本研究主要目的在於探討技職體系大學校院系所主管的角色，以及比較系所主管本身、教師以及學生對系所主管角色看法的差異，並探討不同背景變項之系所主管、教師與學生，對系所主管角色看法的差異情形。本研究採調查研究法，以全國具有系所合一的35所技職體系大學校院為研究對象，方便取樣北、中、南共6所技職體系大學校院之系所主管、教師與學生共719位樣本；根據自擬「技職體系大學校院系所主管角色問卷」為研究工具，並以郵寄問卷方式進行研究調查。預試有效樣本100份，回收率94％，以專家內容效度、項目分析、信度分析，考驗預試問卷的信度，得到問卷Cronbach α係數0.9867；正式施測樣本719份，有效回收率72.46％，以因素分析、描述統計、t考驗、Mann-Whitney Test、單因子變異數分析、Kruskal-Wallis Test做為分析資料的統計方法。
    研究結果發現，技職體系大學校院系所主管角色共有20種行為表現方式，分為四種向度：行政管理維護者、公共關係執行者、系所文化建構者、研究發展推動者，可解釋變異量為63.873％。系所主管本身、教師與學生對角色的看法是不同，其中以系所主管本身的認同度最高。另外，系所主管本身的學位等級，會造成其對角色不同看法，以碩士學位等級的系所主管，對本研究角色描述認同度高於博士等級的系所主管。教師學位等級與所任職學校的屬性是國立或私立，會影響教師對系所主管角色的看法，其中以博士學位等級與國立學校教師對系所主管角色的描述認同度較高。而學生的學位等級、學科領域、學校所在位置、系所專任教師人數，會影響學生對系所主管角色看法，其中以商管系所學生、學校地理位置—中部、以及中型系所（專任教師11-20人）之系所的學生，對本研究系所主管角色描述認同度較高。
    針對結果提出建議包括：1.因本研究之「系所文化建構者」角色向度與以往研究系所主管角色的文獻有所不同，可進一步探討。2.未來類似研究可加入焦點團體或個別訪談，以增加結果討論的深度。3.本研究中未納入系所主管招募研究生之行為表現，若未來有類似的研究可考慮增加此行為表現，以期系所主管角色更完備。4.本研究結果除可提供教育行政機 關、校長、系所主管、系所成員了解系所主管角色外，同時可當作評量系所主管的參考。

This study is a quantitative comparison of the views of chairpersons, lecturers, and students, from technological universities and colleges, on the role of a chairperson. An investigation into the differing opinions of individuals within each group is conducted along with a study of how the social background of respondents influences their opinions. The data was collected via research surveys collected from a total of 35 technological and vocational colleges and universities. Convenience sampling was carried out using 719 respondents from colleges and universities in northern, central and southern Taiwan. The pilot study consisted of 100 questionnaires, of which 94% were returned. These questionnaires were analysed using expert content validity, item analysis, and reliability analysis, which produced a Cronbach of 0.9876. Usable responses from the main study sample (719) were 72.46%. This data was analysed using factor analysis, descriptive statistics, t-tests (Mann Whitney test), and one-way ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis test).
   The results of the survey found the chairperson's role to involve 20 kinds of behaviour representation and four major dimensions; administrator and manager, public relations officer, culture development, and research development. The extracted squared loaded cumulative variance for this data was 63.873%. The chairpersons' viewpoints recorded a higher agreement with roles listed in the survey than the viewpoints of the lecturers, or the students. The chairpersons holding masters degrees had a higher agreement than those holding doctoral degrees. In the lecturer's group the higher agreement came form lecturers, on duty at national universities or colleges, with doctoral degrees than with lecturers, at private universities and colleges, with masters degrees. In the students' group degree, major, location, and number of full-time teachers per department were the factors that affected the viewpoints of the chairperson's role amongst business and management students and students from the central area of Taiwan. Full-time lecturers from medium sized departments (11-20 people) recorded more agreement with the chairperson's role.

In summation, my suggestions, based on the findings of the survey are as follows; (i) more advanced discussion is required with regarded to developing a culture within anorganisation, (ii) the addition of a focus group for further studies would be beneficial, and (iii) increase the proportion of questions related to recruitment behaviour. The findings of this study may prove useful to educational departments, principals, chairpersons and faculty, in understanding the role of the chairperson. The results of this study may also be useful for developing criteria to evaluate chairpersons.