5 research outputs found
C. Mansel Keene and Lois R. Feldheym oral history interview, "Formulating the System's Personnel Policies", Origins of The California State University, 1987
No full textC. Mansel Keene was a former executive for Faculty and Staff Affairs and Lois Feldheym was an associate in the office.Transcripts and cassette tapes of oral history interviews with various individuals involved in the formation of the California State University system.Origins of
The California State
University
C. Mansel Keene
& Lois R. Feldheym
Interviewed
by
Lawrence B. de Graaf
An Oral History Project
of the
Archives
California State University Archives
CSU Dominguez Hills
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
Oral History Pilot Project on the Origins of the CSU System
C MANSEL KEENE
and
LOIS R. FELDHEYM
FORMULATING THE SYSTEM’S PERSONNEL POLICIES
Interviews Conducted by
Lawrence B. de Graaf
in 1987
Processed by CSU Fullerton Oral History Program
1988-1989
COPYRIGHT
This is a transcription of an interview conducted for the
California State University Archives under a grant from the
Office of the Chancellor, CSU.
Scholars are welcome to utilize short excerpts from any of
the transcriptions without obtaining permission as long as
proper credit is given to the interviewee, interviewer, and the
institution sponsoring the project. All uses of this
manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between the CSU
Archives and the interviewee. Therefore, scholars must obtain
permission from California State University Archives before
making more extensive use of the transcription and related
materials.
None of these materials may be duplicated or reproduced by
any party except the California State University Archives.
However, because it is the goal of this project to preserve and
make accessible significant documentation relevant to the
history of the State Colleges, copies of any unrestricted
transcriptions may be obtained at cost by writing to the CSU
Systemwide Archivist at California State University, Dominguez
Hills, Carson, California, 90747.
Copyright (g)1989 by the Board of Trustees
of The California State University
PREFACE
The purpose of this oral history pilot project is to
record and make available to researchers using the California
State University Archives the reminiscences of individuals who
participated in the creation of the California State Colleges
from 1959 to 1965.
The creation of the California State Colleges in 1961
united fifteen formerly independent colleges into a single,
identifiable system, with its own Board of Trustees and a
Chancellor to serve as chief executive officer. Using a
formula which stressed systemwide planning in the allocation of
resources and programs, The California State Colleges sought to
offer Californians quality higher education at reasonable
cost. The key to the success of the California State
University was the decision to adapt a plan, incorporated into
the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, dividing higher
education into three distinctly separate segments. Under the
act, the California State Colleges were mandated to emphasize
undergraduate and master’s level programs, while the University
of California campuses were to emphasize graduate education,
and the California Community Colleges were to focus on
vocational training and college preparation.
The California State University, starting from a base of
fifteen campuses and 95,000 students in 1961, has grown to
where it now provides a wide variety of innovative programs -to
more than 320,000 students on nineteen campuses. It is the
largest system of higher education in the United States and is
known as one of the strongest institutions of higher education
in the country.
In September 1979, the Board of Trustees created the
California State University and Colleges Historical Archives,
to be housed on the Dominguez Hills campus. Since its
establishment, the Archives, as a systemwide project, has been
jointly supported by the Chancellor’s Office and CSU Dominguez
Hills, through the funding of a professional archivist.
The Archives currently houses a collection of materials
received from a variety of sources. These include the
Chancellor’s Office, the CSU Academic Senate, and private
individuals who had previous dealings with the CSU, such as
former Chancellor Glenn Dumke, former Trustee Paul Spencer, and
others. Consequently, the Archives holds some personal papers
as well as official systemwide documents. As part of its
collection policy, the Archives also has a responsibility to
collect individual recollections and oral histories of the
early System and pre-System years.
iii
Short-term goals of this oral history project are to make
available the recollections and reminiscences of former members
of the Board of Trustees, the State College-University of
California Liaison Committee, and the Master Plan Survey Team,
as well as other individuals who participated in the formation
of the California State Colleges from 1959 to 1965.
