The Civic Engagement Cluster:
A Case Study of Building Interorganizational Collaboration
By
Aaron D. Anderson & Marvin W. Peterson
This study was conducted
for the project on Managing Institutional Change and Transformation in
Higher Education at the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary
Education, University of Michigan. This study was made possible by a grant
from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and is affiliated with the Kellogg Forum
on Higher Education Transformation (KFHET).
Back to Educational Transformation
Main Page
Introduction - Back to Top
At the close of the 20th Century, the system of higher education in the
United States faced uncertainty and significant challenges. The need for
systemic change was pervasive providing both opportunities and threats
to the future viability of the postsecondary knowledge industry (Clark,
1997; Drucker, 1994; Peterson & Dill, 1997). Today, under an array
of market pressures and increased competition, traditional colleges and
universities are being forced to create innovative methods for organizational
learning to improve both academic and non-academic functions (Dill, 1999).
Survival makes it imperative that colleges and universities learn from
each other under the grim reality that failure to change in response to
continuously shifting internal and external forces places the higher education
industry at considerable risk (Clark, 2000; Dill, 1999).
During the 1990s, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) launched three initiatives
to meet these challenges by bringing together numerous higher education
institutions engaged in changing organizational or operational structures
with the explicit objective that they learn from each other. The first
was a collection of 26 institutions guided by the American Council on
Education (ACE). The second focused on five institutions engaged in transforming
their home campuses in different ways for disparate reasons. This initiative
was labeled the Kellogg Network for Institutional Transformation (KNIT).
A third effort was launched with the intent to be more deliberate and
focused on extracting meaning from the KNIT initiative. This third project,
labeled the Kellogg Forum on Higher Education Transformation (KFHET),
brought a set of three research centers and a professional association
into the fold with the specific goal of collaborating with KNIT and learning
as much as possible about how institutions change and transform themselves.
While numerous foundations and professional associations fund or support
a wide array of national consortia and networks aimed at changing higher
education, assessing the worth of and extracting what is learned from
such collaborative efforts is seldom done. Yet doing so is essential if
other institutions are to benefit from these efforts. Reflecting this
approach, one major project of the KFHET initiative was the creation of
a national multi-institutional collaborative revolving around the new
"civic learning or engagement" movement (see Ehrlich, 2000).
This collaborative is called the Civic Engagement Cluster (CEC).
In brief, the KFHET Civic Engagement Cluster is a collaborative arrangement
among ten colleges and universities from across the United States each
with some program and set of initiatives designed to instill democratic
values and mores on its campus through engaging their respective communities
in some way. Individual campus efforts vary from working with Habitat
for Humanity, to campus wide community service days, to reconfiguration
of entire curricula or working to observe and survey the recent Mexican
elections. In conjunction with WKKF and through the leadership efforts
of the New England Center for Research in Higher Education (NERCHE), these
institutions will work together over the course of a year to share ideas
and resources, provide mutual support, develop initiatives and serve as
a catalyst and as institutional leaders for the civic engagement movement.
The purpose of this study is to examine how learning is operationalized
vis-à-vis the development and construction of a national network
(the CEC) explicitly designed to foster organizational-learning about
change and about civic engagement among and between colleges and universities.
Using case study methodology this paper serves two ends. The first aim
is to describe the interplay between individual KFHET stakeholders and
the process of forming the Civic Engagement Cluster as part of the KFHET
initiative. Based on this experience, the second aim is to illustrate
and identify relevant learnings about how to design and develop multi-institutional
collaboratives intended to foster institutional change. The reader should
finish with a thorough understanding of how the CEC was developed and
take away important lessons for designing and developing positive interorganizational,
collaborative change efforts.
Method - Back to Top
While organizational research in higher education uses both quantitative
and qualitative methods (Peterson & Spencer, 1990), the literature
thus far offers no useful survey instruments for analyzing organizational
learning much less interorganizational learning. Research on learning
among individuals has a long history, but application of similar research
approaches which focus on the emergence of a new organizational unit,
is especially challenging. Thus, to derive as clear and complete a picture
of organizational learning as possible, this study employed a case study
research strategy. Case studies are the preferred method, when dealing
with critical problems of practice and extending the knowledge base into
areas with little related literature (Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1993 & 1994).
Because of the overlapping, interactive nature of the latter two WKKF
initiatives, this study focuses on both KFHET and CEC participants (see
Appendix A for list of interviewees). KFHET was initially comprised of
two groups each with their own acronym: Kellogg Network for Institutional
Transformation (KNIT) and the Learning Integration Group (LIG). These
two groups were comprised of administrators, scholars and staff members
from the following agencies:
a) KNIT consisted of five institutions engaged in institutional
transformation efforts funded by WKKF. These institutions were Alverno
College, Minnesota State Colleges and University System (MnSCU), Olivet
College, Portland State University, and the University of Arizona.
b) LIG consisted of a group of researchers and professionals
engaged in studying and guiding the KNIT transformation efforts. This
group included participants from the University of California- Los
Angeles (UCLA), the University of Massachusetts - Boston (UMass),
the University of Michigan (UMich), and the American Council on Education
(ACE).
The KNIT and LIG distinctions were later dropped as KFHET began to operate
as a collaboration that also included professional staff from WKKF's Higher
Education and Leadership Programs.
Selected KFHET leaders were interviewed between January and June 2000.
Additionally, one team leader from each of the CEC institutions (excluding
KNIT) were interviewed at the first CEC meeting held in Snowbird, Utah
in July 2000. A total of 30 interviews were conducted (see Appendix B
for protocols). For purposes of triangulation and thick description (Creswell,
1998), over 200 relevant documents ranging from original requests for
proposals (RFPs), responses, position descriptions drafts, project working
papers, and email correspondence were collected and analyzed.
Project Origins - Back to
Top
The Foundation
Historically, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) has had a peculiar involvement
with higher education. Generally, the Foundation embraces a community
focus and views its role as investing in people rather than organizations.
This notion is reflected in the long-standing mission that has guided
WKKF for many years:1
To help people help themselves through the practical application
of knowledge and resources to improve their quality of life and that
of future generations.
Out of this mission stems a vision held by the WKKF Board of Trustees
that shapes the decision making process for allocation of funds. In particular,
programming activities center around the common vision of a world
in which each person has a sense of worth; accepts responsibility
for self, family, community, and societal well-being, and has the
capacity to be productive, and to help create nurturing families,
responsible institutions, and healthy communities.
These two statements govern Foundation interactions with institutional
representatives and the nature of grants made to colleges and universities.
Specifically, with respect to postsecondary education, the goal for WKKF
is to:
In 1995 (see Appendix C for a detailed
timeline), WKKF sponsored several grants aimed at fostering positive transformation
in higher education. Over time, a number of these practitioners, scholars
and grant leaders were pulled together to form a multi-institutional network
(KFHET) with the aim of learning all they could about change within the
higher education industry. One product of this effort was the establishment
of a collaborative designed to support a network of colleges and universities
already engaged in transforming their institutions around various civic
learning initiatives: the Civic Engagement Cluster (CEC).
