685db49c56d8c1f1822993c249
103314 F20101112_AACWCM chiarelli_e_Page_100.jpg
c87fdad4a94147723e0a81561f73465b
fd660309dada63f97d16d55d425978661e3458b4
7247 F20101112_AACXGD chiarelli_e_Page_123thm.jpg
eb37bc4b9e640a35fd9dac0b372e4f1e
8f5fbb68b7f146940b6cb29eebb15e6b3614700d
21805 F20101112_AACXFP chiarelli_e_Page_020.QC.jpg
e90f347cff59f05c17a6981775c9dc5f
763103e797260396d948dbb9acf77de8e05775b3
107993 F20101112_AACWBY chiarelli_e_Page_086.jpg
c15a96b58b2e5dba7a27fe037556dff6
b413e333405495a05262e4b617ab0642881204c1
9035 F20101112_AACWZU chiarelli_e_Page_116thm.jpg
c36e4ffe397f4e743b97c60fc2078318
666f07dedbfe6e130f0e34f327be19e3641b34f9
141335 F20101112_AACWDB chiarelli_e_Page_116.jpg
7817db3c108252bc4321b9ee5dd15eb5
42196603b7a5931999c21740fe661c3bd5e9827a
109344 F20101112_AACWCN chiarelli_e_Page_101.jpg
fa6bf27254abfba25aa488eabc90719a
c4ade3586d99ef515943750e5af9b1e67c7e07cb
18490 F20101112_AACXGE chiarelli_e_Page_074.QC.jpg
6466328b389b84c057315c3c84a4dd8d
166a75f7447ec4732ae83d83b60197169ba56821
36541 F20101112_AACXFQ chiarelli_e_Page_023.QC.jpg
a39c4885add500426cc3e57506de0e36
23ad3422c604c80e181846a05994742b649aafbb
103826 F20101112_AACWBZ chiarelli_e_Page_087.jpg
d207394642605b021ebf7c4c2711b022
c491b2a3cbcdf68c5de9f527174c49f7ae4d320f
35396 F20101112_AACWZV chiarelli_e_Page_004.QC.jpg
385a19a6f53704bb1a2f7375cdd04212
2c480fc21e02328ff4482685167aee7f054b22d0
147685 F20101112_AACWDC chiarelli_e_Page_117.jpg
d43e02495d3babd5972ac4eac9969df9
ab931d47166a1b52b603696175ef036f9408afa7
104927 F20101112_AACWCO chiarelli_e_Page_102.jpg
b8e85f9f27ab9b7ebca7cec62035e7ba
d73f04a48627d388cfae05992cfcb0ea86fe42f5
31176 F20101112_AACXGF chiarelli_e_Page_010.QC.jpg
7db82b51a91edac9485b9678a427a12d
f45fb6f8fd1ace760544ce2350be5bf2bca5e34c
20622 F20101112_AACXFR chiarelli_e_Page_119.QC.jpg
1871e44123d297d709f2864b403fcf7b
b37eeffd68257d7ea043662daf27b24a0ae9d406
9048 F20101112_AACWZW chiarelli_e_Page_038thm.jpg
324e03048c8b4125c7933d928e29c73a
3841a5ded62f35837c267c86207690357875f147
37366 F20101112_AACWDD chiarelli_e_Page_118.jpg
7f0a1129db8780c13b97f9dd49e653f5
6b157f63de35d154b0a3f10a7fe0a882e576b663
131844 F20101112_AACWCP chiarelli_e_Page_103.jpg
754251eb6990859df975a0d01601f393
0d1cc4af5ca8bf565e160aeabc6707c4eac6bc4c
8773 F20101112_AACXGG chiarelli_e_Page_037thm.jpg
0843566dafad6abdcea9c98bcd4c1c0c
2900e50358fb0c509e839bb4de4ef0c9adc27c53
3888 F20101112_AACXFS chiarelli_e_Page_131thm.jpg
1608bf0f8cf78951b8ac6e58181e69c7
2a914d4c7719d8adf97adfa4b9ead712d1683d62
34741 F20101112_AACWZX chiarelli_e_Page_068.QC.jpg
ac98ae8f5b4f4cc9ce20310cddea3779
9c29efff35754d4cb6d8abf7294c6a665b8d33da
67898 F20101112_AACWDE chiarelli_e_Page_119.jpg
cda944721387e9cc3d38fbc861fe176b
c1e61c092fce312bbdbf3a686621740db6c30f8b
129620 F20101112_AACWCQ chiarelli_e_Page_104.jpg
5a451fe36a4307cbb95b4e7c8542ea8a
1f5ebdf4a7f4bda73daa584a3943dc433446d7b6
8537 F20101112_AACXGH chiarelli_e_Page_065thm.jpg
aa9bdc71fa4490ee838b14cd35f59813
f1f17cc93f76a6cca4c436c8153f05652c4eff14
8363 F20101112_AACXFT chiarelli_e_Page_039thm.jpg
6098ae20bd960b9c536fea4fa4c67dc0
9093c8d362498e6fad8b8263a66b2cc3caa3261d
35286 F20101112_AACWZY chiarelli_e_Page_090.QC.jpg
90b1af8cee0e33a7a16a0f2a90e93bb1
86a96e88d1e33c7475afbf702fd410c283ad7951
102424 F20101112_AACWDF chiarelli_e_Page_120.jpg
ec41f8b0248a2c50561defb6e97bbb79
99e2bfeecfd84244ec5bf7dd691a34eae2d5cb6d
113176 F20101112_AACWCR chiarelli_e_Page_105.jpg
d66f7efb1e07016936c08b4854a51c92
f91d470b66a08c37b353424b268db26dd829d8c3
33425 F20101112_AACXGI chiarelli_e_Page_112.QC.jpg
1b51fafb92e748c9710962def83d0f18
8ec6c67b4d8dc633ce4ca36cc24767bf18d5da93
37472 F20101112_AACXFU chiarelli_e_Page_096.QC.jpg
bd62e04f957158ef262f5d67cd1ffd8d
d9ad42542b4349d665ac337464676c7bc6e47070
36880 F20101112_AACWZZ chiarelli_e_Page_142.QC.jpg
d9f6ea6d5ac606be2c84dc9312017007
a06f2c665b732fea9ce912c4334d2b86b990324e
101507 F20101112_AACWDG chiarelli_e_Page_121.jpg
f39b9885d54e4e62625f9806a7df1b6c
53932017674387bf7fe085f11b508939e26faf0f
55906 F20101112_AACVYA chiarelli_e_Page_087.pro
8223ac6636207209bfc82805e7872527
4883aeda08a4432246be90cfa6021746155f1c64
110067 F20101112_AACWCS chiarelli_e_Page_106.jpg
382a209b051cdc08d337d9a2580ed281
32818128d8c1a67f7c194575a466d3384a1ab43c
9038 F20101112_AACXGJ chiarelli_e_Page_016thm.jpg
0ad78216a7c349737ae90fb68eb43638
0b86b642e2b02577270f9659fb36ed4cb33b6e82
101382 F20101112_AACWDH chiarelli_e_Page_122.jpg
38ef0b08201169bd6c004ff6c19c15c6
faf0c7614434e606345e1b883cc6c96c567e663d
76283 F20101112_AACVYB chiarelli_e_Page_116.pro
ffebaa73d3541e532a679ef48da18a0a
6aeab10a2b3906f4b08c6dc37b39feb41d9b8e3f
2917 F20101112_AACXGK chiarelli_e_Page_093thm.jpg
d37fab213fd90486446eba802424d336
4fe9e1f99671b1e7dc2824f27cc13028238ab00a
34951 F20101112_AACXFV chiarelli_e_Page_066.QC.jpg
a265d482ab5fb324f6eef48d0f3309fd
211f80413b755de2b4b24004622b733469dcc892
112526 F20101112_AACWDI chiarelli_e_Page_123.jpg
a01ddf5ca1bfc87b4cfa03d6600f8ee8
e698600e4fbb0dc4b1c90aa6922ddaffa9d778ec
2460 F20101112_AACVYC chiarelli_e_Page_085.txt
0c10bd06a155563a9a25fbb5eaf23c55
fa7c08c78ab89298aa6af58155d4a398f83f0c66
117565 F20101112_AACWCT chiarelli_e_Page_108.jpg
f3a189a79aa7debff9f6adf6cdd90104
2b9fa8212a125dc34c29f84ef40c0e3a873cac4a
34685 F20101112_AACXGL chiarelli_e_Page_018.QC.jpg
743a84c92786b00a31eccaaf16dd05f7
9c443d84b0f8d0e42c7a2b7a9bbcfee8ee05bcbe
30733 F20101112_AACXFW chiarelli_e_Page_076.QC.jpg
1d4bc44b30234fb8ecd94d7d7206eeb4
bf34c56c033cd60ab3a7188a733e7fb7acb31ad1
78288 F20101112_AACWDJ chiarelli_e_Page_124.jpg
c787f2d6e65d1cb09617bb76e5002805
043db4ada8bd2ee41d95741e62096768252bcdb3
2181 F20101112_AACVYD chiarelli_e_Page_133.txt
5920bf3698c191ba8ae25098a1f13769
aef94bd18968100b4c5ff46d62a2445d6bf06812
118444 F20101112_AACWCU chiarelli_e_Page_109.jpg
5ad0d40ba5e587480a87108bc1b611cd
5301fd76549fe925e378e6261d0dd188dacc7e64
F20101112_AACVXO chiarelli_e_Page_066.txt
092702657b304ec876abdd59bc80130d
b31ac9519b2f31aa20f346cfa60dcf5acf228613
8971 F20101112_AACXHA chiarelli_e_Page_096thm.jpg
5345ff50bb1febde2df71fce9b9ff261
dec2c5abcd3de0ba6f42a23fcdb4c385a80633ae
36492 F20101112_AACXGM chiarelli_e_Page_108.QC.jpg
9bc72f4d41b601d5aaa030eecfbfb8be
92846e086a57f8350c80f52736250d70e6c6f584
8410 F20101112_AACXFX chiarelli_e_Page_080thm.jpg
7d560e3c041a345102a7f91db6f4137b
41dfff4acfaadd9d83c759724464dba0d105d444
78020 F20101112_AACWDK chiarelli_e_Page_125.jpg
ca4b35274a6aab64ce06b46ea123ac2b
bade186ee90eeef7c3a74108f8584103085a4de0
8662 F20101112_AACVYE chiarelli_e_Page_107thm.jpg
09ac4bc3aca3e41c86f6300b5b650687
cb73ef70d4247669fd3ca05c68167d8ce3dba2b1
104064 F20101112_AACWCV chiarelli_e_Page_110.jpg
af95f839f0a0a3fe4f7ce4f5635aa1d5
d2b25109c9f62c8c694ebcfef2ac5fe4ba95ee19
97815 F20101112_AACVXP chiarelli_e_Page_071.jpg
4ba4877e07c530167181a4adf6fb2b48
d2cd25e3d21a2c948ee84ae2de295fdd1a3cc9ab
8232 F20101112_AACXHB chiarelli_e_Page_099thm.jpg
30cc9c9cbd961d386f4246ddcb83ec2e
5d0822d8e67806d855824ffc5b00be2e41f6db47
3556 F20101112_AACXGN chiarelli_e_Page_031thm.jpg
27f3f2bfbdb0fe00893d816fa8384c21
aa03156e01dea88509a1641b6fc56a1393770ec7
4764 F20101112_AACXFY chiarelli_e_Page_081thm.jpg
436d700809a2839214a3e7e27de24c80
1c3094b039729d3e6855f400b87d654786457d34
66671 F20101112_AACWDL chiarelli_e_Page_126.jpg
8686b35666409ed3cdbf170f352bd590
d2ced217c564ad16e633f29f04ccf232a4e200f0
85511 F20101112_AACVYF chiarelli_e_Page_143.jpg
eeb402b0bbf86d1cf3e94ec8f3a6b71c
a703a5486bd0ea7897f52f23c33253d66898feba
110732 F20101112_AACWCW chiarelli_e_Page_111.jpg
fc9991f685d3cd3c8c8c3662961f7edb
73555d8cc7831ca02670b4f046224af9d69fa8e2
1051825 F20101112_AACVXQ chiarelli_e_Page_120.jp2
18302f3726d13da5fec52bb157bb11bb
6a06a858a90cec2a01c71ea8656cedb7583c7120


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020152/00001

Material Information

Title: Factors Influencing Faculty Migration to Department Chair Positions in Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020152:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020152/00001

Material Information

Title: Factors Influencing Faculty Migration to Department Chair Positions in Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020152:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY MIGRATION TO DEPARTMENT CHAIR
POSITIONS IN COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES























By

ELIO CHIARELLI, JR.


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































2007 Elio Chiarelli, Jr.



























To my parents, Elio and Nancy Chiarelli and my brother Gervasio Chiarelli, for their incredible
love and support









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document would not have even begun if had it not been for several individuals who

provided me with an unconditional amount of motivation, support, and guidance.

To begin, I express my humble gratitude to Dr. Edward W. Osborne for seeing the

potential in me as a student when I first visited the University of Florida and for his honest and

patient guidance during my time as a graduate student. After losing most of my committee

members half way through my graduate program, Dr. Osborne served as a confident voice and

coach throughout the process to not only get my research back on track, but also develop it

further than I expected! His dedication to students, commitment to excellence and expectation

for superior work ethic drove me to finish this document with pride and conviction. It was truly

an honor and a privilege to have been blessed with the opportunity to work with and learn from

such an accomplished, respected, and faithful individual.

I would also like to thank Dr. Allen Wysocki as extraordinary addition to my graduate

committee by bringing constant insight and knowledge of human resource management, as well

as an understanding of leadership theory and management. His realistic and down-to-earth

experiences in both agribusiness and higher education continually challenged me to conduct

sound and practical research. From our first interaction in AEB 5757 I found Dr. Wysocki's

charisma and enthusiasm for student success second to none. It was a true privilege to call him a

part of my committee.

A final committee thank you goes to Dr. Kirby Barrick. Dr. Barrick was truly a wonderful

addition to my graduate committee. He always brought realistic insight and experiences of

higher educational administration, as well as knowledge and understanding of leadership theory

to my research. Dr. Barrick's innovative and realistic approach to problem solving and group

interaction challenged me to conduct sound research, and added diversity of thought to all









aspects of my study. Although he is one of the hardest people to schedule a meeting with, I

could always count on a warm smile, a short joke, and a solid coaching experience.

A special thank you is also in order for some of the most amazing and wonderful friends a

person could ever be blessed to have; Christy Windham, Barrett Keene, Brian Estevez, Katy

Groseta, Carrie Pederio, Renee Durham, Chris Vitelli, Katie Chodil, Ann DeLay, Jacob and

Rebecca Mutz, and Rochelle Strickland. Each of these people made Gainesville a second home

and a place I enjoyed for my time in Graduate school. They each made me a better person in my

faith, my friendships, and my schooling. I love each of them very much.

I wanted to send out a special thank you to Brian Estevez for instilling Gator Pride in me

from the very start. Our early morning tailgates, Gator football games, Archer adventures, fun

road trips, and 408 shenanigans are memories I will keep for a lifetime. Thank you for becoming

a friend for life!

Lastly, I thank God for blessing me with my incredible family, especially my parents, Elio

and Nancy Chiarelli, as well as my brother Gerry. I first thank my mother, Nancy, for instilling a

rock-solid faith in me from a very early age. I thank her for always believing in me and my

ability to complete my graduate degree. Without her loving support and unconditional motherly

love, I would have been lost. My father, Elio, has been a true influence on my work ethic,

determination, and love for trying just about anything. No matter what crazy idea I would come

up with, he has always supported and guided me in any endeavor. Finally, my bro, I could not

ask for a better sibling and friend. His constant support through random phone calls, quick

visits, and someone to talk about anything with has been a larger part of my life than one can

imagine. I have truly been blessed with the greatest family!










TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IS T O F T A B L E S .............................................................................. ............... 9

L IST O F F IG U R E S ........................................................................................... 11

ABSTRAC T ................................................... ............... 12

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ................................................................................ 14

Intro du action of th e Stu dy ................................................................ ................................14
B background of the Study ................................................................14
P rob lem Statem ent ............................................................................................. ............ 17
Purpose and Objectives of the Study ................................ ....................... ......18
D efin itio n o f T erm s ................................................................................................................ 18
L im itatio n s o f th e S tu dy ................................................................................................... 18
A ssu m option s of th e Stu dy ..............................................................................................2 0

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................... ............. 21

Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair ............................................................. 21
Leadership in Higher Education ................................. ................................... 24
Self-E efficacy ............... ...... ........... ............................................... ........ 25
Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Career Decisions .....................................................27
Expectancy Value Theory................ ....................................32
C h apter Su m m ary ...................................................................... .....................................34

3 METHODOLOGY .................................................. ......... 36

R e search D esig n .........................................................................................................3 7
Population ............. .......................................... .. ............ .......... ............. 39
Procedure .................... ................................... ......................... ... 40
Instrumentation .............................. .................. .............. 43
D decision Inform action Questionnaire .......................................................... ............... 44
Department Chair Self-Efficacy Questionnaire.......................... ........45
Demographic and Position Related Instrument................ ...............54
Pilot Study D ata and A nalysis.......... .................................................... ................ 54
D ata Analysis....................... ................... ..................56
Sum m ary .................................... ......... ........................................... ..........................57

4 RESULTS ........................ ................... ...... ....... .......58






6









Objective 1: To determine the specific factors that led recently appointed department
chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to pursue and accept department
chair position s. .......................................................... ................. 6 1
Decision Information and Gender ............................................................................62
Decision Information and Feelings on Serving another Term .....................................65
Why Other Faculty Members Do Not Seek Department Chair Positions.....................66
Increasing Faculty Interest in Becoming a Department Chair ..................................66
Events and Experiences Most Beneficial in Preparing for a Department Chair
E xperience........................................... ... ... ....... ........... .. ...................... 67
Objective 2: To assess newly appointed department chairs self-reported degree of self-
efficacy in executing their roles as a department chair................................................. 68
Departm ent Chair Self-Efficacy and Gender ...................................... .................71
Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Serving another Term ...................................... 76
Department Chair Self-Efficacy and the Similarity of their Current vs. Past Views
Relating to the Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair............................76
Department Chair Self-Efficacy and First Position Held..............................................78
Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Interim Position ................................................78
Objective 3: To examine the relationship between selected demographic characteristics
and self-reported levels of self-efficacy as well as the degree of influence of factors in
seeking departm ent chair positions. ...... ....................................................................... 79
Y ear achieved different ranks................................................................................. .... 79
Current Position and the First Department Chair Position Held on a Permanent
B a sis ................................... ..... ... ..... .. .......................... .. ......................... . 8 3
Acting or Interim Department Chair Prior to Current Chair Position.............................84
M ethod of A ppointm ent ........................................................................................... ....... 84
Prior Administrative Academic Positions Held ................................... .................85
Serving another Term as Department Chair ...................................... ...............86
First Consideration of Becoming a Department Chair ..................................................86
Number of Department Chair Positions for Which Respondents Applied....................87
Difference in Views of Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair Now
Versus Before Current Department Chair Appointment ..........................................88
Relationships Betw een V ariables ........................................................ ............. 89

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................94

Sum m ary of the Study ....................................................... 94
P rob lem Statem ent............................... .............................................. ................. .. 94
Purpose and Objectives ..................................... ...................... ......... .... 95
M methodology ...................................................... ................ ............95
D ata A n a ly sis ............................................................................................................. 9 6
F in d in g s ..................................................................................................................... 9 7
Objective One............................................... 97
O objective Tw o ............................................................................................ ........98
O objective T three ............................................................................................. 100
C conclusions .................................................. 103
Discussion and Implications ................................. ........................... ... .......104
O objective O ne ..................................................................................................... 104









A joy of w working ................... .................................... ...................... 104
The desire to have the status and prestige: .................................. ... ........106
M anagem ent Issues .......................................... ................... .. .... .. 107
Increasing L leadership ...................... ........................ .. ..... ...............108
Serving in Other Leadership Experiences .............................. ......... ...............108
O objective Tw o .................................................................................................. 109
Solicit Ideas ............................................................................................ ............. 109
R em gaining Current ......... ...... .. ........ .. ............ .... .............. 110
Conducting m meetings ...... .. ....... .. ....... .. .......... .......... ....... ... 111
Encouraging faculty participation ............... ......... .................................... 112
D dealing w ith conflict ........ ..... ............. .. ......... ... ....... ..... ... .. 113
Department Chair Views ...... .................... .. ........................... 114
O objective Three ............................................................................................ ............ 114
Fem ales and m inorities....... ......... .. ................. .................. ............... 114
Department Chair Respect .......... .... .......... ..................... 15
R ecom m endations .................. ....... ...... .. .......... ... ......... 116
Suggestions for Future R research ......... ................. ..........................................................117

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ..... ........................119

DEPARTMENT CHAIR CONTACT INFORMATION REQUEST E-MAIL ........................120

Initial Newly Appointed Department Chair Contact Information Request.......................120
Newly Appointed Department Chair Contact Information Request Follow-Up ................21
Newly Appointed Department Chair Contact Information Request 2nd Follow-Up ............122
Newly Appointed Department Chair Contact Information Request Final Follow-Up .........123

SURVEY COM PLETION REQUESTS ........................................................... ............... 124

Pre-Survey Letter.................................................. 124
Initial C contact E -m ail .......................... .......................... .. .... ................ 125
F follow -up C contact E -m ail ........................................................................... ................... 126
F final F follow -up C contact E -m ail ........................................ ............................................127

ONLINE SURVEY .......... ..................... ...................... .. ....... ............ 128

A approved Inform ed C consent ....................................... ............ ............... ........................ 128
O line Survey W eb P ages ........................................................................... ................... 129

LIST OF REFERENCES ......... ......... ........................... ............... ................... 140

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................... ......... ................... .......................... 144









8









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 College of Agricultural and Life Science Newly Appointed Department Chair
R e sp o n se s .......................................................................... .. 4 1

3-2 Department Chair Roles and Responsibility in the Leadership Category .........................51

3-3 Department Chair Roles and Responsibility in the Management Category ....................52

3-4 Department Chair Roles and Responsibility in the Personnel Affairs Category ..............53

3-5 Pilot Study Demographic Profile of Department Chairs (n=10) ................. ..............55

3-6 Pilot Study Reliability .................. ..................................... ................. 56

4-1 College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Newly Appointed Department Chairs by
P participating Institution ........ ...................................................................... ........ .. ....... .. 60

4-2 R liability for Study Constructs............................................... .............................. 61

4-3 Frequencies and Percentages of Factors that Influenced Faculty to Seek a
D epartm ent C hair P position ................................................................................ ..... ........63

4-4 One-Way Analysis of Variance of Decision Factor Information by Respondent
Feelings on Serving another Term ....................................................... ............... 65

4-5 One-Way Analysis of Variance of Decision Factor Information Compared to
Respondent Feelings on Serving another Term ..... ......... ...................................65

4-6 Why Faculty Do Not Seek Department Chair Positions..................................................66

4-7 Themes for Increasing Faculty Interest in a Department Chair Position...........................67

4-8 Themes for Experiences Most Beneficial when Becoming a Department Chair ..............68

4-9 L leadership Self-E ffi cacy ........................................................................ .....................72

4-10 M anagem ent Self-E efficacy ........................................................................ ..................74

4-11 P personnel A affairs Self-E efficacy .............................................................. .....................75

4-12 Independent T-Test Between Gender and Self-Efficacy ................................................76

4-13 One-Way ANOVA of Self-efficacy Related to Leadership, Management, and
Personnel Affairs by Intention to Serve another Term............................................... 76









4-14 Means of Self-efficacy Compared to the Similarity of Current vs. Past Views of a
Departm ent Chair............ ...... ........................ ........... 77

4-15 One-Way ANOVA of Self-efficacy Related to Leadership, Management, and
Personnel Affairs by Current vs. Past Views of a Department Chair.............................78

4-16 Independent T-Test between Self-Efficacy and First Position as a Department Chair .....78

4-17 Independent T-Test between Gender and Self-Efficacy ...........................................79

4-18 Demographic Profile of Newly Appointed Department Chairs (N=97)............................79

4-19 Frequency and Range Distribution for Rank Appointment Year (N=97)........................81

4-20 Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents by First Permanent Department Chair
P o sitio n H eld ......................................................................... 8 3

4-21. Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by Interim Chair Position.............................84

4-22 Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents Method of Appointment .........................85

4-23 Frequencies and Percentages of Prior Administrative Academic Positions Held ............85

4-24 Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents Serving another Term as Department
C hair.......... ......................... ....................................... ......... ...... 86

4-25 Position when First Consideration of Department Chair Existed .............. ...............87

4-26 Number of Department Chair Positions Applied For ................................... ............... 87

4-27 Perceptions about Department Chairs by Others with Higher Education.....................88

4-28 Different in Views of Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair Now Versus
Before Current Department Chair Appointment....................... ...................... 89

4-29 Correlations betw een V ariables ........... ........... ............... .................. ............... 92









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p e

2-1 M odel of T riadic R eciprocality ............................................................... .....................29

2-2 Conceptual Model Using Triadic Reciprocality in the Faculty Migration Process...........31

4-1 Year Appointment Distribution for Assistant Professor................ ...............81

4-2 Year Appointment Distribution for Associate Professor................................ ...........82

4-3 Year Appointment Distribution for Full Professor ................................. ...... ............ ...82

4-4 Year Appointment Distribution for Tenure ............................................ ............... 83









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY MIGRATION TO DEPARTMENT CHAIR
POSITIONS IN COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES

By

Elio Chiarelli, Jr.

May 2007

Chair: Edward Wayne Osborne
Major: Agricultural Education and Communication

The purpose of this study was to identify and describe factors influencing the decisions of

faculty members to migrate to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life

sciences. This study was administered to newly appointed department chairs in 1862 land-grant

colleges of agricultural and life sciences. The first part of the study was a pilot study of 10

current department chairs that were appointed before July 1, 2004. This pilot study was used to

test the researcher developed instrument. This study was also used support the key findings of

the reasons faculty members choose to take on unit leader positions in their respective

departments as reflected in the literature. These administrators were also used to build additional

support for the need for a study and justify its usefulness at the post-secondary education level.

The population consisted of 131 one department chairs from 1862 land-grant colleges of

agricultural and life sciences from across the United States who had been appointed to their

administrative positions on or before July 1, 2004. These participants completed a researcher-

developed web-based survey that contained a decision information instrument, a self-efficacy

style instrument, and a demographic instrument. The dependent variables in the study were

academic unit leader self-efficacy and department chair decision information. The independent

variables were gender, ethnicity, age, and tenure in education. The participants were described









in terms of their demographics, self-efficacy scores and decision information based on their

choice to become a department chair.

Participants in this study reported that they enjoying working with people. Participants

identified a strong need for leadership within their profession. They also reported that an

opportunity to build a great department, the persuasion of other colleagues, having many ideas

for change, looking for an opportunity to make a higher level impact, and being ready for a new

challenge all had at least a moderate influence in their decision to pursue a department chair

position. Participants felt moderately confident they could complete the roles and

responsibilities of a department chair in the areas of leadership, management, and personnel

affairs.

This study also found that 84.4% (n=81) of the participants were male and 15.6% (n=15)

were female. Also, 97.9% (n=94) were Caucasian. No significant differences were found

between gender, ethnicity, and age with regards to the decision information or self-efficacy.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Introduction of the Study

The academic department chair is often viewed as the central building block of the

American University (Trow, 1977, p.3). Colleges and universities around the nation are

undergoing rapid and demanding change (Kellogg Commission, 1996). According to the

Kellogg Commission on the future of state and land-grant universities, change will present

growing challenges for post-secondary institutions in the years ahead (1996). These areas of

change are due in part to the external environmental changes that state and land-grant

universities are facing, including changes in society, the economy, technology, public

perceptions, enrollments, demographics, and faculty (Byrne, 2006). This study implemented

survey research to specifically examine the factors influencing faculty migration to department

chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences by studying newly appointed

academic unit leaders across the United States.

Background of the Study

With the growing demand for post-secondary education and increasing student enrollment,

understanding the shape of higher educational administration is critical (Evenlyn, 2004).

Campus leaders around the nation cite the rising demand for quality leadership as the number

one issue facing post-secondary institutions (Byrne, 2006). Another change is a "seismic shift"

in public attitudes, and administrative leaders must be willing and able to guide the university

and its departments through new demographics, exploding technologies, student accountability,

and external demands (Taking Charge of Change: Reviewing the Promise of State and Land-

grant Universities, 1996). This changing environment associated with universities illustrates that

post-secondary institutions must become places that not only inspire and cultivate superior









students who are ready to take on this new era, but also have the same impact on faculty and staff

(Byrne, 2006).

During an interview Cynthia Rodgers asked William F. Massy, President of The Jackson

Hole Education Group, Inc., and a former professor of higher education at Stanford University,

"What is the main challenge facing traditional colleges and universities now?" The answer was

very clear. Massy said, "I can sum it up in a single word: competition-both from abroad and in

the U.S." (Rodgers, 2005). Just as in any other setting, this competition presents a new challenge

and fosters an environment of growth and change for faculty, administration, and staff at

educational institutions everywhere. These changes involve technology, communication,

educational advancement, faculty development, workload demand, publications, tenure,

expectations, and much more. This means that the faculties and administrators at these

institutions must not only be prepared for these changes, they must also be willing to take on new

leadership positions and responsibilities.

These new and demanding positions will require leaders who possess excellent

communication skills, expertise in management, the ability to organize groups of people, and the

ability to collaborate with scholars from a variety of cultures, values, and traditions (Muhammad,

2002). According to Steven J. McGriff, managing this transformation has altered the way

universities and colleges are administered and will be the key to their survival (2001). The

alteration of "business as usual" has changed so much, that many higher educational institutions

have very few current practices that parallel their original roots.

Few issues are of greater concern for institutions than the development of sustainable

leadership for the future. In fact, Conger and Fulmer (2003) suggested that over the past several

years, a growing need exists for qualified individuals to pursue leadership roles in all aspects of









business, education, and volunteerism. Within universities, research focused on motivation, self-

efficacy, and career choices in pursuit of department chair positions has been limited. Recent

changes in technology, communication, educational advancement, faculty development,

workload demand, and expectations documented in post-secondary education have create a

potential crisis in educational leadership in the United States (Boehlert, 1999). A greater

understanding of faculty career choices, especially in the area of academic unit leadership in

post-secondary institutions, is a significant need (Report of the Task Force on Faculty/Staff

Partnership, 1999). A faculty-staff development task force assembled by the University of

California concluded that, "Faculty often become administrators based on their academic

achievements. More information is needed, especially at the department chair level" (Report of

the Task Force on Faculty/Staff Partnership, 1999). Identifying the variables that exert the

greatest influence as faculty members decide to pursue department chair positions becomes a key

part in reshaping the future of higher education (Tucker, 1993).

Universities are comprised of multiple teaching and research facilities and departments

constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and

doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees. Each department

within a university has an administrative leader known as the academic department chair or

department head. With the documented changes in demand faced by higher education there is no

question that an extensive "re-definition" has taken place in the roles and responsibilities facing a

department chair (Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, Tucker, 1999). The people that will undoubtedly

be responsible for managing and implementing this change are the academic department chairs

(Tucker, 2006). Department chairs are faced with the challenge of assuming a multitude of roles

while serving as front-line managers in many ways. Their roles include: being a spokesperson









for the department faculty, staff, and students; implementing and carrying out campus policy;

implementing the mission of the institution and central administration; representing higher

administration to the department; articulating the needs of the department faculty to the higher

administration; managing budgets, enrollments, and classes; updating technology; generating

publications; solving faculty, staff, and student problems; completing reports; and focusing on

the desires and expectations of the students while addressing priorities and goals of the college

(Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, Tucker, 1999). With such an extensive set of responsibilities, the

question becomes, "Why would anyone want such a position?" The answer has mostly focused

on leadership and the desire to create a better future (Smith, 2005). A better knowledge of the

factors contributing to faculty decisions to assume department chair positions is needed (Report

of the Task Force on Faculty/Staff Partnership, 1999). This knowledge would enhance

recruitment efforts, potentially resulting in more successful searches. These influential factors

could also be incorporated into faculty and administrative development programs.

Problem Statement

The problem addressed by this study was the lack of understanding about why faculty

members choose to become department chairs of academic departments in colleges of

agricultural and life sciences and the perceived shortage of qualified applicants to fill department

chair positions. While there have been a multitude of studies that focused on the tasks, activities,

roles, and responsibilities of academic department chairs, there still seems to be a great deal of

inconsistency in the literature as to the specific roles and responsibilities of a department chair.

A limited amount of research exists about faculty migration to the department chair position

(Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). A review of literature showed a clear void in academic

research and found virtually no research in this specific area.









The need for research at the department chair level was even more enhanced by the

documented difference in leadership not only at the academic chair position but within the

context of higher education as well. Institutions of higher education differ from many

organizations, because academia follows the principle of shared governance, and the decisions

are made with input from both faculty and administration (Rowley, Sherman, 2003). In the

private sector, a more hierarchical decision structure exists.

Purpose and Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this study was to describe the factors influencing the decisions of faculty

members to migrate to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences.

The following research objectives were used to guide this investigation:

1. To determine the specific factors that led recently appointed department chairs in colleges
of agricultural and life sciences to pursue and accept department chair positions.

2. To assess newly appointed department chairs self-reported degree of self-efficacy in
executing their roles as a department chair.

3. To examine the relationship between selected demographic characteristics and self-
reported levels of self-efficacy as well as the degree of influence of factors in seeking
department chair positions.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined:

Administration a branch of university or college employees responsible for the maintenance
and supervision of the institution and separate from the faculty or academics, although
some personnel may have joint responsibilities (Administration, 2006).

Administrative Heads those individuals in positions recognized by the National Association of
State Universities and Land-grant Colleges (NASULGC) as Administrative Heads of
Agriculture. According to NASULGC, these individuals are the chief administrators of the
member universities agricultural programs (Moore, 2003). For the purposes of this study,
administrative heads were defined as the lead administrator in the college of agriculture at
each land-grant institution in the fifty states and the District of Columbia.

Career goal mechanisms career plans, aspirations, decisions, and expressed choices (Lent et al.,
1994).










Career-decision making efficacy confidence in a person's ability to make career-related
decisions (Hackett, 1995).

Decision making a process that involves problem identification, solution generation,
evaluation, and implementation (Delbecq & Mills, 1985).

Department a university division, unit or other organizational entity, in which an employee is
primarily employed. (Tucker, 1999).

Department Chair and/or Head the individual immediately responsible for management and
leadership of the university department, division, or unit (Tucker, 1999). In this study
department chairs were the academic unit leaders in colleges of agriculture at land-grant
institutions.

Faculty the academic staff of a university such as senior teachers, lecturers, and/or researchers.
The term also includes professors of various ranks, usually tenured or tenure-track in
nature (Blackburn, Lawrence, 1995).

Goal the determination to engage in a particular activity or to affect a particular future outcome
(Bandura, 1986, p. 468).

Leadership the process by which influence is exerted over individuals and groups in order to
achieve goals (Yukl, 2002; Northouse, 2004).
Recently appointed department chair an individual appointed to a department chair or
department head position on or after July 1, 2004.

Self-efficacy a belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required
to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).

Shared governance a dynamic set of processes which provide a critical foundation that actively
supports the university's two primary functions, the creation and dissemination of
knowledge. These processes openly receive input from all campus constituencies and
students as well as provide advice, direction, and perspective to the institution's
administrative leadership. This advice is mainly about issues, policies, and procedures that
impact the direction and quality of the university's instruction, research/creative activity,
and service programs (Montana State University, 2003).