For the long run, the project has three purposes. First,
it will help to increase interest in the history and
accomplishments of ' the California State University. Next, it
will, hopefully, be a tool to aid in the acquisition of
additional materials concerning the System now in private
hands. Finally, it will serve as a model and learning device
to develop a more comprehensive oral history program. If the
pilot project is successful, as many interviews as possible
will be conducted under the expanded program with the System’s
retired trustees, former vice-chancellors and college
presidents, current senior management, state legislators, and
other important individuals who have been influential in the
growth and development of the state university.
Funding for the project is provided by the Office of Vice
Chancellor, Administration, Dr. Herbert L. Carter. We thank
the interviewee for generously giving of his time. We also
acknowledge the work of the Oral History Program at CSU
Fullerton for the use of its facilities in processing this
interview. Transcribing was performed by Shirley de Graaf,
proofreading and index by Lynn Finger, and final preparation by
Shirley de Graaf.
Lawrence B. de Graaf Jacquelyn K. Sundstrand
Judson A. Grenier CSU Archivist
Project Co-Directors
MEMBERS, CSU ARCHIVES ADVISORY BOARD
Betty Blackman
John Brownell
Mayer Chapman
Robert W. Cherny
Lawrence B. de Graaf
Glenn S . Dumke
Donald R. Gerth
Judson Grenier
Arthur Hall
Claudia H. Hampton
James Harris
Louis H. Heilbron
Donald B. Leiffer
Gloria Lothrop
Theodore Meriam
Carol J. Numrich
Morris Polan
W. Ann Reynolds
Phillip V. Sanchez
John Smart
Jacquelyn K. Sundstrand
IV
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PILOT PROJECT ON THE
ORIGINS OF THE CSU SYSTEM
This is an interview with former vice-chancellor for Faculty
and Staff Affairs, C. Mansel Keene (MK), and an associate in
the Faculty and Staff Affairs office, Lois Feldheym (LF). It
is being conducted by Lawrence B. de Graaf (LD), taking place
August 6., 1987 in Dr. Keene*s home in Westwood.
LD: This is a bit of an unusual situation, two in one, so I
will look at one or the other of you when I*m specifically
addressing a question. If I sort of stare at the wall in
between it means the question is fair game. It is common
to begin these with a biographical background, so Mansel,
let's begin with you. When and where were you born?
MK: I was born in Roseville, California on January 20, 1912.
LD: Have you lived in California most of your life?
MK: All except for five years when I was on duty in
Washington. So I*m a Californian, northern and southern.
LD: Did you have all your schooling in and around Roseville?
MK: I went through the schools in Roseville, then I went to
Sacramento Junior College back in the late twenties, and
then stayed out a year and worked, and then I went to
Stanford and got an A.B. and a Ph.D. in psychology.
LD: In psychology. What career did you have in mind at that
time?
MK: When I began I thought I was going to be a chemist, but
the more chemistry I took the more I preferred
psychology. So I became a psych major and stayed on and
got my doctorate ultimately. I say ultimately because I
got into a research project with five hundred subjects,
and I followed them for three years and I had enough data
to choke a horse, as it were. Then I had the chance of a
part-time job on a research project at the University High
School in Berkeley, which in those days was the practice
teaching arm of UC Berkeley. It was administered jointly
by the University of California and the Oakland public
schools. So virtually all practice teaching at the
secondary level was done there. And many of the faculty
taught in the education department as well at U.C.
KEENE/FELDHEYM 2
I went there ostensibly for a half-time job for one year.
It became a full-time job for two years as a psychologist
and statistician, analyzing their data. They had a
counseling study of adolescent development, adolescent
attitudes, and so on. There were two going on at the high
school at the same time, one by a Dr. Jones, who was at
the Institute of Child Welfare, which was a more
scientific study. Ours was more anecdotal, because we
captured the counselors1 reports and they were not as
structured, let’s say, as a psychological interview would
be. I stayed with them for two years, and then one of my
original teachers at Sacramento Junior College was
retiring, and I was offered the job to replace him. So I
went on to Sacramento Junior College.