Two contextual pieces must be outlined before plunging into the details
of CEC's development. First, a discussion of the nature of funding practices
by the WKKF is important because WKKF's strategy was changing during this
period, and the flow of monetary support from the Foundation to higher
education institutions is identified repeatedly as problematic for Cluster
leaders and participants. Second, a brief illumination of the various
players, an exposition of the salient elements and an overview of the
general time frame of the KFHET grant is warranted because the CEC is
embedded within the context of the larger KFHET initiative.
The Nature of WKKF Funding Practice
Prior to the KFHET initiative and according to all accounts, funding
at the Foundation was handled by what is considered a transactional strategy
and relationship. As one Kellogg officer put it, "it was over the
transom funding." Under one approach, Kellogg reviews a proposal
and makes a decision to fund - yes or no. If yes, Kellogg issues a check
to the grantee for the allocated amount. The grantee then administers
the funds, conducts the project and reports progress back annually. A
second funding method relies heavily on past connections and relationships
between the grantee and Foundation representatives. If a Foundation Director,
via conversation with college personnel, stumbles upon a brilliant idea
or one that fits with current Foundation goals, the Director would encourage
the drafting and submission of a funding proposal. On rare occasions,
the WKKF issues national or international requests for proposals (RFPs),
but usually targets a select group of prior grantees to invite.
Regardless how an institution or individual obtains funding, the proposal
traditionally has served as a contract between the two agencies. In some
cases actual contracts were drawn. Beyond initial contact, ongoing progress
reports and budget reviews, little or no collaboration occurred between
the Foundation and the grantee. This type of transactional funding left
a considerable amount of latitude to the grantee regarding the operation
of the grant. For example, should the grantee make a decision mid-grant
to shift tasks that would better suit the stipulated goals, under this
model, the Foundation has no specific programmatic control beyond influence
over the budget and budget related decisions.
The ACE 26 (completed in 1995) and the MnSCU (funded in 1995) projects
were to be the last funded in this transactional manner. A shift in thinking
and funding philosophy evolved from a series of ongoing internal conversations
at the Kellogg Foundation that germinated in 1995. With the broad scope
perspective offered from reviewing large numbers of grant proposals and
funding grants from a variety of institutions, Foundation Directors felt
that they too had something to offer based on experience gained from working
with their projects. Although initially no intentional shift was made
in internal documentation and accounting procedures, the Foundation began
linking similar projects together to increase the power of their impact.
With the KFHET initiative, the Kellogg Foundation asserted its presence
and eventually began acting, not in the customary, transactional role
of grantor, but as a participant and full member of the project group.
Correspondingly, during phase one of the KFHET initiative (1998 - 1999),
WKKF funded KNIT and LIG participants in the traditional transactional
sense. Gradually during phase one and into the design of phase two of
the KFHET initiative (1999-2001), WKKF staff became active members of
the collaboration. Official documentation changed from delivery of funds
at the outset of each phase to delivery upon receipt project deliverables
2. In essence, the Foundation was shifting
from transactional to what they consider a collaborative funding paradigm.
For some KFHET grantees, this shift was less than overt and more like
a move toward contingency funding rather than a truly collaborative system.
Within WKKF, this shift was complex and involved five critical elements
that amounted to an internal as well as external transformation in funding
practice.
An interest in expanding the KFHET effort by both WKKF and its grantees
by learning from their efforts and disseminating these learnings to
other institutions.
A shift from responding to individual funding requests over many
initiatives to identifying projects that fit within the framework
of a smaller number of key Kellogg initiatives.
A move to more collaborative arrangements between Kellogg staff and
the grantees.
A shift from grants or contracts for the specific institutions to
grants made to umbrella institutions that both advise and guide the
WKKF initiative and the various grantee institutions.
Shifting from individual institutional grants to an emphasis on
cluster projects where institutions work together both to accomplish
the clusters as well as the institutional objectives and to learn
from their own experience.
KNIT History
In July 1995, the Board of Trustees of the Kellogg Foundation approved
a "Higher Education Strategic Plan" 3
centering on assisting institutions with a variety of change and transformation
efforts. The following month, the Foundation approved a proposal from
the newly created Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system (MnSCU)
requesting funds to support a "leadership exchange program"
for people thrust into a government mandated system-level merger of State
institutions 4. To extend
the reach of their Strategic Plan, the Board approved a five-year plan
to identify and support five liberal arts colleges and regional universities
to serve as 21st century institutional change prototypes for institutions
engaged in transformation. These institutions were to be:
undergoing significant and fundamental change,
improving service to students and community in the transformation
effort,
utilizing their own resources to support the effort,
committed to assessable, holistic institutional change,
able to maintain a feasible and broadly supported implementation
plan,
willing to connect with and share their work with other peer institutions,
and
either past or current recipients of Kellogg funds.
This funding mission further stipulated that a phase II effort would
anticipate "identifying and funding an additional 5-6 institutions…providing
a cohort of 10-12 schools which can serve as national models for a variety
of change processes." 5
Subsequently, four more institutions (Alverno College, Olivet College,
Portland State, and the University of Arizona) were added into this expanded
WKKF initiative called the Kellogg Network for Institutional Transformation
(KNIT) (see Appendix D for individual project
descriptions). At the time of proposal submission no grantee was directly
aware of the other submissions nor that they would be brought together
in some sort of collaborative effort. From the five grantee perspectives
it appeared as if the Foundation had independently funded their efforts
under the traditional funding paradigm.
From KNIT to KFHET
Originally, WKKF was to administer both evaluative functions and a learning
transfer process for the KNIT initiative with internal WKKF staff. The
point was to develop an "intentional strategy that would translate
the experiences of the individual campuses into learning that could be
adapted and replicated." 6
It became clear after two KNIT team meetings that the lofty goal of translating
learnings to the larger higher education community was going to be difficult
to accomplish without outside help. Consequently, WKKF solicited assistance
by means of an RFP to selected centers for the study of higher education
and professional higher education associations. The RFP called for the
establishment of two different agencies to accomplish evaluative and learning
transmission functions. However, a number of the responses to the RFP
suggested that these might be better considered one role, not two. Inside
the Foundation it was evident that more powerful results might be produced
if ideas from several of the respondents' proposals to the RFP could somehow
be tied together into one effort.
Of the 18 total responses received, 12 were judged to be complete and
addressed all capacity issues, but four were particularly complementary.
Thus, the Foundation invited representatives from UCLA's Higher Education
Research Institute (HERI), the University of Massachusetts - Boston's
New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE), the University
of Michigan's Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education
(CSHPE), and the American Council on Education (ACE) to Battle Creek for
an initial meeting. One participant described the meeting's amorphous
process as akin to "a first date - tentative and exploratory."
While the WKKF's intent for the meeting was to determine if the different
proposals could be woven together into one, much of the usual posturing
that accompanies a competitive grant making process was demonstrated.
