ton slc.310

.

DEPARTMENT OF REALTII. EDUCATION, AND WELFAREOE FORM 6000, 7169 OF.FICE or It IlUCATION

LAM; Itt:VVII I lit.UNILERIC ACC. NO.

ED 042 934 IS DOCUMENT COPYRIGHTED? YES 0 NO

CH ACC. NO, P.A. PUBL. DATE I SS1JE ERIC REPRODUCTION RELEASE? YES 111 NO 13:1AA 000 617 RIEFEB71Oct 70 LEVEL OF AVAILABILITY IEl H0 1110AUTHORPeterson, Richard E.TITLEThe crisis of Purpose: Definition and Uses of Institutional: Goals.

SOURCE CODE INSTITUTION SOURICE) .

1:02.01751

SP. AG. CODE SPONSORING AGENCY

EDRS PRICE CONTRACT NO. GRANT NO.

0.25.1.85 JREPORT NO. BUREAU NO.

R-5AVAILABILITY

JOURNAL CITATION

DESCRIPTIVE NOTE

15p.

DESCRIPTORS

*Higher Education; *Institutional Role; *Planning; *Objectives; *Research;.Educational Philosophy

.

IDENTIFIERS. .

. .*Dslplii Technique

ABSTRACT

This report considers %That kinds of actdenic philosophies ere being questioned and

by ODA. So..-e. of the rhetoric concerning the purrose of higher education is

reviqed, revertl conceptal distinctions are d::,/n, and 'orking de:initions are

offered for such terms'as 'function," "pur,osel" "cora," And "objective." General

sod speeMc uses of institutional goals .:re discussed, and several :1r:1a-college

studies on tools tre deseracd. Connidorntiln of the isnuns of institut4onll

autone:ay tn.] -power is followed by attention to 3 strategies Zoe determining goals:

by fiat, by comnittee, sni by survey. Special emphasia is riven to the uses of the

Delphi Technique as a goal-determination strategy. References follow the

conclusions. (OS).

.

THE CRISIS OF PURPOSE:DEFINITION AND USES OF INSTITUTIONAL GOALS

Richard E. Peterson

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH, EDUCATIONWELYARE

OffICE Of EDUCATIOPHIS DOCUMENT PAS IIEEN REPN RODUCEDEXACTLY AS IMMO IRO M THE EPSON ORORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS; OFVIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFf Ct Of ECUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

Report

ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington University

1 Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, D.C. 20036

October 1970

0

IU

I

FOREWORD

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, one of a network of clearinghousesestablished by the US. Office of Education, is concerned with undergraduate, grad.uate, and professional education. As well as abstracting and indexing significantcurrent documents in its field, the Clearinghouse prepares its own and commissionsoutside works on various aspects of higher education.

TO issue of roles and purposes of colleges and universities has bep/n intenselydebated both on and off campus in recent years. In this paper, Richard E. Peterson,Research Psycho tot,ist at the Educational Testing Service, Berkeley, discusses thearguments and presents some of the methods for determining and using institutionalgoals. Critical reviews of an earlier draft of the paper were provided by Abraham Carp,Patricia Cross, and Warren Martin.

Carl J. Lange, DirectorERIC Clearinghouse on Higher EducationOctober 1970

This publication was prepared pursuant to si contract with the Office of Education, US.Os Cosmos of lieelth, Edutat,on, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects underGovernment 1p:worship encouraged to express freely their judgment In professionel andtechnical mitten. Point' of view or opinions do not, therefore, necessarily represent officialOffice of Education position or policy.

When a man does not know what harbor he ismaking for, no wind is the right wind.

Seneca

This paper will not dwell in any detail on the agoniesof American higher education during the past decade. Ithas been a time of fierce demands on the university toassume new roles, a time when financial resources havebeen found to be limited, and a time when public con-fidence and support in the wake of campus violence haveslipped away. In attempting to accommodate new de-mands, academic communities have been left divided anddemoralized as perhaps never before. Prospects for com-mon understandings about the role of the university inAmerican life seem hopelessly distant. This dilemma andthe staggering events of the spring of 1970Cambodia,Kent State, Jackson State, pronouncements from officialWashingtonhave propelled the academic community intoan unprecedented "crisis of purpose."

In dealing with institutional goals, this paper first conalders what kinds of policies and philosophies are beingquestioned and by whom. Some of the rhetoric of highereducation purpose is reviewed, several conceptual dis-tinctions drawn, and working definitions offered for suchterms as "function," "purpose," "goal," and "objective." Anumber of both general and specific institutional uses forinstitutional goals are discussed, and several multi-collegestudies of goals are described. Consideration of the issuesof institutional autonomy and power is followed by atten-tion to three strategies for determining goalsby fiat, bycommittee, and by survey. Special emphasis is given to theuses of the Delphi Technique as a goal-determinationstrategy,

What and Whose Goals

The concept of an "institutional goal" is just thataconcept, a verbal abstraction, and little mote. But, as aconceptual tool it can be enormously useful in deliberating, determining, and evaluating policy and practice ineducation. What should a given university try to do?Educate the able, or educate the masses? Teach the wisedom of the ages or prepare youths for the Job market?Conduct research on any topic for which funds are avail.able? Render services to any agency in the corporate orgovernment establishments? Sponsor partisan politicalaction? Sponsor ROTC training? Or, from the standpointof contemporary campus political realities, whose goals

should the institution, embracethose of older traditionoriented professors, of research and discipline obsessedfaculty, of radical students, of conseryativviuiteas? Onmany campuses, these and mAy more fors 'and infor-mal interest groups hold widely div4iit and oftenconflicting views ,4 the role of the insjitution. What arethe implications of such division for well-being of thecollege? Can a modiciim of Wents] consensus aboutinstitutional mission evert e expected in the multiversity?What are the prospects f r such an institution in a timeof limited resources?

Fortunately, all institutions need not' respond to thechanging times in the same way. American higher educa-tion is not a monolith; indeed the diversity or pluralismwithin the total system is often iegeded as its genius.But, as F. Champion Ward (Niblett, 1970) has noted,diverse colleges must be able to articulate their uniquagoals in ways meaningful to their constituencies and othersupporters if they are to expect continuation of supportnecessary for their survival.

Colleges, however, have generally not become self-conscious about their potentially unique values end goals(beyond catalogue platitudes), often for reasons that arepainfully obvious. Warren Martin (1969), for example, haspointed out that the "vacuum of purpose" he been filledby substantial conformity to the "superinstitutional stand.and of professionalism." While the guild orientation of thefaculty Is certainly one important factor, there are a host ofmore subtle considerations that willnee441 be faced andovercome by the college seriously. eekikto artkulate aninstitutional philosophy.

Jacques Baizun (1968) likened the Arnefitain universityto a "firehouse on the corner" that respoityjg.any and allrequests for assistance. For many years, with faithfulpublic support, this was a role the university seemed toaccept; institutions simply added rew functions to exist-ing ones. The academic bull-market, hewever, may haveabout run its course. Financial resources seem to havereached limits of availability, educational costs have risento new heights, and various external constituencies pressinstitutions to evaluate their effectiveness and account fortheir expenditure of public and private funds. Yet de-mands continue to be made on institutions to assume newfunctions and create new programs, and therein lie theelements of the "coll.:4°n course" in higher education thatDavid Rieman (1909) and others have warned ofthecrunch of new demands against limited resolute,.

