BUREAUCRACY, POWER, AND MARGINALITY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THREE UNIVERSITY ADULT LEISURE PROGRAMS.

Abstract

Sorry, the full text of this article is not available in Huskie Commons. Please click on the alternative location to access it.

166 p.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the status of adult leisure programs on three university campuses. Case studies of campus recreation programs were conducted at each of these institutions. A researcher-constructed scheduled standardized interview was used to interview selected university administrators and students. Data were also collected through securing budgets, organizational charts and other pertinent materials.Analysis of data consisted of developing a system for categorizing data generated through inteviews and other collection techniques. Data were validated by comparing interview responses with concrete data provided by the institution on as many variables as possible. In order to maximize reliability, interview transcripts were sent to interviewees for verification of content. By presenting the same questions at two successive times close in proximity, it was presumed that the groups had not changed in the interim.Based on the findings the major conclusions for the study were: (1) There appeared to be a possible relationship between the administrative location of the campus recreation program in the university bureaucracy and the allocation of fiscal resources. (2) There appeared to be a possible relationship between the administrative location of the campus recreation program in the university bureaucracy and the organizational structure of the agency. (3) There appeared to be a possible relationship between the administrative location of the campus recreation program in the university bureaucracy and the level at which policy decisions are made; however, there appeared to be no relationship between the administrative location of the campus recreation program within the university bureaucracy and the level at which operational decisions are made. (4) There appeared to be no relationship between degree and academic background and hiring of professional staff within the campus recreation agency. (5) There appeared to be no relationship between tenure and the retention of professional staff within the campus recreation agency.