Still, the representatives listened to each other's proposals, offered
insight and ideas for improvement and brainstormed ways to maintain the
individual components of the responses while composing some collective
initiatives. The four organizations walked away from the meeting with
a charge from the Kellogg program officers to further discuss ways to
bring together the best parts of each of the responses and weave them
together into one collaborative effort. Over the course of a few months
each agency developed individual as well as collective initiatives, and
representatives from ACE performed the task of integrating them into one
proposal. As a result, these three academic centers and ACE presented
a joint proposal. The proposal was approved for funding by WKKF in the
spring of 1998 thus officially forming the Learning Integration Group
(LIG).
The central task for the LIG was to "provide the means by which
the experiences of the institutions (KNIT) are accumulated, synthesized,
assigned meaning, articulated and applied." 7
Even though the proposal was submitted jointly and ACE was to serve as
the convener, each center was to maintain an individual relationship with
the Foundation. In practice, "it was like parallel play" according
to one interviewee. Each team worked mainly in independent ways to achieve
grant goals specifically designated as their responsibility and came together
occasionally to share with the others.
Collectively, the LIG members, the KNIT institutions, and the WKKF staff
now comprised KFHET. In a June 1998 meeting in Washington, DC, representatives
of the LIG and KNIT groups struggled with their roles and their relationships
in this new entity. This suggested the need for greater clarity and focus
and set the stage for the next meeting.
While the separate entities pursued their own projects following the
Washington meeting, planning began for a meeting later that year to further
examine the nature of KFHET. As articulated at their December 1998 meeting
held at UCLA, participants argued the aims of KFHET could be summarized
as follows. KFHET should: 8
Model itself as a learning community that links research to practice
Engage in collective inquiry to deepen their understanding of change
in the academy
Serve as a catalyst for change for the larger higher education community
Recognize that while members of the LIG will have individual contractual
relationships with WKKF, they will coordinate with each other and
with KNIT institutions, and serve as advisors to each other
KFHET Phase I Initiatives: Introducing
the Network Idea 9
In addition to collaborating with the LIG during Phase I of the KFHET
initiative, the KNIT institutions were still primarily responsible for
continuing with their own institutional project objectives (see Appendix
D). As presented in the combined proposal, LIG did not clearly stipulate
how to make KFHET egalitarian and interactive. As such, initial collaboration
attempts between KNIT and LIG were awkward and by many reports were at
best ineffective and at worst non-functional.
NERCHE's major activity in KFHET was to capitalize on past experience
with generating collaborative learning clusters among Boston area colleges
and universities and to focus on the development of some form of "transformation
network." This network was later to blossom into the Civic Engagement
Cluster. NERCHE also offered a graduate level course revolving around
change and transformation with a practitioner focus and were to work closely
with one or more of the KNIT institutions.
The UCLA project focus was three fold. Like NERCHE and Michigan, the
HERI team was to develop and offer a graduate level course on change but
with a focus on generating a "grand theory" on higher education
transformation. Capitalizing on the extensive CIRP database collected
over thirty years, the UCLA group was to begin to develop a research based
explanation of significant shifts in student population trends and institutional
undergraduate practice. Lastly, they were to collaborate with the KNIT
institutions and develop some case studies.
The Michigan team worked with the NERCHE team in their cluster development
project and was engaged in five other activities. One was to develop pedagogical
case studies of institutional change and transformation. Michigan also
offered a graduate level course on change and transformation theory with
a primary focus of linking organizational theory to change and transformation.
An annotated bibliography of recent literature related to change and transformation
in higher education was generated. As an effort to move beyond KFHET,
the CSHPE team completed a national study of graduate level course offerings.
ACE's main role was to act as the coordinator and secretariat of the
whole KFHET project. Among their collaborative responsibilities, ACE was
to act as a clearinghouse of all project-related materials, plan and schedule
KFHET meetings, develop reports based on the various change projects,
and coordinate a National Colloquium on Institutional Change.
Moving Toward KFHET Phase II:
The Concept of a Cluster Emerges 10
After a number of joint and separate KNIT/LIG meetings between June 1998
and January 2000 (see Appendix C timeline for details) and the completion
of several activities by each member of the group, the distinction between
KNIT and LIG was subordinated as the KFHET meetings shifted toward a more
collaborative focus. Over time, the relationships between KFHET members
began to reflect more trust and the collaborative thrust that drove most
of the later meetings emerged. Numerous conversations both inside and
outside of the formalized meetings revolved around designing clusters
as a means of extending KFHET's work. Ideas for more than one cluster
and for their possible focus were discussed. However, NERCHE's interest
in and experience with the concept were most influential. NERCHE sponsored
a project which reviewed the literature on collaboration and lead to a
report (Thomas, 1999) which was shared. Clearly their efforts, including
Arthur Chickering and Zee Gamson's enthusiasm for the idea placed NERCHE
in the forefront of the development of a proposal for a cluster.
Based on the promising work of KFHET and project developments in 1998,
WKKF developed and submitted a Phase II RFP to all KFHET participants
for justify continued funding. The aim was to "encourage ongoing
participation and engagement around the principles and values" articulated
throughout the duration of Phase I efforts. While formal relationships
and contracts were to be "developed between the W.K. Kellogg Foundation
and each of the grantees and contractors," the Foundation hoped to
foster "mutually supportive and transforming relationships between
and among all participants." The foundation perpetuated four objectives
with this RFP (Objectives 1 &2 related to the KNIT initiative and
Objectives 3 & 4 related to the LIG initiative):
q Objective 1 - Support institutions as they institutionalize their changes
and complete the transition to self-funding of new institutional arrangements,
leaving behind a "legacy of renewal."
Objective 2 - Support institutional participation and leadership
in cross-institutional networks and other KNIT/KFHET activities.
Objective 3 - Support the research and support centers of KFHET as
they continue to implement learning strategies within the context
of the initiative.
Objective 4 - Support participation and leadership in cross-institutional
networks and other KNIT/KFHET activities.
The RFP stipulated that all activities under Objective 2 were to be determined
by the KNIT/KFHET partnership and the Foundation. Aside from continuation
of some specific Phase I efforts, new Phase II funding was to support
networking meetings and collaborative efforts only. The RFP did make an
obvious overture to the Civic Engagement Cluster stipulating that "the
Foundation has chosen to use multiple, interrelated networks as the vehicle
for bringing about the desired changes in institutions and society."
This reinforced the cluster effort championed by NERCHE, worked to sustain
the KFHET collaborative, and left some latitude for potential future development
of other clusters. All previous participants (the five KNIT institutions,
three research centers and ACE) responded to the Phase II RFP and continued
to be involved. However, only NERCHE's response would specifically propose
formation of a cluster.
Civic Engagement Cluster Development -Back
to Top
Beginnings
Not one of the KNIT institutions' Phase I grants made mention of civic
engagement or had a cluster focus. In practice, the KNIT initiative was
more like a consortium of grant-recipients undergoing diverse transformation
efforts than a national collaborative effort. It was during the conception
and evolution of the KFHET initiative that a concrete Foundation commitment
to fostering interorganizational learning via intentional establishment
of an issue oriented multi-institutional collaborative emerged.
