Higher education system governance: an exploratory study of presidential decision making in the kentucky community and technical college system

Range of Possible Values for Location of Decision Making

Scale	Value
The local college	-1
Primarily the college, with some input from the state community college system	-0.5
Shared equally between the college and the state system	0
Primarily the state system, with some input from the colleges	+0.5
The state system	+1

The range of possible values for the decision items was -1 to +1. A value of -1 would indicate that decision making was perceived to occur at the local college, whereas a value of +6 would indicate that decision making was perceived to occur at the state system. A zero value would indicate that decision making was perceived to be shared equally between the local college and state system.
The researcher calculated the mean for the overall perceived location of decision making as a measure of central tendency. The mean was used to assess the degree to which participants perceived decisions occur at the local college; primarily at the college, with some input from the state system; shared equally between the college and the state
system; primarily the state system, with some input from the college; or, the state system. The total mean value for the dataset is -0.36. This value suggests that across the decision areas asked about on the survey, participants on average believed the location of decision making to lean more in the direction of the local college, but with some input from the state system. However, this finding is an average across all decision areas participants were asked about. The researcher noted differences in participant responses at the decision area-level and at the item-level.
The researcher then calculated the means for each of the decision areas asked about on the survey. Table 4.6 summarizes the mean values by decision area.
Table 4.6


Summary of Mean Values by Decision Area

Decision Area	Mean
Academic	-0.32
Administrative	-0.33
Personnel	-0.44

The researcher calculated the means for each of the decision areas asked about on the survey to determine if there was a difference in the perceived location of decision making for the three decision areas. A mean value of -1 indicated participants perceived decision making occurs at the local college and a mean value of +1 indicated that participants perceived decision making occurs at the system. The mean value calculated for each decision area suggested that participants perceived that academic and administrative decision making does not lean toward either the local college or the state
system. Regardless, the mean values for academic and administrative decision making 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 based on analysis of frequencies at the decision-item level. On the other hand, the mean value calculated for personnel decision making indicated that participants perceived personnel decision making leaned toward the local college, with some input from the system.
Participants could have perceived personnel decision making more than academic and administrative decision making leaned toward the local college, with some input from the system because personnel decisions necessitated more flexibility and hence, more local discretion since employees are affiliated with a particular college.
Based on the frequency of participant responses indicating differences in the perceived location of decision making noted at the decision item-level, the mean values for the decision areas are not significant and are an average of the decision items asked about for each of the areas on the survey. The mean values reflected differences in the perceived location of decision making as previously noted. Furthermore, a comparison of the means suggested there is minimal difference in the perceived location of decision making for academic, administrative, and personnel decision making. Personnel decision making, more than academic and administrative decision making, was perceived to occur at the local college, with some input from the system.
Finally, the researcher calculated the range as a measure of dispersion given the small dataset and evident dispersion in participant responses noted in frequency analyses. The range for the dataset was calculated at 1.92, with 0.92 being the highest mean value calculated for a decision item and -1 being the lowest value mean value calculated for a
decision item. The value of the range reinforced previous analyses that suggested participant responses were dispersed across the scale. Altogether, these results warranted additional exploration conducted in phase two of this study to understand how presidents share academic, administrative, and personnel decision making.