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