At the outset of the KFHET initiative, most participants only had a vague
notion about the focus and the operation of a collaborative arrangement.
Three issues exacerbated the confusion. First, local leadership attrition
and personnel changes caused numerous fluctuations of KNIT project participants.
Second, although each initiative centered on some aspect of institutional
change or transformation, individual KNIT institutions were implementing
very different change efforts, and LIG institutions were carrying out
separate projects. Thus, individual KFHET initiatives were at best loosely
coupled. Third, the introduction of and weaving of KNIT and LIG into KFHET
was a turbulent endeavor exacerbated by ambiguous communication channels
and a lack of immediate connectivity to the CEC initiative. As a whole,
the struggles related to building the KFHET collaborative during Phase
I provide excellent lessons reflecting the difficult work of building
productive multi-institutional learning networks. Some of these lessons
are conveyed in the "Learnings from the Field" portion of this
document.
The origin of the Civic Engagement Cluster idea precedes the formation
of the Learning Integration Group. Upon receiving the RFP solicitation
from the WKKF, Professor Zelda Gamson (then with NERCHE - now retired)
contacted Professors Arthur Chickering and Marvin Peterson to develop
a response that included the kernel for the cluster idea. In their preliminary
proposal, the NERCHE team identified five concentric "circles"
or steps for realizing the goals set forth in the original WKKF RFP. Objectives
and outcomes were listed under the following categories: 11
Circle 1: Accumulate and synthesize change experiences for each of
the selected "core" [KNIT] institutions.
Circle 2: Articulate and assign meaning to the change strategies
and experiences of all of the core institutions. Develop initial principles
and frameworks for institutional change and transformation.
Circle 3: Apply and modify change experiences, strategies, principles
and frameworks of the core institutions to peer institutions.
Circle 4: Disseminate the results of circles one through three throughout
the higher education industry.
Circle 5: Broadcast the results of the previous circles outside of
higher education industry.
As submitted, the development of one or more multi-institutional learning
clusters was a fundamental piece of the NERCHE plan. Circle 3 objectives
clearly identify the KNIT (referred to as the "core" in the
proposal) institutions as levers or leaders for fostering change within
the higher education industry. Specifically, the NERCHE proposal articulated
the philosophy behind the cluster concept stating that they intended to
12
…build networks of peer institutions that would share the experiences
of the core institutions according to the model of institutional transformation
and its modifications. These networks immediately expand the impact
of the selected institutions and provide the basis for ongoing reflection
and application. If they gather momentum they can become self-nourishing
and self-sustaining well beyond the life of the initial project. …Essentially,
Circle three, as presently envisioned would bring together three clusters
of five to ten "affiliated" institutions, similar in type
to the core institutions. A network of small private colleges that
would be closely involved with Alverno and Olivet could be one cluster.
Another could be a network of state colleges and universities associated
with Arizona and Portland State, and yet other would be statewide
systems associated with the Minnesota effort. If other core institutions
are added to KNIT, they could provide the basis for the formation
of other clusters, such as a communitcluster or a research university
cluster, or they could be added to the proposed clusters above, as
appropriate.y college
At the outset, the cluster effort was largely perceived as the NERCHE
bailiwick. Even though the preliminary proposal stipulated that "one
or more LIG principals would be associated with each cluster" it
took a lengthy period before other KFHET members saw how they fit with
this particular portion of the project. Moreover, other than providing
in-person feedback to the NERCHE team during national meetings, the KNIT
institutions did not have much to do with the overall development of the
cluster. The bulk of the work of building this portion of the initiative
took place behind the scenes and outside of KFHET meetings.
Why Clusters?
The idea that clusters are effective tools for fostering interorganizational
learning is not new. According to the WKKF, the traditional, one-at-a-time,
transactional funding of individual grants rarely resulted in wide spread
learning within the greater higher education community. Outside of their
higher education unit, the WKKF had experienced considerable success with
other multi-institutional grant efforts. Moreover, collaborative efforts
were justifiable based on NERCHE successes with developing numerous Boston
area college and university networks. These successes lead the originators
to believe that various forms of clustering structures would be productive
mechanisms for fostering industry and societal change. A written justification
for use of theme-based clusters to foster change within the postsecondary
knowledge industry was produced: 13
…A single institution most likely does not have all the answers
and can benefit from close interactions with others facing similar
struggles. Clusters provide opportunities for raising questions and
seeking strategies from institutions facing similar problems; they
facilitate sharing ideas, information, and strategies. They create
opportunities to test ideas and assumptions with little risk, and
through project and cross-institutional interactions provide external
validation for campus initiatives. Clusters add outside momentum and
energy to an institution's efforts, and they provide a sense of accountability
through a set of public deadlines and reports. …Through interaction
within the cluster, institutions move away from the "parallel
play" that typifies innovation in higher education where good
ideas are rarely shared and each campus (or each academic program)
recreates its own wheel. At the same time, clusters provide a level
of cumulative learning simply not captured when institutions work
alone. They create supportive environments, ones rich with diverse
experiences, insights, and ideas. The cluster design incorporates
both institutional reflection and action and inter-institutional learning.
…Faculty keep a watchful eye on their colleagues at other institutions.
The comfort of knowing other similar institutions are embarking on
the same challenges and the legitimacy provided by participation in
a national project go a long way.
Generating Support
It took much work and a fair amount of persuasion to gain widespread
support for the cluster concept before generation of the highly polished
statement above could happen. The challenge existed in part because of
the loosely coupled nature of KFHET. NERCHE and its advisors were all
in agreement that using a cluster format was appropriate for fostering
change and transformation in the higher education industry. Others were
not aware of the approach or had not spent as much time thinking through
the idea.
The first step was to convince the Foundation that a cluster focus was
appropriate and applicable to the KFHET initiative because the CEC stood
for a complete change in how the WKKF funded grants. Despite the stated
collaborative goals of KFHET, the Foundation still maintained very separate
contracts with each grantee. The NERCHE team was asking for monies to
support approximately 10 institutions in a highly interactive and collaborative
effort. In a Spring (1997) meeting held at a Detroit Airport hotel, Zelda
Gamson (NERCHE), Arthur Chickering (NERCHE), John Burkhardt (WKKF), and
Marvin Peterson (CSHPE) came to discuss whether the cluster effort should
move as a part of the KFHET initiative. By the close of the meeting, it
was apparent that this indeed was the best approach and convincing the
KNIT institutions and the remaining LIG members became the next challenge.
Realizing the need for sound theoretical rationale to present to the
rest of KFHET, NERCHE contracted with Nancy Thomas (Fall, 1998) to produce
a report examining the effectiveness of multi-institutional efforts. This
document proved a useful tool for supporting the development of a cluster
structure. It is important to note that at this point, even though they
agreed on cluster format no one had settled on the civic learning focus.
