abbott_prestige and goals in american universities

7/29/2019 ABBOTT_Prestige and Goals in American Universities

1/8

Prestige and Goals in American UniversitiesAuthor(s): Walter F. AbbottSource: Social Forces, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Mar., 1974), pp. 401-407Published by: University of North Carolina PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2576896

Accessed: 16/09/2009 19:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2576896?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2576896?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/8

Prestige & Goals / 401

7. Are you in favor of the death penalty for per-sons convicted of murder? (Survey 522, 1953;Survey 774, 1969)28. Do you believe in life after death? (Survey580,1957; Survey 764, 1968)9. Do you believe in the devil? (Survey 580, 1957;Survey 764, 1968)10. Should the churcheskeep out of political mat-ters-or should they express their views on day-to-day social and political questions? (Survey 580,1957; Survey 758, 1968)11. Do you think that persons18, 19, and 20 yearsof age should be allowed to vote, or not? (Survey520, 1963; Survey 792, 1969)312. Which of these three policies would you liketo have PresidentNixon follow?4 A. Go more to

2 Responses to this question were dichotomizedinto "0-3" and "4 or more."3For the Protestant-Catholic comparison, the1950s question is from Survey 523.4 In 1954, the wording of the question was"Which of these policies would you like to haveour government follow?"

the RIGHT, by following more of the views ofbusiness and conservative groups? B. Go moreto the LEFT, by following more of the views oflabor and other liberal groups? C. Follow apolicy half-way between the two? (Survey 541,1954; Survey 774, 1969)13. Do you think the laws regulatinglabor unionsare too strict or not strict enough? (Survey 521,1953; Survey 723, 1966)14. In general, do you approve or disapproveoflabor unions? (Survey 521, 1953; Survey 751,1967)15. Would it be better for the United States tokeep independentin world affairs-or would it bebetter for the United States to work closely withothers? (Survey 519, 1953; Survey 774, 1969)16. Do you think Communist China should orshould not be admitted as a member of the UnitedNations? (Survey 533, 1954; Survey 774, 1969)5

5 For the Protestant-Catholic comparison, the1950s questionis from Survey 578.

Prestige and Goals in American Universities*WALTER F. ABBOTT, Universityof Kentucky

ABSTRACTOrganizationalgoals that are pursuedfor the purpose of accommodatingan organizationto a social en-vironment are termed adaptivegoals. The purposeof this article is to test the thesis that university pres-tige may lead to the pursuitof adaptive goals. Prestigeand goal data on universities n the United Statesfrom a larger study by Gross and Grambsch were utilized to study this hypothesis as it relates to theuniversityas an organizational type. Size, income, ownershipand financialdependenceare used as con-trol variables.Zero-ordercorrelationsindicate that prestige is negatively related to adaptive goals. Con-trolling for size, income, and universityownershipdoes not substantially alter this pattern. The inverserelation between prestige and adaptive goals is also generally found to hold in privateuniversities whenfinancial dependence is controlled. The conclusion that is thus reached for universities in the UnitedStatesis: the greaterthe prestige,the less the focus on adaptive goals.

In most theories of complex organization theinterplay between internal structure and exter-nal social environment is left implicit. Familiartopics of inquiry touch internal structure andprocess: the structure of bureaucracy (Weber,

1947), oligarchical power tendencies (Michels,1949), human relations in work groups (Roeth-lisberger and Dickson, 1939), cooperation andcommunication (Barnard, 1938), and leader-ship and supervisory effectiveness (Kahn andKatz, 1953). Etzioni's (1961) "compliance"theory of organizations and Dalton's (1950)studies in line-staff conflicts are in the sameclass. Goff et al. (1970), Kruytbosch and

* I should like to acknowledgethe generosityofEdward Gross and Paul Grambsch in providingthe data for this paper from their study of goalsin American universities.


3/8

402 / SOCIALFORCES vol. 52, mar. 1974

Messinger (1970), and Hodgkinson and Meeth(1971), represent three of many recent bookson innovation in higher education that analyzeorganization and authority in the modern uni-versity. Thus the stress in this tradition is onthe structure and dynamic processes that areinternal to organizations.

