JTE v2n1 - Department Executive Officers' Administrative Roles and Responsibilities In Industry/Technology Education
Volume 2, Number 1
Fall 1990
Department Executive Officers' Administrative Roles
and Responsibilities In Industry/Technology Education
William Paige and William Wolansky
There is extensive literature devoted to
the roles, responsibilities, tasks, and
changing expectations of departmental execu-
tive officers (DEOs) at the college or uni-
versity level. Several conditions have
changed regarding the roles and responsibil-
ities of these department chairpersons or
heads in the last two decades.
The role is becoming more complex be-
cause of rapid social and economic changes.
The role is also becoming more diverse as de-
partments get larger and interrelationships
with other academic departments are encour-
aged. These increased pressures on the DEO,
may be the reason there also is evidence of a
higher turnover rate. With increased respon-
sibilities, there is a need for better admin-
istrative preparation to meet the demands of
current conditions. Strategic planning, as-
sessment, staff development, resource allo-
cations, and cost benefit analysis
forecasting call for more formal preparation.
The most critical concern is that there is
insufficient knowledge regarding the DEOs re-
sponsibilities now and in the future to ef-
fectively prepare people for this position.
Coffin (1979) reported that department
executive officers, whether designated as
heads or chairs of departments, constitute
the largest proportion of administrators in
universities. The immediate responsibilities
of the department executive officer are most
critical to the welfare and efficient func-
tioning of an academic department. Research
by Wolansky (1978) made particular note of
the fact that: "For the most part, the de-
partmental exective officer is appointed
principally by virtue of his/her academic
achievement and intellectual standing rather
than proven managerial ability" (p. 55).
There is a need to re-examine the crite-
ria for screening and selecting DEOs who
would best serve the contemporary administra-
tive needs of a department. For example, se-
veral other criteria for screening and
selecting DEOs that may be as important as
academic achievement are: program develop-
ment, public relations, administrative style,
communication skills, leadership, and profes-
sional involvement. However, lacking empir-
ical evidence delineating the critical roles
and tasks of a DEO, it is equally difficult
to prescribe reliable and valid criteria for
the selection process. This study attempted
to discover what responsibilities the current
Industry/Technology Education DEOs perceived
as critical to their functioning in such po-
sitions. The DEO's represented departments
identified through the Industrial Teacher Ed-
ucation Directory which is inclusive of a di-
versity of industry/technology education
programs.
John Bennett (1982) reported that "Serv-
ing as a department chairperson has become
both more important and more difficult in re-
cent years. Many of the factors that have
given the position greater significance have
also aggravated its burdens" (p. 53). Lee
and VanHorn (1983) observed that the increas-
ing sophistication and costs of academic pro-
grams coupled with inflation and decreasing
government financial support, have led to a
much stronger demand for greater attention to
operational efficiency.
Turner (1983) and McLaughlin, Montgomery
and Malpass (1975) have provided evidence
that few department executive officers had
any administrative experience before assuming
their leadership role at the department
level. When considering the nature of the
role of the DEO and the ever increasing mag-
nitude and complexity of responsibilities as-
sociated with this position, it is
unfortunate that little effort is made to
prepare people for the task. McKeachie
(1972) observed that "even though the depart-
ment chairmen are the key individuals in de-
termining the educational success of the
colleges and universities, they have remained
generally ill-equipped, inadequately sup-
ported, and more to be pitied than censured"
(p. 48). It is quite evident that DEOs are
increasingly being faced with an enlargement
of responsibilities and dwindling of re-
sources which lead to increased job related
pressures. Also, the increasing diversity of
constituencies served by academic departments
forces the DEO to be knowledgeable and func-
tional in a variety of arenas. These
constituencies include students and alumni,
colleagues, legislators, taxpayers, and em-
ployers. The DEO must accommodate the expec-
tations of each which calls for
administrative and political astuteness. The
ability to reach acceptable compromises on
critical issues is paramount. Frequently,
faculty and students are not aware of the
pressures and expectations placed on their
DEO. The position of a DEO is in a constant
flux, at times requiring immediate attention
to the most pressing problems. Such unex-
pected demands contribute to frustration and
high turnover rate.