Thomas' study offered four main insights providing: 14
techniques for designing and maintaining effective multi-institutional
collaborations that encourage success at individual institutions
a review of project goals and addresses whether collaboration is
a means or an end
strategies for forming and managing networks paying particular attention
to the role of project leadership
recommendations for the role, responsibilities and selection criteria
for institutional participants
The Los Angeles KFHET Meeting
- December 1998 15
The results of Thomas' paper were summarized and copies distributed at
the December 1998 KFHET meeting in Los Angeles. By numerous accounts,
the UCLA meeting was difficult in terms of fostering collaboration within
KFHET. Participants were experiencing numerous terminology and semantic
problems regarding the nature of KFHET. They were also hampered by ambiguous
leadership structures, differentiated goals, and funding uncertainty in
the effort. KNIT participants emphasized the challenge of overcoming natural
boundaries because each institution was engaged in such different initiatives.
More than one person insisted that any move toward a cluster strategy
must be held together by a linking theme.
Arthur Chickering presented his rationale for focusing the proposed cluster
on themes such as civic learning, diversity or technology.16
He presented three reasons for centering the NERCHE effort specifically
on civic learning. First, a variety of environmental forces confirmed
that higher education institutions should be engaged in education beyond
narrow career preparation. Second, as liberal education has always stood
for preparation for civic life, civic learning could be a convenient term
that encompasses the contemporary interpretation of this traditional mission.
Third, several KNIT institutions had been actively pursuing and experience
success with initiatives that fit the definition of civic learning.
By the end of the meeting, KFHET, having resolved some of the larger
issues revolving around its nature and focus, settled on civic learning
as the focus for a first cluster or "transformation network".
Other alternatives were discussed, but it was argued that they needed
more discussion and further development. At this time, the CEC received
the working moniker "Civic Learning Cluster", and it was seen
as the key KFHET pilot for implementing the new cluster transformation
strategy. The name of the Cluster would later be changed to reflect the
WKKF focus on "engaged" institutions and the emerging civic
responsibility movement. 17
Cluster Organizational Structure (see Appendix
E)
During most of Phase I of the KFHET initiative, Professors Zelda Gamson
and Arthur Chickering were the primary leaders of the Cluster development.
Marvin Peterson, acting in an advisory role, assisted with shaping some
of the preliminary documents and gaining broader support. After receiving
initial WKKF approval, Prof. Chickering strengthened the development team
by adding four more people onto an Advisory Board: Thomas Ehrlich, Senior
Scholar, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; Madeleine
Green, Vice President and Project Director, American Council on Education;
Bernard Harleston, Professor and Chair, Department of Leadership in Education,
Graduate School of Education, UMass-Boston; and Deborah Hirsch, NERCHE
Director. 18
Heeding Arthur Chickering's charge to "put your sharp red pencils
to that,"19 the work
of the Advisory Board was crucial to the development of the CEC. Based
primarily on Arthur Chickering's preliminary and continuous work on various
documents and his prodding, these seven people spent a little over a year
time period shaping a detailed framework for the CEC. After numerous edits
and revisions of various Cluster documents, the finer grain details (e.g.
defining terminology, vision and mission creation, and determining an
acceptable organizational structure) were put into motion.
The next task was to hire a Cluster Director and administrative support.
The Advisory Board participated by critiquing position descriptions, nominating
various candidates, screening applications and participating in interviews
when possible. At the same time, the Advisory Board was assisting in designing
institutional selection criteria and, with guidance from Kellogg staff,
in developing a list of potential college and university invitees. Eventually,
a newly hired Director would be placed in charge of managing the Cluster
under the direction of Arthur Chickering, who continued in the capacity
of Cluster leader. Target participation in this cluster was set at 10
institutions.
Civic Learning - A Philosophy and Definition
Evolves
Once past the support generation phase, work began in earnest on the
challenge to define precisely what civic learning meant in January of
2000. Through lengthy Email conversations, telephone and in-person meetings,
as well as some quality individual thinking on the part of Advisory Board
members, a philosophy and definition emerged. More importantly, through
the discourse it became clear that: 1) a definition of "civic learning"
was necessary since the phrase meant many things to different people;
2) civic learning should include both curricular and extra-curricular
activities; and 3) participating institutions should involve a critical
mass of faculty and a substantial share of students in the civic learning
project, but not necessarily all faculty or all students.20
The Advisory Board widely felt that the role colleges and universities
play in preparing students for engagement as citizens in a democracy is
critical and that higher education should go beyond career preparation.
These views were articulated in the actual CEC RFP sent to potential
institutional members: "civic learning means coming to understand
how a community functions, what problems it faces, the richness of its
diversity, and the importance of individual commitments of time and energy
in enhancing community." 21
Arthur Chickering ambitiously proclaimed that the CEC should aim to work
with "institutions where a critical mass of faculty, student affairs
professionals, administrators, and students will undertake fundamental
changes in curriculum and teaching, on- and off-campus experiential learning,
and organizational culture to strengthen outcomes consistent with this
definition."22 Thomas
Ehrlich elaborated on the definition (co-authored with Anne Colby) outlining
the following qualities characteristic of engagement in civic learning
(see Appendix F for elaborated version): 23
We believe that higher education should encourage and facilitate
the development of students capacities to examine complex situations
in which competing values are often at stake, to employ both substantive
knowledge and moral reasoning to evaluate the problems and values
involved, to develop their own judgments about those issues, and then
to act on their judgments.
We consider "civic" to range over all social spheres beyond
the family, from neighborhoods and local communities to state, national,
and cross-national arenas.
We are not promoting a single type of civic or political engagement,
but…Institutions of higher education have both the opportunity
and obligation to cultivate in their graduates an appreciation for
the responsibilities and rewards of civic engagement, as well as to
foster the capacities necessary for thoughtful participation in public
discourse and effective participation in social enterprises.
We believe that moral and civic development is enhanced by mutually
interdependent sets of knowledge, virtues, and skills…and…enriching
the moral and civic responsibility of all members of the campus community
is best achieved through the cumulative, interactive effect of numerous
curricular and extracurricular programs, within an environment of
sustained institutional commitment to these overarching goals.
Among the core virtues is the willingness to engage in critical self-examination
and to form reasoned commitments, balanced by open-mindedness and
a willingness to listen to and take seriously the ideas of others.
Moral and civic responsibility also requires honesty in dealings with
others, and in holding oneself accountable for one's action and inactions.
Without a basis of trust, and habits of cooperation, no community
can operate effectively. Empathy and compassion are also needed, not
only for relating to those in one's immediate social sphere, but for
relating to those in the larger society as well.
The core skills of moral and civic responsibility are essential for
applying core knowledge and virtues, transforming informed judgments
into action.
The cover letter that would be attached to the CEC RFP restated the definition
and philosophy. It served to invite institutions to apply for membership
in a collaborative effort that combined several institutions committed
to "undertaking major changes to better serve students and society,
tackle significant change to strengthen civic learning among undergraduates,
to help us better understand change processes; and to provide national
leadership for this critical issue."