The point is that institutions will increasingly be forcedto choose among alternative emphases and priorities. Engag-ing in urban, environmental, space science, or mortuary

'User,

ji;.*/

studies, for example, will necessitate cutting back onsomething else. Colleges can also embrace new commit-ments while retaining old ones. They can, for example,respond to demands for political involvement by allowingstudents and staff time off before national elections. Onwhat basis should an institution make such decisions?

The Rhetoric

Rather than attempt to review the history of thoughton the aims of education, 1 will merely try to pulltogether several important threads in the evolution ofAmerican higher education which still fend expression incontemporary understandings of college purposes. In thoeighteenth century, colleges came into being chiefly toeducate miniscule elites for positions of leadership in theexisting establishment. Throughout the nineteenth cen-tury, a host of "special interest" colleges, as Jencks andRiesman (1968) called them, were created to serve theinterests of various religious, occupational, and social classgroups. Many of these eventually evolved into self-styled"liberal arts" colleges. The great watershe6 came in 1862with the Morrill Act; the land grant colleges were estab-lished to provide publicly supported, secular, practical,vocational education for "the industrial classes," andpublic service. The last major thread was the importationduring the last half of the century of the German conceptof the university as a center for specialized scientificresearch and scholarship.

It is now, therefore, conventional wisdom to ascribethree broad purposes to the modem American university:teaching, research, and public service (although PhD-granting universities account for only 250 or so of thesome 2500 institutions of higher education in thecountry).

Some 350 colleges and universities are controlled bythe Roman Catholic Church. "One of the major dilemmaof Catholic higher education," writes Andrew Greeky(1969), is that it is "seeking the same objectives that therest of American higher education seeks, (while] also ...pursuing objectives which are uniquely its own." Greeleyprovides some catalogue excerpts, which are furtherexcerpted here:

It is the aim and purpose of College to assist studentsin the attainment of the highest perfection of Intellect andwill of which they ate capable, in order that their earthlylife may be spent in the service of God and man, theketernal life in the blessed and complete happiness of unionwith God in heaven. The College is devoted to helping eachyoung woman develop herself as a person and as a Chris-tian.

Some 450 colleges are affiliated with one or anotherProtestant denomination. They range in religious stancefrom tightly fundamental to highly liberal. The strengthof the ties rules greatly from college to college. While the

clear trend over the years has been toward a weakening ofdenomination& ties, many continue to "keep the faith,"as the following catalogue excerpts suggest:

College desires to assist each student in the realiza-tion that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wis-dom."

The found'Ag ideal of is to provide young men andwomen of the twentieth century the opportunity to inves-tigate truth from the position that all areas of true knowl-edge and divine revelation are compatible.

It is, of course, quite impossible to do justice to theassemblage of rhetoric on the purpose of "liberal artseducation." Much of the more recent outpouring may bea natural response, as Daniel Bell acknowledges (1966) tothe somewhat embattled condition of the liberal artstradition in the US, pressed as it is by populist andvocational forces, advanced programs in the high school r,and demands for graduate preparation and academic pro-fessionalism. Indeed, Jencks and Riesman speak of the"university college" as the key consequence of the"academic revolution." All this said, the goals of liberalarts colleges are commonly couched in terms of masteryof a insic cultural heritage together with development ofintellectual values and styles, aesthetic sensitivity, andattitudes of social and moral responsibility. For example:

College exists for the purpose of shaping the charac-ter of each of its students. It seeks to cultivate bothintellectual and moral qualities ...

To free the student's mind: to arouse his intellectual curi-osity, to free him to think independently and without thedistortion of prejudice ...

For it is our desire to evoke, wherever possible, the out-pouring of the creative spirit In an, literature, music,theatre, and dams.

The scores of public four-year colleges around thecountry, while giving lip service to the purposes of theliberal arts, are primarily in the business of vocational andpre-professional training, particularly of teachers. Spokes-men (e.g., Gleans, 1968) for the public junior collegesof which there are currently some 700 enrolling one-thirdto one-half of all freshmen and sophomores in the coun-try generally indicate that these institutions exist toprovide: (I) terminal technical and vocational training, (2)the first two years f training for students transferring tofour-year institutions, and (3) a range of public servicesfor individuals and agencies in the local community.

Finally there is a variety of specialized institutions,such as technical institute*, theological schools, and artcolleges, whose purposes are more narrowly drawn:

2

The primary purpose of the undergraduate school of-,as stated by the Trustees, is "to provide a collegiate educa-tion which will best train the creative type of scientist orengineer so urgently needed in our educational, govern-mental, and industrial development."

Must of the analytic (and hortatory) writing about variouspurposes of hiv,he: education, as would be expected, havecentered on the student and on what ways the collegeshould try to change him. Perhaps the most influentialtheme new in the past decade, articulated and consistentlydefended by the psychologist Nevitt Sanford (1962;in Nib lett, 1970), holds that "the major aim of institu-tions of higher learning" is "the full development of theindividual as a person" (1970, P. 9), with the stress on theaffective and attitudinal as opposed to the intellectualside of human development (see also The Hazen Foun-dation, 1968). The lone voice for a purely intellectual andaggressively non-vocational conception of higher educationseems to be Robert Hutchins' (Chrortlek, 1970).

Much less has been written in recent years about theresearch function as such. Useful critical analyses havebeen provided by the late Lyle Spencer (Dobbins andLee, 1968) and Carl Kaysen (1969); and John PerryMiller (Lawrenceet al., 1970) has recently provided ananalysis of the outputs of graduate schools.

Similarly, there are few contemporary treatments ofthe broad public service role. Those known to the authorinclude Mayhew (1969) and Brandi (Lawrence et al.,1970). Instead, a more narrow and more activist view ofpublic service has emerged which considers the wilversityan instrument of social change (e.g., the papers in Minterand Thompson, 1968), with special reference to the city(Kerr, 1968; Mayhew, 1969). A related trend is thenotion of the university as social critic (e.g., Keniston inDobbins and Lee, 1968, and Luria and Luria, 1970).

Some Working Definitions

The words "function," "purpose," "goal," "objective,"and the like, appear repeatedly in the rhetoric of highereducation. It may be useful at this point to set forth severalworking definitions and conceptual distinctions.

Higher education junctions refer to activities of theuniversity or higher education system that are func-tionally related to other social institutions. Such functionshave evoked over time generally without conscious intent.They are the variously identified activities of higher education as one social institution within a larger social system.Some examples would Include: socialization of the younginto adult society (college as an interim or "moratorium"between adolescence and adulthood); transmission of thecultural heritage; provision of trained manpower for thecorporate establishment; certification for entry into theprofessions; provision of a means for social mobility, of a"sanctuary for scholars" ("Wolff, 1969), and of a custodialor babysitting service.

Purposes in higher education refer to stated con-ceptions of the mission of systems, groups, or types ofcolleges. Thus, we can speak of the purposes of Americanhigher education, the liberal arts college, or the Californiajunior colleges. Purposes in the public higher educationsector are usually politically determined by coalitions andtrade-offs of interest within and external to the system inquestion. (For an illuminating account of this process instatewide systems, see Palola, 1970).

