Abstract
Faculty involvement in the role of the California community college Instructional Administrator as related to shared governance was the subject of this study. Thirty-nine null hypotheses were identified to compare the perceptions of Academic Senate members, Chief Instructional Officers and Instructional Administrators for each role set and role. The study was based on descriptive research methodology. A questionnaire designed by the researcher addressed specific activities of the Instructional Administrator categorized by Mintzberg's three managerial role sets and ten managerial roles. Responses were collected using a scale of five "zones of authority" identified by the American Association of Higher Education. The total population consisted of all Instructional Administrators, Academic Senate members, and Chief Instructional Officers employed in 107 California community colleges. A sample of all subpopulations employed at fifty randomly selected community colleges was identified. Of the 752 instruments mailed to the 50 colleges in the sample 628 instruments were returned for an 83.5% return rate. The response rate was highest for Chief Instructional Officers at 100%. The response rate for Instructional Administrators was 89.9%, and the response rate for Academic Senate members was 71.4%. On all role sets and on all roles Academic Senate members scored significantly higher than did Chief Instructional Officers and Instructional Administrators indicating greater endorsement of faculty participation. The only difference between Chief Instructional Officers and Instructional Administrators were in the Leader Role and the Disturbance Handler Role. In these roles Chief Instructional Officers endorsed more faculty participation. The conclusions drawn from the findings of this study are: (1) There may be a division between administrators and faculty regarding the degree and structure of faculty involvement in decision making, (2) While faculty indicate a preference for increased participation they also indicate a willingness to limit that participation, (3) Chief Instructional Officers and Instructional Administrators appear to be aligned in their opinions about faculty involvement, and (4) Instructional Administrators may resist increased faculty participation in the administrative domain.