Upload
brenda-d-mckelvie
View
222
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Higher Education 15 (1986) 151-163 151 © Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Netherlands
The University's statement of goals An idea whose time has arrived
BRENDA D. McKELVIE
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Higher Education Group, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V6, Canada
Abstract. The need for universities and colleges to clarify their goals is discussed in light of cur- rent financial constraint. Reasons are provided supporting goal-definition including management techniques borrowed from the business world. Goal formulation strategies and techniques of the Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI) and the Delphi technique are addressed with specific attention paid to the application of the IGI at the University of Ottawa.
During this period of increased competition for limited financial resources in- stitutions of higher education are being called upon to examine their purpose or goals more closely. Demands for organizational accountability placed on in- stitutions by governments and accreditation boards, has clearly increased the need for institutions to clarify their goals. Commenting on the importance of goal identification, Richman and Farmer (1974) claim: "systematic considera- tion of the goals problem seems to be the most important thing that an aca- demic manager or administrator should be doing now." (p. 335).
Complex organizations share the common problem of how to improve the efficiency of their efforts to attain goals. The university is unique among or- ganizations in that they have so many goals, and because their goals are often inconsistent with or in conflict with other goals. The university's decision- making structure further complicates goal identification. Unlike the business world's traditional bureaucratic model of top-down management, the universi- ty's widely-dispersed decision-making powers make the development of objec- tives very difficult.
The identification of goals and the means by which to achieve them, represents a task of crucial importance to the future of colleges and universi- ties. To remain effective a clear sense of purpose is essential for the institu- tions. It is through a clear understanding of the what and why for of an institu- tion that decision-makers are able to contribute toward the development of an effective, well-respected institution. To define the goals of an organization is to clarify the very nature of its essence (Konrad, 1984).
Under conditions of changing needs and financial constraint, institutions of higher education should be striving to ensure they remain effective in the long- term. Survival is not enough, their goals should be to attain excellence. Writing on the assessment of institutional performance and progress, Sizer (1982) has
152
outlined the means by which institutions can try to achieve this ideal: a) by ex- amining systematically the future environment in which it will be operating and by identifying threats and opportunities; b) by understanding and com- municating the implications of this future environment to the institution's con- stituencies; c) by evaluating the institution's current subject area portfolio and critical resources; d) by agreeing through consensus-building techniques the goals and objectives (i.e. mission statements) for the institution and its constit- uent parts, and the measures for monitoring progress towards achieving these goals and objects; and e) by developing a set of alternative long-term strategies and action oriented plans including a strategy for long-term resource mobility; a strategy for medium-term financial mobility, and a short-term planning and control system based on measurable information and performance indicators (possibly backed up by a nationally organized scheme for inter-institutional comparisons) (pp. 64-65) .
With a challenging future facing them more colleges and universities are seriously questioning what their goals are, and what they should be. The study of goals logically marks the beginning of the whole planning process in higher education: "Establishing the mission and goals of the institution is the first step toward the effective use of resources. As a next step, every college [and university] should develop a strategy that will successfully guide the institution toward those goals" (Cope, 1978, p. 71).
Mission, goals, objectives, defined
Involved in the assessment of an institution's goals are its mission, goals and objectives. The statement of mission expresses the institution's educational philosophy; is a standard by which the institution may continually evaluate its policies, programs and performance; and tends to be longer-term than either the goals Or objectives.
Goals are more specific and shorter-term than the mission, and in fact grow out of the institution's mission. They indicate a general sense of institutional direction.
Objectives are much more specific than either the mission or goals. They represent a desired result which is achieved through the accomplishment of specific activities within a set time frame.
Fenske (1980) has indicated there is no general consensus about the terms which are used to refer to goals (function, purpose, mission, objective, role, scope, aspiration) but many in the field view "goals" as an intermediate con- cept in a hierarchy between more general "missions" on the one hand and more specific "objectives" on the other.
153
Why study goals?
Reasons supporting the study of goals 1
There have been many reasons cited in the literature to support the study of goals in institutions of higher education. Those considered relevant to today's institutions are briefly outlined below.
Consistency with institutional philosophy
In any planning approach the first consideration is an examination of the insti- tution's philosophy or mission. It is imperative that all decisions, plans, and acts be consistent with the institutional philosophy.