Goals will refer to the particular, possibly uniquepattern of specified ends, outputs, and priorities estab-lished for a single college or university. These are theinstitutional goals that are the concern of this paper. Likesystem purposes, when new institutional goals are set, it isgenerally through a political rather than a more deliberateor rational process. At many established colleges, ofcourse, goals were laid down at the time the institutionwas founded, and they may not have changed appreciablyover the years. While the determination of goals may stillturn heavily on politics in the relatively autonomousprivate colleges, the range of interested parties therewould ordinarily be limited to those in the campus com-munity. Hence, at these colleges, the process of defininggoals may be somewhat more amenable to rationality.

I use the word objective in speaking about the ends ofvarious component units, programs, and services. Thus theacademic planner (or program evaluator) might speak of"program objectives"; department chairmen and professors,of "course objectives"; a residence hall advisor, of the

. objectives of the student personnel division. In contrast tothe other kinds of ends, determination of program objec-tives is primarily the task of the relevant academic profes-sionals, with little "outside" influence. Program objectives,however, would be expected to be roughly consistent withinstitutional goals.

Conceptual Distinctions

In addition to these four definitions, it should also behelpful to take note of the following four conceptualdistinctions drawn mainly by sociologists interested inorganization theory.

The distinction between output and swot(Gross and Grambsch, 1968) is between those "which aremanifested in a product of some kind (output goals). . .

and those which are the ends of persons responsible forthe maintenance activities . . of the organization"(support goals). In the university, the former

involve the usual goals of teaching, research and communityservice (the latter' involve a variety of activities de-signed to help the orgershation earth* to its environment,those not ensure that the university is ma in desired ways,those designed to eaten mounted participation, and thosedesigned to tame the university's position in the popula-tion of valressities (Gross, 1968).

.44

3

Official goals have been contrasted with operative goalsby Charles Perrow (1961). Official goals

are the general purposes... as put forth in the charter,annual, reports, public statements by key executives, andother authoritative pronouncements [such as the collegecatalogue, while] operative goals designate the ends soughtthrough the actual operating policies of the organization;they tell us what the organization actually is trying to do,regardless of what the official goals say are the rims.

Amitai Etzioni (1964) makes approximately the same/distinction, using the words stated and real goals. Opera-tive goals bear no necessary relation to official goals; theformer, says Perrow, "may support, be irrelevant to, orsubvert official goals." Various analysts (Perrow; Etzioni;Price, 1968; Churchman, 1968) have pointed out therelative difficulty of identifying the operative or real goalsof an organization.

In writing some years ago about educational objectives,Sanford (1962) distinguished between minimal goals, suchas simply moving students through to the BA, and maxi-mal goals, that might involve helping students to realizetheir full creative potentials. Conceivably, this distinctioncould apply to other kinds of college goalsfor example,in the area of public service, a college might work withpublic agencies to reduce stream pollution to some mini-mally acceptable level or the goal might be to beautifythe watershed.

While neither organizational nor special interest orindividual goats are distinctions between kinds of insti-tutional goals, both are meaningful in the university set-tins. In an analysis of administrative planning in educa-tion, Andr6 Daniere (Elam and Swanson, 1969) com-mented on the role of self-styled (or formally designated)representatives of special intereststhe poor, an ethniCgroup, "victims of heartless bureaucracies," and so forth. Ina time of factionalism and collective bargaining on thecampus, there is seldom much secrecy about divergent"special interest" objectives of various constituer4 groups(cf. Baughman in Johnson and Katzenmeyer, 1969;Peterson, 1969; Campus Tensions, 1970). The distinctionbetween organisational and Individual goals is one thatalmost all organization theorists call attention to. In theuniversity, an obvious example of conflict between thesetwo types of goals Involves the professor whose individualgoals (ot motives, in the language of the psychologist),e.g., career aspirations, often clash with institutional aims.

Some Uses of Institutional Goats

In this section, a number of ways that cleat concep-tions of institutional goals may be put to use on thecampus are set forth. Some of the uses of institutionalgoats such as the first two examples in the followingdiscussion are fairly general; the others are more specific.This listing is certainly not exhaustive, and the various

entries are not independent either in the abstract or inpractice.

As fundamentals of policy. As suggested toward thebeginning, a conception of institutional goals may serve asthe basic element in a formulation of the institution'spolicy, philosophy, or ideology. Stated goals help tie)together assumptions, values, and hopes for the institutioninto a coherent policy that then provides standards andguides for present and future college decisions andactions. A policy formulation containing clearly enun-ciated goals also enables individuals and agencies outsidethe e.ampusprospective students and staff, governmentalunits, funding agencies, etc.to s clear about thecollege's raison d'etre and what can be expected of it.

As general decision guides. A policy-as-goals statement,especially if democratically conceived and widely under-stood in the college community, should serve the entirecommunity as a framework for reaching decisions, soltingproblems, allocating resources, and accordingly orderingactions in certain directions. The goals can be used asstandards for decision making by all campus groupsbythe trustees, for example, in approving architect's plans forthe new student union, by department -chairmen inrecruiting faculty, by students considering revisions to thejudiciary code, by the business office in selecting officefurniture, and so forth. Day-to-day work cf students andstaff would be expected to become more oriented towardthe institutional goals; gaps between official and opera-tive, and between organizational and individual goalswould be reduced.

In planning. As higher education institutions andsystems have had to . cope with expanding enrollmentsand, now, with limited resources, they have been forcedto engage in some sort of planning, be it crude or fairlysystimatic, short or long term. The importance of estab-lishing goals in the planning process has come to beuniversally recognized in both educational (Elam andSwanson, 1969) and non-educational settings (Churchman,1968). Commenting on planning in higher education,Alvin Eurich observed that "clarifying goals and establishins priorities among them are the first order of business inmanaging the future" (Bunch, 1969). Planning Li highereducation, of course, goes on at many levels, and con.sciousness of goals, it may be argued, is critical at all ofthem: In futuristic thinking about national and International systems, in developing state-wide master plans, inrestructuring existing systems (including fashioning newgovernance systems), in planning Siwath's next five years,in year4oyear budgeting in single institutions and theirvarious component units.

The use of goals in financial planning is particularlyrelevant to the topic of this paper. In the past few years,there has been a dramatic infusion into higher educationof various public finance analysis and managementmethods, of which perhaps the best known goes by theletters MS (planrdngstovarnhudgetingaystem). Animportant element in PPBS and P1138411e methods is

4

identification of goals or "outputs" (the economists' pre-fared term). Various planners, however, point to the verygreat difficulty of developing usable conceptions ofcollege goals. And PPBS, as one practitioner (Brandi inLawrence et al., 1970) acknowledges, "does not provide atheory for deciding ... what the outputs of higher educe -'tin are."

In management information systems. Also a responseto increasing university size and complexity, the manage-ment information system (MIS) is another new adminis-trative tool currently enjoying considerable vogue. MISshave been developed to provide decision makers withrelevant and timely data, use of which presumably leads tobetter decisions. Like the more general planning process,MISs require "specification of goals and objectives of thesystem." Ben Lawrence, director of the WICHB1 MISprogram, and the other editors of a recent state-of-the-artreview point out that "a management information systemcalls for the clear explication of objectives and the exposeof the processes by which the objectives are reached"(Minter and Lawrence, 1969). Lawrence (1969) contendsthat "systems designed to respond to questions within thecontext of overall goals . . . must be developed." Johnsonand Katzeruneyer, editors of yet another MIS state-of-the-art book (1969), echo the necessity for goal specificationand then go on to voice a measure of despair over itsachievement.