Action Orientation
The Civic Engagement Cluster began with activist leadership and a sharp
purpose in mind. Through the efforts of Arthur Chickering, Zee Gamson,
and the Advisory Board, its goals were clearly articulated and firmly
rooted in collaboration. This clarity of purpose and action orientation
were stipulated in the CEC Director application materials: "among
the products resulting from this effort will be case studies emphasizing
interactive problem solving, action planning and organizational analysis;
publications in professional journals, with a special emphasis on practitioners;
conference presentations; and workshops." In the long run, the CEC
will "hopefully model the process of learning about change by using
the members of the cluster to form similar clusters, an adaptation/multiplier
approach that will increase impact on the industry." 24
A Project Director
Through a nomination, application, and interview process, the Advisory
Board and the NERCHE leadership team conducted a national search for a
CEC project Director. Narrowed to six finalists from submitted applications,
each candidate was invited to interview, often with one or more Board
members participating via conference call. First, second and third choices
were identified and an offer was made. Dr. Liesa Stamm accepted the post.
Dr. Stamm, 25 an anthropologist
by discipline, did her research in North Africa interviewing women in
a changing society. She has extensive experience generating collaborative
efforts with Deans from across the State of Connecticut to foster changing
curricular change and institutional structures (see Appendix G for more
detail). From her interview, it was apparent that Dr. Stamm was ready
and willing to work with the Civic Engagement Cluster. Although admittedly
she was not 100% clear what the CEC will become, Dr. Stamm states clearly
that this project "is a wonderful challenge - to create something
that will meet the vision."26
With a new Director in place, the next steps were generation of interest,
invitation and selection of participants.
Selecting CEC Participants
The pool of potential Cluster participants was limited to approximately
100 colleges and universities all with some prior connection with the
WKKF. By design priority was given to as many KNIT institutions as were
interested. Based on their prior experience with KFHET, the hope was that
KNIT participants would bring in a level of sophistication about the Cluster
and collaborative experiences that would be invaluable to the CEC participants.
However, not all KNIT institutions were engaged in some form of civic
learning initiative. Only two KNIT institutions had written participation
in the CEC into their KFHET phase two proposals: Alverno and Olivet Colleges.
Later, leaders at Portland State indicated an interest in participation
directly to NERCHE. The University of Arizona was more interested in participation
in the anticipated Research University Cluster. Because it represents
an entire system rather than a single institution, MnSCU leaders decided
not to participate in the CEC.
Regardless of prior status, all institutions were required to follow
the same application procedure. First, a round of introductory letters
were forwarded to the Presidents at each of the 100 Kellogg recommended
institutions. Those institutions that returned a letter of interest to
NERCHE were forwarded a complete CEC RFP packet. The college or university,
in turn, was required to submit applications based on the RFP materials
- due 14 Feb 2000. Finalists were selected based on quality of paper applications.
Interviews and site visits (where possible) were also used to expand the
scope of information and understanding of institutional commitment to
civic learning and willingness to participate in a national collaborative.
The following is the criteria by which candidate institutions were measured
and decisions for participation were based: 27
Demonstrated commitment to civic learning as a major organizer for
institutional transformation. 28
Clearly articulated outcomes for cognitive and affective learning
pertinent to effective citizenship.
A leadership team whose members include administrators, faculty members,
student affairs professionals, institutional research staff, and others
appropriate to the change agenda.
An articulated approach to change appropriate for the institutional
type and mission.
A capacity to help create and provide leadership for an additional
Civic Engagement Clusters.
A budget that indicates support for the leadership team and associated
activities, consistent with project expectations.
A capacity to evaluate the degree to which changes undertaken demonstrably
improve civic learning and personal development and to systematically
study the change process.
Participation in the UCLA Cooperative Institutional Research Program
and the availability of base line data.
An institutional commitment signed by the President and explicitly
endorsed by members of the Leadership Team.
Along with the usual formalities of applying for a grant, there were
a number of questions inserted into the RFP designed to help institutions
articulate their commitment to the above (see Appendix H). Cluster leaders
also had a good idea what they did not want to see in institutional applicants:
"…being a member of this transformation cluster cannot simply
be a project conceptualized by the president, a small group of administrators,
or a faculty or student affairs leader. To establish the base for transformation
the application process must include key stakeholders for the diverse
policies and practices involved in strengthening civic learning."
29
Final decisions were made in conjunction with the WKKF representatives,
the Advisory Board, and the new Director. Invitations to participate were
ready for distribution during the late spring, but because of a funding
confusion, in some cases recipients were not notified until early June.
As such, participation was contingent upon the ability of the institution
to have at least one representative at the summer meeting in Snowbird,
Utah in July.
Cluster Characteristics
By design, the Civic Engagement Cluster should involve institutions that
were engaged in a particular campus civic learning initiative and should
have the following characteristics:
The Cluster will be multi-institutional with representation from
a wide array of different classifications of institutions.
Participants will attend at least one major conference per year to
share insights and experiences.
Cluster members should be engaged in regular inter-institutional
communication.
Each institution receives $70,000 to cover costs for Cluster participation.
Each institution is asked to commit additional funds and in-kind
contributions.
The Cluster Participants
With the selection process complete, the following colleges and universities
were invited to participate in the first Cluster Meeting held at Snowbird,
Utah in July 2000. Morehouse College's civic engagement efforts revolved
around instilling social justice values from a global perspective. Kansas
State University was selected for its efforts in developing high quality
community service and leadership development programs. Besides being a
longstanding member of KNIT, Alverno College has an extensive history
of programs centered on instilling civic mindedness in its students. Rutgers
University intends to infuse its citizenship and service education program
directly into the academic curriculum. The Spelman College initiative
is designed to infuse civic values into all levels of the institution.
The University of Denver proposes to capitalize on its successful service
learning programs and serve as an institutional leader for other Rocky
Mountain institutions. Oglala Lakota College hopes to work on its campus
to recommit to and instill traditional Lakota values in its students.
Olivet College, another KNIT participant, continues to expand its portfolio-based
curriculum and transform its civilization studies courses to be in line
with the Cluster. The University of Texas at El Paso is designing an interactive
curriculum designed to engage local community high schools and the greater
community that literally spans the border with Mexico. Portland State
University, another KNIT member, hopes to extend its current initiatives
by infusing civic learning portions into the entire undergraduate curriculum.
A more complete summary of the each of the participating institutions'
responses to the RFP can be found in Appendix I.
Snowbird and Beyond 30
- Back to Top
Based on their experience in the selection process, institutions came
to the July 2000 Snowbird meeting with varied degrees of preparation and
differing expectations. However, each was required send in advance or
bring with them a praxis with the other institutions as a means to begin
sharing institutional stories with the other collaborating institutions
- some were lengthy and detailed while others were simply replications
of their proposals. Some institutions brought large teams of about 10
individuals, while two institutions were represented by one person.