There is ample evidence of a high turn-
over rate among department executive offi-
cers. Heimler (1967), Falk (1979), and
Jennerich (1981) suggested that the high
turnover rate was, in part, due to the value-
conflicts, frustrations and ambiguities of
the role. Roach (1976) indicated that
"...80% of administrative decisions are made
at the department level" (p. 15). He also
observed that even as the DEO "...shifts from
a purely subject-matter specialist to a plan-
ner and developer of department programs, he
still remains an instructional catalyst, re-
source allocator, arbitrator/human relations
expert, and a partner in shaping the institu-
tional goals and mission" (p. 15). Finding
out what the critical roles and tasks of de-
partment executive officers are at a given
time, may be helpful in the process of
screening and selecting DEOs. However, re-
search relating to possible future changes in
administrative responsibilities of department
executive officers as compared to the present
is almost nonexistent. Unless administrative
responsibilities of a DEO are identified,
prioritized, and validated, it is unlikely
that appropriate preparation will be pro-
vided. This study was conducted with the in-
tent of creating an initial data base of the
administrative responsibilities of DEOs in
industry/technology education. This seems
essential to enable researchers to monitor
the continual evolution of the DEO's role.
PURPOSE
The specific purpose of this study actu-
ally was threefold: First, to develop a pro-
file of department executive officers of
industry/technology education according to
their job title as head or chair, type of de-
partment, years of administrative experience
and extent of formal administrative prepara-
tion; second, to determine DEO's perceived
importance of various administrative respon-
sibilities; third, to investigate whether or
not there were any significant changes taking
place in the duties of department executive
officers in industry/technology education.
There was also an interest in examining the
perceptions of relatively new DEOs as com-
pared to those with more extensive experi-
ences.
METHODS
The methods employed in conducting and
reporting this research included: (a) the de-
velopment of an instrument, (b) the identifi-
cation of a study sample, and (c) a sequence
of procedures for analyzing the data.
INSTRUMENTATION
The instrument used in this study was
developed based on the instrumentation and
the results of previous studies conducted by
Wolansky (1978), Price (1977), Roach (1976),
and Smart (1976). These studies concluded
that a department executive officer's major
administrative responsibilities included:
department governance, curriculum develop-
ment, faculty development, student affairs,
budgeting and control, quality of work life
such as faculty welfare and work environment,
public relations, facilities management and
fund raising. These nine categories seemed
most inclusive in viewing the DEOs role as an
administrator in its broadest context.
Embodied within the nine categories are
various skills or administrative duties such
as working with committees, coping with de-
partmental and campus politics, and building
alliances. Twenty-nine tasks were identified
as representative of a wide range of adminis-
trative duties and were compiled from those
administrative duties identified in the lit-
erature. A listing of these 29 tasks is pro-
vided later in the text. It must be
recognized that the above nine categories of
administrative responsibilities and the list
of 29 tasks may still not be all inclusive.
For purposes of this study, no attempt was
made to identify any of the 29 tasks as being
specifically related to any one of the nine
categories.
The questions that were selected from
previous studies and the additional items in
the form of questions based on the 29 tasks
were combined and formatted into the final
instrument. This instrument then was vali-
dated for inclusiveness of content by a jury
of eight senior DEOs from major universities.
Jury members were selected on the basis of
their extensive experience as DEOs and their
reputation as national leaders in the field.
POPULATION AND SAMPLE
The population consisted of all chairs
and heads of departments that offer degrees
in industry/technology teacher education
listed in the 1985-86 Industrial Teacher Edu-
cation Directory (Dennis, 1985). The sample
included a total of 104 DEOs from the east-
ern, mid-western, and western regions of the
country. These regions were established by
first designating the Mississippi Valley In-
dustrial Teacher Education Conference member-
ship boundaries as the mid-western region.
The other two regions were composed of those
states lying east or west of the Midwest re-
gion. There were a total of 35 DEOs in the
east and west, and 34 in the Midwest. This
stratification was done because the research-
ers were interested in discovering if any re-
gional differences actually existed.
Sixty of the original 104 surveys were
returned. Fifty-eight of these were found to
be usable. No follow-up of nonrespondents
was attempted due to the time of the academic
year when the survey was distributed which
was during the latter part of the Spring se-
mester. The late mailing may have contrib-
uted to the relatively low response. Since
this study was concerned primarily with DEOs
having responsibility for teacher education
programs, it was considered that the group
would be reasonably homogeneous and therefore
a small sample would be acceptable for pro-
viding necessary data for analysis. It is
recognized however, that the results may have
been biased by the number of nonrespondents.