Economics since its inception as an indepen-dent field of study has laid heavy emphasis onthe market as an environmental condition forthe operation of individual firms. In modernmicro-economic theory, the standard classifica-tion of firms and models-pure competition,monopolistic competition, oligopoly and mo-nopoly-is based on the external marketingconditions confronting a firm offering its goodsand services to a given public. However, thisapproach to organizational analysis is by nomeans restricted to economics. Homans' (1950)"external system," Parsons' (1956) postulatethat bureaucracies emerge in a differentiatedsociety, Kerr and Siegel's (1954) study of theeffects of the worker community on labor con-flict, Thompson's and McEwen's (1958) anal-ysis of environment and goals, Selznick's (1949)discussion of cooptation in the TVA, Clark's(1956) study of the precariousness of valuesin adult education due to dependence on ex-ternal sources of support and Stinchcombe's(1965) attempt to codify the connections be-tween organizations and the social structureillustrate types of sociological analysis in whichthe events and structures internal to organiza-tions are treated as dependent or interdepen-dent with an external social environment.This list of external influences on the internalstructure and processes of complex organiza-tions does not include the effects of organiza-tional prestige, a factor external to a specificorganization by virtue of its very nature as theimage a significant public holds as to the valueof an organization. The focus on the impor-tance of prestige as a dimension of socialplurels and power groups has a venerable tradi-tion in sociological analysis. However, "imagesof organizations have been little explored out-side of consumer research," Clark (1962:197)reports, "but images play an increasingly im-portant role in the relation of organizationswith their environment." The aim of this articleis thus to investigate the connection betweenprestige and goals in American universities.

The rationale linking prestige and goals isderived from Homans (1950), Thompson(1967), and Perrow (1961). The logic is asfollows: (1) Organizations depend on the ex-ternal environment (suppliers, capital sources,clientele, governmental or other control agen-cies, the labor market) for purposes of main-tenance and goal-attainment. (2) Organizationstry to control dependence upon the externalenvironment through such mechanisms as pres-tige, cooptation, bargaining, and coalition-formation. Of these mechanisms, prestige hashigh priority. "Acquiring prestige," as Thomp-son (1967:33) puts it, "is the 'cheapest' wayof acquiring power." (3) Concern with pres-tige, however, may result in two strategiesinvolving different classes of goals. The firststrategy is to put high priority on attaining ulti-mate or official goals, or those goals to whichthere is high commitment as ends in themselves.The pursuit of this type of goal is preferable.Yet because of resource limitations, the organi-zation may not be able to emphasize ultimategoals. A second strategy is thus to put priorityon adaptive goals-activities that are an ac-commodation to the external environment inorder to receive in exchange sufficient rewardsto operate as an ongoing social unit. (4) Underwhat conditions, however, can an organizationpursue adaptive goals, specifically intended asmanipulative, and yet have a favorable imagefrom significant publics? It is proposed herethat the nature of the response of the significantpublic depends on the nature of that public'sexpectations of the organization. And the na-ture of the significant public's expectations mayvary depending on the societal function of theorganization. A business firm, which is expectedto maximize profits by virtue of the model sup-ported by an entrepreneurial ideology, presum-ably encounters different expectations than doesa fiduciary or public service organization. Itmay thus be appropriate and effective for abusiness corporation to attempt to market an"image" (a theme in Riley's, The Corporationand Its Publics, 1963) since economic ideol-ogies are highly instrumental. However, it maynever pay universities to resort to instrumentalgoals because this is inconsistent with the ex-pectations of members of the academic com-munity. Thus in this article I am specificallyconcerned with this research question: Is an


4/8


emphasis on instrumental educational goalslinked with the prestige position of a university?SECONDARY ANALYSIS AND ORGANIZATIONALRESEARCHThis study considers a particular class of com-plex organizations: the major secular univer-sities in the United States. The prestige andgoal data are from a major study of Americanuniversities by Gross and Grambsch (1968).Institutions were included in this universe onthe basis of data provided in Cartter (1964:Appendices IV and VI), and the followingcriteria (Gross, 1968:527):1. Ph.D. degree must be granted in at leastthree of four fields (humanities, biological sci-ences, physical sciences and social sciences).2. Degrees granted in the two least emphasizedfields must come to 10 percent or more of thetotal doctoral degrees conferred.3. There must be a liberal arts undergraduateschool with three or more professional schools.4. The institution must have conferred ten ormore doctoral degrees during 1962-63.Seventy secular universities with balancedgraduate programs representing most of themajor universities in the United States werefound in this statistical population for theacademic year of 1962-63. The availability ofdata allowed for the inclusion of 66 universitiesin the study.

