|
Summary. Analysis resulted in the emergence of three themes that included: (a) roles, responsibilities, and powers; (b) decision effect; and, (c) feedback and recommendations. Exploration of these themes was examined in the preceding sections to further understand how particular state economic, political, and social contexts influence presidential decision making, as well as what role the KCTCS Board of Regents and
college boards of directors have on system and college level presidential decision making.
Analysis highlighted clearly defined roles, responsibilities and powers of the KCTCS Board of Regents, college boards of directors and CPE. The involvement of these internal and external agencies in decision making implied a politically driven decision making process affecting the system and colleges. In addition, analysis revealed the influence of individual state legislators and the state legislature on decision making. Altogether, presidents used awareness and advocacy to navigate their influence and involvement.
While the KCTCS Board of Regents, college boards of directors, and CPE had a role in decision making, the effect of their role was characterized as either direct or indirect. The extent of this effect was based on the scope of responsibilities and powers outlined in policy, as well as the extent to which parts of the system and colleges were connected to one another for a given decision. Furthermore, involvement of the boards in decision making necessitated ongoing communication between the boards and presidents. This communication emerged as feedback and recommendations that presidents obtained from their respective board and used to guide decision making.
Summary
Quantitative results illustrated that participant responses were dispersed across the scale, which suggested there was disagreement among participants about the perceived location of decision making for the decision areas asked about on the survey.
Specifically, analysis of the overall frequency of participant responses for academic decision items illustrated that responses were dispersed across the scale. Analysis of the
overall frequency of participant responses for administrative decision making illustrated that responses were dispersed across the scale; however, administrative decision making leaned toward the local college more than academic and personnel decision making.
Finally, participant responses illustrated that personnel decision making leaned toward the local college and was more likely to occur at the local college than at the system for the decision items asked about on the survey. Despite differences in the perceived location of decision making among participants, there was some consistency in participant responses at the decision-item level as illustrated in the frequencies analyzed for each of the academic, administrative, and personnel decision areas.
The mean value calculated for the overall location of decision making illustrated that decision making leaned toward the local college, with some input from the system; however, this finding was an average across all decision areas considering there were differences in participant responses noted at the decision area-level and the item-level. Moreover, the mean values calculated for each of the three decision areas suggested that participants perceived that decision making does not lean toward either the local college or the state system. Moreover, these values neither suggested that decision making occurred more at the local college or the state system nor did they suggest that decision making in these areas was shared. Measures of dispersion reinforced differences in the perceived location of decision making noted in previous analyses and calculations.
Qualitative analysis pointed to five emergent themes that help describe how presidents share academic, administrative, and personnel decision making. Policy emerged at the center of presidential decision making, which reinforced specified governance structures and locations of authority for decision making. However, analysis
revealed a combined effort indicative of shared decision making that involved feedback and recommendations. Policy further echoed the use of feedback and recommendations at multiple levels within the system and colleges as well as through involvement of external stakeholders.
Finally, qualitative analysis revealed three emergent themes that aid in understanding how state contexts influence presidential decision making and what roles the boards have in system and college level decision making. The KCTCS Board of Regents, college boards of directors, CPE, and the state legislature influence presidential decision making. Presidents used awareness and advocacy to navigate this influence, characterizing presidential decision making as a politically driven process.
CHAPTER V INTERPRETATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study explored presidential decision making in the Kentucky Community and Technical College System by examining the location of presidential decision making and how presidential decision making is shared between the KCTCS president and college presidents for academic, administrative, and personnel decision areas. Additional questions helped guide the study and aided in exploring particular contextual and situational factors relevant to presidential decision making based on the review of literature. These include influences of the state economic, political, or social contexts, and the roles of the KCTCS Board of Regents and college boards of directors.
This chapter will provide a summary of results for both quantitative and qualitative methods employed. Following, the researcher presents a discussion of findings based on the research questions examined. Then, the researcher discusses implications of the findings for higher education policy, governance, and administration. Finally, the researcher closes with recommendations for further study.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