Therefore, caution should be exercised in in-
terpreting the results.
PROCEDURES
Instrumentation was developed as re-
ported, the sample was drawn as described,
and the instruments were mailed late in the
Spring semester of 1986. The DEOs were asked
to provide demographic data and to rank the
nine categories of administrative responsi-
bilities as to their relative importance.
They also were asked to report the time they
devoted to the nine categories and to the 29
tasks contained within and to indicate their
perceptions of whether this time on task was
changing. Collection, coding and analysis of
data followed after the decision was made
that an adequate return of the sample from
each region was available. The statistical
analyses included percentage distribution,
rank order, ANOVA, Pearson Product Moment
Correlation and The Scheffe Multiple Range
procedure.
RESULTS
In an attempt to develop a profile of
DEOs in industry/technology education, the
respondents were asked to provide demographic
information. Results are reported in Table
1.
TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF SAMPLE
---------------------------------------------
Characteristics N Percentage
---------------------------------------------
Total Years of Professional Experience
1 to 5 years 17 29.3
6 to 10 years 15 25.9
11 to 15 years 11 18.9
16 and over 15 25.9
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL 58 100.0
---------------------------------------------
Previous College Administrative Experience
Yes 26 44.8
No 32 55.2
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL 58 100.0
---------------------------------------------
Years of Previous College Administrative Ex-
perience
None 32 55.2
1 to 4 years 15 25.9
5 to 9 years 5 8.6
10 or more 4 6.9
No response to question 2 3.4
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL 58 100.0
---------------------------------------------
Number of Semester Credit Hours of Adminis-
trative Courses
0 semester credit hours 2 3.5
1-3 semester credit hours 4 7.0
4-7 semester credit hours 7 12.0
8-11 semester credit
hours 15 25.9
12 or more semester
credit hours 30 51.6
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL 58 100
---------------------------------------------
Age
0 - 29 0 0.0
30 - 34 9 15.5
35 - 39 8 13.8
40 - 44 17 29.3
45 - 49 18 31.0
50 - above 6 10.4
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL 58 100.0
---------------------------------------------
The majority (53.4%) of DEOs had the of-
ficial title of chair. When asked if they had
any previous administrative experience at the
college level, 32, or 55.2% indicated that
they did not. Of the 26 respondents who had
previous administrative experience, 24 re-
sponded to the question regarding the number
of years of the previous experience. The ma-
jority with previous administrative experi-
ence (62.5%) reported having from one to four
years experience. However, 13 of the 32 with
no previous college administrative experience
reported having had administrative experience
at the secondary school level. Over half
(51.6%) of the respondents reported having
taken 12 or more semester credit hours of ad-
ministrative courses. Nearly 60% of the re-
spondents were between the ages of 40 and 49,
while no one was under the age of 29.
The relative importance of the nine cat-
egories of administrative responsibilities
was determined by having the respondents rank
order the nine categories. The results are
presented in Table 2. Since the mean is more
widely used and better understood than other
ways of designating central tendency, the au-
thors decided to present the data in this
manner rather than the median.
TABLE 2
MEAN RANKINGS OF THE RESPONSIBILITY CATEGO-
RIES
----------------------------------------------------
Responsibility Category N M-rank SD
----------------------------------------------------
General Department Governace 58 2.62 2.09
Curriculum Development 58 3.20 2.01
Budgeting & Control 58 3.62 2.08
Faculty Development 58 4.06 1.89
Student Matters 58 4.44 2.59
Quality of Work Life 58 5.31 2.50
Public Relations Management 58 5.43 2.66
Facilties Management 58 5.44 2.27
Fund-raising Activities 58 7.17 2.64
----------------------------------------------------
Within the nine identified administra-
tive roles and responsibilities, the top five
were (a) general departmental governance, (b)
curriculum development, (c) budgeting and
control, (d) faculty development, and (e)
student matters.
After ranking the nine categories of ad-
ministrative responsibilities as to their
relative importance, the respondents were
asked to indicate the amount of time they de-
voted to each category. The resulting mean-
time distribution is summarized in Table 3.