Limitations of the Study

The data analyzed in this study were collected from recently appointed academic unit

leaders in colleges of agricultural and life sciences, therefore generalizations about other

populations and other types of institutions should be used with caution. This descriptive study









examined the factors that influenced newly appointed department chairs to pursue a department

chair position at a particular point in time. Results may not be generalizable to other time

periods. Another limitation was that only department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life

sciences at United States land-grant institutions were included in the study. Finally, the study

sample included only those current department chairs that had been in their position since July 1,

2004.

Assumptions of the Study

A number of assumptions were made in conducting the study. First, the researcher

assumed that the participants of the study honestly and accurately completed the instrument

without external influences. This included the assumption that they could accurately recall their

feelings about accepting a department chair position just prior to beginning their administrative

appointment. Although the activities of department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life

sciences at 1862 land-grant universities vary from department to department, this research

assumed that all department chairs in colleges of agriculture carry out a similar set of basic

responsibilities as leaders of their academic unit.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of the relevant literature as it relates to the academic

department chair and individual self-efficacy. The chapter focuses on literature identifying the

specific roles and responsibilities of an academic department chair, describes the effects of self-

efficacy on faculty decisions to assume such a position, and presents the relevant theoretical and

conceptual frameworks. Throughout this chapter, a number of general studies about self-efficacy

is presented, as a limited amount of empirical research has been conducted on self-efficacy as it

relates to the academic department chair. This chapter also summarizes the literature on the roles

and responsibilities of a department chair. This review of literature is separated into the several

major sections: roles and responsibilities of a department chair, self-efficacy, motivation,

influence of demographics on self-efficacy, conceptual framework, and summary.

Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair

According to much of the literature, the responsibilities of a department chair position can

be grouped into a number of categories. An extensive list of different roles and responsibilities

can be found for a department chair and a significant amount of research has been conducted in

defining exactly what a department chair does on a regular basis (CSDC, 1992). When scanning

the literature for specific duties, a repetitive pattern occurred for the job description of a

department chair. Several sources have been identified that most clearly represent the detailed

lists of department chair roles and responsibilities. The first was a book written by Allen Tucker

titled Chairing the Academic Department. Tucker reviewed the literature on the department

chair responsibilities of the past and present. It is also interesting to note the impact that change

has had on the academic department over the past several decades. Many workshops, seminars,

and conferences can be found around the country that relate specifically to the important role a









department chair plays in the university (Tucker, 1993). This position has become even more

vital because departments take the full force of responsibility and management. In addition,

budgets continue to fluctuate, more tasks are added by upper level administration, and higher

educational organizations have become more complex (Tucker, 1993). One of the key roles

highlighted by Tucker is the importance of a department chair playing the central role and liaison

between several groups of people at the university from faculty and staff to administration and

committees (1993). Another interesting facet of the department chair is the "front-line" nature

under which these chairs must function on a regular basis. An academic department chair is

often expected to take on several different roles and live with each of their decisions daily.

There is an expectation to create a family-like environment among the faculty and staff, while at

the same time managing and making administrative decisions (Tucker, 1993).

A study conducted by the Center for the Study of the Department Chair (CSDC) at

Washington State University, dealt with department chair positions. This study was selected for

its sound research base and survey design that included 800 department chairs in 100 research

and doctoral granting institutions (CSDC, 1992). From the many responses of more than 540

department chairs around the county, an extensive and complete list of responsibilities and roles

was identified. The CSDC highlighted the differences in the department chair as a leader and the

department chair as a manager. Several responsibilities in each role were identified, and the

thoughts of a department chair in a given role were studied. The results follow the literature well

by stating that, "Leader chairs feel effective leading the department in both internal and external

issues (CSDC, 1992)." The CSDC went on further to say that academic department chairs who

view themselves as managers feel, "Effective at the custodial activities of a department such as

preparing budgets, managing department resources, maintaining records, managing staff, and









assigning duties to faculty (CSDC, 1992)." The center also highlighted two other roles that the

department chairs identified; that of a scholar and faculty developer.

In a more recent article written by Steven Graham, Associate Vice President for Academic

Affairs and Director of the President's Academic Leadership Institute, and Pam Benoit, Assistant

Dean of the Graduate School and Professor, Department of Communication, University of

Missouri, key roles that academic department chairs serve in their position were identified

(Graham, Benoit, 2004). Their clear and straightforward list of roles outlined each category and

responsibility as well. The article divided an academic chair's roles into four main categories:

administrative, leadership, interpersonal and resource development (Graham, Benoit, 2004).

Under these four roles were several responsibilities and a description of each. These four groups

of roles gave a well-rounded perspective of the chair position.

The Department Chair As Academic Leader is a popular text in the area of higher

education and department chair literature (Hecht, et al., 1999). This text was written by a panel

of authors: Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, and Tucker. This resource was chosen for the extensive

outline and explanation of each category identified for a department chair. The author's research

and experience added credibility to the body of literature and assisted with creating a common

list of responsibilities. The text also refers to the changing context of higher education and the

increasing list of duties in which a department chair must be proficient (Hecht, et al., 1999). The

department chair is identified as the essential link between the administration and the faculty

(Hecht, et al., 1999). The authors argue that there is an internal paradox created for the academic

department chair by an ever-shifting balance between faculty, administration, external demands,

and multiple constituencies. This paradox is listed as the cause for many of the complexities in

the position and the growing range of roles and responsibilities (Hecht, et al., 1999).









In a recent assessment instrument of department chairs and center directors published by

Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA) Center at Kansas State University

several responsibilities were identified. This assessment provided general responsibility

statements that can be used in the evaluation of the department chair position. Many of the

responsibility statements summarize and combine the duties outlined in the body of literature

reviewed thus far. There are a few responsibilities, however, that need to be added from this

assessment. They are as follows: demonstrates effective use of advisory committees, shows

commitment to international programs, demonstrates strong support and understanding of the

mission of a land-grant university, and provides intellectual philosophical leadership of faculty,

staff, and students for synergistic academic, research, extension, and outreach programs

(Individual Development and Educational Assessment Center, 2006).

Collectively, the described five pieces of literature represent a complete look at the roles

and responsibilities of an academic department chair. Each of these resources provides insight in

the changing and demanding job description that is assessed in this study. From these resources,

a better understanding of the practices of a department chair is outlined and can be further

analyzed.

Leadership in Higher Education

Understanding the scope and multiple theories about leadership was beyond the limits of

this study. However, it was necessary to present a common definition of leadership for the

purpose of this study. Leadership is simply the process by which influence is exerted over

individuals and groups in order to achieve goals (Yukl, 2002; Northouse, 2004). This definition

of leadership will be the one used as a foundation. More importantly, leadership at the university

level, as applicable to the department chair, varies greatly from most other organizations and

businesses (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). This difference must be addressed to fully









understand the roles and responsibilities of a department chair in an academic setting, as well as

understand more about faculty migration to such a position. Departmental leadership at the chair

level extends more effort on empowering activities for multiple stakeholders around the

university such as campus constituencies and students (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993).

Unlike their business and industry counterparts, "academia follows the principle of shared

governance; decision making involves both central administration, and the faculty members of a

campus (Rowley, Sherman, 2003). Therefore, getting diverse input from everyone involved at

all levels of the system without consequence because of the tenure process is something that is

not nearly as common among profit-seeking organizations.

Another significant difference is that of an open political system that departments within

higher education exhibit. There are several internal and external constituencies that play into the

decision-making process such as faculty, upper-level administration, the institution's governing

body, legislative bodies, and other such groups (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). Profit-

seeking enterprises have many constituencies as well, however, the difference lies in the decision

making influence and power of those external forces and the shared governance philosophy

many department chairs must follow (Rowley, Sherman, 2003). With this very unique and

greatly influential leadership structure, it has been argued that the department chair position is

one of the most underrated, yet most important positions in all of higher education (Seagren,

Creswell, Wheeler, 1993).

Self-Efficacy

The theory of self-efficacy is a fairly new development in the social sciences that began

with Bandura's (1977) publication, "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral

Change." There is a natural tendency for humans to desire the ability to exercise control not only

over their lives, but also the variety of circumstances that arise on a regular basis (Bandura,









1995). In the most elementary form, efficacy is the ability to produce the necessary or desired

results, or in other words, an individual's effectiveness. For a more scholarly approach, the

literature quickly turns to Bandura where "self-efficacy" is defined as, "the belief in one's ability

to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations" (1994).

Or perhaps more importantly, self-efficacy is an individual's belief about his/her capabilities to

produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their

lives (Bandura, 1994). The focus is clearly on one's belief. This is important to note because

Bandura suggested that an individual's self-efficacy is fundamental to a person's success.

Someone who has high self-efficacy is more likely to take on new experiences, challenges, and

obstacles with high self confidence and a preset mind frame of success. On the other hand, a

person looking at the same set of circumstances with low self-efficacy will tend to avoid

challenging tasks and behaviors and approach them, if necessary, with low confidence (Bandura,

1994). Also, when looking at response to failure, Bandura (1995) argues that one with high self-

efficacy will "bounce back" quickly and take on new tasks where a low self-efficacy individual

will be hesitant to try again. Along this line of thought, it is important to note that how

individuals interpret their performance results, environment, and self-belief will significantly

impact their future achievements and behaviors (Pajares, 1996).

When making decisions and choices about future actions, a person's self-refection of past

experiences becomes extremely important. One's belief in their ability to perform a task has

been found to have a direct relationship to that self reflection (Bandura, 1986). Naturally, people

engage in behaviors and tasks in which they feel confident and competent (Pajares, 1996).

Furthermore, the amount of effort and energy a person spends on a given activity is also related

to their self-efficacy or self belief. This point extends to challenges and obstacles as well,









whereas a person's resilience will be greater when a perceived ability for a given situation is

greater (Pajares, 1996).

Frank Parajes presented the use of self-efficacy in a variety of contexts and areas of study.

This theory was used to study phobias (Bandura, 1983), depression (Davis & Yates, 1982), social

skills (Moe & Zeiss, 1982), assertiveness (Lee, 1983), and on athletic performance (Barling &

Abel, 1983). In the area of higher education and academic motivation, self-efficacy has begun to

gain in popularity (Pintrich & Schunk, 1995). Much of this research has focused on student and

teacher or faculty self-efficacies. Many of these evaluations used defined self-efficacy scales

and questions that required participants rate themselves in specific areas (Pajares, 1996). These

studies have tested self-efficacy as it relates to performance and ability in the classroom for

students and instructors alike. A large body of research exists showing that self-efficacy is also a

contributing factor in career choices and career decisions (Bandura, 1986). In general, research

has shown a wider range of career options, and a greater interest in those options was exhibited

by those persons with a higher perceived efficacy to fulfill educational requirements and job

functions (Rocca, 2005).

Self-Efficacy Research Relevant to Career Decisions

Self-efficacy as it relates to career decisions is represented in much of the research and

literature through the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) which emerged from the work of

Lent et al. (1994) and is being used to further explain the decisions individuals make in reference

to their career choices. The SCCT is applicable to the factors influencing the migration of

faculty members to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences using

an emphasis on the three areas of focus that surround a career decision: environmental factors,

personal factors, and an individual's behavior (Lent, et al., 1994).









The Social Cognitive Career Theory stems from the foundational work of Bandura (1986)

and his Social Cognitive Theory and has been used in many aspects of social science and career

research (Rocca, 2005). SCCT attempts to further explain the process by which individuals

develop an interest, make choices, and achieve varying levels of success in academic pursuits

(Lent, et al., 1994). One of the most useful aspects of the Social Cognitive Theory is that

humans are self-reflecting and self-reacting people who are dynamic in their thinking and

decision making (Bandura, 1997). The three areas highlighted in SCCT begin to set up a pattern

of thinking and behavior that people follow and are able to reflect upon. This pattern or "Triadic

Reciprocality" can be seen in Figure 2-1. Using Bandura's concept of triadic reciprocality, the

model suggests that variables within these dimensions interact with each other to impact the

person. Their reciprocal interaction can be observed in relation to performance outcomes in

decision making (Bandura, 1997). Behavior within this model is influenced by each of the three

factors in a bidirectional manner, and each factor has an impact on a person's decision making

process.

Personal decision characteristic variables reflect individual traits and predispositions,

environment variables reflect those external factors that impact the person, and behavior

variables reflect the set of practices and behaviors that a person brings to the given situation

(Pajares, 2002). Furthermore, a breakdown and definition of the three areas outlined in the

triadic reciprocality model by Bandura is critical in the understanding of how this model can be

used across many disciplines and in higher education. Bandura (1999) suggested that in the past,

human behavior is viewed and even studied in a very "unidirectional" fashion.










Behavior







Personal Factors Environmental Factors


Figure 2-1. Model of Triadic Reciprocality (Bandura, 1997)

The thought is that a person's behavior can be explained by environmental influences or impacts

in their life, or is a result of an internal motivation or personal factor. The Social Cognitive

Theory explains that the reality of human behavior is far from unidirectional and is much more

interlinked and "triadic," as illustrated in Figure 2.1. Personal factors, environmental events, and

behavioral patterns influence human agency in a unique and bidirectional way (Bandura, 1999).

"Since Bandura first introduced the construct of self-efficacy in 1977, researchers have

been very successful in demonstrating that individuals' self-efficacy beliefs powerfully influence

their attainments in diverse fields (Pajares, 2002)." Using Social Cognitive Theory as a

framework in higher education is no exception. It is possible for universities to work on

improving their faculty's self-beliefs and habits of thinking about higher educational

administration (personal factors), improve their leadership and management skills and their self-

regulatory practices (behavior), and alter the administrative and facility structures that work to

undermine one's desire to pursue an administrative role (environmental factors) (Pajares, 2002).

Since the triadic reciprocality model can also be used within higher education, the decision of

faculty members to assume department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life

sciences can be studied as well. Figure 2-2 presents the concept model using triadic reciprocality

in the faculty migration process.









Within the triadic reciprocality model, Bandura (1999) discusses each part individually. In

no particular order, a further explanation can begin with behavior. In reference to higher

education, behavior can be viewed as the leadership and management skills of a department

chair, as well as self-regulatory practices (Bandura, 1999). The environmental factors piece of

the triadic reciprocality model within higher education can be described as the administrative and

facility structures. Finally, the personal factors in the model would be the emotional states, self-

beliefs, and habits of thinking about higher education and administration (see Figure 2-2).









Continue on as
Department Chair


Retire or Exit the
University System


Leadership and management skills
as well as self-regulatory
practices.


Decision to
Become a


Emotional states, self-beliefs, and habits
of thinking about higher education and
administration.


Administrative and faculty
structures.


Figure 2-2. Conceptual Model Using Triadic Reciprocality in the Faculty Migration Process









Expectancy Value Theory

The Expectancy Value Theory of Achievement Motivation by Wigfield and Eccles has

been used not only to understand, but also to explain motivations underlying a person's behavior

(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The theory was first developed as a model to gain insight and

understanding on early childhood achievement in mathematics (Eccles, et.al., 1983).

Achievement motivation theories attempt to explain personal choice of tasks, persistence on

those tasks, vigor in carrying them out, and quality of task engagement (Eccles, Wigfield, and

Schielefe, 1998). According to Expectancy Value theory, behavior is a function of the

expectations an individual has and the value of the goal toward which that individual is working.

When a person is given the choice between one or more behaviors, that individual's choice will

be the one with the largest combination of expected success and value (Britannica, 2006).

Wigfield and Eccles pointed out the importance of intent on a decision to pursue a behavior.

They also contended that intent was the immediate precursor to a particular behavior (2000). The

expectancy-value theory states that there are two kinds of belief. There is first belief in

something, and then belief about something. According to this theory, beliefs vary from

attitudes, because they are evaluative. People usually believe that their behavior will lead to both

positive and negative consequences. Their attitude is based on whether or not that end result is

favorable. According to the Expectancy Value model of attitude theory, information can have

three effects on attitude change. Firstly, information can change the weight of a particular belief.

Secondly, information can effect the direction of a particular belief. Thirdly, information can

add new beliefs (Wigfield, Eccles, 2000). This theory proposes that if one can determine the

elements that impact intention, then one can more accurately predict whether an individual will

engage in a particular behavior. Likewise, it proposes that by changing an individual's

perceptions of potential outcomes, one can alter the individual's intent (Wigfield, Eccles, 2000).









The basis of the theory is that "individuals choose behaviors based on the outcomes they expect

and the values they ascribe to those expected outcomes" (Borders, Earleywine, & Huey, 2004).

The more attractive a particular outcome is to the individual, the more likely the person will

engage in the behavior. Similarly, as the number of positive outcomes increases, the motivation

to engage in the behavior increases. Expectancy itself is defined as, "the measurement of the

likelihood that positive or negative outcomes will be associated with or follow from a particular

act" (Mazis et al, 1975). Thus, an individual's outcome expectations affect one's attitudes

towards the behavior. In addition to the expected outcome, the value the individual places on the

outcome influences the individual's intentions.

The Expectancy Value Theory has two sets of views that often arise in the literature with

similar titles; Weiner's Attribution Model of Motivation and Vroom's model of Work

Motivation. Weiner (1985, p.555) stated that "every major cognitive motivational theorist

includes the expectancy of goal attainment among determinates of action (Blackburn &

Lawrence, 1995)." This is also supported by the thought that achievement behavior is a

"function of the motive" where people will strive toward success and generally avoid situations

and behavior that lead to failure (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995). Again, Maehr's and Braskamp

(1986) support this thought by summarizing that, "Motivation to perform a task varies in relation

to the meaning it has for an individual. Achievement motivation is based on the incentive value

of the task (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995)." The next view is that of Vroom (1964), where he

applied general Expectancy theory to the workplace and stated that motivation to complete a task

by an individual applying value to the "work situation itself, such as wages and opportunities for

promotion...and less about their abilities and interests is important (Blackburn & Lawrence,

1995)."









Expectancy Value Theory of Achievement Motivation is not represented in the literature as

flawless and does show some limitations. One of the main criticisms of this theory is the focus

on limited cognitive processes (Cruz, 2005). Borders, Earleywine, & Huey (2004) found that

individuals choose from a variety of alternatives and thus must examine a variety of expectancies

before choosing to engage in behaviors. Among the potential variety of decisions that can be

made, some appear more attractive than others (Cruz, 2005).

