INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8022283 HALSTEAD, JOHN ROBERT A TIME ALLOCATION STUDY OF CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS AT C.I.C. INSTITUTIONS The Ohio State University PH.D. 1980 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England Copyright 1980 by Halstead, John Robert All Rights Reserved A TIME ALLOCATION STUDY OF CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS AT C.I.C. INSTITUTIONS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By John Robert Halstead, B.A., M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 1980 Reading Committee: Approved By George Ecker Robert F. Rodgers y Adviser Robert J. Silverman Academic Faculty of Special Services To my beloved late father, William, whose personal encouragement, deep interest, sense of pride, and struggle to live inspired me to complete the dissertation. I shall be forever grateful. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer would like to express his gratitude to the members of his doctoral committee: Professor Robert J. Silverman, chairperson; Professor George Ecker; Professor Robert F. Rodgers; and Professor William R. Nester. They have contributed in innumerable ways through their countless suggestions, scholarly standards, and openness in allowing the researcher to explore his theoretical and practical interests. In particular. Professor Silverman has engendered new ways of looking at student personnel administrators, their work, and the organizations in which they exercise leadership. The writer is also indebted to the late Professor Philip A. Tripp for rekindling scholarly interests and for his sustained and genuine commitment to student development. Deepest appreciation is also expressed to the writer's wife, Kathleen, for her love, support, sacri­ fices and immeasurable assistance in the entire project as well as to Eureka Bishop for the final preparation of the manuscript. Finally, the writer is indebted to those six chief student affairs officers at C.I.C. institutions who permitted the researcher to treat their work as a topic of inquiry, who devoted their time to a month-long, detailed analysis of their everyday activities, who engaged in follow-up interviews, and whose responses may provide a basis for better understanding the complex nature of student personnel work. iii VITA February 17, 1948. Born - Cortland, New York 1970 ................... B.A., Colgate University, Hamilton, New York 1972 . ............. M.A., Michigan State Univer­ sity, East Lansing, Michigan 1972-197 3 ............... Assistant Director of Residence Life, Albion Col­ lege, Albion, Michigan 1973-1974. ....... Director of West Campus, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 1974-197 7 .......... Assistant Dean of Students, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts 1977-1980............... Assistant to the Vice Presi­ dent for Student Services/ Coordinator of Judicial Programs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Student Personnel Administration Studies in Student Development Theory. Professors Robert F. Rodgers, Robert J. Silverman, and Philip A. Tripp Studies in Organizational Theory. Professors George Ecker, Robert J. Silverman, and Karl E. Weick Studies in Educational Administration. Professor George Ecker iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................. iii VITA........................................... iv LIST OF TABLES................................ viii LIST OF F I G U R E S .............................. xi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.......... 1 Significance of the Research........... l Research Problem........................ 13 Research Questions...................... 14 Description of the Research and Definition of Dimensions............... 15 Limitations of the Study............... 17 Research Objectives ................... 22 Restatement of the Importance of the P r o b l e m ............. 23 II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............. 25 The Student Personnel Literature: Historical and Contemporary ........... 25 Institutional Context: From Multiversities to Incentive S y s t e m s ................................ 49 The Leadership Literature: Focus on Educational Leadership............ 77 Managerial Work and Time Allocations............................ 91 S u m m a r y ................................ 126 III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES............. 130 Time as a Unit of A n a l y s i s ........... 130 A Framework for Observations: Toward Intimate Familiarity ........... 133 v TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued CHAPTER * Alternatives to Participant Observation................................. 137 The Potential for Action Research. 142 Selection of Subjects................... 144 Procedures: A Chronology.................. 147 The Extensor System: An Innova­ tive Means of Data Collection 153 Advantages of the Extensor System. 161 The Elite and Specialized interviewing Technique ................. 167 Multiple Operationalism or Triangulation............................ 172 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. 175 Objectives of the Time Allocation Study ........................ 175 The Major Research Questions .............. 176 Focus on Group Profile .................... 177 The Activity Dimension: What Do Chief Student Affairs Officers Do? . 178 The Function Dimension: For What Organizational Purpose Do Chief Student Affairs Officers Engage in Activities?............................. 189 The Contact Dimension: With Whom Do Chief Student Affairs Officers Spend Their Time?........................ 203 The Work Assessment Dimension: How Important Is the Work of Chief Student Affairs Officers? What Aspects Should Be Improved? .... 224 The Initiative/Staisfaction Dimension: Who Initiates the Work of Chief Student Affairs Officers? What Level of Satisfaction is Derived from Student Personnel Work?................. 235 Summary................................... 248 V. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 252 Recapitulation of Major Questions and Findings ................. 252 An Expanded View of the Work of Chief Student Affairs Officers ......... 255 Implications for Practice............... 260 Implications for Research............... 280 Conclusions.............................. 289 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued APPENDIXES Page A. Sample Daily Schedule and Telephone Log from Cohen and March Study......................... 295 B. Individual Summary Reports of Time Allocations for C.I.C. Chief Student Affairs Officers ........... 298 C. Interview Plan ............................. 306 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ 309 vii r LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Functions of Student Personnel Administrators......................... 32 2. College Administrators Very Satisfied With Aspects of Jobs by Position......... 76 3. Summary of Managerial Roles ............. 95 4. Eight Managerial Job Types............... 99 5. Time Wasters of College Presidents. 114 6. Five Dimensional Code List............... 159 7. Summary of Activity Dimension C.I.C. Group Profile..................... 180 8. Activity ,vi. Function for C.I.C. Chief Student Affairs Officers........... 183 9. Activity vs. Initiative/Satisfaction for C.I.C. Chief Student Affairs Officers....................... 185 10. Summary of Function Dimension C.I.C. Group Profile..................... 190 11. Contact vs. Function for C.I.C. Chief Student Affairs Officers. 191 12. Summary of Contact Dimension C.I.C. Group Profile...................... 204 13. Activity vs. Contact for C.I.C. Chief Student Affairs Officers..........