(Ben Lawrence! has outlined an approach for improvingdecision making ...Since such models have as a funda-mental prerequisite the clear statement of institutionalobjectives, the development of these objectives is particu-larly critical to the approach outlined. The extreme diffi-culty of specifying even general objectives in most institu-tions of higher education is apparent to those who haveattempted the task.

In Institutional evaluation. In response to some of thepressures already alluded to, including a mandate fromWashington to assess outcomes of federally funded pro-grams, the field of "educational evaluation" has grown Intoa new professional specialty with a developing set ofprinciples and techniques all Its own. Evaluation is com-monly understood as a process of information gatheringfocused on the extent to which an educational program isachieving predetermined objectives. Evaluation informa-tion is fed to educational managers either (or both)during the course of the program or at its termination; ineiti:4 event, the purpose is to improve the program ormaximize program objectives.

The literature of educational evaluation is extremelyvoluminous. Two convenient entry points are Tyler(1969) and Denny (1970). Sociologist Edward Suclunan

has provided a particularly comprehensive treatment ofevaluation, with applications in settings other than educa-tional ones. H' puts "identification of the goal; to beevaluated" first in a list of steps "essential for evaluation"(Suclunan, 1967).

For the most part, educational evaluation has takenplace in elementary and secondary schools and hasfocused on specific courses or programs. Systematic evalu-ation, however, can be extended to an institution's totaleducational program, and it is already taking hold inhigher education. Many universities have institutional re-search offices; there is a nationally organized Associationfor Institutional Research (AIR); a number of consortiaof colleges have been formed to promote cooperativeinstitutional research; and a range of assessment instru-ments are available (e.g., The Institutional Research Pro-gram for Higher Education, 1970).

The work of sociologists interested in organizationsmay provide a measure conceptual assistance. Theirkey concept is "effectiven ," which is usually defined as"the degree of goal-achievement," so that "determinationof an organization's gdal(s) is crucial in evaluating effec-tiveness" (Price, 1964). Etzioni distinguishes between"effectiveness" and "efficiency" as follows:

Organizations are com",ucted to be the most effective andefficient social units. f n actual effectiveness of a specificorganization is determined by the degree to which It real-izes its goals. The efficiency of an organization is measuredby the amount of resources used to produce a unit ofoutput.

In implementing accountability. "Accountability" is

another concept gaining popularity in educational admini-stration circles, especially, so far, in lower rather thanhigher education. The meaning of accountability in rela-tion to education is as yet not entirely deaf. Leon Les-.singer, observes (1970) that:

Too frequently, educational managers attempt to explaintheir activities in terms of resources and processes used,rather than learning results achieved. These explanations areno longer adequate ...The public is demanding "productreliability" in terms of student capabilities and no longerwill accept assertions of professional supedoritles in educa-tional matters.

And he goes on to say that,

in its most basic aspect, the concept of educational ac-countability is a process designed to insure that any individ-ual can determine for himself if the schools are producingthe remelts promised (Italics mlos)... Like most processesthat Involve a balancing of inputs and outputs, edocasioralaccountability can be implemented ractessfally only ifeducational objectives are dearly stated before Instructionstarts.

The distinction between evaluation and "accountability-implementation" is also unclear. Accountability seems tobe concerned more with results and less with process or

5

..41.11.....

'Western interstate Commission on Risher Education (P.O.Drawer P, Boulder, Colorado)

jairk*.0,1114.111.1111

means; it has more to do with finances and efficiency; tendsto be more of a public operation (like an audit by anexternal agency); and carries a greater implication of final -ityof hard judgments about total programsin contrast toattempts to modify continuing proprams. Th, prospects forthis sort of accountability may seem distant for mostcolleges. At least one university administrator (DavidBrown in Lawrence et al., 1970), however, regards ac-countability as an inescapable "imperative."

Research on GoalsIn that seminal volume, The American College, Nevitt

Seaford (1962) emphasized that

objectives can be studied ... that goals ought to be theobjects of continuing study it It one of our tasks tostudy these goals, discovering what we can do about ...their origins ... means through which they may be reachedand their consequences ... land) who has what desires inwhat times and circumstances.

Sanford's hopes have keen only partially fulfilled. Therekeenhas been rather little by social scientists on thetopic of higher education purposes, and that which hasbeen "'done has dealt chiefly with college goals as they areperceived by different groups, with little or no attentiongiven to real or operative goals, or the "origin and con-sequences" of institutional goals. Two recent exceptionsare Martin (1969), and Keeton and Hilberry (1959), inwhich the authors give historical perspective on the philo-sophy and goals of each of the institutions studied.

Six empirical multi-college studies that have focusedeither exclusively or partly on institutional goals are sum-marized below. The reader will be struck by the disparitybetween the utterances of educational statesmen and cata-logue statements (noted previously), on the one hand, andthe results of the various surveys, on the other.

The work of Edward Gross and Paul Grambsch (1968)easily stands as the most significant empirical effort thusfar to examine the nature and structure of universitygoalsgoals as they existed in 1964 in the minds offaculty and administrators at 68 nondenominationalPhDtranting universities in the country. Gross andGrambsch used an inventory consisting of 47 goal state-ments, of which 17 dealt with "output" goals (preparingstudents, doing research, providing public service) and thecell with "support" goals (holding staff, involving faculty inuniversity governance, etc.). Respondents rated the goalstatements in two waysin terms of (1) how importanteach "is" at the respondent's university, and (2) howimportant the goal "should be" at his university. Based on51% and 40% return rates for faculty and administrators,the seven top - ranked "is" goals for the two groups corn.bined were:

I. Protect the faculty's right to academic freetiom.

2. Increase or maintain the prestige of the university.

3. Maintain top quality in those programs felt to beespecially important.

4. Ensure the continued confidence and hence support ofthose who conteaute substantially to the finances and

,other material resource needs of the university.

S. Keep up to date and responsive.

6. Train students in methods of scholarship and/or scien-tific research and/or creative endeavor.

7. Carry on pure research.

Generally, differences between faculty and administra-tor rankings were small; "is" and "should be" perceptionsvaried substantially (although "... academic freedom" ledboth lists); and there was a relative lack of importanceattached to student-related goals. On the "should berankings, item 6 above appeared as item 2, and a statementreading "Produce a student who has his intellect cultivatedto the maximum" was ranked number 3. Eighteen of the47 goal statements referred directly to students.

In a second study, e. group from the Bureau of AppliedSocial Research at Columbia University (Nash, 1968) senta form containing 64 goal statements to the academicdean of every college in the country. The deans indicatedthe extent to which their college "emphasized" each goal.In general, the results demonstrated the fact that differentgoals exis.:.41 for different types of institutions, althoughsome goal statements were "strongly emphasized" univer-sallye.g., "to improve the quality of instruction, ' and"to increase the number of books in the library." Throughfactor analysis, the goals Were found to be interrelated insuch a way tliat five broad "goal structures"(factors) could be identified. They. were labeled: Oflenta-tion toward Research and Instruction, Orientation towardInstrumental Training, Orientation toward Social Develop-ment of Students, Democratic Orientation (participatorycampus governance), and Orientation toward Developmentof Resources (physical expansion).