LD: As an instructor in psychology?
MK: As an instructor in psychology.
LD: When was that?
MK: That was in 1931. No, sorry, in 1938, the same year I was
married. And today is our anniversary, forty-nine years.
So an interesting part of that was we timed our marriage,
which isn’t too flattering to my wife, I suppose, on the
basis that the president was an old codger and he despised
unmarried young men who caused problems with the girls. I
never saw that I would have any of those problems, but
Mary and I decided to move up our marriage date a little
bit, so we went to Sacramento as a young married couple.
I was there for two years and became a part of the
counseling staff in the second year, and then in the third
year Pearl Harbor came along and I took leave to try to
wrap up my degree before I might be drafted. So I was at
Stanford, and everyone was recruiting psychologists to
help the military services. I was determined to be 4-F
because of a bad leg I had, although no psychologist I
know ever went out anywhere where a leg good, bad, or
indifferent would have bothered them.
I took my exams, passed those and my orals, but still
hadn’t put all my dissertation together. I was offered a
job on the staff of the office of the Secretary of War, in
the Civilian Personnel Division, to head, a field office,
since authority for personnel actions had not been
delegated. There were offices of the secretary of war
scattered around the country and around the world,
wherever there were concentrations of civilian employees.
The only way that a person could be hired or promoted in
the War Department, which was then both the army and the
air force, was to have their personnel records run through
what became virtually a paper mill in these various
KEENE/FELDHEYM 3
sub-offices of Mr. [Henry L.] Stimson’s office. I was
hired to head the office in Sacramento. I went first to
San Francisco to learn something about the procedures in
the regional office. Secretary Stimson, I guess, became
overwhelmed or advised that this was pretty much a paper
process and he issued an order called Orders M which
delegated to the lowest feasible level within the services
the authority for personnel actions. So we on the
secretary’s staff suddenly became teachers of the
personnel people in all the posts, camps, and stations.
The OSW staff had never done very much, if any, personnel
work on their own. They had always been busy typing up
documents coming to us. We then went out and became
teachers. Remember, I had had no courses in public
administration, but I found, because of my teaching
experience, it was a little easier for me to do this than
some of the others. So they thought they would send me to
Washington for some super training. But there was
apparently a bad telephone connection, because when I got
there the only way I knew that I was a member of the
faculty was that they chewed me out for not going to the
faculty meeting that night. No one had told me, including
the man I worked for in San Francisco, that I was going
back to Washington to be a faculty member in the training
course. So we trained people, military and civilian, for
the War Department.
LD: Was this basically in public administration?
MK: In public administration: how to handle people, and how
to recruit them, and how to do classification of jobs, and
how to determine the category and level of their jobs. At
that time it was determined that we had better put what we
had done in a training manual. So I stayed over as one of
a small team out of the original group to develop a
training manual for the War Department to be used around
the country. And then they eliminated small offices one
of which I had been hired to head, leaving five area
offices. Our office in San Francisco covered from Hawaii
through Colorado and Wyoming, so we had a large part of
the western states. We gave courses then in San Francisco
for the various services, and went around to other areas
to do the same kind of training. Then it became evident
that even if the personnel people were trained, we weren’t
sure how well these people were doing in putting our
training into effect. So we moved over into an inspection
function and developed a team of individuals to go out to
the posts, camps, stations, and other military
establishments to determine what was happening. Am I
going into too much detail?
KEENE/FELDHEYM 4
LD: It’s interesting. I can see where this background fits
into your subsequent personnel work at the state colleges.
MKi Then I became the overseas representative because they
were having problems where civilians were hired overseas.
So I was in Panama and I was in Hawaii, and got into the
thick of the problems between the air force and the army.
The major command of the Pacific was under the army, and
the air force was restive under that command. My job was
to try to work with those two groups and bear the scars
myself rather than allow them to continue to bicker.
LD: Did you stay with this War Department work all the way
through the war?