Beyond specific Cluster activities, all of the institutions were expected
to participate in the AAHE Summer Academy, which held a number of differing
expectations. The general idea was that the work each institution did
at the Academy would relate directly to development of individual campus
Cluster initiatives while the Cluster meetings were to revolve around
building the team and setting the collaborative agenda. To that end, the
Cluster institutions were to arrive a day and a half prior to the Academy
to have some time exclusively to spend with other CEC participants. During
the first evening session, formal introductions and a welcome was issued
and the agenda was disseminated. As per KFHET tradition, room for augmentation
of the agenda was made and adjustments to timing and logistics were fit
into the remaining days. Another purpose of the initial meeting was to
set the stage for empowering the Cluster to begin directing their own
collaboration. As such, the discourse was varied and energetic. The following
morning some coherence and direction was established through several guided
conversations in focus groups lead by selected members of the Advisory
Board. These focus groups were designed by Zee Gamson to primarily share
institutional stories, but also to begin to develop common culture and
a common language, and at a minimum, start the conversation around building
a foundation and a viable set of objectives for the Cluster. As the participating
institutions were diverse, so too was the conversation. A post lunch summary
and conversation was lead by Zee Gamson and the remaining meeting times
were set to meet the goals as determined by the Cluster itself.
There were a number of key themes that resonated for each of the institutions
in terms of why they had made the decision to participate in the Cluster.
First, all institutions were initially contacted by letter since they
had been past recipients of Kellogg Foundation grants. They were also
engaged in a set of programs that related to civic or service learning.
The invitations to apply were funneled from the president's office to
a person on each campus identified as having the most experience or was
doing work more germane to the RFP.
Motivation for application to the grant centered around four primary
reasons. One, participation in the Cluster was seen as an opportunity
to gain fiscal support for pre-existing programs. Two, a number of institutions
looked to the Cluster as an opportunity to bring various elements of a
variety of programs under one umbrella thus centralizing all campus civic
engagement initiatives. Third, further connectivity with WKKF and the
potential connections offered by the Cluster held the promise of broader
legitimacy, visibility and validation both on and off campus. Finally,
all were hoping to trade ideas with others, gain moral support, initiate
ongoing conversations with likeminded individuals, and open avenues for
visits to campuses that may be worth emulating.
No Cluster institution had put much thought into how they might interact
with the other institutions or deploy a strategy for learning at the Cluster
meeting. Many were relying on the extroverted nature of their team members
and on that fact that there would be time to interact with others from
different campuses. A primary strategy that evolved during the meeting
was targeting specific campuses that had similar goals, mission (by Carnegie
classification) or aspirations as peers for their campus. For example,
over the course of one day the Spelman team had already identified Alverno
and Olivet as two institutions that they needed to contact for further
information because Alverno was also a women's college and they were interested
in Olivet's "Road Scholar's" program.
Anticipated strategies for transferring learning from the Cluster back
to the home campuses ranged from relying on individual team participants
to connect with other campus team members, to conducting whole team meetings,
or to infusing what was learned into rudimentary action plans. Depending
entirely on what was learned, the hope was that the key elements of what
the participants had discovered would be brought back to the campus and
used in some way.
With the July 2000 meeting in Snowbird now complete, the direction and
action of the Civic Engagement Cluster rests with its institutional members.
Initial introductions and conversations have been ignited and formative
plans have been made. Although a thorough design including mission, goals
and objectives and support network are in place, only time will tell what
the future will hold for the Civic Engagement Cluster.
Learnings from the Field
31 - Back to Top
Development of the Civic Engagement Cluster was not entirely a smooth
or predictable process. Weaving together dissimilar institutions based
on varied civic learning orientations has not been studied and evidence
that it will actually work is sparse. Some KFHET participants even labeled
it a turbulent, evolutionary process. As the CEC story unfolded, a number
of pitfalls and delays were experienced and adjustments had to be made
throughout. In many respects, the CEC is based on the historical accomplishments
of numerous other collaborative networks. On the other hand, it could
be considered a grand experiment. The CEC provides an excellent pilot
study. This section of the paper exposes some of the more prominent obstacles
and hurdles overcome along the way with the aim of interpreting the experience
as it relates to building other multi-institutional collaboratives or
clusters.
A Matter of Perception
As the CEC developed, there were many different and often conflicting
ideas of the cluster concept. By one report, the Cluster idea was forced
on the LIG as something more practical rather than research-related. Another
report indicated that the idea was superimposed on the KFHET initiative,
and contrary to the collaborative aims of KFHET, there was not much room
for input into Cluster development. For many KNIT participants, the Los
Angeles meeting was where they first heard about the Cluster idea. Moreover,
the idea was not well received on some campuses as they failed to see
how the CEC fit the campus-specific initiatives. Ostensibly, the KNIT
institutions were put in an awkward and uncomfortable position needing
to get on the "cluster train" somewhere, or they would be dropped
when KNIT funding comes to a close in June 2001.
These perceptions may have formed because the project was not as well
developed at the 1998 Los Angeles meeting as it is today. At that meeting,
Cluster designers were still talking about broad issues of how to collaborate
and operational issues like whether to use listserves. Over time it became
clear that a large mix of institutions would have to be involved for KFHET
to be successful. KNIT participants began to see the benefits and how
they might learn from each other and from new members. As the Cluster
design progressed and plans became more concrete, more of the KFHET members
became supportive and some of the KNIT institutions expressed interest.
Fueled by the optimism of having overcome some KFHET organizational hurdles,
one participant summed up: "I think the Civic Learning Cluster is
very important and we will learn if it is. Let's see how well it works.
What are the strengths and limitations? And hopefully we will build from
there." 32
The Funding Conundrum
Related to the perception issue, funding problems (real and assumed)
were attributed to delays in moving the project forward for four primary
reasons. First, the decline of Kellogg Corporation's stock price became
a much-whispered issue. Because WKKF depended heavily on stock holdings
to fund all philanthropic activities, any time Kellogg Corporation's stock
price goes down the ramifications are felt in allocating funds to new
projects. While it was reported that twelve million dollars had been allocated
to support KFHET, a 50% Kellogg stock decline occurred in early 1998 when
KFHET members were discussing Phase II. Participants worried that funding
would be cut even when plans to continue had been developed. This chilled
some of the optimism and motivation to invest time planning. Moreover,
WKKF leadership became less encouraging that any monies beyond the original
allocations would be forthcoming.
The extent to which WKKF had an agenda in the delay in distribution of
funds was of concern to some KNIT and LIG participants. Was it skepticism
about KFHET, the CEC, related to the dip in stock, or other changing procedures
or priorities within the Foundation? Regardless, skepticism was supported
by delay throughout the development. Once Phase II commitments were made,
there were delays in agreement on CEC project objectives, securing NERCHE
contracts, and a delay in receipt of funds by CEC participant institutions.