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the literature associated with the roles and responsibilities of a department

chair was examined and summarized to provide a clear understanding of what a department chair

within higher education is responsible for accomplishing. Although it can be observed that many

different descriptions exist and can vary greatly among universities, common roles and

responsibilities were identified and will be further examined in Chapter 3. This chapter also

looked at leadership within higher education by first stating a common definition, and secondly

citing literature that explained major difference between leadership at the department chair level

and leadership at similar levels within profit-seeking organizations. Next, a review of literature

associated with Albert Bandura's theory of self-efficacy was presented. This literature provided

the background for a theoretical framework and defined self-efficacy as the belief in one's ability

to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations. The

next theory presented was the Social Cognitive Career Theory presented by Lent et al. and was

added as another portion of the theoretical framework because it further explains the process by

which individuals develop interest, make choices, and achieve varying levels of success in

academic pursuits. The final theory reviewed was the Expectancy-Value Theory of

Achievement Motivation by Wigfield and Eccles, because it has been used not only to

understand, but also to explain motivations underlying a person's behavior. These three theories










are the most appropriate to decipher factors contributing to the decision making process of a

faculty member migrating to a department chair position in colleges of agricultural and life

sciences.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Chapter 1 described the changing environment of higher education and provided the

background for studying the factors influencing the decisions of faculty members to migrate to

department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. Chapter 1 also explained

the significance of the study and identified its purpose. The chapter concluded by defining key

terms and stating the assumptions and limitations of the study.

Chapter 2 presented a discussion of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that guided

this study. Chapter 2 focused specifically on literature related to the following areas: (a) roles

and responsibilities of a department chair, (b) self-efficacy, (c) Social Cognitive Career Theory,

(d) Expectancy Value theory, and other variables related to the study. The literature contains a

limited amount of research directly related to the self-efficacy of department chairs, thus

establishing a greater need for additional research.

This chapter describes the methodology used to answer the research questions presented in

the study. This chapter also addresses the research design, populations and sample,

instrumentation development, data collection, and analysis.

The following research objectives were addressed:

1. To determine the specific factors that led recently appointed department chairs in colleges
of agricultural and life sciences to pursue and accept department chair positions.

2. To assess newly appointed department chairs self-reported degree of self-efficacy in
executing their roles as a department chair.

3. To examine the relationship between selected demographic characteristics and self-
reported levels of self-efficacy as well as the degree of influence of factors in seeking
department chair positions.

The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine and describe factors influencing

faculty member migration to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life









sciences. The dependent variables in the study were academic unit leader self-efficacy and

decision influences. The independent variables were gender, ethnicity, age, and previous

leadership experience.

Research Design

This study employed census survey research, a very popular type of quantitative research

(Ary et al., 2002). The census survey instrument was developed by the researcher. Census

survey research is a data gathering method accomplished by asking a series of categorized

questions to a group of respondents that represent all individuals in the population being studied

(Ary et al., 2002). In this study, the population was defined as newly appointed department

chairs in 1862 Land-grant colleges within the United States. According to Ary et al. (2002), a

census study of intangibles such as motivation, achievement, and other such psychological

related assessments can be used (Ary et al., 2002).

Some discussion must surround the validity of such design with an instrument that was

developed by the researcher. According to Campbell and Stanley (1966), validity, specifically

internal validity, must be addressed for conclusions to be drawn from a given study. Ary et al.

(2002) defined internal validity as "the extent to which the changes in a dependent variable are,

in fact, caused by the independent variable in a particular experimental situation rather than by

some extraneous factors" (p. 281). Eight extraneous variables that could pose a threat to the

internal validity of the study and research design. These eight variables included: history,

maturation, testing, instrumentation, statistical regression, differential selection, mortality, and

the interaction of these threats (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Since the research design in this

study was based on a researcher-developed questionnaire, the largest threat to internal validity

was instrumentation. The threats of history, maturation, testing, and mortality were controlled

through the selection of the census that represented all the possible individuals in the given









population and each surveyed one time. By including all possible individuals in this census, it

ensured that participants were selected based on the strict definition of the study parameters and

not characteristics determined by the researcher.

Since the measurement instrument has been developed by the researcher, validity was

further assessed and examined. According to Ary et al. (2002) internal validity based upon the

instrument can be separated into four categories that must be addressed: face validity, content

validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity. For the purposes of this study, a panel

of experts reviewed the instrument to ensure several types of validity. This panel was composed

of five university faculty members from the Departments of Agricultural Education and

Communications and Food and Resource Economics. Each of these panel members has

extensive experience with department chairs and the position characteristics. Face validity is

defined as whether or not the instrument appears valid for the intended purpose (Ary et al.,

2002). Content validity, or the degree to which the data from an instrument are representative of

some defined domain, was also addressed (Ary et al. 2002). Threats to content validity were

eliminated by a careful examination by the expert panel through review of the pilot study

questionnaire completed prior to the survey distribution. The pilot study included 10 department

chairs and is described in the procedures section that follows. These pilot study individuals were

approved by the panel of three experts as an appropriate representation of the actual population.

The third aspect, construct validity, is the extent to which an instrument assesses something that

is not itself directly measurable but that explains observable effects (Ary et al. 2002). Due to the

fact that a construct is based upon the measurability of a complex factor it is difficult to establish

complete validity. However, in the areas of social and psychological science, many of these

constructs such as motivation, anxiety, satisfaction, efficacy, and self concept have been









measured (Ary et al. 2002). As a best possible attempt to control for construct validity, the

researcher used a panel of experts, reviewed the literature that provided empirical evidence of the

constructs, and observed internal consistency of the pilot study instrument. The final threat,

criterion-related validity, in the case of a census survey is the determination whether the

answering of questions on the instrument was the correct way to measure the constructs (Ary et

al. 2002). To determine that this was not an issue that caused a threat to internal validity, the

panel of experts was again consulted and the literature was reviewed for empirical evidence of

the criterion-related validity of the instrument.

Population

The population of this study consisted of newly appointed department chairs at universities

established by the Land-grant Act of 1862. Each of these universities had a college of

agricultural and life sciences with distinctive departments or comparable units in which a

leadership position was established and well known as a department chair. The "newly

appointed" department chair was defined, for the purposes of this study, as an academic

department chair in a college of agricultural and life sciences that has been appointed to their

position as of July 1, 2004 and was serving as the department chair at the time of this study.

Interim and temporary positions were not included in this study. Division directors and center

directors were also not included in this study. The territories of the United States that have been

granted a land-grant university under the land-grant act of 1862, Northern Marianas College,

University of Guam, American Somoa Community College, and the University of Puerto Rico

were not included in this study due to their unique and varied structures and leadership hierarchy.

The responding institutions and their contributions to the population can be found in Table 3-1.









Procedure

Prior to the collection of the primary data for this study, a pilot test was conducted. The

pilot test was a necessary step in this research study for the purposes of establishing reliability

and validity for the researcher-developed instrument. Prior to the collection of data, a proposal

to conduct the study was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board for

non-medical projects (IRB-02). The proposal was approved (Protocol #2006-U-1140). A copy

of the informed consent form that was sent to participants of the pilot study and the main study

was submitted to the IRB along with the proposal. The informed consent form described the

study, the voluntary nature of participation, and informed participants of any potential risks

and/or benefits associated with participating in the study.

Once approval to conduct this study was granted by the IRB, the survey was administered

to the pilot study participants and the data were collected and analyzed by the researcher and the

panel of experts. The test survey group was a convenience sample that consisted of 10 current

department chairs at land-grant universities within their respective college of agricultural and life

sciences. The following three institutions were utilized for the pilot study group: The University

of Florida, The Pennsylvania State University, and The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University.

All of the pilot study participants were Caucasian with a gender breakdown that exhibited

80% male (n=8) and 20% female (n=2) and ranged in age from 46 to 59. This pilot test group

was representative of the actual census population by being just beyond the July 2004 cutoff date

which defined a "newly appointed department chair," but not in their current position longer than

6 years.

The test survey was completed and the researcher, along with the expert panel, reviewed

the test data. Data were collected for the census population starting in January of 2007.









Table 3-1. College of Agricultural and Life Science Newly Appointed Department Chair
Responses


Institution


Auburn University, Auburn, AL
University of Alaska, Fairbanks AK
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
University of California, Davis, CA
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
University of Delaware, Newark, DE
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
University of Georgia, Athens, GA
University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
University of Maine, Orono, ME
University of Maryland, College Park, MD
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
Michigan State University, East Lansing MI
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
Montana State University, Bozeman
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
University of Nevada, Reno, NV
University of New Hampshire, NH
Rutgers State University, New Brunswick, NJ
New Mexico State University, Las Cruses, NM
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
North Dakota State University, ND
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
Clemson University, Clemson, SC
South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD


Newly Appointed
Department Chairs
3
0
3
0
0
2
2
0
5
1
0
3
3
3
2
4
2
0
Did Not Respond
5
Did Not Respond
2
1
1
3
4
5
0
5
7
4
6
11
Did Not Respond
4
1
5
4
6
0
1









Table 3-1. Continued
Institution Newly Appointed
Department Chairs
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 0
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 2
Utah State University, Logan, UT 2
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT Did Not Respond
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 4
Blacksburg, VA
Washington State University, Spokane, WA 0
West Virginia State University, Morgantown, WV 0
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 11
University of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY 4

Total Population Number 131

Since there was no existing data base for newly appointed department chairs at land-grant

universities in the United States, additional contacts needed to be made to obtain such population

contact information. The researcher used personal contacts from seven of the institutions in the

population and then sent an electronic mail request to the deans of the remaining universities that

requested the contact information for newly appointed chairs since July 1, 2004. From the first

electronic mail request, thirteen institutions responded with the necessary contact information

(see Appendix B). A second electronic mail request was sent to the remaining institutions and

seven more institutions were collected (see Appendix B). A third and final request was sent and

six institutions were collected. The remaining newly appointed department chair contact

information was collected using personal phone calls to the college of agricultural and life

sciences staffs. Each institution's response to the contact information request which included a

brief explanation of the study was used as their willingness to participate in such a study.

After the contact information was received, a personalized electronic mail letter was sent to

each newly appointed department chair on January 12th, 2007 (see Appendix C). The purpose of

the letter was to inform the participant that a web-based survey would be sent to them via









electronic mail and their participation would be greatly appreciated. This was the pre-notice

letter that provided a personalized, positive, and timely notice that a survey would be sent shortly

(Dillman, 2000). The second contact was made on January 24th, 2007, twelve days after the pre-

notice letter was mailed. During this second communication, a web-based survey developed on

Survey Monkey, was sent to the participants via electronic mail (see Appendix C). The survey

was sent in January, which has been shown to be included in the window of the highest response

rates (Dillman, 2000). No incentives were provided for response to the survey instrument. On

January 31st the third contact was sent out to only those included in the population that did not

yet respond (see Appendix C). This is within the one week window that is suggested by expert

survey researcher, Don Dillman (2000). On February 12th, 2007 the fourth contact was sent only

to the non-responding participants by way of electronic mail via the Survey Monkey program

(see Appendix C). The electronic survey closed on February 20th, 2007. Once the responding

data was collected it was then analyzed by the researcher.

Instrumentation

A three-part instrument was used in this study to accurately assess the independent and

dependent variables as well as to target the specific objectives of the research. An existing

instrument that was accurately tailored to determine the factors contributing to the migration of

faculty member to department chair positions and/or their existing self-efficacy of the job

requirements was not available. Therefore, a researcher-developed instrument was developed

and utilized. The first part of the instrument was a decision information questionnaire, the

second part was a newly appointed department chair self-efficacy assessment and the final piece

was a demographic instrument.









Decision Information Questionnaire

Since academic administrative careers follow no regular pattern, except for beginning

down the academic line, the factors contributing to such positions are important to identify

(Blackburn & Lawerance, 1995). A variety of authors have suggested several reasons why

faculty members may choose to assume a department chair position (see Blackburn Lawrence,

1995; Tucker, 1993). Also, discussion between the researcher and graduate committee members

led to the development of additional possible factors. The factors identified in the literature and

developed with the graduate committee members as possible reasons faculty members migrate

toward department chair positions are listed below.

1. Positive experience chairing important committees
2. Test their ability as a leader without completely leaving a faculty role
3. Feel they can do a better job than the current administrator
4. Persuaded by another such as colleagues, deans, current department chairs
5. Feel their research and publication skills are not as good as their leadership skills
6. Sense of pride and accomplishment
7. Status and prestige
8. Challenge of leadership
9. Successful leadership experience at other levels
10. Positive previous experience as an acting or interim department chair
11. New challenge and/or fresh start
12. Opportunity to lead home department without moving to another institution
13. Opportunity to build a great department
14. Enjoy working with people and seeing them succeed
15. The strong need within profession for effective department leadership
16. Opportunity to make a higher level and/or greater impact
17. Many ideas for change and improvement
18. Salary increase
19. Geographical preference


From these possible factors, the first part of the instrument was developed (Appendix G).

The questions in this part of the instrument were based on a 7-point Likert-type scale and asked

respondents to select the appropriate rating level of influence that each of the above factors had

on their decision to assume an academic department chair position. After the above factors there









was also space provided for additions there were not listed. The responses were assigned point

values from "No Influence" (1 point) to "Major Influence (7 points). Individual scores for the

different itemized factor-based questions were calculated through a summation of the 21 items.

The higher the score on each question indicated a greater influence of that given factor.

Department Chair Self-Efficacy Questionnaire

Five scholarly resources were used in the development of the specific roles and

responsibilities of a department chair. These sources were selected because of the several

commonalities that were apparent in the lists and descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of

the chair position. From these sources, three major categories were utilized in the development

of the self-efficacy instrumentation. Each list of roles and responsibilities can be found below by

individual resource as they were written and described.

The first list is from Allen Tucker and his text titled Chairing the Academic Department.

Tucker outlined the following eight categories and responsibilities for each category:

* Department governance (Tucker, 1993)
o Conduct department meetings
o Establish department committees
o Use committees effectively
o Develop long-range department programs, plans, and goals
o Determine what services the department should provide to the university
o Implement long-range department programs, plans, and goals
o Prepare the department for accreditation and evaluation
o Serve as an advocate for the department
o Monitor library acquisitions
o Delegate some department administrative responsibilities to individuals and
committees
o Encourage faculty members to communicate ideas for improving the department

* Instruction (Tucker, 1993)
o Schedule classes
o Supervise off campus programs
o Monitor dissertations, prospectuses, and programs of study for graduate students
o Supervise, schedule, monitor and grade department examinations
o Update department curriculum, courses, and programs










S Faculty Affairs (Tucker, 1993)
o Recruit and select faculty members
o Assign faculty responsibilities, such as teaching, research, and committee work
o Monitor faculty service contributions
o Evaluate faculty performance
o Initiate promotions and tenure recommendations
o Participate in grievance hearings
o Make merit recommendations
o Deal with unsatisfactory faculty and staff performance
o Initiate termination of a faculty member
o Keep faculty members informed of department, college, and institutional plans,
activities, and expectations.
o Maintain morale
o Reduce, resolve, and prevent conflict among faculty
o Encourage faculty participation

* Student affairs (Tucker, 1993)
o Recruit and select students
o Advise and counsel students
o Work with student government

* External Communication (Tucker, 1993)
o Communicate department needs to the dean and interact with upper-level
administrators
o Improve and maintain the department's image
o Coordinate activities with outside groups
o Process department correspondence and request for information
o Complete forms and surveys
o Initiate and maintain liaison with external agencies and institutions

* Budget and resources (Tucker, 1993)
o Encourage faculty member to submit proposals for contracts and grants to
government agencies and private foundations.
o Prepare and propose department budgets
o Seek outside funding
o Administer the department budget
o Set priorities for use of travel funds
o Prepare annual reports

* Office management (Tucker, 1993)
o Manage department facilities and equipment
o Monitor binding security and maintenance
o Supervise and evaluate the clerical and technical staff in the department
o Maintain essential department records, including student records









* Professional development (Tucker, 1993)
o Foster the development of each faculty member's special talents and interests
o Foster good teaching in the department
o Stimulate faculty research and publications
o Promote affirmative action
o Encourage faculty members to participate in regional and national professional
meetings
o Represent the department at meetings of learned and professional societies

The second list was obtained from the Center for the Study of the Department Chair at

Washington State University and was arranged into the following four categories:

* Leader (CSDC, 1992)
o Soliciting ideas to improve the department
o Planning and evaluating curriculum development
o Conducting department meetings
o Informing faculty of department, college, and university concerns
o Representing the department at professional meetings
o Participating in college and university committee work

* Scholar (CSDC, 1992)
o Obtaining resources for personal research
o Maintaining a research program
o Remaining current within their academic discipline
o Selecting and supervising graduate students

* Faculty Developer (CSDC, 1992)
o Encouraging professional development efforts of faculty and encouraging faculty
research and publications
o Mediate the relationships of faculty to the institution through providing informal
faculty leadership
o Evaluate faculty
o Recruiting and selecting faculty members

* Manager (CSDC, 1992)
o Preparing and proposing budgets
o Managing departmental resources
o Maintaining departmental records
o Managing staff
o Assigning duties to faculty

The third source written by Steven Graham, Associate Vice President for Academic

Affairs and Director of the President's Academic Leadership Institute; and Pam Benoit, Assistant









Dean of the Graduate School and Professor, Department of Communication, University of

Missouri identified the following list:

* Administrative roles (Graham, Benoit, 2004)
o Fiscal overseer
o Schedule coordinator
o Report generator
o Staff supervisor

* Interpersonal roles (Graham, Benoit, 2004)
o Counselor
o Coach
o Mediator
o Climate regulator

* Leadership roles (Graham, Benoit, 2004)
o Visionary
o Internal advocate
o Internal intermediary
o External liaison
o Curriculum leader
o Role model

* Resource development roles (Graham, Benoit, 2004)
o Faculty recruiter
o Faculty mentor
o Faculty evaluator
o Resource warrior

The fourth resource written by Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, and Tucker highlighted the

following list of roles and responsibilities:

* Front-Line Managers
* Primary departmental spokesperson for faculty, staff, and students
* Implement and carry out campus policy and mission of the central administration
* Serve as the link between administration and faculty
* Interpret and present information and arguments that accurately reflect the intent of each
constituency
* Consensus builder
* Budget wizard
* Superb manager
* Effective communicator
* Implement university policy
* Recognize and understand external demands of the department (Hecht, et al., (1999)










The final and fifth source of information came from the Individual Development and

Educational Assessment Center at the Kansas State University. This assessment was originally

designed for deans in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to assess department chair and

center directors. The follow is a list of responsibilities that are to be assessed and includes

responsibilities that are exclusive to the land-grant university system of teaching, research, and

extension.