Although there is folklore in abundanceabout prestige differentials among Americanuniversities, there are no commonly acceptedindexes available analogous to the occupationaland other prestige scales routinely used instratification research. Since prestige is a re-sponse by a significant public to a social object,the fundamental problem in constructing aprestige index is to define the public serving asa referent. The publics for a university arenumerous; students, the citizenry and its repre-sentatives, supporters, alumni, and the profes-sions represented by the constituent depart-ments of a university are among the mostsignificant and immediate publics of a univer-sity. The public presumed here to be of greatestsignificance to a university is the body of pro-fessional peers associated with the constituentdisciplines that comprise the university. Thepresent study uses one of several indexes of

university prestige developed by Gross andGrambsch (1968:128-132) to register profes-sional judgments of the quality of a cross-sec-tion of universities in the United States. TheGross-Grambsch index is based on data fromthe Cartter (1966) report, which rated thegraduate faculty of 29 departments in a cross-section of universities in the United States asdistinguished, strong, good, adequate-plus andno rating. The Gross-Grambsch quality indexis a weighted mean of the ratings provided ona maximum of 29 departments for each of theuniversities and is thus intended as an aggregatemeasure of university quality.Confidence in the Gross-Grambsch qualityrating is enhanced if it is also found to cor-relate reasonably well with indexes based onindependently collected data. The Gourman(1967) ratings of universities and colleges inthe United States constitute an additional, in-dependent series of indexes to assess furtherthe Gross-Grambsch index. The ambitious goalof this series is "to provide a detailed rating ofthe undergraduate programs of nearly all ofthe colleges and universities in the UnitedStates" (Gourman, 1967:ix) and is thus de-signed for a somewhat different purpose thanthe Gross-Grambsch indexes. The basic ratingsare of academic (departmental) and non-departmental facilities. The criteria for depart-mental ratings include accreditation, number ofcourses, research and library facilities, hon-orary societies, and scholarships and fellow-ships received by graduates. The non-depart-mental ratings are based on administrativepractices, student services, faculty, and othermatters of university-wide concern. Despite theintent of the Gourman ratings to assess facil-ities for undergraduates, Table 1 indicates thatthey correlate highly with the Gross-Grambschquality index (.89 and .86).

Table 1 reports also the relation between theGross-Grambsch index and two specific perfor-mance criteria heavily stressed in universities:the output of doctorates and research. Thenumber of doctorates conferred in 1963 wasobtained from Cartter (1964). Although thecorrelation between the Gross-Grambsch indexand number of doctorates is reasonably high(.77) by social science standards, it is not stuf-ficiently high to be considered the sole sourceof variation in university prestige. The index of


5/8

404 / SOCIALFORCES vol. 52, mar. 1974

Table 1. Gross-Grambsch University Quality Ratingsand Validating Indexes: Zero-order CorrelationsValidating Index r

Gourman academic rating .89Gourman nondepartmental rating .86Doctorates conferred: June, 1963 .77University elite journal research .91productivity: 1963Note: Analysis based on 65 cases.

research productivity, in broad outline, hasbeen constructed as follows:1 (1) The disci-plines about which research is ascertained arethe 29 disciplines included in the prestige index.(2) For each discipline the elite journal pub-lished in the United States has been selected(or several journals if there is no single repre-sentative journal) and the number of articlesattributed to each university through the in-stitutional affiliation of the author(s) has beenascertained for the volume covering all or thegreater part of the calendar year 1963. (3) Thescores for the separate disciplines were aggre-gated into five knowledge areas: the humanities,social sciences, biological sciences, physical sci-ences and engineering. (4) Since the quantityof output among the knowledge areas varieswidely, a weighting procedure was applied togive each area equal weight in the aggregate in-dex for each university. (5) An aggregate indexwas obtained by summing the weighted outputfor the five knowledge areas. This index is in-complete in at least three ways. First, it does notinclude all the disciplines in a university com-munity. (The index has been designed specifi-cally to test the prestige rating based on the 29disciplines for which quality assessments areavailable for 1964). Second, it excludes re-search reported in monographs and other im-portant media. Finally, it includes only elitejournals, thus excluding other less prestigiousbut important journals existing in almost alldisciplines. Despite these limitations, the cor-relation between the research and Gross-Grambsch indexes is very high (.91), illustrat-ing once again the prominent part played byresearch in the modern university.