Analysis of college goals was one aspect of the Projecton Student Development conducted by and at 13 of themember colleges of the Council for Advancement ofSmall Colleges. All faculty and administrators ranked 25stated characteristics of graduates (e.g., "Competent inboth oral and written communications;' "Guided byGod's will") in termf of "importance tot the graduates ofyour institution." On the basis of the results, the projectstaff was able to divide the 13 colleges into four cite-gories: Christtentered, Intellectual-Social, PersonalSocial,and Professional-Vocational (Chickering, 1968).

In a study sponsored by the Danforth Foundation(1969), the Gross and Grambsch questionnaire was revisedfor application to private liberal arts colleges. The formwas administered to the administrators, a 20% sample offaculty, and 100 students, at 13 private Irberal artscolleges and one private Junior college. It was found that:(1) great emphasis is placed upon teaching and student-

8

oriented activities and there is a lack of emphasis onresearch and research-related activities; (2) there is signifi-cant agreentsnt among administrators, faculty, and studentson most matters relating to college goals and governance;(3) marked differences exist between perceived goals andpreferred goals2 although administrators, faculty, andstudents share common views on many of the desiredchnges; (4) governance revolves around the administratorsto a very large extent.

In his questionnaire and interview study of "institutionalcharacter" in eight colleges and universities, ,WarrenMartin (1969) found that generally there was little seriousconcern about Institutional goals, although there weresubstantial differences in this regard between newer, inno-vative colleges and older, more conventional institutions.Seventy-three percent of the faculty respondents at theinnovative colleges, compared with six percent at theconventional universities in the sample, reported thatinstitutional objectives were discussed at length when theyconsidered joining the faculty. Forty percent of the totalfaculty sample reported that the emphasis in recruitingwas clearly on the work of the department; 16% saidinstitutiucol goals were emphasized. Entering studentswere found to know little about their college's philo-sophy. Martin discusses some of the reasons for lack ofinterest in institutional goals on the campuses: pre-occupation with professional guilds among the faculty,preoccupation with day-to-day probletts and pressures,and feelings of futility about ever achieving real closureregarding institutional goals.

Autonomy and Locus of PowerBefore describing and commenting upon three stra-

tegies for defining or redefining goals, the critical assump-tion of institutional autonomy needs to be considered. If acollege community, in the belief that it is the master of itsown ship, labors in good faith toward a new conception ofcollege aims only to find that it is not, and perhaps neverhas been, Its own master, all the passions that led to themovement for goal reformulation in the first place will bere-ignited. Thus a college that has serious intentions ofredefining Institutional goals must first determine whetherit indeed has the power to redefine its directions and thento act ircnrdingly. These observations are made in the lightof the trend toward deference to higher authorities by moreand more colleges. The question of autonomy is particular-ly important in the public sector with the proliferation ofstatewide coordinating bodies and muter plans, togetherwith seemingly hardening orthodoxies about what certainkinds of colleges are supposed to do.

In some localities, conflicts about locus of power seem

to be moving toward crises of the greatest consequence.In California, for example, the Regents of the Universityof Califc rnia legally have ultimate power over the nineUC campuses. Nonetheless, during May or 1970, in thewake of Cambodia and Kent State, aroused students and:acuity effecWd a substantial redefinition of the Univer-sity, at least of its teaching/learning function. As thispaper is being written, plans are under way to try toensure that the Berkeley campus, when it reopens in thefall, remains in some degree "reconstituted." It is clearthat in certain places established power relationships areunder heavy attack by local campus forces, renderingfamiliar understandings about what powers reside whereless meaningful than they once were.

These remarks about conflict over ultimate authorityapply to some extent to the private sector of highereducation as well, although ypically such conflict wouldtake different and less extreme forms. Church-relatedcolleges certainly are subordinate to higher authoritiesoutside the campus. Nonetheless, one suspects in theabsence of data, that it is somewhat easier at church-related colleges for local campus people to :dilate aredefinition of mission: these institutions are smaller andmore homogeneous; higher authorities have less basis incivil law, and thete would not be opportunistic politiciansclose by to marshall off-campus opinion or withholdpublic funds against redefinition. On the other hand,people attracted to the Catholic and Protestant colleges tostudy and teach are usually less inclined by temperamentto engage in "radical" or refoimulation enterprises and, ofcourse, the "effective" power of Some forms of institu-tionalized religion may well be stronger than any secular-based power. On balance, tt.ough, some of the mostcreative and viable institutional goal reformulations downthrough the years have occurred at religiously affiliatedcolleges despite their original purposes.

Some 600 colleges and universities in the country aregenerally classified as "independent," which suggests anabsence of formal ties to governmental, church, or corpo-rate bodies. Of course, there ore external constraints onthese institutions as well, especially the will of financialsupporters. For the college whose primary operative goalhas been to "ensure confidence of contributors," any realredefinition of directions would depend on presidential(or trustee) resourcefulness in reassuring present donorsand/or locating new "angels" to support the "new"college. One wonders how often dramatic change hasoccurred at colleges as a direct result of very large gifts ofmoney, and in such cases, whether the nature of thechange was specified by the donor, or developed by thecollege itself. The point is that the independent collegesrelatively free as they are from higher authorityought tobe in the best position to embark on wholesale institu-tional redefinition, either on their own Initiative or inresponse to some private stimulus.

These comments about autonomy and locus of powerare offered, first, so that people on the campuses may be

fY

2With data pooled across colleges, "Ensure confidence of conins sieved as the most important existing goal by both

faculty and students; as a preferred goal, H was ranked 22 and 36by faculty and students, respectively (in a Held of SO goel state-ments).

.

1111.1111^

mindful from the beginning of certain realities in order toprevent their policy-making efforts from coming tonought, and, second, to remind higher education planners,especially in the public sector, that in many localities therhetoric of "institutional autonomy" and "power to thepeople" are no longer empty slogans.

Strategies

Needless to say, a host of different strategies have beenused by colleges seeking to clarify, define, or redefinetheir goals. Three general patterns of goal determinationare identified and discussed hereby fiat, by committee,and by survey.

By flat. Undoubtedly, institutional goals can be "deter-mined" in an entirely arbitrary mannerby a board oftrustees and/or a powerful president and/or administrativeor faculty cliquequite without regard for the views ofthe majority of students and staff. Policy is thus promul-gated with the expectation that students and staff: (1)actively accept the formulation; (2) don't care (performtheir roles ritualistically); or (3) leave the college. I pre-sume goal determination by fiat to be a relative rarity inToday's academic world, which is not to say that manycolleges do not function under a tradition perpetuated byessentially arbitrary actions.

By committee. A way to avoid charges of arbitrarinessis to establish a committee; and, indeed, use of commit-tees is undoubtedly the most characteristic way academicenclaves deal with nonroutine matters. More than lilcely, afaculty committee on college aims (probably a standingone) or a student/faculty/trustee committee on goalsexists now on the majority of campuses. In writing aboutmechanics for defining goals, Alvin Eurich (1969) suggests:

an institutionwide committee on goals, chaired by the presi-dent, the academic vice-president, or the dean of the facul-ty. The committee should be relatively small, certainly nomore than fifteen at the outset, including representationof ... trustees, administrators, faculty, students, ancillarystaff, constituents, alumni, community, and cooperatinginstitutions. The efforts of this group should be directedtoward a definite statement of the particular kind of insti-tution that the committee envisions ten to twenty yearshence.

