東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Patterns of bureaucracy in intercoll...

Rocha, Claudio M.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Patterns of bureaucracy in intercollegiate athletic departments.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Patterns of bureaucracy in intercollegiate athletic departments./
作者:	Rocha, Claudio M.
面頁冊數:	213 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-09, Section: A, page: 3173.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International71-09A.
標題:	Education, Higher Education Administration. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3417595
ISBN:	9781124153063

Patterns of bureaucracy in intercollegiate athletic departments.
Rocha, Claudio M.

Patterns of bureaucracy in intercollegiate athletic departments. - 213 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-09, Section: A, page: 3173.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Ohio State University, 2010.

The theoretical argument of the current research is that athletic departments have been effective in attaining their conflicting goals mainly because they have become highly effective in managing institutional rules. Neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991), loose coupling (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), and patterns of bureaucracy (Gouldner, 1954) form the theoretical cornerstone of the current research. Sport management investigations about goals and processes of intercollegiate athletics (Trail & Chelladurai, 2000) offer an unique opportunity to investigate these sociological theories of management in sport contexts. The initial endeavor of the current research was to explore and describe relationships between intercollegiate athletics goals and processes and coaches' perceptions about how institutional rules have been negotiated inside athletic departments (patterns of bureaucracy). To attain this aim, first, I proposed a scale to measure different patterns of bureaucracy in athletic departments and tested its psychometric properties. Then, I investigated the structural relationships among intercollegiate athletics goals, processes, and patterns of bureaucracy.

ISBN: 9781124153063Subjects--Topical Terms:

1669382
Education, Higher Education Administration.

Patterns of bureaucracy in intercollegiate athletic departments.
LDR:04267nam 2200301 4500 001 1395768
005 20110526085803.5
008 130515s2010 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781124153063
035 $a (UMI)AAI3417595
035 $a AAI3417595
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Rocha, Claudio M. $3 1674498
245 1 0 $a Patterns of bureaucracy in intercollegiate athletic departments.
300 $a 213 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-09, Section: A, page: 3173.
500 $a Adviser: Packianathan Chelladurai.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Ohio State University, 2010.
520 $a The theoretical argument of the current research is that athletic departments have been effective in attaining their conflicting goals mainly because they have become highly effective in managing institutional rules. Neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991), loose coupling (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), and patterns of bureaucracy (Gouldner, 1954) form the theoretical cornerstone of the current research. Sport management investigations about goals and processes of intercollegiate athletics (Trail & Chelladurai, 2000) offer an unique opportunity to investigate these sociological theories of management in sport contexts. The initial endeavor of the current research was to explore and describe relationships between intercollegiate athletics goals and processes and coaches' perceptions about how institutional rules have been negotiated inside athletic departments (patterns of bureaucracy). To attain this aim, first, I proposed a scale to measure different patterns of bureaucracy in athletic departments and tested its psychometric properties. Then, I investigated the structural relationships among intercollegiate athletics goals, processes, and patterns of bureaucracy.
520 $a I received back 382 questionnaires from Division I coaches (response rate of 38.2%), 326 from Division II (32.6%), and 359 from Division III (35.9%). From these questionnaires some had to be eliminated due to either the irresponsible nature of the responses. A final sample of 907 (ndivI = 322; n divII = 277; ndivIII = 308) was used to test the hypotheses. For controlling for non-response error, late respondents were compared to early respondents. Late respondents did not differ from early respondent in any variable for all three divisions. Initial confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) showed acceptable fit indexes, but some items did not load sufficiently high in their constructs. After some refining, the new proposed bureaucracy scale presented good psychometric properties, as did the goals and processes scales. Multiple-group CFA indicated fully measurement invariance for bureaucracy and goals scales, and partial measurement invariance for processes scale.
520 $a Single-group structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses showed that the correlation between developmental and performance goals was large and significant for all three divisions (rdivI = .654; rdivII = .660; rdivIII = .582). The regression coefficient of developmental processes on developmental goals was large and significant for all three divisions (betadivI = .924; betadivII = .909; beta divIII = .853). Also, the regression coefficient of performance processes on performance goals was large and significant for all three divisions (beta divI = .902; betadivII = .780; betadivIII = .933). For all three divisions, developmental process was a significant predictor of all three types of bureaucracy: mock bureaucracy (beta divI = -.313; betadivII = -.392; betadivIII = -.406), representative bureaucracy (betadivI = .289; beta divII = .414; betadivIII = .411) and discordant bureaucracy (betadivI = .226; betadivII = .331; beta divIII = .282). Multiple-group SEM analyses showed that structural relationships among goals, processes, and patterns of bureaucracy were invariant among all three groups of coaches. Implications for theory and practice of these results were discussed.
590 $a School code: 0168.
650 4 $a Education, Higher Education Administration. $3 1669382
650 4 $a Education, Physical. $3 1018000
690 $a 0446
690 $a 0523
710 2 $a The Ohio State University. $3 718944
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 71-09A.
790 1 0 $a Chelladurai, Packianathan, $e advisor
790 $a 0168
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2010
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3417595