A study of perceived and preferred ratings of institutional goals and priority rankings as viewed by faculty, students, and administrators at Oregon State University

Graduation date: 1975This study was undertaken as a result of an interest in the\ud present and future purposes and functions of higher education.\ud American society and higher education are moving through a period\ud of change. Since each shapes and is shaped by the other, change in\ud either may require a review and perhaps alteration of goals.\ud The purpose of this investigation was (1) to examine the congruence\ud or dissonance of perceived (is) and preferred (should be)\ud ratings of institutional goals and (2) to determine the priorities\ud placed upon these goals by faculty, students, and administrators at\ud Oregon State University. Design of the Study\ud The Institutional Goals Inventory (Educational Testing Service,\ud 1972) was administered to a stratified proportional sample of 213\ud randomly selected faculty, students, and administrators. The main\ud content of the IGI consists of 90 goal statements. Eighty are related\ud to 20 goal areas and 10 are miscellaneous. The respondents,\ud using a five-point scale, were asked to evaluate each of the goal\ud statements in two different ways:\ud 1. How important is the goal at this University at the present\ud time?\ud 2. How important should the goal be at this University?\ud The data analysis included the means, standard deviations,\ud and mean differences for the 20 goal areas and the 90 goal statements\ud for the perceived (is) and preferred (should be) responses for\ud the total sample and for each of the subgroups. Second, independent\ud "t" tests were used to determine if the differences in the respondents\ud perceived and preferred mean ratings of the goal areas were\ud significant at the .05 level. These tests provided the basic tools\ud for determining points of convergence and divergence between\ud faculty, students, and administrators on the 20 goal areas. Congruence\ud (no significant difference) or dissonance (significant difference)\ud was reported for each comparison. Further, by using the results of the mean value rank orders, conclusions were drawn as\ud to the basic priorities for the University as viewed by the respondents.\ud Findings of the Study\ud In the perceived (is) category, faculty and students showed\ud congruence on 19 of the 20 goal areas. Faculty and administrators\ud were congruent on 15 of the goal areas, and students and administrators\ud were equally divided between congruence and dissonance on\ud the goal areas.\ud In the preferred (should be) category, faculty-students showed\ud congruence on 14 of the 20 goal areas. Faculty- administrators were\ud congruent on all 20 goals, and students-administrators were congruent\ud on 17 of the goals.\ud The rankings of goal areas showed that in the perceived (is)\ud category, the respondents ranked Academic Development, Research,\ud and Advanced Training as the goals currently receiving the greatest\ud emphasis. In the preferred (should be) category, the respondents\ud ranked Intellectual Orientation, Community, and Individual Personal\ud Development as the goals which should have high priority on campus.\ud Further analysis indicated that the four individual goal statements\ud (from the total of 90) with both the highest "should be" mean\ud rankings and the largest "should be" - "is" discrepancy rankings were from the following goal areas: Individual Personal Development,\ud Community, and Democratic Governance.\ud Conclusions and Implications of the Study\ud This study showed that there was a large measure of congruence\ud in the preferred category which indicated a strong convergence\ud of opinion concerning what should be the goals and priorities of the\ud University. Where differences did occur, they were generally\ud differences in terms of the "degree of importance" attached to a\ud given goal area, and did not reflect extreme divergencies. The\ud implications of these findings would tend to suggest that the faculty,\ud students, and administrators want the 20 goal areas (with the exception\ud of "Traditional Religiousness") to have a greater importance on\ud campus