In a recent issue of Science, there appeared a provoca-tive statement on "Purpose and Function of the Univer-sity" written by a faculty Interdisciplinary StudiesCommittee on the Future of Man at the University ofWisconsin (Potter et al., 1970). The Committee was criti-cal of recently adopted (by the faculty) statements ofinstitutional mission, as well as of much of the ongoingwork of the University, arguing that they were tooheavily oriented toward present conditions and problems.It was also critical of University allegiance to the "searchfor truth" in the abstract, and recommended that thesearch for truth become "future-oriented." The Com-mittee proposed that:

The primary purpose oir the UniversityIs to provide an environmentIn which faculty and studentsCan discover, examine critically,Preserve, and transmitTele knowledge, wisdom, and valuesThat will help ensure the survivalOf the present and future generationsWith improvement in the quality of life.

The Wisconsin group ended its article with the note that:

the faculty unanimously approved (the Committee docu-ment] as "an appropriate and timely supplement to prev-ious statemects of University purpose and function" andspecifically endorsed the statement of primary purpose.

Reading about the Wisconsin committee's apparentsuccess in giving new focus to the institution's missionbrings to mind a number of questions about goal deter-mination by committee. How, one wonders, have othergoals committees on other campuses around the countryfared? Why don't more accounts him the Wisconsin onefind the light of the day? Are committee chairmen orcommittee report writers often either too timid or tooembarrassed by their efforts to make them public? If so,why? Is it because their statements are couched in suchbanalities or platitudes that no one could disagree and nosense of institutional distinctiveness is communicated? Orbecause there are campus groups that reject the new goalformulation in. total or part and who would make theissue public? (Black students and staff, for example,might feel a bit uneasy about their institution opting forthe future rather than the present.)

CPn a committee of 15, or even of 50, expect torepresent all shades of campus opinion, even of facultyopinion? How many campus goals committees areappointed by the college president? When committees aredeliberately comprised of representatives of diverse con-stituent groups, where does the "effective" power lie?

How many committees hold hearings or otherwiseattempt to bring together the very best thinking availablein the campus community? Indeed, how many have thefunds and released time to do so? To what extent arecommittee products ,"ego-trips" of their chairmen, othercommittee members, or representatives of special in-terests? In short, normal committee functioning may befaulted on the twin grounds of insufficient democraticparticipation and insufficient rationalitythe fact that allinterested parties do not have equal opportunity to havetheir views heard, and that all relevant ideas are notsystematically secured and then impartially weighed.

By survey. A number of academic and nonacademicorganizations have experimented with questionnaire sur-vey techniques in an attempt to realize better the prin-ciples of participation and rationality in long-rangeplanning. The prototype method is what is called theDelphi Technique, which was invented in the early 1950s

8

by Olaf Helmer and his colleagues at the Rand Corpora-tion (Helmer, 1966). The Delphi procedure may bedescribed as follows:

1. Participants are asked to list their opinions on aspecific topic, such as recommended activities orpredictions for the future.

2. Participants are then asked to evaluate the totallist against some criterion, such as importance,chance of success, etc.

3. Each participant receives the list and a summaryof responses to the Items and, if in the minority, isasked to revise his opinion or indicate his reason forremaining in the minority.

4. Each participant again receives the list, an up-dated summary of responses, a summary ofminority opinions, and a final chance to revise hisopinions.

Thus the Delphi method has the potential for providingan institution with:

1. a range of ideas about goals

2. priority rankings of the goals

3. a degree of consensus about goals3

Two instances of the use of Delphi-like procedures inhigher education have recently been reported (Norton,1970; Uhl, 1970). They are of interest here more fortheir logic and method, than for their substantive results.The first used the Delphi method of establishing goals inthe early planning for a new public university; the secondis a cooperative experimental and self-study project in-volving five established institutions.

Governors State University (GSU) was authorized inmid-1969 as a senior university to be located in theChicago suburb of Park Forest. Designed to serve com-munity college transfers, the University, in the words ofits president, "is intended to be an innovative, future-oriented, and public service minded institution." Withinthis framework, President Engbretson was

seeking opinions on better ways to use our educationalpotential in the belief that planning an institution such asGovernors State University should reflect the best thinkingof socially concerned individuals from government, educa-tion, business, industry and the artsfrom the local to thenational level (Norton, 1970).

The first step was to identify the groups whoseopinions were judged to be relevant to the work of theinstitution. Thirty-three such groups were decided upon,including samples of staff and students at feeder juniorcolleges, members of variovs 10,31, state, and nationalhigher education organizations, local industrial leaders,and local civic groups. Step two was to send a one-pagefon to 1,185 individuals in the 33 groups, asking themto write out brief answers to six general questions aboutpossible goals and roles for GSU. The questionnaire wasaccompanied by a cover letter from President Engbretsondescribing the broad GSU mandate and the use of theDelphi Technique in developmental planning.

Drawing on responses to the first mailing, a secondinstrument was constructed consisting of SO short goalstatements covering the range of ideas that had beensuggested. Two sample statements were:

to provide opportunities for advanced level adult continuingeducation

to provide instruction in human relations and good goiern-ment for all students

Step three was to send, two months after the first, thesecond inventory to the same (approximately) group ofparticipants, asking them to give for each goal statement a"priority for GSU" rating using a five-point scale.

The fourth step of the general Delphi method wasomitted because of time pressures, because it seemedunlikely that revisions would give additional information,and because there was no particular need for consensuson goals for GSU. Thus, it was an analysis of the datafrom the second instrument that was forwarded to theGSU planners, who were then in possession of an array ofideas concerning goals for the University and priorityrankings (of 50 possible goals) provided by eleven consti-tuent groupscombinations of the original 33 samples.

The second project, which involves a modified Delphiprocedure and five diverse institutions in the Carolinasand Virginia, is currently nearing completion.4 The pur;poses of the project are: (1) to test the usefulness of theDelphi Technique as a way of obtaining consensus (de-fined as opinion convergence) in regard to institutionalgoals and (2) to learn thiefly for purposes of institutionalself-study, how diverse constituent groups on- and off-campus perceive the goals of the respective colleges.

In this study, the major departure from "standard"Delphi procedure was to omit the usual first step ofasking respondents, in an open-ended fashion, to listideas. Instead, step one entailed administering a previouslyprepared experimental Institutional Goals Inventory

3Helmer and others have shown that when an individual knowshow others have responded, as well as reasons for nontypicalresponses, his own response will often change in the direction ofthe "norm."

4Directed by Norman Uhl of the Southeastern Office of Educa-tional Testing Service, the project is sponsored by the RegionalEducation Laboratory of the Carolinas and Virginia, and is part ofthe Lab's ongoing effcrt to perf.ect id Administrative OrganizationSystem model. Both the Lab and the ETS Office are in Durham,NC.

9

(IGI)5 to some 1000 individuals spread across samples ofundergraduates, graduates (where applicable), faculty,administrators, trustees, and alumni from the five insti-tutions, plus samples from local political, occupational,religious, and minority racial groups. The Instrumentconsisted of 105 statements covering alland moreofthe kinds of goats discussed earlier. Following the Grossand Grambsch (1968) method, respondents rated eachitem on a five-point "importance" scale in terms of both:(1) perceptions of the existing goal structure, and (2)what the institution's goals ought to be (i.e., "is" and"should be" responses). Eighty-five percent of the ques-tionnaires were returned.