The decision was made to express the average
time that a DEO devoted per week to a partic-
ular category recognizing that the time DEOs
would devote to a particular category is de-
pendent on many factors. For example, in the
early and latter parts of a semester a DEO
may spend considerable time with student af-
fairs while spending almost no time in this
category during the middle of a semester.
Several respondents elected not to complete
parts or all of this section of the question-
naire, therefore, the N for these data ranged
from 42 to 46.
TABLE 3
MEAN WEEKLY TIME (HOURS) PER RESPONSIBILITY
CATEGORY
----------------------------------------------------
Responsibility Category N M (hours) SD
----------------------------------------------------
General Department Governace 44 9.37 4.86
Student Matters 43 7.47 3.84
Public Relations 43 7.30 4.73
Quality of Work/Life 44 6.72 4.19
Faculty Development 46 5.99 4.09
Budgeting 45 4.96 3.51
Curriculum Development 45 4.77 3.16
Facilities Management 42 3.79 3.06
Fund-raising 43 2.85 2.76
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 53.22
-----------------------------------------------------
The DEOs reported spending an average of
53.22 hours per week attending to their ad-
ministrative roles and responsibilities.
This finding is corroborated by Coffin (1979)
and Sharpe (1955). This demanding schedule
implies extended hours per day, extended
hours per week, or both. DEOs spent most of
their time attending to five categories: (a)
general department governance, (b) student
matters, (c) public relations, (d) quality of
work life, and (e) faculty development. As
indicated in Table 3, a DEO devotes approxi-
mately 37 hours or 69% of a 53.22 hour work
week to the top five categories of adminis-
trative responsibilities. These reported
hours do not include the time devoted to the
other nonadministrative functions such as
teaching, research or service. One limita-
tion of this study was that the researchers
did not address the nonadministrative func-
tions of DEO's.
While the DEOs are currently devoting a
considerable amount of time to the above cat-
egories, they also were asked to provide
their perceptions regarding spending more
time, the same amount of time, or less time
on these tasks in the future. The respond-
ents reported (Table 4) that they expect to
spend an increased amount of time on the fol-
lowing: departmental governance, curriculum
development, budget and control, faculty de-
velopment, and student matters. It is inter-
esting to note that departmental governance
is recognized as the most important category
and governance tasks such as preparing de-
partment budgets, assigning teaching loads,
and planning and conducting departmental
meetings are also perceived as consuming a
growing percentage of their time. This in-
crease in time devoted to departmental
governance may result from the fact that 68%
of the responding DEOs administer multipro-
gram departments that provide preparation for
teacher education, industry, vocational edu-
cation, safety, etc.
TABLE 4
PERCEIVED CHANGES IN TIME SPENT ON ADMINIS-
TRATIVE TASKS IN THE FUTURE
---------------------------------------------------------------
More Same Less
Time Time Time
Task * Description N (%) (%) (%)
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. Interpreting the philosophy 55 36.4 45.4 18.2
and goals of Ind. Ed. & Tech.
2. Explaining university and 56 45.5 49.0 3.5
departmental policies to
faculty and students
3. Stimulating and rewarding 54 37.0 51.9 11.1
innovative ideas/efforts
4. Preparing departmental budgets 58 62.2 29.2 8.6
and monitoring expenditures
5. Preparing specifications for 53 32.0 34.0 34.0
new equipment and facilities
6. Planning, delegating & directing 55 41.8 47.3 10.9
program activities
7. Seeking graduate assistantship 56 48.2 41.1 10.7
through grants, projects/gifts
8. Monitoring advances in tech- 55 54.5 34.5 10.9
nology that positively impact
curriculum innovations
9. Planning periodic review of 54 44.4 46.3 9.3
curriculum offerings/programs
10. Assisting faculty members in 54 22.2 64.8 13.0
solving problems relating to
teaching/nonteaching tasks
11. Redesigning and retooling 53 41.5 41.5 17.0
instructional equipment and
physical facilities
12. Screening and admission of 53 26.4 56.6 17.0
students with sound educa-
tional background
13. Keeping records on equipment 53 26.4 52.8 20.8
and instructional supplies
14. Soliciting donations of 49 36.7 49.0 14.3
teaching materials
15. Pursuing issues relating 53 35.8 52.8 11.4
tenure/promotion and
reappointment
16. Maintaining faculty and 52 61.5 34.6 3.8
students' morale
17. Assisting faculty to 53 45.3 45.3 9.4
embark on self-renewal
programs
18. Assigning teaching and 50 62.0 56.0 18.0