MK: I was with it until late 1944 when they wanted me to come
into Washington. I wasn’t sure I wanted to go into
Washington. At that time a woman who was doing the same
kind of work with the U. S. Civil Service Commission in
San Francisco was being hired to become the director of
personnel for MGM. They had decided that if they had a
big studio maybe they needed personnel policies. I was
hired to replace her in San Francisco. Shortly after that
a woman called— I was trying to hire a staff— and said she
understood I was hiring, and I said, "Yes.” And she said,
"Can I be interviewed?" I said, "Well, get on your
velocipede and hurry over here." And that was Miss
Feldheym. She has worked for me almost continuously until
I retired. I was with the Civil Service Commission in San
Francisco for several years, then came to Los Angeles to
head up a branch office of the commission. We have a lot
of government laboratories down here, and the commission
office previously had been nothing more than a group of
postal clerks on detail from the post office to give tests
for the postal service, primarily, to fill clerk and
carrier jobs. I was down here for about two years, 1955
and 1956. In 1956 I was asked to go to Washington to
become the chief of the Standards Division. The Standards
Division developed the job standards for positions within
the occupational structure of the federal government, as
well as the tests, all of the written tests that people
take, plus the qualification requirements for filling
jobs. We did that for five years. At that time Buell
Gallagher contacted me, as the first chancellor of the new
state college system. He asked me whether I would like to
come to California. We had been working at a forced head
of steam and had eliminated a backlog in the standards
area. I had read about the Master Plan for Higher
Education in a Time magazine article. It sounded very
magnificent. So I went up to New York to be interviewed
by Gallagher. He flew east. He was still partly on duty
at CCNY, and we met up there and talked philosophy, not
KEENE/FELDHEYM 5
details. You would have thought that if anybody had
enough sense, they would have recognized that one should
know the details of the position being filled. Because he
didn’t tell me, I don’t know if he even knew, that one of
the things we were going to have to do within a very, very
short deadline was to completely redo Title Five [Title 5
Education, of California Administrative Code] to do with
the hiring, firing, what level authority for personnel
actions would be placed at, and everything else. I did
not also learn in our lengthy interview that he was an
ardent believer that the more pieces of paper you got from
people, the more control you had and so on. Of course, my
philosophy had taught me the hard way that the less paper
that was required and the more people were held
accountable for personal actions with some kind of a
review or overview from the headquarters of the system the
better the operation would be.
LD: This whole philosophy is something I want to get into in a
minute. But first maybe a little biographical background
for you, since we have now got you into the scene here.
Where were you born and how did you happen to wander into
personnel work? [Laughter]
LF: I was born in San Franciso, and I am a Californian. I
have lived here all my life, except for the time that I
followed Dr. Keene to Washington and then came back out
here. A very uncelebrated background: I went to
Stanford; I started out to be a social worker; it didn’t
really take, and I ended up in speech and drama.
LD: I might add at this point, to be a female student at
Stanford in those days was not exactly uncelebrated, was
it?
LF: Well, I would like to tell you that it was after the days
of the five-hundred girls.
LD: Oh, I see.
MK: You understand, though, the reason she is doing that, is
it makes her younger, [laughter]
LF: I graduated in drama with an idea that I would go into
television, but it was wartime. I graduated in 1941-42.
In that period all the television was picked up by the
military. I think differently from the kids today; I was
without a job for three months, and I panicked. So I
ended up going into a low level job in the federal
government, which in those days was a CAF-1 temporary. It
was with the Division of Disbursement.
KEENE/FELDHEYM 6
MK: They made 1,260.00 a year. That was in 1942. So I did that work
for a while, and it was pretty dull, pretty boring, not
very challenging.
LD: CA is clerical assistant?