Establishment of priorities
The second consideration in the planning process is that of objectives - where the institution is now, and where it wants to be in the future. The analysis of objectives will assist an {nstitution in the establishment of priorities, that which is of immediate concern, and that which can be deferred.
Sense of direction
Institutional goals have enormous value in deliberating, determining, and evaluating policy and practice in education. Clearly stated goals help tie to- gether the hopes, values and assumptions for an institution into a coherent policy, providing both a sense of direction and a frame of reference for future decisions. Eurich (1969) claims: "clarifying goals and establishing priorities among them are the first order of business in managing the future" (p. 235).
Relating to external bodies
A policy formulation containing clearly articulated goals can help to explain and relate the institutions raison d'atre to individuals and agencies outside the university. By making the direction o f the university clear to the public, it is less likely they will entertain conflicting goals for the institution. The public should have realistic expectations of the university, based on their understand- ing of the institution's goals statement. The official guidelines for accredita- tion of universities invariably stress studies of goals by those institutions wish- ing to establish or maintain accredited status (Fenske, 1980).
154
Evaluation
Today's universities are facing increasing pressures from external constituen- cies, such as governments and accreditation agencies. These external bodies have a responsibility to ensure the institutions are accountable for their expen- diture of public and private funds.
Institutional evaluation is a necessary step in proving an institution's ac- countability. Evaluation entails gathering information to determine the extent to which an educational program has achieved its objectives. This information can be used to improve programs or to maximize program objectives.
When studying organizations sociologists frequently use the concept "effec- tiveness", which is usually defined as "the degree of goal-achievement" (Peter- son, 1970, p. 5). Price (1968) has claimed that "determination of an organiza- tion's goal(s) is crucial in evaluating effectiveness" (p. 3). Supporting this position Etzioni (1964) states:
Organizations are constructed to be the most effective and efficient social units. The actual effectiveness of a specific organization is determined by the degree to which it realizes its goals. The efficiency of an organization is measured by the amount of resources used to produce a unit of output (p. 8).
Accountability
The distinction between evaluation and accountability-implementation is not entirely clear. Evaluation deals more with process and the modifying of con- tinuing programs, where accountability seems more concerned with results, finances and efficiency. The demand for accountability in higher education in the future will undoubtedly increase as resources become more limited. In or- der that accountability can be successfully implemented universities will be forced to clearly articulate their objectives before instruction begins.
To attract desired clientele
Concerned with the issue of shrinking enrolments, Mayhew (1979) has empha- sized the need for universities to develop a unique, well-defined mission in or- der to attract the clientele they wish to serve. Distinctiveness may be the reason one institution survives, where another fails.
155
Further reasons supporting the study of goals - Planning and management techniques
Strategic planning
Although the term "strategy" had a negative connotation as a result of its de- ceptive role in the military, more recently it has had positive associations such as in strategic policy planning. Strategy involves outlining the institution's goals, their plans for achieving these goals, and the deployment of resources to attain these goals. The results of strategic policy planning include: the deter- mination of the long-range goals of the institution, adoption of courses of ac- tion, and the allocation of the resources necessary to attain these goals.
Knowledge of an institution's mission provides the foundation for strategic planning. Decision-makers are able to focus on basic institutional purposes as the most fundamental criteria therefore allowing them to achieve integration when addressing issues. The concept of strategic planning is further clarified by Peterson (1971): "Policy decisions, the broadest and most encompassing de- cisions, are those concerned with a college's or university's long-term objective, its program goals and strategies for achieving them, and its strategies for ob- taining the necessary resources" (p. 27). Strategic planning has been called "opportunity analysis" (Cope, 1978, p. 9), opportunities must be maximized in the institution's environment through the positioning of its resources. The results of strategic planning set the direction for the particular university.
Management by objectives
Management by objectives (MBO), a term popularized by Peter Drucker, is a logical, systematic approach for decision-making which was developed in the late 1930s (McManis, 1978). The process involves determining where you want to go, what impact or effect you intend when you get there, how to get there, whether you are making progress as planned, and determining what changes are required along the way. Crucial to the practice of MBO is the defining of an institution's mission, goals, and objectives.