research loads to staff
19. Supervising classroom 52 15.7 46.2 38.5
teaching & projects
20. Monitoring the performance 54 24.1 51.8 24.1
of duties in which the
teachers worked out their
own schedules
21. Seeking affiliation of dept. 53 37.7 39.6 22.7
to reputable associations
22. Organizing periodic exhibition 48 14.6 41.7 43.7
of laboratory products
23. Initiating teacher production 49 18.4 51.1 30.5
of teaching aids
24. Supporting/assisting students' 44 6.8 50.0 43.2
fund-raising efforts
25. Striving for state, national/ 53 43.4 35.8 20.8
international recognition of
departmental programs
26. Planning & teaching own class; 57 l38.6 38.6 22.8
research and publications
27. Enlisting the cooperation of 49 46.9 38.8 14.3
business/industrial leaders
28. Seeking trial demonstration of 47 29.8 48.9 21.3
modern teaching equipment and
latest instructional models
29. Planning/conducting 57 71.9 24.6 3.5
departmental meetings; attending
university administrative
meetings
---------------------------------------------
The third purpose of this study was to
investigate whether or not the DEOs perceived
changes in administrative roles and responsi-
bilities and if differences existed between
regions. The independent variables for this
part of the study included (a) type of de-
partment [single or multiple program], (b)
years of administrative experience, and (c)
number of semester credit hours of adminis-
trative courses.
While examining whether differences ex-
isted between DEOs with varying years of ad-
ministrative experience and the weekly time
devoted to the nine administrative categories
of responsibilities, no significant differ-
ence was found at the .05 alpha probability
level. Similarly, no significant regional
differences were found for any of the three
independent variables. When examining the
data for category 3, "Public Relations," in
isolation, there was a significant difference
between groups based on years of professional
experience. Results are shown in Tables 5
and 6.
TABLE 5
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR TIME ON
PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGEMENT BY YEARS OF PRO-
FESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
---------------------------------------------
Experience N M SD
hours/week
---------------------------------------------
1 to 5 years 13 7.85 4.62
6 to 10 years 10 5.37 3.53
11 to 15 years 8 11.44 5.34
16 or more years 12 5.58 3.80
---------------------------------------------
TABLE 6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TIME/WEEK ON PUBLIC
RELATIONS MANAGEMENT BY YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCE
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mean
Source df Squares F F-prob
-----------------------------------------------------------
Between/Within groups 3 71.1464 3.8197* 0.017
Within groups 39 18.6264
------------------------------------------------------------
*p Heimler
(1967) and Jennerich (1981) and also may be
attributed to the fact that the majority of
the DEOs are appointed as chairs for a term
of five or fewer years, making it more likely
that some would not wish to serve a second
term.
Among the most encouraging findings was
that 51.6% of the respondents reported having
taken 12 or more semester credits of adminis-
trative courses. This study did not attempt
to identify the specific administrative
courses that currently are being provided,
however, the results of this study suggest a
need exists for more administrative
coursework directed toward departmental
governance, budget and control, and faculty
development. Such additional preparation may
take on a variety of forms. The needs of the
administration in a particular region may
best serve as the immediate basis for addi-
tional study.
There was a discrepancy regarding the
relative importance of some of the nine cate-
gories of administrative responsibilities
listed in Table 2, and the amount of time de-
voted to these responsibilities listed in Ta-
ble 3. While a particular category may be
ranked as important in terms of a DEO's re-
sponsibility, the time devoted to that spe-
cific category may or may not be consistent.
For example, the DEOs ranked curriculum de-
velopment second in importance, but devoted
only 4.77 hours/week to this category which
ranked seventh in terms of time devoted to
this role. There was agreement, however, on
the importance and the time devoted to the
category of governance. This finding is in
keeping with Lee and VanHorn (1983) who ob-
served that the increasing sophistication and
costs of academic programs, coupled with in-
flation and decreasing government financial
support, have led to a much stronger demand
for greater attention to operational effi-
ciency.