The second step was to distribute the same form to thesame 1000 poople, with two differences: the first wasthat the modal (calculated separately for each college andbased on all respondents at or rating the college in ques-tion) "is" and "should be" responses for each item wereindicated on the form; and, second, individuals who thistime assigned a rating different from the step one modalrating were aske4 to expl.'n briefly the reasons for theirrating. Return rate for the second questionnaire was 80%.

The third step was a repeat of the second, with theexception that separat' sheets containing a summary ofminority opinions, (rep;, not contrived) for each goalstatement for the institution in question accompanied theinventory. Thus, in step three, participants responded tothe IGI knowing, for each item, both the modal responseon the previous administration and the kinds of reasonspeople had for not giving the modal response. The returnrate was 75%.

Data on how the various constituent groups understandthe goals of the respective colleges have already beenpassed on to each college. Conclusions regarding whetherthere was any significant convergence in goal beliefsbetween the first and third questionnaire await com-pletion of statistical analyses.

Conclusions

Institutional goal determination has two end-products:identification of goals, and establishment of prioritiesamong the goals. An institution's "goal structure"itsrank-ordering of goalscan be said to be determined whensome level of consensus has been reached through a pro-cess that is democratic and participatory. The goal deter-mination process must be regarded universally on campusas fair if the resulting goal structure is to have legitimacy,if it is to be accepted as morally proper in the collegecommunity. For a useful modem treatment of the ideasof authority and legitimacy, see Schaar (1970).

5Planning for an IGI for use by colleges in self-study and goal-definition efforts has been continuing at ETS for some time. Theitems (goal statements) in the present IG1 version were written inJanuary 1970 by a group of ETS research psychologists andsociologists under the general direction of Uhl.

Whatever the specific mechanisms adopted may be,responsibility for setting the process in motion, for de-lineating the charge, and for dealing with the question ofautonomy, lies with the chief campus administrator.Determination of college mission, in short, is a criticalleadership function of the college president (cf. Walton,1959; McConnell, 1968; Eurich, 1969).

Institutional goals would profitably be conceived of interms of outcome goals and support goals. Outcome goalsare the ends the college seeks to realize, and can refer tothe desired characteristics of graduating seniors, kinds ofresearch and development, kinds of public services, and soforth. These goals would be stated at about the level ofspecificity of the goal-statements used in the variousstudies mentioned (e.g., Gross and Grambsch, 1968;Norton, 1970). Once outcome goals have been deter-mined, a necessary next task is to translate these concep-tions into precise, measurable program objectives. Thework of deriving specific objectives from the more generalgoals is the responsibility of the relevant professionals.Within the framework of the college's "goal-structure,"the objectives of its School of Business, for example,would be set by School of Business people (includingstudents), with substantial help from specialists in meas-urement, evaluation, and systems analysis. Arthur Cohen(1969) has provided some extremely valuable material onthe logic and method of "defined outcome objectives."Brown (1970), in something of a tour-de-force, has out-lined a notably complete model, consisting of goals,objectives, and measurement strategies.

Support goals are the goals which, when attained,facilitate reaching the outcome goals. They have to dowith 'instructional resources, educational environment, andthe Mo. In a sense, they are planning goals, such asdoubling the library holdings, or the number of fine artsfaculty; establishing a center for ecological studies or aremedial skills center. Support goals are intended tooptimize the previously identified outcome goals.

The means of determining institutional goals mightwell involve both a committee-111e task group and someform of opinion or values survey. The task group shouldinclude elected or volunteer representatives of campusconstituent groups, including trustees (who presumablyhave encouraged the goal determination effort from theoutset). An important job of the task group on goals,numbering about twelve members and chaired by thecollege president, is to organize, help pla'i and implement,and generally oversee a goals survey. The survey need notfollow the Delphi procedure, or some variant. ArthurChickering (1970), for example, has proposed severalpopntially useful sociometric and related techniques forgenerating ideas about goals. If survey activities are care-fully planned and executed, faculty and others will takethem seriously, as evidenced by the high return rates forUhl's repeated survey. Once the survey is completed, thetask group should conduct open hearings on the results, andeventually prepare a report setting forth a goals structurefor the college.

10

It seems essential in these times that colleges articulatetheir goals: to give direction to present and future work;to provide an ideology that can nurture internal coopera-tion, communication and trust; to enable appraisal of theinstitution as a means-ends system; to afford a basis forpublic understanding and support. Indeed, the college

without the inclination or will to define itself, to chart acourse for itself, can look forward either to no future-to a kind of half-life of constantly responding to shiftingpressures-or to a future laid down by some externalauthority. Neither prospect pleases.

REFERENCES

Astin, A. and Panos, R.J. "Evaluation of Education Pro-grams." Evaluation Measurement, edited by R.L.Thorndike. Washington: American Council onEducation, 1970.

learzun, J. The American University: How It Runs, WhereIt Is Going. New York: Harper, 1968.

Beard, R.M. Objectives In Higher Education. London:Society for Research in Higher Education, Ltd., 1968.

Becker, E. Beyond Alienation: A Philosophy of Educationfor the Crisis of Democracy. New York: Braziller,1967.

Bell, D. The Reforming of General Education. New York:Columbia University Press, 1966.

Betsky, S. "Concepts of Excellence: Universities in anIndustrial Culture." Universities Quarterly 23, Winter1969.

Blaug, M. "The Productivity of Universities." Minerva 6,Spring 1968.

Bloom, B.S., ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans,Green, 1956.

Brubacher, J.S. Bases for Policy in Higher Education. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Campus Tensions: Analysis and Recommendations. Re-port of the Special Committee on Campus Tensions.Washington: American Council on Education, 1970.

Case, H.L. "Declaration of Aims and Policies of Univer-sity X." Educational Record 50, Fall 1969.

Chickering, A.W . Education and Identity. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1968.

Research for Action. Mimeographed.Plainfield, Vt.: Union for Experimenting Colleges andUniversities. 1970.

Churchman, C.W. The System Approach. New York: Dell,1968.

Cohen, A. Dateline '79. New York: MacMillan, 1969.Conway, Jill. "Styles of Academic Culture." Daedalus 99,

Winter 1970.Cook, D.L. Program Evaluation arid Review Technique

Applications in Education. Washington: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1966.

Denny, T., ed. "Educational Evaluation." Review ofEducational Research 40, April 1970.

Dobbins, D.G. and Lee, C.B.T. eds. Whose Goals forAmerican Higher Education? Washington: AmericanCouncil on Education, 1968.

Dunham, E.A. Colleges of the Forgotten Americans: A

Profile of State Colleges and Regional Universities. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Dyer, H.S. "The Discovery and Development of Educa-tional Goals." In Proceedings of the 1966 InvitationalConference on Testing Problems. Princeton, NJ,:Educational Testing Service, 1967.

Elam, S. and Swanson, G.I., eds. Educational Planning inthe United States. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, 1969.

Etzioni, A. Modem Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Eurich, A.C. "Managing the Future: Some Practical Sug-yestions." In The Future Academic Community, editedby J. Caffrey. Washington: American Council onEducation, 1969.

Froomkin, J. Aspirations, Enrollments, and Resources;The Challenge to Higher Education in the Seventies.Washington: Office of Education, Office of ProgramPlanning and Evaluation Planning Paper 69-1, May,1969.

Gardner, J.W. "National Goals in Education." In Goalsfor Americans. The President's Commission onNational Goals. New York: Prentice Hall, 1960.