* Provides vision and progressive leadership in planning, developing, and implementing
departmental/center programs in teaching, research, and extension
* Provides intellectual philosophical leadership of faculty, staff, and students for synergistic
academic, research, extension, and outreach programs
* Demonstrates leadership in recruiting and also in fostering academic growth and
professional development of faculty, staff, and students
* Administers department/center human and financial resources widely
* Provides leadership for continued acquisition of internal and external resources, including
private fund raising
* Administers state, national, and international programs of the department/center
* Demonstrates effective use of advisory committees
* Assigns responsibilities of faculty and staff, and evaluates their performance, and resolves
performance and behavioral issues effectively and timely
* Represents departmental and faculty interests with administrators, other departments and
units, outside agencies, state and federal agencies, partners and collaborators, and
individuals and groups in industry
* Collaborates with the senior vice president, deans, associate deans, other IFAS chairs and
research and education center directors, and other administrators in providing leadership
for delivering integrated programs to meet the needs of students, extension clientele,
research sponsors, and other stakeholders
* Effectively lead and manages multidisciplinary programs
* Demonstrates effective administrative leadership and managerial skills in defining
organizational objectives; developing strategic approaches to planning, managing human,
fiscal, and physical resources; generating and managing grant funds in support of teaching,
research, and extension; and securing private funds
* Listens effectively, communicates, and represents the department/center with
administrators, agencies, industry, and on-and-off campus interest groups
* Demonstrates strong commitment to undergraduate and graduate student recruitment and
retention
* Interacts well with students, faculty, staff, administrators, and external stakeholders within
the university and state, federal, and international levels









* Demonstrates commitment to continued personal professional development for self and
faculty and staff
* Shows commitment to international programs
* Demonstrates strong support and understanding of the mission of a Land-grant university
* Ensures the new faculty and staff are mentored effectively (Individual Development and
Educational Assessment Center, 2006)

From these scholarly sources, three major categories have been identified from the

literature and used to develop the self-efficacy survey instrument. The three categories chosen to

represent an academic department chairs roles and responsibilities can be found in Tables 3-2 to

3-4. This table represents the literature and highlights the common repeating roles and

responsibilities that each of the sources and the literature reflected. When formulating the three

categories, repeating or similar items were combined and less common ones were excluded to

keep the lists concise and accurately representative of the body of literature. Since this was the

grouping procedure, not all of the exact roles and responsibilities were utilized, however all were

represented. In the above lists of roles and responsibilities found in the five pieces of selected

literature each item is listed in its original form.

To measure perceptions of self-efficacy related to the roles and responsibilities of a

department chair position, a researcher-developed self-efficacy assessment was created using the

proven and exact guidelines established in the Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales by

Albert Bandura (2001). This guide specifically addressed content validity, phrasing of items,

response scale, and self-efficacy dimension guidelines that are to be followed when creating self-

efficacy instruments (Bandura, 2001). The instrument that was developed by the researcher can

be found in Appendix I.

The 37-item self-efficacy instrument used a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from "I could

not do at all" (1 point) to "I could do with absolute certainty" (7 points).









Table 3-2. Department Chair Roles and Responsibility in the Leadership Category
Leadership Description of Role and/or Responsibility

Foster the development of each faculty member's special talents
and interests and promote solid and innovative teaching

Promote affirmative action

Encourage faculty members to participate in regional and national
professional meetings

Represent the department at meetings of professional societies

Be a visionary, and create and sustain a positive and forward
looking culture and work environment

Solicit ideas to improve the department

Serve as an internal advocate within the university

Serve as a role model

Serve as a primary departmental spokesperson for faculty, staff,
and students as well as be an external liaison

Be an effective communicator

Recognize and understand external demands of the department

Represent the department at professional meetings

Participate in college and university committee work

Remain current within their academic discipline

Determine what services the department should provide to the
university

Implement long-range department programs, plans, and goals

Demonstrate strong support and understanding of the mission of a
Land-grant university

Provide intellectual philosophical leadership of faculty, staff, and
students for synergistic academic, research, extension, and
outreach programs









Table 3-3. Department Chair Roles and Responsibility in the Management Category
Management Description of Role and/or Responsibility

Conduct department meetings

Establish and ensure effective operation of departmental
committees

Prepare administrative reports for the department

Evaluate and supervise staff

Prepare the department for accreditation and evaluation

Delegate some department administrative responsibilities to
individuals and committees

Coordinate activities with outside groups

Process departmental correspondence and request for information

Respond to inquiries and requests for information

Encourage faculty member to submit proposals for contracts and
grants to government agencies and private foundations.

Prepare and propose department budgets

Manage department facilities and equipment

Maintain essential department records, including student records

Implement and carry out campus policy and mission of the central
administration

Oversee course offerings within the department

Serve as a link between administration and faculty

Demonstrate effective use of advisory committees









Table 3-4. Department Chair Roles and Responsibility in the Personnel Affairs Category
Personnel Affairs Description of Role and/or Responsibility

Recruit and select faculty members

Assign faculty responsibilities, such as teaching, research, and
committee work

Evaluate faculty performance

Initiate promotions and tenure recommendations

Make merit recommendations

Deal with unsatisfactory faculty and staff performance

Initiate termination of a faculty member

Reduce, resolve, and prevent conflict among faculty

Encourage faculty participation in department decisions

Mentor faculty, students, and staff

Counsel faculty, students, and staff

Coach faculty, students, and staff

This self-efficacy assessment asked the respondents to review the given lists of roles and

responsibilities of a department chair and then to think back to the time of appointment to

indicate their level of confidence with each item. Individual scores for the different itemized

constructs were calculated through a summation of the 37 items. The higher the score on each

construct indicated a greater perceived confidence in one's ability to complete that specific role

and responsibility of a department chair at the time of appointment (Bandura, 2001).

Evidence of internal consistency was provided by the analysis of the pilot test, which

showed an estimated alpha of .907 (n=97). To describe a participants' level of a department









chair's efficacy score the researcher categorized the scores for each construct as high, moderate,

or low.

Demographic and Position Related Instrument

The instrument used to collect data on the demographic characteristics of participants was

developed by the researcher. An expert panel of five faculty members from the Department of

Agricultural Education and Communications and the Department of Food and Resource

Economics reviewed the multiple item demographic and position related instrument to insure and

establish face and content validity. Each of the demographic measurements was approved as

"accurate, ready-made answer" based questions that did not take away from the other

components of the survey nor did they ask information that was easily accessible by other

methods (Dillman, 2000). Therefore, this survey posed little threat to the reliability based on the

review process (Dillman, 2000). The data collected included participants' age, gender, ethnicity,

highest degree, appointment information, and personal perceptions about their position. This

instrument provided a description of demographic characteristics of the newly appointed

department chairs in the colleges of agricultural and life sciences included in the census

population.

Pilot Study Data and Analysis

Prior to the collection of the primary data for this study, a pilot test was conducted. The

pilot test was a necessary step in this research study for the purposes of establishing reliability

and validity from the researcher developed instrument. Once approval to conduct this study was

granted by the IRB, the survey was administered to the pilot study participants and the data were

collected and analyzed by the researcher and the panel of experts. The pilot study group was a

convenience sample that was made up of ten current department chairs (n=10) at land-grant

universities within their respective college of agricultural and life sciences. The following three









institutions were utilized for the pilot study group: The University of Florida, The Pennsylvania

State University, and The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Within the pilot

study group, 90% (n=9) were male and 10% (n=l) were female. In terms of ethnicity, 100%

(n=10) were Caucasian. Table 3-5 provides the detailed description of the descriptive statistics

shows the age of the participants ranged form 51 to 63. The mean age of participants was 57.

This pilot test group was a close representation of the actual census population by being

department chairs within colleges of agricultural and life sciences who were appointed to their

positions within the last 6 years.

Table 3-5. Pilot Study Demographic Profile of Department Chairs (n=10)
Characteristic Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 9 90
Female 1 10

Ethnicity
Caucasian 10 100

Age
50-60 8 80
60-65 2 20

First Department Chair Position
Yes 8 80
No 2 20

In Table 3-6 displays the reliabilities for the three self-efficacy scales and the decision

information scale that range from .744 to .874. Within the decision information scales, one item

was deleted to raise the reliability from .699 to a .744. This item was "I wanted the opportunity

to lead my home department without moving to another institution." This deletion brought the

decision information set of items to 18 questions. The leadership self-efficacy scale exhibited a

.843 reliability and no question items were deleted. The management self-efficacy scale's initial

reliability was a .607 and therefore need to be examined closer. After running a scaled









Cronbach's Alpha it was determined that deleting the item, "prepare and propose department

budgets" raised the reliability to .831. Although this was determined to be a very important

responsibility of a department chair, "prepare and propose department budgets" was deleted to

increase the reliability to an acceptable level. Table 3-6 exhibits the scaled reliability statistics.

Finally, the personnel affairs self-efficacy scale exhibited a .874 reliability and therefore no

changes or deletions were made to the items. After the above mentioned corrections and

deletions, each reliability was statistically significant enough to proceed with the primary data

collection.

Table 3-6. Pilot Study Reliability
Characteristic n Reliability
Department Chair Decision information 18 .744
Leadership Self-Efficacy 18 .843
Management Self-Efficacy 9 .831
Personnel Affairs Self-Efficacy 10 .874
Note. All reliability coefficients were estimated using Cronbach's alpha

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the SPSS for Windows statistical package. Likert-type items

were treated as interval data (Clason & Dormody, 1994). As part of the description of the

variables in this study and prior to any inferential analysis, variables described using descriptive

statistics. Inferential analysis was conducted to gain a better understanding of the data and

differences that might exist. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical

models, and their associated procedures, in which the observed variance is partitioned into

components due to the different explanatory variables (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). A Pearson

Correlation was also used to measure possible associations among the variables as well as the

strength and relationship among the quantitative variables (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). Finally, a

T-Test was used to assess whether the means of groups were statistically different from each









other. This analysis was appropriate when comparing the means of two groups (Agresti &

Finlay, 1997).

Summary

This chapter described the methods used to study the specific objectives identified in

Chapter 1. Chapter 3 discussed the research design, population, procedures, instrumentation, and

data analysis. The design of this research was a census population researcher developed survey

study. The dependent variables in the study were academic unit leader self-efficacy and

contextual influences. The independent variables were gender, ethnicity, age, tenure in

education, and previous leadership experience. The reliability and validity of this study were

also discussed and addressed. Finally, a summary and description of the pilot study analysis was

addressed and outlined.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Chapter 1 described the background for studying faculty migration to department chair

positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. It also described the purpose and

significance of the study. The primary purpose of this study was to: describe the factors

influencing the decisions of faculty members to migrate to department chair positions in colleges

of agricultural and life sciences. The following research objectives were used to guide this

investigation: (1) to determine the specific factors that led recently appointed department chairs

in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to pursue and accept department chair positions; (2)

to assess newly appointed department chairs self-reported degree of self-efficacy in executing

their roles as a department chair; and (3) to examine the relationship between selected

demographic characteristics and self-reported levels of self-efficacy, as well as the degree of

influence of factors in seeking department chair positions. Chapter 1 also provided operational

definitions of key terms and identified the limitations of the study.

Chapter 2 presented the theoretical and conceptual frameworks for this study based on

previous research related to self-efficacy and department chair leadership. Chapter 2 focused on

research related to the following areas: (a) roles and responsibilities of department chairs; (b)

self-efficacy; (c) department chair leadership; (d) social cognitive theory; and (e) expectancy

value theory.

Chapter 3 described the research methodology utilized to accomplish the objectives of the

study. Specifically, chapter 3 described the research design, population, instrumentation, survey

development, and data collection and analysis procedures.

This chapter presents the findings of the study. It begins with the presentation of

population demographics and reliability tests. Then, the results specifically address the









objectives of this study in determining the factors that influence a faculty member's decision to

assume a department chair role.

The population of this study consisted of all newly appointed department chairs in colleges

of agricultural and life sciences within the United States, which were defined as being appointed

on or after July 1, 2004. A census sample of all these individuals was used that totaled 131

newly appointed department chairs.

At the conclusion of the primary data collection procedures via a web-based survey

outlined in Chapter 3, usable responses were collected from 97 newly appointed department

chairs representing 46 states (see Table 4-1). The 97 individuals who responded to the survey

represented a response rate of 74.0% (n=97) with 92% (n=47) of the institution responding.

After analyzing the responses of the newly appointed department chairs, in some isolated

instances single items were missing. In this case, the missing data were replaced with the mean

of the responses within that scale (DeVaus, 1990). In a few very isolated situations where

participants left multiple items blank or failed to respond to an entire scale or demographic

question, the variable was coded as missing data and completely excluded from the data analysis.

Findings are organized by the research objectives of the study identified in Chapter 1.

Table 4-2 presents the reliabilities of the four scales being measured by the instrument;

department chair decision information, leadership self-efficacy, management self-efficacy, and

personnel affairs self-efficacy. Due to the low number of survey responses in the pilot study

group, more reliability evidence was needed after the primary data were collected. When

comparing the two, each of the reliabilities gained more statistical evidence, with a notable

increase in the department chair decision information reliability from a .744 to a .842. With









these reliability scores, all four scales being measured in this study were deemed reliable


(Agresti, A., Finlay, B., 1997).


Table 4-1. College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Newly Appointed Department Chairs by
Participating Institution


Institution


Auburn University, Auburn, AL
University of Alaska, Fairbanks AK
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
University of California, Davis, CA
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
University of Delaware, Newark, DE
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
University of Georgia, Athens, GA
University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
University of Maine, Orono, ME
University of Maryland, College Park, MD
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
Michigan State University, East Lansing MI
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
Montana State University, Bozeman
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
University of Nevada, Reno, NV
University of New Hampshire, NH
Rutgers State University, New Brunswick, NJ
New Mexico State University, Las Cruses, NM
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
North Dakota State University, ND
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH


Number of Newly
Appointed
Department
Chairs
3
0
3
0
0
2
2
0
5
1
0
3
3
3
2
4
2
0
Did Not


5
Did
2
1
1
3


6
11
Did
4


Number of
Respondents


Respond


Not Respond


Not Respond









Table 4-1. Continued
Institution


Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
Clemson University, Clemson, SC
South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Utah State University, Logan, UT
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA
Washington State University, Spokane, WA
West Virginia State University, Morgantown, WV
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
University of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY
Total Number


Number of Newly Number of
Appointed Respondents
Department
Chairs
1 1
5 5
4 4
6 6
0 0
1 1
0 0
2 2
2 2
Did Not Respond
4 4

0 0
0 0
11 8
4 3
131 97


Table 4-2. Reliability for Study Constructs
Construct n Reliability
Department Chair Decision information 18 .842
Leadership Self-Efficacy 18 .915
Management Self-Efficacy 9 .888
Personnel Affairs Self-Efficacy 10 .917
Note. All reliability coefficients were estimated using Cronbach's alpha.

Objective 1: To determine the specific factors that led recently appointed department
chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to pursue and accept department chair
positions.

This objective specifically targeted the factors contributing to faculty migration to

department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. From the literature and

the described panel of experts, 18 "decision information" factors emerged and were used in this

analysis. The participants were asked to rank each decision information question based on the

amount of influence that factor had on their decision to assume a department chair position.









Table 4-3 displays the frequencies and percentages of the individual factors (1 = no influence, 7

= primary influence). This scale was used based on the guidelines of Albert Bandura (2001). A

scale constructed in this manner can be assumed to have equal degrees of assurance between

values and therefore can be treated as interval data (Bandura, 2001). The data in Table 4-3 are

presented in descending order by the mean score. The definitions for the means were as follows:

1.00 to 1.49, no influence; 1.5 to 2.49, little influence; 2.5 to 3.49 some influence; 3.5 to 4.49,

moderate influence; 4.5 to 5.59, considerable influence; 5.5 to 6.49, substantial influence, and

6.5 to 7.0, absolute influence. The four factors with the highest means were reported as having a

moderate influence, "I enjoy working with people and seeing them succeed" (M=5.32), "There

was a strong need within my profession for effective department leadership (M=5.09), "I wanted

the opportunity to build a great department" (M=4.85), and "I was persuaded by another such as

colleagues, deans, and/or current department chairs" (M=4.85). It is noteworthy that three of the

factors exhibited means that indicated some influence. The two factors with the lowest means,

or those having almost no influence were, "I had a positive previous experience as an acting or

interim department chair" and "I wanted the status or prestige of such a position" with means of

1.96 and 1.95, respectively.

Decision Information and Gender

An independent t-test analysis was conducted on the summated mean score of the decision

factor information scale and gender to determine if a significance existed between the two gender

groups. Results of the t-test analysis indicated that there was no significant difference between

males and females and the self-reported decision factor information (t=1.860, p>.05). Therefore,

both males and females had similar responses on the influence of the decision factors.