After reviewing the related literature
and examining the results of this survey, the
authors are convinced that limited insights
and a lack of consensus about the administra-
tive roles and responsibilities of DEOs of
industry/technology education still exists.
This view is shared by Edmunds (1987). He
suggested that "More indepth studies need to
be undertaken to determine the types of
changes that have and are taking place. Ad-
ditional research efforts might include iden-
tifying (a) the characteristics of successful
leaders, (b) the external and internal influ-
ences upon the role of the administrator, (c)
the current channels used to become a depart-
mental leader, (d) the relationship between
job satisfaction and future leadership devel-
opment, and (e) the differences, if any, be-
tween leadership training for industrial
teacher education administrators and that of
other educational area leaders. DEOs repre-
sent both sets of interests--teaching and ad-
ministration." While the authors agree with
Edmunds' views, it is most important to real-
ize that if the DEO is to lead and influence
others, the motivation must come from the
commitment to the discipline itself.
----------------
William Paige is Associate Professor, Indus-
trial Education & Technology, Iowa State Uni-
versity, Ames, Iowa. William Wolansky is
Professor, Industrial Education & Technology,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
REFERENCES
Bennett, J. B. (1982). Ambiguity and abrupt
transitions in the department chair-
person's role. EDUCATIONAL RECORD, 63,
Fall, 53-56.
Coffin, A. (1979). The role of the chair-
man, the state of the discipline:
1970s-1980s. A Special Issue of the ADE
Bulletin, (62), September/November, Asso-
ciation of Departments of English, 81-88.
Dennis, E. A. (1984-85). (Compiler). In-
dustrial Teacher Education Directory. In-
stitutions, degree, date, and personnel
(23rd ed.) American Council on Industrial
Arts Teacher Education and National Asso-
ciation of Industrial and Technical
Teacher Educators, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Uni-
versity of Northern Iowa Press.
Edmunds, N. A. (1987). Response to
Marshall, J. and Householder, D. L., JOUR-
NAL OF INDUSTRIAL TEACHER EDUCATION,
24(4), 74-75.
Falk, G. (1979). The academic department
chairmanship and role conflict. IMPROVING
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY TEACHING, 27(2),
79-86.
Heimler, C. H. (1967). The college depart-
ment chairman. EDUCATIONAL RECORD, 48,
158-160.
Jennerich, E. J. (1981). Competencies for
department chairpersons: Myths and real-
ity. LIBERAL EDUCATION, 67, 46-69.
Lee, S. M., & VanHorn, J. C. (1983). ACA-
DEMIC ADMINISTRATION PLANNING, BUDGETING,
AND DECISION MAKING WITH MULTIPLE OBJEC-
TIVES. University of Nebraska Press.
McKeachie, W. J. (1972). Memo to new de-
partment chairman. In J. Brann and T.
Emmet (eds). THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT OR
DIVISION CHAIRMAN: A COMPLEX ROLE.
Detroit: Belamp Publishers, 43-53.
McLaughlin, G. W., Montgomery, J. R., &
Malpass, L. F. (1975). Selected charac-
teristics, roles, goals, and satisfactions
of department chairmen in state and land
grant institutions. RESEARCH IN HIGHER
EDUCATION, 3, 243-259.
Price, J. (1977). The industrial arts de-
partment chairperson: Tomorrow.
MAN/SOCIETY/TECHNOLOGY, 35(2), 208-211.
Roach, J. H. L. (1976). The academic de-
partment chairperson: Function and respon-
sibilities. THE EDUCATIONAL RECORD, 57,
Winter, 13-23.
Sharpe, R. T. (1955). DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
PERCEIVED ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR AND ROLE
NORMS AS FACTORS IN LEADERSHIP AND GROUP
MORALE. (Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford
University), 151.
Smart, J. C. (1976). Duties performed by de-
partment chairmen. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY, 68, 194-198.
SPSSX. (1983). USER'S GUIDE, SPSS INC. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Turner, H. E. (1983). The department head,
an untapped source of institutional lead-
ership. BULLETIN, 67(464), 25-28.
Wolansky, W. D. (1978). The roles of de-
partmental chairpersons. JOURNAL OF
EPSILON PI TAU, 4(1), 52-57.
Permission is given to copy any
article or graphic provided credit is given and
the copies are not intended for sale.
Journal of Technology Education Volume 2, Number 1 Fall 1990