Gleazer, E.J., Jr. This is the Community College. Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1968.

Grambsch, P. "Conflicts and Priorities in Higher Educa-tion" Paper presented at AAHE's 25th National Con-.ference on Higher Education, Chicago, March 2, 1970.

Greeley, A.M. From Backwater to Mainstream: A Profile ofCatholic Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill,1969.

Gross, E. "Universities as Organizations: A. ResearchApproach." American Sociological Review 33, August1968.

Gross, E. and Grambsch, P.V. University Goals andAcademic Power. Washington: American Council onEducation, 1968.

Harvard University Committee on the Objectives ofGeneral Education in a Free Society. General Educa-tion in a Free Society. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1945.

The Student in Higher Education. New Haven,. Conn,:Hazen Foundation, 1968.

Helmer, 0. Social Technology. New York: Basic Books,1966.

Henderson, A.D. "Control in Higher Education: Trendsand Issues." Journal of Higher Education 40, January1969.

11

Hill, M. "A Goal Achievement Matrix for EvaluatingAlternative Plans." AIP Journal 8, January 1968.

The Institutional Research Program for Ilther Education.Princeton, NJ.: Educational Testing Service, 1970.

Jencks, C. and Riesman, D. The Academic Revolution.New York: Doubleday, 1968.

Jennings, F.G. "The Two-Year Stretch." Change 2,March-April 1970.

Johnson, C.B. and Katenzmoyez, W.G., eds. ManagementInformation Systems in Higher Education: The State ofthe Art, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press; 1969.

Kaysen, C. The Higher Learning, the Universities, and thePublic. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press,1969,

Keeton, MX. and Hilberry, C. "Liberal Arts Colleges: ACall to Leadership." Journal of Higher Education 39,October 1968.

Struggle and Promise: A Future for Colleges.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Kerr, C. the Urban-Grant University. New York: TheCity College of New York, 1968.

Krathwohl, D.R., et al. Taxonomy of Educational Ob-jectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York:McKay, 1964.

Lawrence, Ben; Weathersby, George; and Patterson,Virginia, eds. The Outputs of Higher Education: TheirProxies, Measurement and Evaluation. Boulder, Cob.:Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,1970.

Lessinger, L.M. "Accountability in Public Education." InProceedings of the 1969 Invitational Conference onTesting Problems. Princeton, N.J.: Educational TestingService, 1970.

Lindvall, C.M., ed. Defining Educational Objectives.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964.

Luria, S.E. and Luria, Zelda. "The Role of the University:Ivory Tower, Service Station, or Frontier Post." Dae-dalus 33, Winter 1970.

Mager, R.F. Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto,Calif.: Fearon, 1962.

March, J.G., ed. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago:Rand McNally, 1965.

Martin, W.A. Conformity: Standards and Change in HigherEducation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.

Mayhew, L.B. Colleges Today and Tomorrow. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Br is, 1969.

McConnell, T.R. "The Function of Leadership in Aca-demic Institutions." Educational Record 49, Spring1968.

Millet, J.C. "Value Patterns and Power Conflict." InValue Change and Power CorlytteWiherrEducation,edited by W.J. Minter and Patricia O. .SnNer. Boulder,Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation, 1970.

Minter, W.J. and Thompson, I.M., eds. Colleges and Uni-versities as Agents of Social Change. Boulder, Colo.:Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,1968.

and Lawrence, B., eds. Management Info..motion Systems; Their Development and Use in theAdministration of Higher Education. Boulder, Colo,:Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,1969.

Mood, A.M. "Macro-analysis of the American EducationalSystem." Operations Research 17, September-October1969.

Nash, Patricia, "The Goals of Higher Education-AnEmpirical Assessment," Mimeographed. ColumbiaUniversity: Bureau of Applied Social Research, June1968,

Niblett, W.R., ed. Higher Education: Demand & Re-sponse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970.

Norton, DP. The Governors State University Needs Survey. Evanston, Ill.: Educational Testing Service, 1970.

Pace, C.R. "New Concepts in Institutional Goals forStudents." In The Liberal Arts College's Responsibilityfor the Individual Student, edited by E.J. McGrath.New York: Teachers College Press, 1966.

Palola, E.; Lehmann, T.; and Blischke, W. High', Educa-tion by Design. Berkeley: Center for Research andDevelopment in Higher Education, 1970.

Perkins, J.A. The University in Dansition. Princeton,NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1966.

Perrow, C. "Goals In Complex Organizations." AmericanSociological Review 26, December 1961.

Peterson, R.E. "Reform in Higher Education-Demands ofthe Left and Right." Liberal Education 60, March1969.

et al. Institutional Functioning Inventory;Preliminary Technical Manual. Princeton, NJ,: Educa-tional Testing Service, 1970.

Potter, V.R., et al. "Purpose and Function of the Uni-versity." Science 168, March 20, 1970.

President's Commission on Higher Education. HigherEducation for American Democracy, Vol. I, Estab-lishing the Goals. Washington: Government PrintingOffice, 1947.

Price, J.L. Organizational Effectiveness: An Inventory ofPropositions. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1968.

"A Report: College Goals and Governance." DanforthNews and Notes. St. Louis, Mo.: Danforth Foundation,November 1969.

Riesman, D. "The Collision Course of Higher Education."The Journal of College Student Personnel 10, Novem-ber 1969.

Sanford, N., ed. The American College. New York: Wiley,1962.

Schaar, J.H. "Reflections on Authority." In New Americon Review, Number 8, edited by T. Solotaroff. NewYork: New American Library, January 1970.

1

12

Schultz, T. "Resources for Higher Education: An Econo-mist's View." The Journal of Political Economy 76,May/June 1968.

Simon, H. "On the Concept of an Institutional Goal."Administrative Science Quarterly 9, June 1964.

Smith, H. The .Purposes of Higher Education. New York:Harper, 1955.

Stake, R.E. "Objectives, Priorities, and Other JudgmentData." Review of Educational Research 40, April 1970.

Suchman, EA, Evaluative Research, New York: RussellSage, 1967

Thompson, J.D. and McEwen, .1. "Organizational Goalsand Environment: Goalsetting as an InteractionProcess." American Sociological Review 23, February1958.

Thompson, J.D. Organizations in Action. New York:McGrawHUI, 1967.

Thompson, V.A. Modern Organization. New York: Knopf,1969.

Tyler, R.W., Educational Evaluation: New Roles, NewMeans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.

"U.S. Universities Don't Know What They're Doing ofWhy, Robert M. Hutchins Says." Chronicle of HigherEducation, March 9, 1970, page 5.

Uhl, N. "A Technique for Improving Communication With.in an InstitutiGn." In Communication of InstitutionalResearch: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Forum,edited by Patricia Wright. Association for InstitutionalResearch, 1970.

Walton, J. Administration and Nyman/1*(1n Education.Baltimore: John Hopkins Press,19S9.1Especially Ch.IV, "The Discernment of Purpose.")

Wilson, L. "Setting Institutional Priorities." In Learningand the Professors, edited by 0. Milton and E.J.Shoben. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1968.

Wolff, R.P. The Ideal of the University. Boston: Beacon,1969.

Yuchtman, E. and Seashore, S.E. "A System Approach toOrganizational Effectiveness." American SociologicalReview 32, December 1967.

13

\

.\\