The present study also uses goal data col-

lected through standard survey procedures byGross and Grambsch (1968) in their study ofAmerican universities. They asked a sample offaculty and administrators in the major Ameri-can universities to report the goals of the par-ticular institutions in which they served. Thesample consisted of 15,584 faculty membersand administrators. Data were collected in theSpring of 1964. The response rate was 50.9percent for the administrators and 40.4 percentfor the faculty (Gross, 1968:528). The ration-ale for selecting faculty and administrators isthat, as participating members of the institu-tions, they would be the most competent toknow what the inner workings and output ofthe university are. The questionnaire was thusdesigned, as one of its authors (Gross, 1968:523) describes it, so that "it asks the respond-ents to serve as informants, as it were, and tellthe investigators how they see the university."The 47 goals were of two types: perceived andpreferred, representing the "is-ought" distinc-tion. Analysis in this paper is restricted to theperceived goals listed in Table 3.

There are several factors that contributed toerror in collecting the goal data. The question-naire actually used was quite long; some re-spondents reported taking three hours to com-plete it. Also, individual perceptions of goalsmay vary depending upon length of service,position in the university structure and com-mitment to the particular university. It is there-fore appropriate to compare the survey resultswith data obtained from other sources. Table 2reports the correlations between three perceivedgoals and objective indexes of selectivity as apartial check on the validity of the goal data.The broad scope of the goal data does notallow complete validation. The two objectivemeasures of selectivity are the percent of thefreshman class that are from the top 20 percentof their high school class and the percent fresh-man applicants accepted by the university.These are intended respectively as measures ofhigh and low selectivity. Although not all theintercorrelations are substantial, the directionsare consistent with the meanings of the meas-ures. Percent of the freshman class from thetop 20 percent of their high school class is posi-tively correlated (.68) with the goal of accom-modating only good students, and is negativelyassociated with the goals indicating low selec-1 The research productivity index is discussedmore fully in Abbott and Barlow (1972:410-412).


6/8


Table 2. Intercorrelations Among Objective Indexesand Goals Pertaining to SelectivitySelectivity Indexes (3) (4) (5)

1. Objective Index: Percent fresh-men from top 20 percent of highschool class.* .68 -.51 -.512. Objective Index: Percent fresh-man applicants accepted.* -.67 .65 .593. Perceived Goal: Accommodategood students only. 1.00 -.88 -.814. Perceived Goal: Educate to ut-most all students meeting legalrequirements to enroll. -.88 1.00 .845. Perceived Goal: Satisfy areaneeds. -.81 .84 1.00

* Source: Cass and Birnbaum (1968).Note: Analysis based on 65 cases.tivity. The reverse pattern is observed betweenthe index of low selectivity and the three goals.It is also pertinent to make internal comparisonsamong the perceived goals as a check on re-sponse consistency. The goal of satisfying areaneeds, for example, correlates highly (.84)with the goal of educating to the utmost all stu-dents meeting basic legal requirements for ad-mission, a related goal also indicating low selec-tivity. But the same goal is, as would beexpected, negatively associated (-.81) withthe goal of accommodating only good students.This latter goal is also negatively associated(-.88) with the goal of educating to the ut-most all students meeting legal requirements toenroll.PRESTIGE AND ADAPTIVE GOALSA goal is adaptive if it manifestly serves to ac-commodate the university to its social environ-ment. Six goals from the Gross-Grambschstudy that have this as a specific function are:keeping costs down, satisfying area needs, ef-fectively educating all high school students meet-ing basic entry requirements, assisting citizensthrough extension programs and part-time adulteducation programs, and preparing students foruseful careers. The correlations between uni-versity prestige and these adaptive goals arereported in Table 3. Column 1 gives the simplezero-order correlation between prestige andadaptive goals. The correlations are all negative,varying from -.49 to -.69. These findingssupport the thesis that prestige is not associatedwith adaptive goals.Table 3 further tests this finding by con-