As a result, NERCHE leadership was not in a position to move forward with
the CEC until October 1999. According to Arthur Chickering, without these
delays, the CEC would have been completely operational by that time. Instead,
final decisions on CEC membership was not finalized until June 2000 (one
short month before the first meeting), and each institution will not receive
funding allocations until October 2000.
Second, the shift in the funding arraignments for KFHET from Phase I
to Phase II caused some consternation among participants. The Foundation
changed from providing funds up front to the KFHET institutions to making
the release of funds contingent upon completion and delivery of proposal
related products. Because all KFHET members understood, and their institutional
structures supported the traditional, transactional mode of funding, this
change was both conceptually and logistically difficult to reconcile with
a need to proceed. Expectations for quick, up front funding were replaced
with what seemed like contingent funding dependent upon delivery of quality
results. There was an ever-present, albeit implicit, threat that all the
work would be for naught if WKKF did not approve of the results. In practice,
for organizations like NERCHE and smaller colleges like Spelman and Oglala
Lakota, having the funds up front allows them to proceed without dipping
into institutional resources, which are sometimes nonexistent.
Third, the amount of money allocated for the CEC, although collectively
large, when split among the institutions may or may not be sufficient.
Whether the $70,000 allocation per institution is enough to sustain the
CEC lingers as a question in most participant minds. The cost to the participating
institutions is high relative to the amount received from WKKF. There
is another question: Will funding continue beyond August 31, 2001, the
end of the current contract? This highlights the fourth reason for funding
confusion. Most CEC institutions originally were led to believe that funding
would be $70,000 per institution per year for a total of five years.33
At the start of the Snowbird meeting, this perception was corrected
to only one year of funding and a total of $70,000 per institution. Given
the broad scope of individual campus efforts, this investment will be
spread quite thin mainly covering travel to Cluster meetings. Individual
campus success rests heavily on a significantly greater investment on
the part of the home institutions.
On Building Quality Multi-institutional Clusters
A number of lessons can be derived from the process of KFHET and CEC
development and the challenges and experiences articulated by project
participants. Although actual applied solutions will vary greatly and
are highly dependent on unpredictable circumstances, such challenges might
be mitigated by advance planning for any multi-institutional collaborative
cluster. Below are the more salient lessons distilled from this case study.
These tenets can be viewed from a practitioner's stance as collected wisdom
or advice. From an academic perspective, they may serve as hypotheses
to test during future research.
Lessons for Establishing the Cluster Organization
Identify and appoint a cluster champion. Cluster establishment begins
with the identification of a project leader who has the drive and
initiative to persevere over the long arduous road toward cluster
formation. Any cluster development project may wither away without
the dedicated efforts of someone like Arthur Chickering or a small
team of individuals spearheading a the effort.
Generate political as well as fiscal support. Given the fiscal realities
and nature of how projects are funded in higher education today, it
is necessary to develop support from varied participants. As to which
comes first, this will vary in each situation. Ideally, they will
come simultaneously. Above all, all involved parties must clearly
understand the funding arrangement, communicate the realities to all
potential participants, and be sure to follow up along the way to
check the veracity of their understanding.
Generate and clearly espouse the vision, mission, and objectives
for the cluster. Lack of understanding about the structure of a cluster
in KFHET was ameliorated only as the CEC vision, mission and objectives
were spelled out.
Lessons for Organizing a Cluster
Select members to participate in an advisory board who have the ability
to add value to the development process as well as have a reputation
that will legitimize the project. The CEC Advisory Board played a
very active and useful role.
Decide on how the coordination and ongoing management of the cluster
are to be handled.
Hire a coordinator/director who is conversant with the cluster's
substantive thrust and knows how to facilitate institutional participation
and learning.
Set sufficient guidelines for publicizing the cluster, recruiting
and selecting institutions, finalizing budgets for the cluster as
a whole and for each institution, developing logistics for cluster
operation, and so on.
Lessons for Identifying Cluster Participating Institutions
Seek institutional participants with diverse backgrounds. Because
of the hierarchical nature of the higher education industry in the
United States, participants feel a pull to work mainly with institutions
similar to their own. Efforts must be made to get past institutional
complexes in order to have a valuable exchange of ideas. However,
it is beneficial to ensure that there are commonalities across institutions
as well. It is difficult for institutional participants to see the
value of participation if they have no connection with at least one
other college or university.
Keep the number of institutions and participants down to a reasonable
number. Beyond 10 to 15 institutions the cluster becomes more like
a conference or a federation which can be unwieldy and unworkable.
CEC participants were a bit overwhelmed with the daunting task of
getting to know numerous other participants upon arrival to the first
meeting. The length of time needed to connect with each participant
naturally increases along with the number of institutions.
Encourage broad participation on each campus. This will ensure that
personnel changes, lapses in institutional memory about the project
and lack of campus leadership is mitigated. As was discovered in the
early days of the KFHET initiative, the propensity for attrition in
campus leadership affects the direction of each institution's initiative.
By encouraging a wide scope of project membership at each campus,
attrition will not hurt the project in general as leadership roles
could be subsumed by others already engaged in the project.
Lessons about Cluster Initiation and Initial Meetings
Because the types of institutions and initiatives involved in the
Cluster are greatly varied, fostering a free exchange of ideas and
keeping the doors of communication open is a real challenge. Initially,
time must be spent developing a cluster culture including a common
language and purpose among cluster members.
Time must be allocated to satisfying the need and desire for each
institution to report and get familiar with each other while encouraging
forward motion on collaborative endeavors.
Measuring cluster success is challenging because individual institutional
change or transformation is difficult to attribute to participation
in the Cluster. Outcomes and evaluative measures must be constructed
such that they are attributable to participation in the cluster and
the resulting synergy. In other words, success must be directly resultant
from and a byproduct of the collaboration. Some outcomes and evidences
of learning in this case included: a new appreciation for and facility
with working through the change processes and chaos; connectivity
with others at various organizations; external validation and legitimization
of individual projects; and, transference of project elements to other
campus initiatives.
Develop strategies for aiding participant institutions to benefit
from the cluster. Almost all organizations entered the Cluster with
no overt formula or strategy for extracting beneficial learning from
other institutions. One solution is to develop an active interorganizational
learning strategy that leverages the experience to maximize the learning
and teaching experiences that happen through participation. From the
data, several active strategies for learning are inductively evidenced
by actions taken, but not espoused by the participants. These included
benchmarking, exploration, finding linking threads and networking,
extracting meaning from prior experiences, and utilizing outside consultants.
Conclusion - Back to Top
This case study has been an important element in the KFHET experience
for at least two reasons. First, through examination of the CEC development
we learn about how to design a collaborative interorganizational cluster.
Second, the case serves as a focus for understanding how the KFHET partners
struggled to learn from each other about change and collaboration. While
it is beyond the scope of this case to define broader learnings about
KFHET collaboration and transformation, some insights or hypotheses for
consideration are presented in Appendix J.
Back to Top
October, 2000
Managing Institutional Change and Transformation
Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education
2117 School of Education
601 East University Street
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259
|