Although MBO has been widely and successfully used in business and in- dustry its experience in the education sector has been met with mixed results (McManis, 1978). There are obvious problems facing the university trying to employ a management system. Most management models are based on a hier- archical system whereby a well-defined line of authority can be identified. The decentralization of authority prevalent in academic organizations does not al- low a line of authority to be easily identified. Furthermore, the major activities of the academic departments of the organization (teaching and research), defy quantification. The lack of professionally trained managers, as well as the ina-
156
bility to reach agreement on educational objectives, have further impeded the use of the management model in higher education. Many institutions dwarf the potential of the MBO as a valuable device for developing a planning, management and evaluation system, because they fail to apply the system fully.
For MBO to be successful in the academic world Carpenter (1973) has sug- gested: objectives need to be consistent with the institution's purpose, concise and specific, measurable and verifiable, understandable by those immediately affected, capable of specifying a target date for completion and being able to provide a single result. For these reasons management systems have most often been implemented in the non-academic areas of the university, such as physical facilities, fund raising, student housing, food services, and maintenance.
Outcome-oriented planning
In order to practice an outcome-oriented approach to planning, whereby plan- ners focus more attention on the end results to be achieved than on the process of attaining the results, the objectives of the institution must be defined. This management approach argues that planners should be focussing on the desired, expected, and actual outcomes of programs as they relate to the plan- ning processes (Micek, 1973). The problem with this approach is in reaching a concensus on what the institution's goals and objectives should be. Because of the variety of interests, perspectives, and expectations within the university it is often difficult to reach agreement on goal-definition.
Goal formulation
Determining goals for an institution of higher education is by no means an easy job. However, as a result of both the changing external environment, and the institution's own internal pressures, more colleges and universities are be- ing faced with this challenge. Although most goals studies are undertaken in response to mandates from external agencies or in order to satisfy accredita- tion agencies, some will be conducted in response to specific critical circum- stances affecting the individual institution. Fenske (1980) has emphasized that when conducting any goals study all important constituencies should be aware of the study and have the opportunity to provide input, institution-wide in- volvement is clearly desirable.
Strategies
Three general patterns of goal determination have been identified in the litera-
157
ture: by fiat, by committee, and by survey (Peterson, 1970, p. 8). Although in- stitutional goals can be determined by fiat, this method is unlikely given the democratic governance of today's academic institutions.
A common strategy employed to formulate academic goals is through the establishment of a committee. Writing about the mechanics for defining goals Eurich (1969) suggests an institution-wide committee. This would be chaired by the president, the academic vice-president, or the dean of the faculty, and would include representation of trustees, administrators, faculty, students, an- cillary staff, constituents, alumni, community, and cooperating institutions. The committee would consist of no more than 15 people and their efforts would be directed toward a definite statement of the particular kind of institu- tion they envision 10 to 20 years hence.
Peterson (1970) criticizes this method of goal formulation on two accounts. Firstly he notes there is often insufficient democratic participation since all in- terested parties do not have equal opportunity to have their opinions heard, and secondly there is often insufficient rationality whereby all relevant ideas are not systematically secured and then impartially weighed.
The most widely used approach to goals study in colleges and universities today is the survey. The methods employed to analyze goals data include: a) rank-ordering of the goals in accordance with perceptions or opinions, b) the Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI) to indicate discrepancies between the two perceptions "is" and "should be", c) an attempt to reach convergence of opin- ion (i.e. the Delphi technique). Both the IGI and Delphi have received a great deal of attention from those colleges and universities involved in the process of goal determination. For this reason they will be examined in more detail in the following section.
Techniques
Delphi technique
Many academic institutions have employed questionnaire surveys to assist them in their planning efforts. The model upon which most surveys have been based is a method called the Delphi technique (developed during WWII by a team of scientists at the Rand Corporation under contract with the United States government). Olaf Helmer wrote of the Delphi procedure in the early 1960s, and since 1963 the technique and its use in business and industrial plan- ning has been reported with increasing frequency (Judd, 1978).
More recently the Delphi has been used to discover and delineate goals and objectives in higher education. Judd (1978) makes reference to four doctoral dissertations written between 1973-1975 which address the use of Delphi in
158
the determination of goals and objectives in higher education. The use of Del- phi in goal formulation is referred to as normative, and focuses on establishing what is desirable in the form of goals and priorities. It is a questionnaire meth- od for organizing and shaping opinion through feedback. Respondents are in- formed of the priorities which others assign to goal statements.