trolling for enrollment size, annual income,ownership and financial dependence. (The con-trol data were obtained from Cartter, 1964.)Column 2 adjusts the correlations of column 1by enrollment size. Despite the vast literatureon the impact of size on organizational phe-nomena, enrollment appears to have little ef-fect on the original findings regarding prestigeand goals. Neither the direction nor the magni-tude of the partials differ substantially from theoriginal relations: if there is an effect, adjust-ing for size appears to strengthen the originalrelations. Annual gross university income is alsoan alternative explanation of goal emphasis.Accordingly, controlling for income should sub-stantially influence the original findings regard-ing prestige and goals. In column 3 the effectsof annual income are considered. The partialstend to be slightly lower than the original rela-tions, but directionality is not at all affected.Thus the differences resulting from controls bysize and income are not sufficiently substantialto suggest an alternative interpretation of theoriginal findings.Columns 4 and 6 compare the relations be-tween adaptive goals and prestige among publicand private universities. Although directionalityis not affected by ownership, the magnitudes dodiffer. The original relations between prestigeand goals are strengthened in private universi-ties and weakened in the public universities.What is it that differentiates private and publicuniversities? One of the most prominent differ-ences between private and public institutions issource of income. A substantial source of in-come in private institutions is revenue fromendowments. In private institutions the ratio ofgross annual income (or costs) to endowmentis thus more critical than in public institutions.The greater this ratio, the greater the depend-ence on student fees, gifts, research grants andcontracts, and increasing endowments. Columns5 and 7 indicate the differences between privateand public institutions in the relation betweenthe income-endowment ratio and adaptivegoals. Among private institutions there is agreater tendency for this ratio to be linked toadaptive goals than in public institutions. Cer-tain goals in private institutions, such as con-sidering area needs, educating all students whomeet minimal entry requirements and keepingcosts down are particularly affected. It is not


7/8

406 / SOCIAL FORCES / vol. 52, mar. 1974

Table 3. Prestige and Adaptive Goals in American Universities, by Size, Income, Ownershipand Income-Endowment RatioAll Public PrivateUniversities Universities Universities(n = 66) (n = 41) (n =25)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)Adaptive Goals r12 rl2.3 rl2.4 r12 r15 r12 rl5 rl2.5Satisfy area needs -.69 -.78 -.61 -.46 .25 -.86 .62 -.80Educate to utmost capacities everyhigh school graduate meeting ba-sic entry requirements -.56 -.69 -.52 -.30 .06 -.82 .84 -.79Assist citizens through extensionprograms -.52 -.67 -.55 -.14 .13 -.75 .61 -.64Prepare students for useful careers -.52 -.62 -.49 -.20 .21 -.74 .52 -.65Keep costs down -.52 -.66 -.47 -.31 .17 -.61 .76 -.33Provide special training for part-time adult students -.49 -.68 -.53 -.15 .00 -.63 .57 -.46Notation: 1 = goal, 2 = prestige, 3 = enrollment (1962-1963), 4= annual income of university (1962-1963), 5 =income-endowment ratio. Pearson's r is the measure of correlation.

contended that only private institutions experi-ence budgetary strain. The claim is, rather thatthe income-endowment ratio seems a usefulmeasure of financial dependence in private in-stitutions. (Another measure of financial de-pendence is needed in studying public institu-tions.) For private institutions such dependenceis a plausible explanation of adaptive goals.Column 8 considers the relation between pres-tige and goals when economic dependence isstatistically controlled. The original relationsbetween prestige and goals are not generallyand substantially affected. Prestige remainsnegatively linked to an emphasis on adaptivegoals. Only the correlation between prestigeand goals pertaining to cost reduction is re-duced when financial dependence is controlled.The failure for the relation between prestigeand adaptive goals to be affected after con-trolling for financial dependence is presumablydue to the reasonably high inverse relationship(r25 -.57) between prestige and financial de-pendence. In sum, our findings do not lead tothe conclusion that prestige is linked to a focuson adaptive goals in American universities.SUMMARYThis article has examined the thesis that organi-zational prestige may require thG pursuit ofadaptive goals. Adaptive goals include anypolicies and acts that are instrumental in deal-ing with an organizational environment. Thequestion is whether such an association betweenprestige as an organizational characteristic and

adaptation as an organizational process obtainsin universities. Seventy universities in the UnitedStates that offered balanced graduate programsin 1964 were initially selected for analysis. Theavailability of data allowed the inclusion of 66universities in the study. The analysis is basedon data from a larger study of American uni-versities conducted by Gross and Grambsch in1964. The Gross-Grambsch quality index, themeasure of prestige, was validated by deter-mining its relation to the Gourman prestige in-dexes and other objective data. The goal dataare also from the Gross-Grambsch study. Thesewere collected through questionnaires sub-mitted to a random sample of American aca-demic administrators and faculty in the institu-tions in the sample. Although data on 47 goalswere collected, only those directly pertaining tothe present research problem were included inthe analysis.