LF: No, the CAF stood for, in those days, the clerical,
administrative, and fiscal occupational group. They have
since changed those words. But anyway, I was getting kind
of tired of all that. My brother was a military officer
at Fort Mason. He had a job analyst who worked with him
in personnel work and job classification for his civilian
employees. I saw him one night, and he said, "Well, if
she can do that, you can do that.” So I had lunch with
that girl, and she was the one who told me about a lot of
people hiring. This was about 1945, and there was a
shortage of men— I have to admit it. And so she gave me a
whole list of names of people to call. Mansel’s was the
first on the list. And when I heard this, "Get on your
velocipede and get over here,” I thought that ought to be
somebody nutty enough to work for. I have to tell you
another anecdote. I was interviewed by one of the women
on his staff, and she. said I was hired because I was
wearing such a crazy hat. So that was the kind of an
organization I joined. I didn’t know ....
LD: Was that a reflection on the person that hired you?
LF: No. [laughter] But I didn’t know what the hell personnel
was all about in those days. Yet they were hiring
trainees with potential, and I guess, you know, degrees.
So that’s when I started as a trainee with Mansel in
1945. Do you want me to go on?
LD: And you have been with him ever since then?
LF: I have followed him pretty much, since we worked in San
Francisco, and I followed him to Los Angeles. And then I
followed him to Washington, although in those days I
didn’t go quite so soon. I remember people in Washington
saying, because I guess we were kind of critical about the
Washington office when we were here this side of the
Rockies, that I really ought to go back to Washington and
either put up or shut up, you know, do the work there. So
I went back for what I thought was two years, and at the
end of five years I decided that if I didn’t get out then
I would be there the rest of my life. Just about that
time Mansel came back to California. So I was lucky to
get a job with him in the CSC.
KEENE/FELD HE YM 7
MK: I think I would like to say here that one of the reasons
that Lois and I got along together was that we didn’t get
along always intellectually, and I was very, very hep on
no "yes men" or "yes women." And so frequently we had
very strenuous discussions, in which I was found wrong in
a number of cases. I’m not going to be that honest to say
what the percentage was. But Lois had the ability to
disagree when she felt it to be necessary. A number of
people came down to Los Angeles with me when I headed up
this commission office. And then we brought some people
in from the field when we were in Washington. No one but
Lois had quite the intestinal fortitude to tell me when I
thought I had a hot idea that it probably wasn’t that
good.
LD: But she did.
MK: Yes, and she saved
Researching British university sport initiations
No full textThis thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.The study of sport initiations is in its infancy. So far, the North American-centric research has focussed on ‘exposing and condemning’ morally unacceptable initiation activities, which are referred to as hazing. Hazing moral panics in North America has resulted in universities utilising sport initiation empirical research to construct anti-hazing policies; policies proven to be ineffective in banning sport initiations. The purpose of this research is to address some of the gaps in the knowledge of sport initiations. A two stage ethnographic research approach was utilised to collect information on British university sport initiations. An international student embedded himself as a student-athlete within a British university to learn the cultural meanings of a foreign sport culture and to possess an emic perspective. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with key policy actors possessing differing organisational cultural perspectives (differentiational and fragmentational), specifically university staff and sport - rugby union, football, and track and field - club members from multiple higher education institutions. The researcher’s ethnographic confessional tale of his experience as a self-funded international student is combined with the data from interviewee participants to construct British university sport initiations as a resistance research topic.This study is part-funded by The National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers (NOTA)
CPD for teachers and effective schools
Get PDFPurpose: In Singapore, serious attempts have been made by the Government to develop a many layered, multi-faceted response, changing and adapting to shape long-term and productive responses. Another major societal change that gives impetus to teachers’ staff development in Singapore is the changing scene of Singapore society in terms of social structure, norms, aspirations, behaviours and values. All these mean that Singapore teachers will need to assume responsibility to grow as adult learners by participating actively in different types of CPD activities (Formal, Informal, Self-Directed and Nonformal Activities), to change their mindsets, to think, and to tailor solutions with Principals to school problems in order to succeed in their role as lifelong learners and change agents. The main purpose of this study is to find out