|
Frequencies. Analysis of the overall frequencies of participant responses for the scale suggested that participant responses were dispersed across the scale, though they leaned toward the local college. Table 4.4 outlines the frequency of participant responses for academic, administrative, and personnel decision areas as well as the total frequencies across the scale.
Table 4.4
Frequency of Participant Responses by Decision Area
Location of Decision
Making
|
Decision Area
|
Academic
|
Administrative
|
Personnel
|
Total
Frequency
|
Local College
|
18
|
33
|
25
|
76
|
Primarily Local
College
|
22
|
30
|
9
|
61
|
Shared Equally
|
13
|
20
|
11
|
44
|
Primarily
System
|
10
|
7
|
5
|
22
|
System
|
3
|
11
|
4
|
19
|
Dispersion of participant responses suggested that there was disagreement among participants about the location of decision making for the decision items asked about on the survey. In other words, participants perceived differently the location of decision making for 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.
Several reasons could explain why participant responses were dispersed across the scale. Geographic proximity of a college to KCTCS, which is located in Versailles, Kentucky, could determine the extent to which decision making was perceived to occur at the local college, was shared equally between the college and system, or was perceived to occur at the system. The president of a college in close proximity to KCTCS could have perceived decision making is more likely to occur at the college, with some input from the system, or perceived decision making to be shared between the system and colleges. On the other hand, the president of a college in far western or eastern Kentucky could have perceived decision making was more likely to occur at the local college or at the local college, with some input from the system considering KCTCS is located further away.
Moreover, a president’s length of tenure could explain perceived locations of decision making. A president with a longer tenure could have perceived decision making was more likely to occur at the local college because he or she is more familiar with policy and decision making processes, whereas a president with a shorter tenure could
have perceived decision making was more likely to occur at the system because he or she was less familiar with policy and was under more direct observation. Similarly, a president’s previous experience in a community college system can alter the perceived location of decision making. A president without previous leadership experience in a community college system could have perceived the location of decision making to be at the system or primarily at the system, with some input from the colleges given the fact that the colleges are under the governance of KCTCS.
Moreover, participants perceived that decision making occurred at the local college almost as frequently as is occurred primarily at the local college, with some input from the system. Similarly, participants perceived that decision making occurred at the system almost as frequently as it occurs primarily at the system, with some input from the colleges. This was evident at the decision- area and decision-item levels. These frequencies illustrated that either there was no difference in these locations for decision making or that participants did not perceive a significant difference in the location of decision making for the local college and primarily the local college, and for the state system and primarily the state system as the location of decision making.
Overall, participants perceived that administrative decision making, more than academic and personnel decision making, was shared equally between the college and system for the decision items asked about on the survey. Moreover, administrative decision making, more than academic and personnel decision making, was more likely to occur at the system. It should be noted that the survey included more administrative decision items than academic and personnel items.
Measures of central tendency and dispersion. Because participants used a modified Likert scale to identify the location of decision making for each decision item asked about on the survey, values were then assigned to the responses according to the system shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