Using Pearson's r as the measure of associa-tion, prestige is found to be negatively relatedto adaptive goals in zero-order correlations.This pattern is also maintained when enroll-ment, income and ownership are controlled.Specifying by ownership groups makes it alsopossible to measure the financial dependenceof a university. The income-endowment ratiois a measure of financial dependence for pri-vate, but not necessarily public, universities. Itwas found that income dependence is linkedpositively with adaptive goals. When the rela-tion between prestige and adaptive goals in pri-vate universities is statistically adjusted by finan-


8/8


cial dependence through partialling procedures,however, the original relation is found to gen-erally hold. Thus generalization that thusemerges from this study is: the greater theprestige of a university, the less the focus onadaptive goals.REFERENCESAbbott, W., and H. Barlow. 1972. "StratificationTheory and Organizational Rank: Resources,Functions and OrganizationalPrestigein Ameri-can Universities." Pacific Sociological Review15 October):401-24.Barnard, Chester I. 1938. The Functions of the

Executive.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.Cartter, Allen M. 1964. American Universities andColleges. 9th ed. Washington:American Coun-cil on Education.. 1966. An Assessment of Quality in Gradu-ate Edlcation. Washington: American Councilon Education.Cass, James, and Max Birnbaum.1968. Compara-tive Guide to Americani Colleges. New York:Harper & Row.Clark,BurtonR. 1956. "OrganizationalAdaptationand Precarious Values: A Case Study." Ameri-can Sociological Review 21(June):327-36.. 1962. Educating the Expert Society. SanFrancisco: Chandler.Dalton, M. 1950. "Conflicts Between Staff andLine Managerial Officers."American Sociolog-ical Review 15(June):342-51.Etzioni, Amitai W. 1961. A Comparative Analysisof Complex Organizations. New York: FreePress.Goff, Jerry, et al. 1970. The Cluster College. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.Gourman, Jack. 1967. The Gourman Report.Washington: Continuing Education Institute.Gross, E. 1968. "Universities as Organizations: AResearch Approach." American Sociological Re-view 33(August) :518-44.

Gross, Edward, and Paul V. Grambsch. 1968.University Goals and Academic Power. Wash-ington: American Council on Education.

Hodgkinson, Harold L., and L. Richard Meeth.1971. Power and Authority: Transformation ofCampus Governance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Homans, George C. 1950. The Human Group.New York: Harcourt,Brace.Kahn, R. L., and D. Katz. 1953. "LeadershipPrac-tices in Relation to Productivity and Morale."In Dorwin Cartwrightand Alvin Zander (eds.),Group Dynamics. Evanston: Row, Peterson.Kerr, C., and A. Siegel. 1954. "The InterindustryPropensity to Strike-An International Com-parison.' In Arthur Kornhauser et al. (eds.),Industrial Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.Kruytbosch, Carlos E., and Sheldon Messinger.1970. The State of the University: Authorityand Change. Beverly Hills: Sage.Michels, Robert. 1949. Political Parties (translatedby Eden Paul and Cedar Paul). Glencoe: FreePress.Parsons, T. 1956. "Suggestionsfor a SociologicalApproach to the Theory of Organizations,I."Administrative Science Quarterly 1:63-85.Perrow, C. 1961. "OrganizationalPrestige: SomeFunctions and Dysfunctions."American Journalof Sociology 66:335-41.Riley, John W., Jr. (ed.). 1963. The Corporationand Its Publics. New York: Wiley.Roethlisberger, Fritz J., and William J. Dickson.1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.Selznick, Philip. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots.Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali-fornia Press.Stinchcombe, A. 1965. "Social Structureand Or-ganizations."In James G. March (ed.), Hand-book of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Ac-tion. New York: McGraw-Hill.Thompson, J. D., and W. J. McEwen. 1958. "Or-ganizational Goals and Environment: Goal-Setting as an Interaction Process." AmericanSociological Review 23(February) :23-31.Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social andEconomic Organization (translated by A. Hen-derson and Talcott Parsons). Glencoe: FreePress.

abbott_prestige and goals in american universities

Documents