Although the Delphi technique now has several variants, the following pro- vides an outline of the basic procedures:
1. Participants are asked to list their opinions on a specific topic, such as recommended activities or predictions for the future.
2. Participants are asked to evaluate the total list against some criterion, such as importance, chance of success etc.
3. Each participant receives the list and a summary of responses to the items, and if in the minority, is asked to revise his or her opinion or indicate the reason for remaining in the minority.
4. Each participant again receives the list, an updated summary of responses, a summary of minority opinions, and a final opportunity to revise his opin- ions (Uhl, 1978, p. 65).
The Delphi method has the potential for providing an institution with: a) a range of ideas about goals; b) priority rankings of the goals; and c) a degree of consensus 2 about goals (Peterson, 1970).
In a 1977 goals study conducted at North Carolina Central University (NCCU) the Delphi process was found to result in goal convergence. As stated by Uhl (1978): "While agreement among groups was not always present on the results gathered from the first questionnaire, for most goal areas there was agreement on the last questionnaire". (p. 68).
The normative Delphi technique has been criticized by Weaver (1972) when used in policy planning. When using Delphi in goal formulation he claims that agreement on a goal (consensus) does not assure there is wisdom in its pursuit and secondly, little attention is given to underlying assumptions, to quote: "In the case of goals, no underlying rationale or motivation are aired to explain why a goal should be accepted as important" (p. 4). He goes on to claim that ranking goals is of little value since the ranks assigned to the goals are probably based on very different rationales. He does not feel it is enough to simply say a goal is important - one must justify such a claim.
The extent and variation of the use of Delphi in higher education over the last 20 years would indicate the technique has been found useful in this setting. In the challenging times ahead further research on the Delphi is likely, as col- leges and universities look to this method to assist them in goal identification.
159
Institutional goals inventory
Studies on institutional goals by Gross and Grambsch (conducted in 1967 and 1971) were influential in the design of the instrument commonly used today in goals studies, the Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI). In these studies the researchers differentiated between output goals and support goals (comparable to outcome and process used in IGI) and devised a way to measure goal inten- tions and goal activities (or stated differently, the values and the reality of the university). The format followed for each goal was: How important "is" each aim at this university? How important "should" the aim be at this university? (Gross, 1974).
The IGI was developed over a number of years by the Institute for Research in Higher Education of the Educational Testing Service. The inventory at- tempts to conceptualize and assess the most important kinds of goals em- braced by the total spectrum of colleges and universities.
The IGI consists of 90 goal statements organized into 20 goal areas, 13 of which are conceived as "outcome goals" (the desired end results of institu- tions) and seven which are conceived of as "process goals" (educational proc- ess, campus life). The 13 outcome areas include: academic development, in- tellectual orientation, individual personal development, humanism/altruism, cultural/aesthetic awareness, traditional awareness, research, meeting local needs, public service, social egalitarianism, and social criticism/activism. The seven process goal areas are: freedom, democratic governance, community, in- tellectual/aesthetic environment, innovation, off-campus learning, and ac- countability/efficiency (Piccinin & Joly, 1978).
An optional feature of the IGI provides up to 20 additional goal statements to be added to the inventory in order to assess goals that may be institution- specific. The final page of the questionnaire requests information on the respondent to use to do cross-analysis of the pattern of goal responses.
On the IGI, respondents are aksed to evaluate each of the 90 (up to 110 potentially) goal statements in two different ways, indicating on a five-point scale each one's importance.
1. How important "is" the goal at this institution at the present time? 2. How important "should" the goal be at this institution?
The IGI has experienced widespread use throughout Canada and the United States in goal-setting studies, and as part of individual institutions goal-setting activities. This instrument has been popular in goal-setting because it: a) preempts an unmet need for a nationally standardized instrument; b) remains unchallenged by any competitor on a significant scale; c) meets the standard qualitative psychometric tests and is readily adopted and understood by users;
160
d) fits into the requirements of accrediting agencies for goal statements (either for initial or reaffirmation of accreditation status); and e) is readily available (Fenske, 1980).