Table 4-3. Frequencies and Percentages of Factors that Influenced Faculty to Seek a Department Chair Position
Decision Information Question Item Likert Rank Response M SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I enjoy working with people and seeing them 1 2 10 7 26 34 17 5.32 1.34
succeed. (1.0) (2.1) (10.3) (7.2) (26.8) (35.1) (17.5)
There was a strong need within my profession 6 5 6 10 24 22 24 5.09 1.75
for effective department leadership. (6.2) (5.2) (6.2) (10.3) (24.7) (22.7) (24.7)

I wanted the opportunity to build a great 7 3 9 14 24 26 14 4.85 1.67
department. (7.20) (3.1) (9.30) (14.4) (24.7) (26.8) (14.4)
I was persuaded by another such as colleagues, 10 4 8 13 20 19 23 4.84 1.91
deans, and/or current department chairs. (10.3) (4.1) (8.2) (13.4) (20.6) (19.6) (23.7)
I have many ideas for change and 5 6 14 22 20 25 5 4.45 1.54
improvement. (5.2) (6.2) (14.4) (22.7) (20.6) (25.8) (5.2)
I was looking for the opportunity to make a 9 9 9 21 13 24 12 4.44 1.84
higher level/greater impact. (9.3) (9.3) (9.3) (21.6) (13.4) (24.7) (12.4)
S I was ready for a new challenge and/or a fresh 11 7 8 21 18 19 13 4.41 1.85
start. (11.3) (7.2) (8.2) (21.6) (18.6) (19.6) (13.40)
I was looking for the challenge of leadership. 12 13 11 16 14 23 8 4.11 1.90
(12.4) (13.4) (11.3) (16.5) (14.4) (23.7) (8.2)
I had successful leadership experiences at other 8 16 9 24 14 20 6 4.07 1.75
levels. (8.2) (16.5) (9.3) (24.7) (14.4) (20.6) (6.2)
I felt a sense of pride and accomplishment. 15 15 12 17 19 17 2 3.71 1.78
(15.5) (15.5) (12.4) (17.5) (19.6) (17.5) (2.1)
I wanted to test my ability as a leader without 32 13 4 12 20 12 4 3.28 2.04
completely leaving a faculty role. (33.0) (13.4) (4.1) (12.4) (20.6) (12.4) (4.1)
I wanted the opportunity to increase my salary. 20 19 14 23 12 8 1 3.16 1.63
(20.6) (19.6) (14.4) (23.7) (12.4) (8.2) (1.0)
I felt I could do a better job than the current 45 5 6 13 10 9 9 3.01 2.20
administrator. (46.4) (5.2) (6.2) (13.4) (10.3) (9.3) (9.3)
I had a positive experience chairing important 34 10 16 15 9 12 1 2.95 1.83
committees. (35.1) (10.3) (16.5) (15.5) (9.3) (12.4) (1.0)









Table 4-3. Continued
Decision Information Question Item Likert Rank Response M SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I felt my research and publication skills were 41 8 9 15 13 11 0 2.85 1.87
as good as my leadership skills. (42.2) (8.2) (9.3) (15.5) (13.4) 11.3) (0.0)
I was attracted to the geographical location. 65 4 6 5 6 9 2 2.15 1.87
(67.0) (4.1) (6.2) (5.2) (6.2) (9.3) (2.1)
I had a positive pervious experience as an 65 10 2 9 4 6 1 1.96 1.65
acting or interim department chair. (67.0) (10.3) (2.1) (9.3) (4.1) (6.2) (1.0)
I wanted the status of prestige of such a 50 25 9 6 4 3 0 1.95 1.32
position. (51.5) (25.8) (9.3) (6.2) (4.1) (3.1) (0.0)
Summated Mean Total 66.6*
Note. Values presented as frequency / (%).
Scale: 1= no influence; 2 = little influence; 3 = some influence; 4 = moderate influence; 5 = considerable influence; 6 = substantial
influence; and 7 = absolute influence.
*The summated mean total for this category could have ranged from 18 to 126.









Decision Information and Feelings on Serving another Term

A one-way analysis of variance revealed that the influence in which the factors related to a

faculty member's choice to assume a department chair position, F(3,93)=7.183,p<.05, was

statistically significant as a function of whether or not they would serve another term as

department chair (see Table 4-4).

Table 4-4. One-Way Analysis of Variance of Decision Factor Information by Respondent
Feelings on Serving another Term
Source df F Sig.
DescInfo Between 3 7.183** .000
Within 93
Note. **p<.01

Since a one-way analysis of variance revealed the influence that the factors related to

faculty member's choice to assume a department chair position was found to be statistically

significant as a function of whether or not they would serve another term as department chair, a

post-hoc analysis was conducted to identify the specific groups in which the difference existed.

Table 4-5 shows the means and the standard deviations for the groups. Tukey's post hoc

analysis revealed the differences to be between three pairs of groups. The first pair was, "yes

with no reservation" with respect to "definitely not." The second pair showing a difference was,

"yes with some reservation" with respect to, "definitely not." The final pair was, "probably not"

with respect to, "definitely not." These data indicated that the factors influencing their decision

to pursue a department chair position were less influential for those chairs who indicated they

would definitely not pursue another term.

Table 4-5. One-Way Analysis of Variance of Decision Factor Information Compared to
Respondent Feelings on Serving another Term
Source n M SD
Yes, with no reservation 28 70.71 14.59
Yes, with some reservation 45 68.96 15.57
Probably Not 19 62.26 16.11
Definitely Not 5 38.60 11.15









Why Other Faculty Members Do Not Seek Department Chair Positions

An open-ended response item was included that asked participants to respond to a question

that asked, "Why do you feel other faculty members do not seek department chair positions?"

This item received an 88.7% (n=86) response rate. From this response, six major themes were

extracted from the individual responses and categorized by the researcher. Table 4-6 shows the

frequencies of responses for each category and also includes an "Other" category that lists other

responses that were not placed into the other six themes. Results indicated that the two primary

reasons faculty members do not seek department chair positions that were indicated most

frequently were, (1) Management issues related to budgets, workload, time demands, and dealing

with people and (2) Faculty members enjoy their current positions and do want to leave their

teaching and research appointments.

Table 4-6. Frequency of Open-Ended Response Themes as to Why Faculty Do Not Seek
Department Chair Positions
Theme n
Management issues related to, dealing with budgets, increased workload, 31
increased time demand, and dealing with people.
Faculty members enjoy their current positions and do want to leave their 31
teaching and research appointments.
Lack of monetary and financial benefit when compared to the type and amount 10
of work.
A department chair/head position is a thankless job. 4
Serving as a department chair and/or head can ruin or destroy an academic 4
career.
A lack of administrative training exists for faculty members 2
Other responses 4
Total Responses 86


Increasing Faculty Interest in Becoming a Department Chair

An open-ended response item was included that asked participants to respond to a question

that asked, "What could be done to increase faculty interest in becoming a department chair?"

This item received an 83.5% (n=81) response rate. From this response, seven major themes were









extracted from the individual responses and categorized by the researcher. Table 4-7 shows the

frequencies of responses for each category and also includes an "Other" category that lists the

extraneous responses that were not placed into the other seven themes. The three actions that

were indicated most frequently by the participants as steps that can be taken to increase faculty

interest in a department chair position were, "Increase the amount of leadership training and

opportunities for faculty members throughout the department and university," "Increase the

amount of monetary compensation and resources given to department chairs," and "Provide

more administrative, staff, and faculty support for department chairs."

Table 4-7. Frequency of Open-Ended Response Themes for Increasing Faculty Interest in a
Department Chair Position
Theme n
Increasing the amount of leadership training and opportunities for faculty 19
members throughout the department and university.
Increase the amount of monetary compensation and resources given to 18
department chairs.
Provide more administrative, staff, and faculty support for department chairs 15
Reduce the current work load and demands of a department chair 12
Unsure of anything needs to be done to increase faculty interest at this time 8
Develop a faculty mentor program or system 4
Other responses 5
Total Responses 81


Events and Experiences Most Beneficial in Preparing for a Department Chair Experience

An open-ended response item was included that asked participants to respond to a question

that asked, "What events or experiences were most beneficial in preparing you for a department

chair position before you accepted your current position." This item received an 85.6% (n=83)

response rate. From this response, five major themes were extracted from the individual

responses and categorized by the researcher. Table 4-8 shows the frequencies of responses for

each category and also includes an "Other" category that lists the extraneous responses that were

not placed into the other five themes. The one event and experience that was indicated most









often by the respondents was, "Serving in another academic-based leadership and management

role on committees, other administrative leadership, or other higher education programs." This

response was indicated by 53% (n=44) of the respondents.

Table 4-8. Frequency of Open-Ended Response Themes for Experiences Most Beneficial when
Becoming a Department Chair
Theme n
Serving in another academic-based leadership and management role on 44
committees, other administrative leadership, or other higher education
programs.
Serving in another non-academic based leadership and management roles in 12
the private sector or industry including non-profit organizations.
Participating in leadership training programs while obtaining a degree or as a 12
faculty member.
Serving as a faculty member for an extensive period of time 6
Becoming a parent and having children 5
Other responses 4
Total Responses 83


Objective 2: To assess newly appointed department chairs self-reported degree of self-
efficacy in executing their roles as a department chair.

This objective focused on the self-efficacy of newly appointed department chairs in

colleges of agricultural and life sciences. As described in Chapter 3, three target areas of self-

efficacy leadership, management, and personnel affairs were categorized and used in this

analysis. The participants were asked to rank each role and responsibility under the three

categories in terms of their perceived ability to complete that role at the beginning of their

department chair appointment. These self-efficacy scales were used based on the guidelines of

Albert Bandura (2001). Self-efficacy scales constructed in this manner can be assumed to have

equal degrees of assurance between values and therefore can be treated as interval data (Bandura,

2001).

Table 4-9 displays the frequencies and percentages of the individual factors for leadership

self-efficacy which ranged from 1 (I could not do at all) to 7 (I could so with absolute certainty).









Table 4-9 is ordered in descending order of the mean scores for each item. The means for this

item were defined based on the 7-point Likert type scale. The definitions for the means are as

follows: 1.00 to 1.49, could not do; 1.5 to 2.49, could do with little certainty; 2.5 to 3.49, could

do with some certainty; 3.5 to 4.49, could do with moderate certainty; 4.5 to 5.59, could do with

considerable certainty; 5.5 to 6.49, could do with substantial certainty, and 6.5 to 7.0, could do

with absolute certainty. The two items that displayed the highest means were, "Solicit ideas to

improve the department" (M=5.64) and "Demonstrate strong support and understanding of the

mission of a land-grant university" (M=5.64) which indicated a reported self-efficacy for these

two roles and responsibilities to be completed with substantial certainty. Including those two

tasks, fifteen other responsibilities achieved means from 4.53 to 5.43 indicating a self-efficacy

rating of considerable certainty or higher. Only one of the eighteen roles and responsibilities

listed under the area of leadership exhibited a mean of moderate certainty. The factor exhibiting

this lowest mean was "Remaining current within their academic discipline" (M=3.70). The

summated mean for the leadership self-efficacy scale could have ranged from 18 to 126 and was

reported as 90.72. This summated mean indicated that the respondents felt they could complete

the roles and responsibilities of a department chair, in the area of leadership, with considerable

certainty. When comparing the frequencies, five of the top six items with the highest means

displayed responses that indicated a majority of the respondents could complete them with

substantial certainty. Furthermore, it was observed that sixteen of the eighteen leadership self-

efficacy items could be completed with at least considerable certainty by a majority of the

respondents.

Table 4-10 displays the frequencies and percentages of the individual factors for the self-

efficacy area of management and ranged from 1 (I could not do at all) to 7 (I could so with









absolute certainty). Table 4-10 had nine roles and responsibilities that were included in the

collection and are ordered in descending order of the mean scores for each item. The definitions

for the means are as follows: 1.00 to 1.49, could not do; 1.5 to 2.49, could do with little certainty;

2.5 to 3.49, could do with some certainty; 3.5 to 4.49, could do with moderate certainty; 4.5 to

5.59, could do with considerable certainty; 5.5 to 6.49, could do with substantial certainty, and

6.5 to 7.0, could do with absolute certainty. The item that exhibited the highest mean was,

"Conduct department meetings" (M=5.62). This indicated that newly appointed department

chairs felt that they could complete this task with considerable certainty. Four other

management roles and responsibilities had a calculated mean of greater than 5.00, or a feeling

self-efficacy relating to considerable certainty or greater. The remaining four roles exhibited

means of moderate certainty ranging from 4.62 to 4.99. The task that exhibited the lowest mean,

but still in the considerable certainty category, was "Prepare the department for accreditation and

evaluation" (M=4.62). The summated mean for the management self-efficacy scale could have

ranged from 9 to 63 and was reported as 46.06. This summated mean indicated that the

respondents felt they could complete the roles and responsibilities of a department chair, in the

area of management, with considerable certainty. When comparing the frequencies in the

management category, the top two items mentioned also indicated that a majority of the

respondents could complete them with substantial certainty. Furthermore, it was observed that

all nine of the management items listed in Table 4-10 could be completed by a majority of the

respondents with at least considerable certainty.

Table 4-11 displays the frequencies and percentages of the individual factors relating to

personnel affairs and ranged from 1 (I could not do at all) to 7 (I could so with absolute

certainty). Table 4-11 contains the ten roles and responsibilities in this self-efficacy category









and is ordered in descending order of the mean scores for each item. The definitions for the

means are as follows: 1.00 to 1.49, could not do; 1.5 to 2.49, could do with little certainty; 2.5 to

3.49, could do with some certainty; 3.5 to 4.49, could do with moderate certainty; 4.5 to 5.59,

could do with considerable certainty; 5.5 to 6.49, could do with substantial certainty, and 6.5 to

7.0, could do with absolute certainty. Six of the ten roles and responsibilities exhibited means of

5.00 or greater and fell under the considerable certainty category. The item displaying the

highest mean was, "Encourage faculty participation in department decisions" (M=5.59). Three

of the roles and responsibilities we were ranked as "I could do with moderate certainty" and had

means ranging from 3.58 to 4.27. The factor exhibiting the lowest mean was, "Initiate

termination of a faculty member" (M=3.48). The summated mean for the management self-

efficacy scale could have ranged from 10 to 70 and was reported as 48.41. This summated mean

indicated that the respondents felt they could complete the roles and responsibilities of a

department chair, in the area of personnel affairs, with moderate certainty. The personnel affairs

item with the highest mean could be completed by a majority of the respondents with substantial

certainty, whereas seven out of the ten personnel affairs items could be completed with at least

considerable certainty.

Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Gender

An independent sample t-test was conducted to examine the relationship between the three self-

efficacy scales and gender. Table 4-12 displays the results of the t-test. Results of the t-test

analysis indicated that there was no significant difference between gender and self-reported

levels of leadership, management, and personnel affairs self-efficacy.









Table 4-9. Frequencies and Percentages of Department Chair Leadership Self-Efficacy
Leadership Self-Efficacy Items Likert Rank Response M SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Solicit ideas to improve the department 0 0 2 17 19 35 24 5.64 1.10
(0.0) (0.0) (2.1) (17.5) (19.6) (36.1) (24.7)
Demonstrate strong support and understanding of the 0 1 8 8 19 33 28 5.64 1.27
mission of a land-grant university (0.0) (1.0) (8.2) (8.2) (19.6) (34.0) (28.9)
Represent the department at meetings of professional 0 1 6 17 21 30 22 5.43 1.25
societies (0.0) (1.0) (6.2) (17.5) (21.6) (30.9) (23.7)
Be an effective communicator 0 0 4 13 33 34 13 5.40 1.11
(0.0) (0.0) (4.1) (13.4) (34.0) (35.1) (13.4)
Participating in college and university committee work 1 3 6 10 27 34 16 5.32 1.31
(1.0) (3.1) (6.2) (10.3) (27.8) (35.1) (16.5)
Serve as an internal advocate within the university 0 2 9 17 18 33 18 5.29 1.32
(0.0) (2.1) (9.3) (17.5) (18.6) (34.0) (18.6)
Serve as a primary departmental spokesperson for 0 1 6 18 32 27 13 5.21 1.15
S faculty, staff, and students as well as be an external (0.0) (1.0) (6.2) (18.6) (33.0) (27.8) (13.4)
liaison
Be a visionary, and create and sustain a positive and 0 0 9 22 23 30 13 5.16 1.20
forward looking culture and work environment (0.0) (0.0) (9.3) (22.7) (23.7) (30.9) (13.4)
Serve as a role model 0 0 12 17 25 31 11 5.13 1.21
(0.0) (0.0) (12.4) (17.5) (25.8) (32.0) (11.3)
Recognize and understand external demands of the 0 3 6 18 25 39 5 5.10 1.16
department (0.0) (3.1) (6.2) (18.6) (25.8) (40.2) (5.2)
Provides intellectual philosophical leadership of faculty, 0 5 12 15 19 34 12 5.04 1.41
staff, and students for synergistic academic, research, (0.0) (5.2) (12.4) (15.5) (19.6) (35.1) (12.4)
extension, and outreach programs
Encourage faculty members to participate in regional 0 4 7 22 28 24 12 5.00 1.29
and national professional meetings (0.0) (4.1) (7.2) (22.7) (28.9) (24.7) (12.4)
Guide faculty through the tenure and promotion process 1 3 9 22 19 33 10 5.00 1.35
(1.0) (3.1) (9.3) (23.7) (19.6) (34.0) (10.3)
Implement long-range department programs, plans, and 0 7 9 16 29 27 9 4.90 1.36
goals (0.0) (7.2) (9.3) (16.5) (29.9) (27.8) (9.3)









Table 4-9. Continued
Leadership Self-Efficacy Items Likert Rank Response M SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Foster the development of each faculty member's 0 1 18 26 28 20 4 4.62 1.16
special talents and interests and promote solid and (0.0) (1.0) (18.6) (26.8) (28.9) (20.6) (4.1)
innovative teaching
Implement affirmative action 4 6 9 23 24 25 6 4.61 1.48
(4.1) (6.2) (9.3) (23.7) (24.7) (25.8) (6.2)
Determine what services the department should provide 0 4 17 29 24 17 6 4.53 1.26
to the university (0.0) (4.1) (17.5) (29.9) (24.7) (17.5) (6.2)
Remaining current within their academic discipline 6 18 19 24 18 10 2 3.70 1.49
(6.2) (18.6) (19.6) (24.7) (18.6) (10.3) (2.1)
Summated Mean Total 90.72*


Note. Values presented as frequency / (%).
*The summated mean total for this category could have ranged from 18 to 126.
Scale: 1 = could not do; 2 = could do with little certainty; 3 = could do with some certainty; 4 = could do with moderate certainty; 5
S could do with considerable certainty; 6 = could do with substantial certainty; and 7 = could do with absolute certainty.