teachers' needs, and school and CPD factors that influence their participation in CPD. It is also intended that the empirical data from schools can be integrated with findings from literature, together with the personal philosophy of the writer, into a comprehensive and effective school programme that meets the needs of Singapore primary schools in the 21st century. Design of the Study: The instrument that was used to collect data was self-constructed and designed with input from teachers and information gathered about CPD from literature. Part Two No 2 (1) was adapted from the 'Assessment of Performance of Teaching' (NIE) and from the instrument that was self-developed by the researcher for her M Ed paper (University of Sheffield, 1999) on 'An Induction Programme for Beginning Teachers in Singapore Primary Schools'. The Role of Principals scale and the CPD Activities scale were adapted from readings by Wideen and Andrews (1987) and an instrument used by Fesslar (1990) for his study on Principal and teacher behaviours towards CPD activities. The rest of the questionnaire was self-constructed based on the researchers' literature review. The final questionnaire comprised three main measures: (1) Personal Factors Measure, (2) School Factors Measure, (3) CPD Activities Measure. Personal Factors Measure The Personal Factors Scale was developed to measure teachers' perceptions about their needs or skills by age, gender and years of teaching experience. This comprised thirty-six items on six aspects namely, planning, managing, instructional techniques, interaction, assessing and providing feedback and relations with community. Qualitative data was obtained through an open-ended item on teachers’ perceptions of Personal Qualities of Good Teachers. This would give added information on teachers' perceptions of needs (or skills) as well as knowledge, attitudes and values of teachers that can effectively manage the educational changes
The coaching process in professional youth football: An ethnography of practice
No full textThis thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University, 06/12/2001.Coaching and the coaching process are characterised by a number of complex interactions between the coach, the player and the club environment. Yet understanding of the coaching process as a complex, holistic process remains limited. There are 'gaps' in our existing knowledge, particularly in comprehending the dynamic relationship between the coach, player and club environment, and in understanding the implications of these interactions for practice and the coaching process. This research sought to examine and represent the complexity of the coach-player-club environment interface, and to understand some of the ways that they interact to construct and impinge upon the coaching process. The research was conducted on the premise that a sound understanding of the complexity of the coaching process drawing upon empirical research, rather than idealistic 'models', can inform the future development of coaching practice and coach education.
Within the framework of ethnography, the research took place over one season and used participant observation, unstructured interviews, semi-structured interviews and group interviews in one Football Association, Premier League Academy. The aim was to explore the coaching process and practical coaching context, as played out in the day-to-day experiences of coaches and youth team players. In addition to the main case-study club, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five coaches working with youth teams at other clubs. The research used concepts from grounded theory and also the work of Pierre Bourdieu to analyse and present the data.
In its findings, the study depicts a coaching process that is interdependent and interrelated and highlights complexity in each of the following elements: the club, sessions and games, players and coaches, relationships, and 'attitude'. The dynamism within and between each of these elements is illustrated in the ways that each can facilitate, constrain or even prevent 'effective' practice and the operation of the coaching process. Moreover, the research demonstrates the powerful nature of tradition and culture, highlighting their pervasive influence upon the coaching process and coaching practice.
Life at the case study club was characterised by authoritarianism and pressure, and was relentlessly directed towards winning. This backdrop strongly influenced the relationship between coaches and players, and impacted upon the coaching process. Importantly, the research presents evidence to suggest that coach education may be a relatively 'low impact' endeavour in comparison to the coaches' other experiences which are presented as a significant force shaping both coaches' development and practice. To harness this experience and develop coach education, this research suggests that the governing body could consider embracing mentoring as part of coach education and, as part of this, coaches should be encouraged to engage in critical reflection in order to understand how cultural and other forces shape their practice. However, for mentoring to succeed, it must be grounded in a thorough understanding of the culture of football clubs, and the ways coaches draw upon their life experiences in football to direct their own practice and judge the practices and 'worth' of others.