When proposing to conduct empirical goals studies one must keep in mind that beyond the time period in which the data are collected the validity of the study's findings are questionable. A further limitation is evident in the fact that a purely descriptive use of the goal-setting process gives the main constituents only passive input to a decision-making body. "Many such bodies must deal with not only what participants at a certain point see 'is' and 'should be' occur- ring but what can occur in terms of resources, political realities, and other im- portant considerations" (Fenske, 1980, p. 189).
Application o f techniques
Piccinin and Joly conducted a study of the University of Ottawa's goals in 1976, using the IGI. The approach employed by the researchers analyzed the discrepancies in goal importance between the two perceptions "is" versus "should be". This study is illustrative of a goals study in a large multipurpose university, and also one that was conducted in response to internal circum- stances as opposed to the more common reason of responding to external man- dates. In the University of Ottawa's case it was the schism caused by bicultural and separatist movements which precipitated a formal analysis of the institu- tion's mission and goals. There was clearly a need for the decision-makers to reassess what the university "should be". In this particular study the IGI was modified to correspond with terminology familiar to the "Canadian" respon- dents. As well, a French version was made available to accommodate the French speaking respondents.
The researchers' purpose was to compare the perceptions of existng and desired ("is" and "should be") goals of professors, students, and administra- tors. These three groups basically agreed the University "is" not attaching high or extremely high importance to the goals in the IGI, including those goals dealing with the issues of biculturalism and bilingualism. When interpreting the results, Piccinin and Joly noted the respondents did not attach much im- portance to the need for the university constituents to achieve goal consensus, however, they did perceive a need that they should be grouped into a "commu- nity". The researchers queried that what each group or subgroup was in fact saying was: "There is no need to engage in an exercise intended to achieve goal consensus; all that is required is for the others to adopt our list of goals and priorities. Then we could all work together at creating a real community among us"? (Piccinin & Joly, 1978, p. 39).
The Ottawa study used the IG! to obtain an indication of the importance that different groups attached to different goals. However, the approach used
161
by the researchers to analyze the goals data did not utilize the Delphi tech- nique. Given the respondent's negative reactions to the need for goal consensus at the University of Ottawa, it would have been interesting to have seen what effect the use of Delphi might have had on the outcome of the goals study. The Delphi could have been used in conjunction with the IGI in order to ob- tain as much agreement among the groups as possible. The literature indicates it is conceivable that a degree of consensus could have been achieved had the Delphi method been employed in the Ottawa study (Uhl, 1978).
An important aspect of the Ottawa study was that it generated a new methodological technique. The data was analyzed according to the IGI manual and the respondent's discrepancy values were as might be expected, however, the researchers attempted to answer the question "where do we go from here", statistically. It was through this exercise that they devised the Corrective Action Priority Index (CAPI) for each goal. This involved algebraically multiplying the "should be" importance rating for each goal, by its discrepancy from the "is" rating. The suggested interpretation of this index is outlined by Piccinin and Joly (1978): "a goal or goal area will produce a high positive CAPI if it is judged important and neglected and, as such most in need of corrective ac- t ion." (p. 57). A large negative CAPI would indicate current overemphasis, as at the University of Ottawa in intercollegiate athletics and "publish or perish" evaluation of teachers. The CAPI presumably assisted university planners and administrators to take "corrective action" on the grounds that it discriminated between discrepancy scores more accurately. However there was no indication from the researchers that the goals study conducted could tell the University what it should be, or what it must do to get there.
The University of Ottawa study was successful in delineating convergence and discrepancy on goals at a particular time, but was not able to alter percep- tions or attitudes. The results of the study indicated some degree of consensus among the constituent groups as to what the goals of the University ought to be, however there were also significant differences in their views, not only on what the goals ought to be, but on the order of priority for change to be effect- ed in the current goal structure (Piccinin & Joly, 1978).
In this case, the identification of goals was plagued by the problem of trans- lating descriptive information about goals into action. As indicated by the researchers, in order for goals to be useful to the university community, they need to be translated into objectives which can be directly acted upon. From their perspective this type of study represents but one significant step in the process of goal determination.
