THE SCIENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY: AN ASSESSMENT OF ITS IMPORTANCE TO HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS; THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

The purpose of this study is threefold: to assess the amount and nature of administrative training that has been provided to American higher education administrators; to assess their view on the importance of various administrative practices; and to assess their willingness to participate in training.

In order to explore the dimensions of contemporary higher education administration, twenty-seven personal interviews with higher education administrators, and a review of the literature was made. As a result, a pilot study was conducted to identify a list of administrative and management practices that were subsequently used in a survey of incumbent university administrators.

A survey of the six southern campuses of the California State University system was conducted. The questionnaire requested a ranking of priorities of importance of seventy categories of administrative concepts and practices. The administrators were also asked to rate their willingness to participate in training in these seventy subjects, were such training provided at a time, place and method convenient to them.

Of the three hundred thirty-eight individuals surveyed, one hundred and fifty-three administrators responded, a forty-five percent response. The population was compared by sex, ethnic background, level of administration and administrative experience.

Survey data revealed: that considerable disparity exists as to what skills were considered important to a higher education administrator; that the respondents, although rating some administrative categories as important, chose to rate the same categories low in their willingness to be trained. Exceptions were women and ethnic minority administrators who indicated a greater willingness to be trained. The category "Balancing priorities of fiscal limitations with sound academic practices" was judged the most important by all groups. They also rated it as the subject in which they would most likely be willing to be trained.

Other findings include: higher education institutions have, at best, poorly defined job descriptions for administrative positions; that contemporary higher education administrators are resistant to training; that many higher education administrators distrust individuals they perceive as being formally trained in management; that many higher education administrators see their own experiential learning and socialization as adequate training for their present positions.