Research in Higher Education

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 161–173 | Cite as

Faculty orientations toward institutional goals: A broken front with implications for planned change

  • Edwin A. Rugg
  • Timothy Lynn Warren
  • Evelyn L. Carpenter


The formulation of institutional goals in higher education often involves input from various campus constituencies including faculty. The faculty's viewpoint is typically treated as though it were a uniform perception. The research reported here tested the uniform nature of the faculty's goal orientations. Statistical comparisons were conducted on mean ratings of five discipline groups of 207 faculty from a major public university on the scales of the Institutional Goals Inventory. Although discipline groups shared common viewpoints on the importance of academic instruction, intellectual pursuits, and research, major differences among groups were found for goals involving university service, off-campus instruction, accountability, intercollegiate athletics, and humanistic values. Institutional planners desiring a change in one of these latter areas should expect different levels of faculty support and resistance from different discipline groups.


Education Research Goal Orientation Faculty Orientation Academic Instruction Plan Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bayer, A. E.Teaching faculty in academe: 1972–73. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. Hartnett, R. T. & Centra, J. A. Faculty views of the academic environment: Situational vs. institutional perspectives.Sociology of Education 1974,47 159–169.Google Scholar
  3. Ladd, E. C. & Lipset, S. M.The divided academy: Professors and politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Lindeman, L. W. Institutional goals and faculty attitudes toward collective negotiations.Research in Higher Education 1975,3(3), 205–215.Google Scholar
  5. Peterson, R. E. & Uhl, N. P.IGI comparative data and bibliography. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1975.Google Scholar
  6. Peterson, R. E. & Uhl, N. P.Formulating college and university goals: A guide for using the institutional goals inventory. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Skully, M. G. Carnegie panel says enrollment declines will create a “new academic revolution.”The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 28, 1980,1 11.Google Scholar
  8. Spaulding, C. B. & Turner, H. A. Political orientation and field of specialization among college professors.Sociology of Education 1968,41 247–262.Google Scholar
  9. Winer, B. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edwin A. Rugg
    • 1
  • Timothy Lynn Warren
    • 1
  • Evelyn L. Carpenter
    • 1
  1. 1.Bureau of Institutional Research and PlanningUniversity of MississippiUSA

Personalised recommendations