McCarty and Reyes sought to identify the most predominant model of gover nance used by academic deans as per ceived by departmental chairpersons. Data used in this study were drawn from 55 formal open-ended interviews with departmental chairpersons at a major research institution. Results of the study indicate that most chairpersons across colleges and schools perceived academic deans engaged mostly in colleagial deci sion making. However, some perceived the academic dean as using the political and bureaucratic modes of college gov ernance. The organized anarchy model was not accepted by chairpersons as a frame of reference used by academic deans.
Baldridge, J.V., Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G.P., & Riley, G.L. (1977). Alternative models of governance in higher education . Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
3.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S.J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: Wiley.
4.
Cohen, M.D., March, J.C., & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model or organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
5.
Coladarci, A. (1980). Some notes on deans as individuals and the role of the dean. In E. Griffiths & D. J. McCarty (Eds.), The dilemma of the deanship (pp. 125-132). Danville, IL: Interstate.
6.
Cyphert, F.R., & Zimpher, N.L. (1976, April). The education deanship: Who is the dean ? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.
7.
Dejnozka, E.L. (1978). The dean of education: A study of selected role norms. Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 81-84.
8.
Dill, W.R. (1980). The deanship: An unstable craft. In D. Griffiths & D. J. McCarty (Eds.), The dilemma of the deanship (pp. 261-284). Danville, IL: Interstate.
9.
Epstein, L.D. (1974). Governing the university. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations . New York: The Free Press.
11.
Fullerton, N.H. (1978). Issues in the role of the dean. Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 23-25.
12.
Goodman, P. (1962). The community of scholars. New York: Random House.
13.
Gould, J.W. (1964). The academic deanship. New York: Columbia University, Institute of Higher Education.
14.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
15.
Hall, R.H. (1977). Organizations: Structure and process (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
16.
Kapel, D.E., & Dejnozka, E.L. (1979). The education deanship: A further analysis. Research in Higher Education, 10, 99-112.
17.
Karpik, L. (Ed.). (1978). Organizations and environment: Theories, issues, and reality. London : Sage.
18.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
McCarty, D.J., & Young, I.P. ( 1981). Stress and the academic dean. In P. G. Altbach & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), Higher education in American society (pp. 269-285). New York: Prometheus.
20.
McGrath, E.J. ( 1965). The evaluation of administrative offices in institutions of higher education in the United States from 1860 to 1933. In E Rudolph (Ed.), The American college and university (p. 435). New York: Vintage.
21.
Miller, R.I. (1974). The academic dean. Intellect, 102, 231-234.
22.
Millett, J. (1962). The academic community. New York: Random House.
23.
Parsons, T. (1956). A sociological approach to the theory of organizations . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 63-85.
24.
Perkins, J. A. (Ed.). (1973). The university as an organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.
Reyes, P. ( 1985). Toward an explanatory and predictive theoretical model of organization for institutions of higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
26.
Rudolph, F. (1965). The American college and university. New York: Vintage.
27.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization . (A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons, Eds. and Trans.). New York : Free Press.