Table 4-10. Frequencies and Percentages of Department Chair Management Self-Efficacy
Management Self-Efficacy Items Likert Rank Response M SD


Conduct department meetings

Respond to inquiries and requests for information

Process department correspondence and request for
information
Delegate some department administrative responsibilities to
individuals and committees
Establish and ensure effective operation of departmental
committees
Prepare administrative reports for the department

Coordinate activities with outside groups


Evaluate and supervise staff


Prepare the department for accreditation and evaluation


1 2
0 1
(0.0) (1.0)
0 1
(0.0) (1.0)
0 0
(0.0) (0.0)
0 1
(0.0) (1.0)
0 1
(0.0) (1.0)
0 6
(0.0) (6.2)
0 0
(0.0) (0.0)


1
(1.0)
3
(3.1)


4
(4.1)
3
(3.1)


3
2
(2.1)
4
(4.1)
4
(4.1)
9
(9.3)
7
(7.2)
9
(9.3)
10
(10.3)
9
(9.3)
17
(17.5)


4
18
(18.6)
12
(12.4)
11
(11.3)
21
(21.6)
22
(22.7)
18
(18.6)
30
(30.9)
21
(21.6)
20
(20.6)


5
23
(23.7)
25
(25.4)
35
(36.1)
24
(24.7)
35
(36.1)
22
(22.7)
29
(29.9)
30
(30.9)
23
(23.7)


6
21
(21.6)
32
(33.0)
34
(35.1)
27
(27.8)
24
(24.7)
31
(32.0)
17
(17.5)
25
(25.8)
24
(24.7)


7
32
(33.0)
22
(22.7)
13
(13.4)
15
(15.5)
8
(8.2)
11
(11.3)
10
(10.3)
7
(7.2)
7
(7.2)


Summated Mean Total
Note. Values presented as frequency / (%).


Scale: 1 = could not do; 2


could do with little certainty; 3 = could do with some certainty; 4


5.62 1.24

5.55 1.16

5.42 1.00

5.15 1.25

5.01 1.09

4.99 1.38

4.86 1.15

4.84 1.29

4.62 1.45

46.06*


could do with moderate certainty; 5


could do with considerable certainty; 6 = could do with substantial certainty; and 7 = could do with absolute certainty.
* The summated mean total for this category could have ranged from 9 to 63.









Table 4-11. Frequencies and Percentages of Department Chair Personnel Affairs Self-Efficacy
Personnel Affairs Self-Efficacy Items Likert Rank Response M SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Encourage faculty participation in department 0 0 2 15 26 32 22 5.59 1.07
decisions (0.0) (0.0) (2.1) (15.5) (26.8) (33.0) (22.7)
Serve as a faculty mentor, counselor, coach 0 0 3 4 34 28 18 5.45 1.05
(0.0) (0.0) (3.1) (14.4) (35.1) (28.9) (18.6)
Initiate promotions and tenure recommendations 0 3 7 14 28 31 14 5.23 1.25
(0.0) (3.1) (7.2) (14.4) (28.9) (32.0) (14.4)
Make merit recommendations 1 5 4 14 28 29 15 5.19 1.36
(1.0) (5.2) (4.1) (14.4) (28.9) (29.9) (15.5)
Recruit and select faculty members 1 0 9 16 33 29 9 5.09 1.17
(1.0) (0.0) (9.3) (16.5) (34.0) (29.9) (9.3)
Evaluate faculty performance 0 3 6 23 32 22 11 5.00 1.21
(0.0) (3.1) (6.2) (23.7) (33.0) (22.7) (11.3)
Assign faculty responsibilities, such as teaching, 1 0 15 17 28 28 8 4.93 1.26
research, and committee work (1.0) (0.0) (15.5) (17.5) (28.9) (28.9) (8.2)
Reduce, resolve, and prevent conflict among faculty 1 8 17 27 31 8 5 4.27 1.29
(1.0) (8.2) (17.5) (27.8) (32.0) (8.2) (5.2)
Deal with unsatisfactory faculty and staff performance 3 13 21 24 15 14 7 4.08 1.56
(3.1) (13.4) (21.6) (24.7) (15.6) (14.4) (7.2)
Initiate termination of a faculty member 10 25 17 14 11 15 5 3.58 1.78
(10.3) (25.8) (17.5) (14.4) (11.3) (15.5) (5.2)
Summated Mean Total 48.41*
Note. Values presented as frequency / (%).
Scale: 1 = could not do; 2 = could do with little certainty; 3 = could do with some certainty; 4 = could do with moderate certainty; 5 =
could do with considerable certainty; 6 = could do with substantial certainty; and 7 = could do with absolute certainty.
* The summated mean total for this category could have ranged from 10 to 70.











Table 4-12. Independent T-Test Between Gender and Self-Efficacy
Source t df F Sig.
SELead -.179 95 .392 .858
SEMan .080 95 .063 .936
SEPers 1.247 95 1.689 .215
Note. Equal variance assumed

Self-efficacy in leadership, F(3,93)=2.590,p>.05, self-efficacy in management,

F(3,93)=1.765,p>.05, and self-efficacy in personnel affairs, F(3,93)=.853,p>.05, were not

statistically significant as a function of whether or not the respondents would serve another term

as a department chair. Since a one-way analysis of variance did not reveal statistical

significance, a post hoc analysis was not completed.

Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Serving another Term

A one-way analysis of variance revealed that a faculty members' self-efficacy in

leadership, management, and personnel affairs was not dependent on whether or not they would

serve another term as department chair (see Table 4-13).

Table 4-13. One-Way ANOVA of Self-efficacy Related to Leadership, Management, and
Personnel Affairs by Intention to Serve another Term
Source df F Sig.
SELead Between 3 2.590 .057
Within 93
SEMan Between 3 1.765 .159
Within 93
SEPers Between 3 .853 .469
Within 93


Department Chair Self-Efficacy and the Similarity of their Current vs. Past Views Relating
to the Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair

After a one-way analysis of variance was completed and a statistically significant

difference was observed in all three self-efficacy areas with respect to current versus past views

relating to the roles and responsibilities of a department chair, a post-hoc analysis was conducted









to determine the specific groups in which a difference occurred. The means for the groups are

reported in Table 4-14. Tukey's post-hoc analysis revealed that all three self-efficacy areas

leadership, management, and personnel affairs were statistically significant different in one pair.

The pair that was same for all groups was 1, very similar 2, somewhat similar. No other

comparisons exhibited a significant difference. These data indicates that their self-efficacy and

their current versus past views relating to the roles and responsibilities of a department chair

were more influential for those chairs who indicated that their views were somewhat or very

similar.

Table 4-14. Means of Self-efficacy Compared to the Similarity of Current vs. Past Views of a
Department Chair
SELead n M SD
Very Similar 35 96.60 12.715
Somewhat Similar 55 86.93 15.060
Slightly Similar 5 92.20 4.970
Not Similar At All 2 85.00 12.728
SEMan
Very Similar 35 50.31 7.251
Somewhat Similar 55 43.44 7.769
Slightly Similar 5 45.40 5.225
Not Similar At All 2 43.50 4.950
SEPers
Very Similar 35 54.09 10.001
Somewhat Similar 55 45.31 8.346
Slightly Similar 5 46.00 8.031
Not Similar At All 2 40.00 15.556


A one-way analysis of variance revealed that a faculty members' self-efficacy in

leadership, management, and personnel affairs was statistically significant as a function of the

similarity of a newly appointed department chairs' current views as compared to their views

before assuming their position (see Table 4-15).










Table 4-15. One-Way ANOVA of Self-efficacy Related to Leadership, Management, and
Personnel Affairs by Current vs. Past Views of a Department Chair
Source df F Sig.
SELead Between 3 3.576 .017
Within 93
SEMan Between 3 6.146 .001
Within 93
SEPers Between 3 7.391 .000
Within 93


Department Chair Self-Efficacy and First Position Held

An independent sample t-test was conducted to examine the differences between the three

self-efficacy scales and whether or not this was the first position ever held as a department chair.

Results of the t-test analysis can be found in Table 4-16 and indicated that there was a significant

difference between the first position served as a department chair and self-reported levels of self-

efficacy in management (t=2.638, p<.05), and self-efficacy in personnel affairs (t=2.188, p<.05).

This indicated that the participant's self-efficacy was reported as being higher for those

individuals that indicated this was their first position held as a department chair. There was not a

significant difference found for self-efficacy in leadership (t=1.951, p>.05). The numeric coding

of the variables was 1 = no and 2 = yes.

Table 4-16. Independent T-Test between Self-Efficacy and First Position as a Department Chair
Source t df 1st Position Not Ist Position Sig.
M SD M SD
SELead 1.951 95 98.17 18.19 89.59 13.69 .054
SEMan 2.638 95 51.58 8.26 45.24 7.74 .010
SEPers 2.188 95 54.17 9.18 47.59 9.82 .031
Note. Equal variance assumed

Department Chair Self-Efficacy and Interim Position

An independent sample t-test was also conducted to examine the differences between the

three self-efficacy scales and whether or not the respondents served as an interim chair before

assuming their current position. Results of the t-test analysis are presented in Table 4-17 and









indicated that there was no significant difference between service as an interim chair before

assuming their current position and self-reported levels of leadership, management, and

personnel affairs self-efficacy.

Table 4-17. Independent T-Test between Gender and Self-Efficacy
Source t df F Sig.
SELead 1.273 95 .629 .206
SEMan 1.271 95 .095 .207
SEPers .660 95 .667 .511
Note. Equal variance assumed

Objective 3: To examine the relationship between selected demographic characteristics and
self-reported levels of self-efficacy as well as the degree of influence of factors in seeking
department chair positions.

Of the 97 newly appointed department chairs who participated in this study, 84.4% (n=81)

were male and 15.6% (n=15) were female. In terms of ethnicity, 97.9% (n=94) were Caucasian

and 2.1% were Hispanic (n=2). Table 4-18 shows the age of the participants ranged form 42 to

71. The mean age of participants was 53 (SD = 5.05, n = 96).

Table 4-18. Demographic Profile of Newly Appointed Department Chairs (N=97)
Characteristic Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 81 84.4
Female 15 15.6


Ethnicity
Caucasian
Hispanic


Age
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+


97.9
2.2


21.9
69.1
7.2
1.0


Year achieved different ranks

The newly appointed department chairs were asked in the survey to identify the year they

achieved the different ranks within higher education from assistant professor to full professor as









well as when they were tenured and was appointed to their current chair position. In terms of the

year the newly appointed department chairs were appointed to their current position the range

was from 2004 to 2007. This was expected based on the population and a test of the population

to ensure each participant fell within the defined "newly appointed" range of July 2004 until time

of survey or February 2007. From Table 4-19 it can be observed that six participants did not

respond to the question which reports a response rate of 93.8% (n=91).

In terms of the year that the participants achieved the rank of assistant professor, 88.7%

responded (n=86) with a year range from 1967 to 1996 [see Table 4-19]. Figure 4-1 shows the

overall distribution of years and that a 35.1% (n=34) of the participants were appointed to the

assistant professor rank between the years 1984 to 1989.

The year that the participants achieved the rank of associate professor, ranged from 1971 to

2005 that exhibited a response rate of 89.7% (n=87) [see Table 4-19]. Figure 4-2 shows the

overall distribution of years and that 35% (n=34) of the participants were appointed to the

associate professor rank between the years1989 to 1994.

For the full professor rank, the data were skewed slightly toward the right indicating a

more recent appointment to full professor. As shown in Table 4-16, 84.5% responded (n=82)

with a 30-year range from 1976 to 2006. Figure 4-3 shows the overall distribution of years and

that 36.1% (n=35) of the participants were appointed to the assistant professor rank between the

years from 1995 to 2000.

Finally the reported tenure year of the participants responded to was spread over the largest

range from 1969 to 2005. This item showed a response rate of 90.7% (n=88) [see Table 4-19].

Figure 4-4 shows the overall distribution of years and that a 41.2% (n=40) of the participants

were tenured between the years1990 to 1995.










Table 4-19. Frequency and Range Distribution for Rank Appointment Year (N=97)
Rank of Appointment Frequency Percent Earliest Year Most Recent
Year
Current Chair Position 91 93.8 2004 2007
Assistant Professor 86 90.7 1967 1996
Associate Professor 87 89.7 1971 2005
Full Professor 82 84.5 1976 2006
First Tenured 88 90.7 1969 2005


YrAsstP


So I I I I
orn oo


I l lYrAsstP
YrAsstP


Figure 4-1. Bar Graph of Rank Year Appointment Distribution for Assistant Professor


10-


8-


o 6-


LL.
a-

4-


2-


n H II













YrAsscP


10-


8-



|-
0 6-
C<
0L
4,
4-



2-


YrAsscP

Figure 4-2. Bar Graph of Rank Year Appointment Distribution for Associate Professor



YrFullP


iLI2U 2 II I TIIl Q I r kI
05 CO ~ 1 -~ -0 -~ -i -5 -0 -- C Ci
YrFullP

Figure 4-3. Bar Graph of Rank Year Appointment Distribution for Full Professor


MH n- HH













YrTen


10



8-



6-


LI-
4



2-




CD oi (0 (o 0 0 0 0 0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 -0 o o c D ( 0D o
YrTen


Figure 4-4. Bar Graph of Rank Year Appointment Distribution for Tenure

Current Position and the First Department Chair Position Held on a Permanent Basis

The participants also reported whether their current department chair position was the first

chair position they have held on a permanent basis. Out of the 97 respondents, there was a 100%

response rate (n=97). In this item, 85 participants indicated that this was the first department

chair position they have held on a regular basis and 12 participants (12.4%) reported that this

was not their first permanent department chair position [see Table 4-20].

Table 4-20. Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents by First Permanent Department Chair
Position Held
Response Frequency Percent
Is current position the 1st permanent chair position
Yes 85 87.6
No 12 12.4









Acting or Interim Department Chair Prior to Current Chair Position

In reference to whether the respondents served in the capacity of acting or interim chair

any institution prior to their current department chair position, the data were more evenly

distributed between the two choices. This item exhibited a 100% response rate (n=97). Out of

the 97 participants 30.9% indicated that they were an acting or interim chair at one point prior to

taking on their current chair position, whereas 67 participants (69.1%) reported that they have

never held an interim department chair position prior to their current appointment [see Table 4-

21].

Table 4-21. Frequencies and Percentages of Responses by Interim Chair Position
Response Frequency Percent
Held a prior interim or acting chair position
Yes 30 30.9
No 67 69.1


Method of Appointment

The participants were asked what the method of appointment or selection was used for

their current chair position. For this item, there were five options to choose from: rotational

appointment from within the department, appointed by the Dean, elected by the faculty, elected

by the faculty with approval of the Dean, and other. There was an overall 100% response rate

(n=97) for the method of appointment. A rotational appointment within the department was

selected by 1% of the respondents, 42.3% of the respondents indicated they were appointed by

the dean, 2.1% were elected by the faculty, 44.3% indicated that they were elected by the faculty

with approval of the dean, and 10.3% were appointed in some other way. As shown in Table 4-

22, a nearly equal distribution between appointed by the Dean and elected by the faculty with

approval of the Dean was found. These two items represented 86.6% of the responses.









Table 4-22. Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents Method of Appointment
Response Frequency Percent
Rotational appointment from within the department 1 1
Appointed by the Dean 41 42.3
Elected by the faculty 2 2.1
Elected by the faculty with approval of the Dean 43 44.3
Other 10 10.3

Prior Administrative Academic Positions Held

When asked about any administrative academic positions held prior to assuming their

current department chair appointment, a 41% response rate was achieved (n=39). For this item,

there were four options to choose from: assistant or associate department chair, assistant of

associate center director, assistant or associate dean, and other with an open response option.

Previously holding an assistant or associate department chair was selected by 16.5% of the

respondents (n=16), 4.1% (n=4) of the respondents chose that they held an assistant or associate

center director position, whereas 3.1% (n=3) chose that they previously held an assistant or

associate Dean position. Finally, 19.6% (n=19) of the participants indicated that another type of

appointment was help. Within the open item "Other" response 4 of the 19 participants indicated

a "no or none" as a response. Additionally 6 of the 19 indicated that they were previously an

assistant director or director of a program area. As shown in Table 4-23, the most chosen was

the "other" response at 19% (n=19). Out of the 97 participants 55 did not respond to this item.

Based on the limited number of options available for respondents to choose, a poor response rate

was exhibited for this item.

Table 4-23. Frequencies and Percentages of Prior Administrative Academic Positions Held
Response Frequency Percent
Assistant or associate department chair 16 16.5
Assistant or associate center director 4 4.1
Assistant or associate Dean 3 3.1
Other 19 19.6









Serving another Term as Department Chair

Each participant was asked about their feelings toward their current department chair

position in reference to whether or not they would choose to serve another term as department

chair. The responses for this item were as follows: yes, with no reservation; yes, with some

reservation; probably not; and definitely not. This question recorded a 93.8% response rate

(n=91). As recorded in Table 4-24, 28.9% of the respondents indicated that they would serve

another term as department chair with no reservations, 40.2% of the respondents indicated that

they would serve another term with some reservation, 19.6% of the respondents said they would

probably not serve another term, and 5.2%, indicated that they would definitely not serve another

term. As a summary, it can be noted that a majority, or 69.1% of the respondents would serve

another term as department chair with some or no reservation.

Table 4-24. Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents Serving another Term as Department
Chair
Response Frequency Percent
Yes, with no reservation 28 28.9
Yes, with some reservation 39 40.2
Probably not 19 19.6
Definitely not 5 5.2

First Consideration of Becoming a Department Chair

Each participant of the survey was given a question that related to their first consideration

in becoming a department chair in reference to the period of their higher education program they

felt the initial thought occurred. The options were fairly basic and included before or during

graduate school, as an assistant professor, as an associate professor, as a professor, and other.

