The Role of the Business Dean in Comprehensive Community Colleges in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this case study was to explore the role of the dean of business in Comprehensive Community Colleges (CCCs) in Alberta. While there is an abundance of literature on the dean’s role in large, research-based institutions and a modest body of literature on the role in the college context, there appears to be a dearth of literature on the Alberta CCC business dean role. Within the available literature, the responsibilities and expectations for the decanal position remain unclear. The main research question was, “Is there clarity in the purpose of the role, tasks, and how the Dean of Business is assessed across the system in the province?” Perspectives on the role were examined through two different lenses, Vice Presidents, Academic (VPAs) and business deans working in an Alberta CCC at the time of the study. Participants responded to questions via two electronic questionnaires. Six deans and six VPAs participated in this study. This study found the following: • the dean’s ability to build trusting relationships is key to success; • the clarity of the term entrepreneurship, as it pertains to the decanal role, would reduce ambiguity of role; • deans do not always have portfolios entirely within their area of expertise; • further clarification of the dean’s role for stakeholders would support the dean’s success; • further clarity is required around decanal assessment; and • a common set of assessment criteria would be beneficial for deans and aspiring deans. A conclusion that can be drawn is that while currently there is a significant ambiguity surrounding the role of the Dean of Business in the Alberta CCC, there are processes and procedures that could be initiated in each of the diverse community colleges across Alberta to clarify the dean’s portfolio and establish performance criteria surrounding the role of the Dean of Business in the Alberta CCC. Keywords: comprehensive community college, regional stewardship, higher education
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".