In light of the results of the Ottawa study, it is interesting to note a recent Canadian goals study conducted by Konrad and McNeal (1983). The purpose of this study was to ascertain (through the use of the IGI) the goals of Canadi- an universities as perceived by their presidents and board chairmen. Their
162
results indicated when all goals were combined, the top-ranked goal was In- stitutional Reputation, followed closely by Community. Presidents and board chairmen appeared most concerned with how universities were perceived in so- ciety. It would seem they believe the public view of universities directly affects governmental policies on the universities. As well, the high emphasis placed upon community or collegiability within the university suggested a strong con- cern for institutional functioning.
Summary
To deal effectively with government demands institutions need more than ever before to have clearly articulated goals. Fleming (1980) has made the following comment regarding governments increasing demands on the universities:
Government policies of economic retrenchment established of late will likely
be extended far into the future. At the provincial level, most governments have begun to curtail the growth rate of expenditures for higher education and will continue to do s o . . . (p. 109).
As resources become more limited, governments are ensuring universities are accountable for their expenditure of public funds (Government will get tough, 1983). The need for a strong community within the organization cannot be
overemphasized when dealing with external demands. I f they hope to gain the support of the public in matters concerning them, the universities and colleges must make their purpose known to the public.
To survive the difficult years ahead the institutions of higher education must reassess the value of clarifying their own institution's goals. What better
defence than to know where you have been, where you are going, and precisely how you intend to get there.
Notes
1. This section draws heavily on R. Peterson's publication, The Crisis o f Purpose: Definition and Uses o f Institutional Goals.
2. It has been indicated by Olaf Helmer and others, that when a person is made aware of how others have responded (including their reasons for nontypical responses) that person will often change their own response in the direction of the norm - leading to a "convergence of opinion."
163
References
Carpenter, W.B. et al. Management by Objectives." An Analysis of Recommendations for Im- plementation. Charlottesville: Center for Higher Education, University of Virginia, 1973.
Cope, R.G. (1978). Strategic Policy Planning: A Guide for College and University Administra- tors. Littleton, Colorado: The Ireland Educational Corporation.
Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. Eurich, A.C. (1969). Managing the future: Some practical suggestions. In The Future Academic
Community, edited by J. Caffrey. Washington: American Council on Education. Fenske, R.H. (1980). Setting institutional goals and objectives. In P. Jedamus and M. Peterson,
Improving Academic Management. A Handbook of Planning and Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fleming, T. (1980). Beyond survival: Policies for academic revitalization in an uncertain environ- ment. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 10(2), 103 - 115.
Government will get tough with financially-troubled universities. (1983). Forum (The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations), 4(2), p. 1.
Gross, E., & Grambsch, P.V. (1974). Changes in University Organization. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Judd, R.C. (1978). Delphi in higher education revisited. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 2(1), 31-45.
Konrad, A.G., & McNeal, J. (1984). Goals in Canadian universities. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 14(1), 31- 40.
Mayhew, L.B. (1979). Surviving the Eighties. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McManis, G.L., & Harvey, J.L. (1978). Planning, Management, and Evaluation Systems in
Higher Education, U.S.A.: McManis Associates Inc. Micek, S., & Arney, W. (1973). Outcome-OrientedPlanning in Higher Education: An Approach
or an Impossibility? National Center for Higher Education Management Systems at Western In- terstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder.
Peterson, M.W. (1971). Institutional research and policy formulation: A contingency model. In C. Stewart (Ed.), Institutional Research and Institutional Policy Formulation. Association for In- stitutional Research.
Peterson, R. (1970). The Crisis of Purpose." Definition and Uses of Institutional Goals. Report Number 5. Prepared for the ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Piccinin, S., & Joly, J. (1978). The Goals of the University of Ottawa: What they are and what they shouM be, Perceptions of professors, students and administrators. 2 vols. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
Price, J.L. (1968). Organizational Effectiveness: An Inventory of Propositions. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
Richman, B.M., & Farmer, R.N. (1974). Leadership, Goals, and Power in Higher Education: A Contingency and Open Systems Approach to Effective Management. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Sizer, J. (1982). Assessing institutional performance and progress. In L. Wagner (Ed.), Agenda for Institutional Change in Higher Education. Surrey, England: Society for Research into Higher Education.
Uhl, N.P. (1978). A case study of goals-oriented research. In R.H. Fenske (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research: Using Goals in Research and Planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weaver, T. (1972). Delphi, A Critical Review. EPRC Research Report RR-7. Educational Policy Research Center, Syracuse University Research Corporation, Syracuse, New York.