This item received a 97.9% response rate (n=95). Only 6.2% of the respondents indicated that

they first considered a department chair position before or during graduate school, 5.2% first

considered such a position as an assistant professor, while 27.8% indicated associate professor as

the time they first considered a department chair position, also, 51.5% selected that their first









consideration came as a professor, and finally 7.2 indicated "other" as a response of first

consideration [see Table 4-25]. Over one-half of the respondents indicated that they first

considered a department chair position as a professor, and 79.3% indicated this consideration

first occurred as an associate or full professor.

Table 4-25. Position when First Consideration of Department Chair Existed
Response Frequency Percent
Before or during graduate school 6 6.2
As an assistant professor 5 5.2
As an associate professor 27 27.8
As a professor 50 51.5
Other 7 7.2

Number of Department Chair Positions for Which Respondents Applied

In response to a question item asking how many department chair positions each

respondent applied for in conjunction with their current chair appointment a 91.7% response rate

(n=89) was achieved. The four options given to the respondents were only my current position,

my current position plus 1-2 other such positions, my current position plus 3-5 other such

positions, and more than five other department chair positions. This question exhibited a

frequency distribution that was skewed to the lower number of positions in which they applied.

The first choice of applying for only their current position indicated the highest response of

71.1% (n=69). The second choice or one to two other positions was much less at 16.5% (n=16).

Also the third option of three to five other positions recorded 3.1% (n=3), while the final option

of applying for five or more positions did not exhibit any responses (n=0) [see Table 4-26].

Table 4-26. Number of Department Chair Positions Applied For
Response Frequency Percent
Only current position 69 71.1
Current position plus 1-2 other such positions 16 16.5
Current position plus 3-5 other such positions 3 3.1
More then five other department chair positions 0 0









With regard to department chairs in general, the respondents were asked how they felt a

department chair was viewed by others in higher education. The choice were that they are well

respected by faculty members, they are well respected by administration, they are better as

teachers and researchers then they are as department chairs, and they are generally ineffective.

In this item, respondents were asked to check all that they felt applied to the question. This item

did exhibit a total response rate of 91.8% (n=89). A majority of the respondents felt that

department chairs are well respected by faculty members (64.9%) and administrators (63.9%).

The response that suggested that department chairs were better teachers and researchers they are

department chairs was indicated 20 times (20.6%), whereas the response that indicated that they

were generally ineffective was selected 6 times (6.2%).

Table 4-27. Perceptions about Department Chairs by Others with Higher Education
Response Frequency Percent
They are well respected by faculty members 63 64.9
They are well respected by administration 62 63.9
They were better as teachers and researchers then they 20 20.6
are as department chairs
They are generally ineffective 6 6.2
Note: Totals do not equal participant number (n=97) or 100% because this items permitted
respondents to check more than one response.

Difference in Views of Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair Now Versus
Before Current Department Chair Appointment

Participants were asked to respond to a final question with a Likert-Type response of very

similar, somewhat similar, slightly similar, or not similar at all in reference to how similar their

current views on the roles and responsibilities of department chairs are now compared to their

views prior to becoming a department chair. This question item recorded a response rate of

97.9% (n=95). Out of the 95 respondents, 37.1% indicated their current views were very similar,

54.6% recorded their current views as somewhat similar, 5.2% indicated their views as slightly

similar, while only 1% indicated that their current views of the roles and responsibilities of a









department chair compared to their views prior to their appointment were as not similar at all

[see Table 28].

Table 4-28. Different in Views of Roles and Responsibilities of a Department Chair Now Versus
Before Current Department Chair Appointment
Response Frequency Percent
Very similar 36 37.1
Somewhat similar 53 54.6
Slightly similar 5 5.2
Not similar at all 1 1.0

Relationships Between Variables

In order to further describe the variables in this study, analyses were conducted to identify

correlations that may have existed between variables. The magnitudes of the correlations are

presented and discussed using the ranges proposed by Miller (1994). Correlation coefficients

between .01 and .09 are considered negligible, correlations between .10 and .29 are low

relationships, correlations between .30 and .49 are moderate relationships, correlations between

.50 and .69 are substantial relationships, correlations above .70 and considered very high.

Pearson r was used for all continuous data in all of the analyses.

As reflected in Table 2-29 a high correlation was found between the self-reported

management self-efficacy and leadership self-efficacy (r = .721), personnel affairs and leadership

self-efficacy (r = .752), and personnel affairs self-efficacy and management self-efficacy (r =

.753). High correlations were also found between year the rank of full professor was attainted

and year tenured (r = .833), year the rank of associate professor was attained and year tenured (r

= .934), year the rank of associate professor was attained and year rank of full professor was

attained (r = .931), year the rank of assistant professor was attained and year tenure was achieved

(r = .922), year the rank of assistant professor was attained and year rank of full professor was









attainted (r = .899), and year the rank of assistant professor was attained and year rank of

associate professor was attainted (r = .983).

Substantial correlations were found to exist between age and year tenured (r = -.509), age

and the year the rank of full professor was attained (r = -.605), age and the year the rank of

associate professor was attained (r = -.544), age and the year the rank of assistant professor was

attained (r = -.537). Since the actual year in which a professorial rank was obtained was used as

the data point for this variable, a lower value was associated with an earlier promotion year.

Thus, older respondents tended to achieve each rank in earlier rather than more recent years,

which led to negative correlation values.

A moderate correlation was found to exist between leadership self-efficacy and the

decision information (r = .434), management self-efficacy and the decision information (r =

.309), and personnel affairs self-efficacy and the decision information (r = .329). Also a

moderate correlation was found between the number of positions applied for and the decision

information (r = .348), indicating that department chairs who reported a higher level of influence

of the decision factors had a moderate tendency to apply for more positions. A moderate

relationship was found between respondents' similarity in their current view of the roles and

responsibilities versus their past views and their self-efficacy in the area of leadership (r = .321),

indicating that department chairs who reported a higher similarity in their views of the roles and

responsibilities of a department chair had a moderate tendency to have higher reported self-

efficacy score in the area of leadership. Respondents' similarity in their current view of the roles

and responsibilities versus their past views and their self-efficacy in the area of personnel affairs

(r = .352), indicating higher similarity in their views of the roles and responsibilities of a

department chair had a moderate tendency to have a higher reported self-efficacy in the area of









personnel affairs. The final noted correlation was whether or not the respondent would serve

another term as a department chair and the decision information (r = -3.58), indicating that

department chairs who reported a higher level of influence of the decision factors had a moderate

tendency to intend to pursue a second term as department chair.

As seen in Table 4-29, a number of low and negligible correlations were also found

between variables.









Table 4-29. Correlations between Variables


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1 Decision Information
2 SE Leadership
3 SE Management
4 SE Leadership
5 Year Appointed as Chair
6 Year Tenured
7 Year Appointed as FP
8 Year Appointed as Assc.P
9 Year Appointed as Asst.P
10 1st Position held as DC
11 Served as interim
12 Number of positions applied
13 Current vs. Past Views
14 Willingness to serve another


.434* -
.309* .721* -
.329* .752* .753* --
.028 -.047 .055 .037
-.025 .211* .208 .209
-.103 .078 -.002 .035
-.026 .116 .086 .087
-.043 .147 .075 .095
.151 .196 .261* .219
.006 -.129 -.129 -.068
.348* .213* .092 .173
.016 -.228* .321* .352*
-.358* -.236* -.358* -.236*


.141 --
.084 .833* --
.111 .934* .931* -
.054 .922* .899* .983* -
-.018 .063 .026 .010 .060 --
.057 .045 -.026 .003 -.037 -.223*
.226* -.145 -.077 -.206 -.133 .085
-.182 -.114 -.002 -.040 -.003 -.233*
-.158 -.117 -.139 -.132 -.162 -.129


term
15 Age -.100 -.042 .056 .079 -.025 -.509* -.605* -.544* -.537* .077
Note. p<.05
SE = Self-Efficacy, FP = Full Professor, Assc.P = Associate professor, Asst.P = Assistant Professor DC = Department Chair


Variable


Variable









Table 4-29. Continued
Variable 11 12 13 14 15
1 Decision Information
2 SE Leadership
3 SE Management
4 SE Leadership
5 Year Appointed as Chair
6 Year Tenured
7 Year Appointed as FP
8 Year Appointed as Assc.P
9 Year Appointed as Asst.P
10 1st Position held as DC
11 Served as interim --
12 Number of positions applied -.071 --
13 Current vs. Past Views .159 -.172
14 Willingness to serve another -.141 .033 -.045
term
15 Age .044 .048 .031 .149
Note. p<.05
SE = Self-Efficacy, FP = Full Professor, Assc.P = Associate Professor,
Asst.P = Assistant Professor, DC = Department Chair









CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes the study and discusses the conclusions, implications and

recommendations that have been drawn from the study. The purpose of this study was to

describe the factors influencing the decisions of faculty members to migrate to department chair

positions in colleges of agricultural and life sciences. The first section of the chapter provides an

overview of the study, including the purpose and specific objectives, methodologies, and

findings. The remainder of the chapter discusses specific conclusions from the findings,

implications of the findings, and recommendations for future research.

Summary of the Study

Problem Statement

The problem addressed by this study was the lack of understanding about why faculty

members choose to become chairs of academic departments in colleges of agricultural and life

sciences and the perceived shortage of qualified applicants to fill department chair positions.

Furthermore, limited research has been conducted on the factors that influence a faculty

member's decision to pursue a department chair position (Seagren, Creswell, Wheeler, 1993). In

regard to land-grant universities and colleges of agricultural and life sciences, the review of

literature showed a clear void in academic research and found virtually no research in this

specific area.

The need for research at the department chair level was even more enhanced by the

documented differences in leadership among academic chair positions, as well as the different

leadership approaches exercised in higher education when compared to other organizations.

Academia follows the principle of shared governance, and decisions are made with input from

both faculty and administration (Rowley, Sherman, 2003). Decision making within the private









sector and industry is very representative of those who are present and not always inclusive of

everyone. Moreover, the views of those absentees are often distorted and sometimes ignored all

together (Bolman & Deal, 2003).

Purpose and Objectives

The primary purpose of this study was to describe the factors influencing the decisions of

faculty members to migrate to department chair positions in colleges of agricultural and life

sciences. This study also described current newly appointed department chairs in terms of

gender, age, ethnicity, and higher educational status. The following research objectives were

used to guide this investigation: (1) To determine the specific factors that led recently appointed

department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to pursue and accept department

chair positions; (2) To assess newly appointed department chairs' self-reported degree of self-

efficacy in executing their roles as a department chair; and (3) To examine the relationship

between selected demographic characteristics and self-reported levels of self-efficacy, as well as

the degree of influence of factors in seeking department chair positions.

Methodology

This study employed a census survey research technique that is a very popular type of

quantitative research (Ary et al., 2002). The survey instrument was developed by the researcher.

The census survey research technique is a data gathering method accomplished by asking a series

of categorized questions to a group of respondents that represent all individuals in the population

being studied (Ary et al., 2002). In this study, the population was defined as newly appointed

department chairs in 1862 land-grant colleges within the United States. According to Ary et al.

(2002), a census study of intangibles such as motivation, achievement, and other such

psychological assessments can be used (Ary et al., 2002). The population of this study consisted

of newly appointed department chairs at the universities established by the Land-grant Act of









1862. Each of these universities has a college of agricultural and life sciences with distinctive

departments or comparable units in which a leadership position is established and commonly

referred to as a department chair. "Newly appointed" department chairs were defined, for the

purposes of this study, as current academic department chairs in a college of agricultural and life

sciences that were appointed to their position on or after July 1, 2004. Responses were obtained

from 97 of the 131 individuals in the accessible population for a response rate of 74.05%. All of

the 97 responses contained usable data for analysis.

Data for this study were collected using a three-part instrument to accurately assess the

independent and dependent variables as well as to target the specific objectives of the research.

An existing instrument that was accurately tailored to determine the factors contributing to the

migration of faculty member to department chair positions and/or their existing self-efficacy of

the job requirements was unavailable. Therefore, a researcher-developed instrument was utilized.

The first part of the instrument was a questionnaire targeting the factors influencing a faculty

member's decision to assume a chair position, the second part was a newly appointed department

chair self-efficacy assessment, and the final section contained demographic questions.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the SPSS for WindowsT statistical package. Likert-type

items were treated as interval data (Clason & Dormody, 1994). As part of the description of the

variables in this study and prior to any inferential analysis, variables described using descriptive

statistics. Inferential analysis was conducted to gain a better understanding of the data and

differences that might exist. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical

models, and their associated procedures, in which the observed variance is partitioned into

components due to the different explanatory variables (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). A Pearson

Correlation was also used to measure possible associations among the variables as well as the









strength and relationship among the quantitative variables (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). Finally, a

T-Test was used to assess whether the means of groups were statistically different from each

other. This analysis was appropriate when comparing the means of two groups (Agresti &

Finlay, 1997).

Findings

Objective One

Objective one sought to determine the specific factors that led recently appointed

department chairs in colleges of agricultural and life sciences to pursue and accept department

chair positions. The factors that were found to have a considerable influence on their decision to

assume a department chair position included: they enjoyed working with people and seeing them

succeed, they felt there was a strong need within the profession for effective departmental

leadership; they wanted the opportunity to build a great department; and they were persuaded by

others, such as colleagues, deans, and/or current department chairs to seek a department chair

position. Additional factors were reported as having a moderate influence. These included:

respondents reported that they had several ideas for change and improvement, were looking for

the opportunity to make a higher level/greater impact, were ready for a new challenge and/or a

fresh start, were looking for the challenge of leadership, and felt a sense of pride and

accomplishment from successful leadership experiences at other levels. Seven of the decision

factors had only some influence on the decision to assume a department chair position. These

included: wanting to test their ability as a leader without completely leaving a faculty role,

wanting the opportunity to increase their salary, feeling like they could do a better job than the

current administrator, having a positive experience chairing important committees, feeling that

their research and publication skills were as good as their leadership skills, being attracted to a

specific geographical location, and having a positive previous experience as an acting or interim









department chair. Finally, only one factor had no influence over faculty members' decisions the

status and prestige of such a position.

As a whole, the factors influencing the decision to pursue a department chair position were

more influential for those chairs who indicated they would definitely not pursue another term as

chair.

Objective Two

Objective two sought to assess newly appointed department chairs' self-efficacy in relation

to their expectations and choice to assume such a position. As described in Chapter 3, self-

efficacy for the roles and responsibilities of a department chair was divided into three categories

for the purposes of this study: leadership, management, and personnel affairs. For leadership

self-efficacy, there were two tasks that newly appointed department chairs reported they could

perform with substantial certainty: soliciting ideas to improve the department and demonstrating

strong support and understanding of the land-grant mission. Respondents indicated that they

could perform a majority of the other tasks analyzed with considerable certainty. Being an

effective communicator, being a visionary, creating a positive work environment, implementing

long range department programs, and guiding faculty through the tenure and promotion process

were among those tasks. There was only one role and responsibility that newly appointed

department chairs felt that they could only perform with some certainty, remaining current within

their academic discipline. For the leadership self-efficacy scale as a whole, newly appointed

department chairs felt they could complete the tasks with considerable certainty.

For management self-efficacy, the tasks that newly appointed department chairs felt they

could complete with substantial certainty were conducting department meetings and responding

to inquiries and requests for information. Respondents reported that they could complete the

remaining management related tasks with considerable certainty. The task reported to possess









the least amount of self-efficacy, but still in the considerable certainty category, was preparing

the department for accreditation and evaluation. Again, according to the data obtained by the

survey instrument, respondents reported that they could perform the collective set of

management responsibilities with a considerable degree of certainty.

In the area of personnel affairs, respondents indicated that they could complete only one

task with substantial certainty encourage faculty participation in department decisions.

Respondents indicated that they could complete the remaining personnel affairs roles with

moderate certainty. These roles included initiating promotion and tenure recommendations,

making merit recommendations, evaluating faculty, recruiting faculty, and assigning faculty

responsibilities. Those tasks with the lowest self-efficacy a self-reported ability to complete the

task with only moderate certainty were reducing, resolving and preventing conflict; dealing

with unsatisfactory performance; and terminating the employment of a faculty member. As a

whole, respondents indicated that they could complete the personnel affairs tasks with a

moderate degree of certainty.

When comparing self-efficacy to newly appointed department chairs' past views of their

roles and responsibilities versus their current views after being appointed to a chair position,

those respondents with somewhat similar or very similar views had a higher self-efficacy level in

all three areas.

A significant difference was found between the first position served as a department chair

and self-reported levels of self-efficacy in management (t=-2.638, p<.05) and self-efficacy in

personnel affairs (t=-2.188, p<.05). This indicated that the participant's self-efficacy was

reported as being higher for those individuals that indicated this was their first position held as a









department chair. No significant difference was found between self-efficacy in leadership and

whether this was their first department chair position (t=-1.951, p>.05).

Objective Three

Of the 97 newly appointed department chairs who participated in this study, 84.4% (n=81)

were male and 15.6% were female. In terms of ethnicity, 97.9% were Caucasian and 2.1% were

Hispanic. The age of the participants ranged from 42 to 71 years, with a mean age of 53 years.

In terms of the year that the newly appointed department chair achieved the rank of

assistant professor, 35.1% were appointed to the assistant professor rank between the years 1984

to 1989. For the associate professor rank, 35% of the participants were appointed between the

years 1989 to 1994, while 36.1% of the participants were appointed to the full professor rank

between the years 1995 to 2000. Finally, 41.2% of the participants were tenured between the

years 1990 to 1995.

A large majority of newly appointed department chairs (87.6%) indicated that their current

position was the first department chair position they have held on a regular basis. Twelve

participants (12.4%) reported that they had previously held a permanent (versus acting or

interim) department chair position.

Out of the 97 respondents, 30 (30.9 %) indicated that they were an acting or interim chair

at one point prior to accepting their current chair position, whereas 67 participants (69.1%) had

never held an interim or acting department chair position.

In reference to the method of appointment by newly appointed department chairs, a

rotational appointment within the department was selected by 1% of the respondents, 42.3% of

the respondents were appointed by the dean, 2.1% denoted they were elected by the faculty,

44.3% of the participants indicated that they were elected by the faculty with approval of the

dean, and 10.3% were selected in some other way.