Importantly, this research begins to answer some of the criticisms levelled at previous research by examining interaction and complexity within the coaching process in-situ. It highlights the problematic, interrelated and interdependent nature of relationships that construct and influence the coaching process and coaching practice. Importantly, it highlights the important and under-researched link between coaching practice, the coaching process and the immediate and wider social context of football
The role of conflict & negotiation in the complexity of projects
No full textProjects are pervasive and disparate spanning a plethora of domains. Most projects are unified by certain characteristics regardless of the sector or industry to which they belong i.e. time & budget limitedness, a concern for quality, and a goal orientation. Although, projects have been around for a longtime, the phenomenon of conflict in projects gained interest around the 1960s with the introduction of the matrix form of organization. However, out of all the research papers on project centric conflict between 1960 to 1980 time period, only one is empirically grounded and that too focused on IT projects. Surprisingly, the findings put forward during this time period are to date considered valid and propagated by most project literature as universally true. Several other studies have contributed peripheral contributions to the project conflict literature, however, no study has focused on building an understanding of why and how conflicts arise on projects, how they are managed, and affects they create within projects.Recent concerns pertaining to project failures, despite the existence of well-defined problems and toolsets, gave birth to an ESRC funded research network named `Rethinking Project Management'. Whose members in examining the ontological groundings of project management identified several areas of interest for future research in project management; one of which is complexity. The present study therefore focuses on integrating the concerns of conflict & negotiation within the context of project complexity.Every research has its philosophical bearings. This study is ontologically objectivist and epistemologically subjectivist (consequently the axiology is subjectivist as well). This study accepts a Critical Realist view of the world and perceive the conceivable knowledge about this world to be subjective in nature. As the study is concerned about understanding the processes through which conflict & negotiation reify and interplay within a project the objective is not to find generalizations but rather to seek out patterns of occurrences and to build explanations. The methodology followed in the study is mixed, borrowing from both positivistic and constructivist ideologies. The survey methodology is used to, in loose terms, cast a net and capture the status quo. Results of the survey supplement the literature review driven a priori assumptions and seek out context embedded variables that the literature has not touched upon. Findings from the survey contribute to the succeeding case study methodology, which inquired into their detail through the use of interviews.Data for the study was collected between March through August 2010. During the first phase of the study 86 questionnaires were filled from 73 different projects. The survey data was analyzed using aggregate statistical techniques and a thesaurus based automated coding software named Leximancer. Results of the survey indicate that all projects surveyed had experienced some form of conflict and used at least one type of negotiation technique. A large number of projects faced conflicts related to land access, political pressures, time, interdepartmental relationships, and availability of resources. Project behavior when experiencing conflict exhibits a theme of delay, slowness, and work stoppages; there are also negative effects on group cohesion and productivity. The respondents described projects experiencing conflict as challenging, time consuming, delayed, and difficult. The data also revealed several useful patterns within projects experiencing conflicts. Additionally, baseline data for project complexity was captured using Shenhar and Dvir's Diamond Approach from all the projects surveyed. Findings, from the survey contributed to the study by providing preliminary answers to each of the research questions asked. Data gathered as a result of the survey contributed significantly to the design and orientation of the case study interviews.The second phase of the data collection involved implementation of the case study methodology. Personnel at various levels of nine projects, one government consultant, and a tribal elder were interviewed, for a total of thirty interviews. Additionally, six meetings on one of the projects, and two movie filming sequences were observed. Published and non-published reports on all the projects were examined. Interviews were captured using causal-maps (a cognitive mapping technique) and short notes. The causal-maps were captured using Banxia Decision Explorer and later refined using Cmap (an open-source mapping software). Each project's complexity measurements were taken and compared against the complexity baseline developed as a result of the survey.Results from the case study reveals certain patterns of behavior on the projects, specifically in the interactions taking place between a project and its principle organization, peers, and subordinates. Additionally, I find that quality plays the most active role in project conflict & negotiation and contributes significantly to project complexity because of its interconnection to other concepts and the recursive nature of the connections it spawns. Some factors that were reported by the survey as contributing significantly to project complexity and project conflict & negotiation were disqualified and a foundation laid for further inquiry into the role played by conflict & negotiation in project complexity.In concluding the study the data is first discussed through the lens of Jurgen Habermas' (1984) Theory of Communicative Action (TCA) and is followed by a general discussion on the data. The study concludes with a discussion on the possible future work that could result from this work
