Beyond Snowbird: Implementing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Morehouse College Kansas State University Alverno College Rutgers University Spelman College The University of Denver Oglala Lakota College Olivet College The University of Texas at El Paso Portland State University |
Much of the work conducted prior to July 2000 involved the creation
of CEC infrastructure by a small number of KFHET members. Those efforts
and the lessons learned about building such a collaborative were described
in the case study, "The Civic Engagement Cluster: A Case Study of Building
Inter-organizational Collaboration" (Peterson & Anderson, 2000). From
the inaugural Cluster meeting in Snowbird, Utah in June 2000, where
this previous case ends, the Cluster designers and participants have
been actively involved in making the collaborative work. Three main
goals shaped the actions of the CEC during this past implementation
year:
With the case study of CEC establishment already complete, the focus for this study is on the year when participating institutions became actively involved in shaping the Cluster. Our purpose is to extend the first case study by examining this implementation phase of the CEC in three ways. First, we describe the dynamics among and between the institutional representatives as they worked to build this collaboration. Second, we analyze and identify the techniques and approaches successfully utilized by participating member institutions to achieve their primary individual and collective purposes. Finally, we convey the lessons learned from the analysis that should transfer to those interested in creating similar multi-institutional collaboratives.
This document is organized to meet these ends. A brief discussion of method and data collection is followed by a synopsis of the prior case to establish the context for the implementation discussion. Next, we provide an overview of the events and activities that have occurred during the past year. The overview is then broken down into relevant parts and described in greater detail. Finally, we close with a number of the more salient lessons derived from the case.
Method - Back to Top
Organizational research in higher education uses both quantitative and qualitative methods (Peterson & Spencer, 1990). Because the purpose of this study is descriptive and interpretive rather than seeking to verify causal relationships and the analysis centers on critical problems of practice, this study is grounded in case study methodology (Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1993 & 1994). With a goal of triangulation and thick description, several sources were tapped for applicable data (Creswell, 1998). Documents such as progress reports, meeting minutes, agenda, and correspondence were collected. Participant observations were made and field notes taken by both authors during the meetings of the CEC participants in June, 2000 at Snowbird Utah and February, 2001 in El Paso, Texas. Finally, 14 face-to-face interviews were conducted. These informants were minimally one representative from each participating institution, usually the team leader with one exception. Because the team lead did not attend the El Paso meeting, we interviewed the whole set of four representatives from Oglala Lakota College. Also, one CEC administrative staff and one member of the advisory board were interviewed. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for later analysis. All documents, notes and interview transcriptions were entered into the computer. Analytical coding of the data was conducted using N.VIVO qualitative software.
CEC Establishment Summary -Back to Top
As noted, the origins of the Civic Engagement Cluster lie within the context of a larger WK Kellogg Foundation initiative called KFHET (Kellogg Forum for Higher Education Transformation). Begun as a collaboration among two colleges (Alverno and Olivet), two universities (Arizona and Portland State) and the Minnesota State College and University System (a merger of the community, technical and state colleges), the KFHET initiative expanded in 1998 to include three research centers (HERI at UCLA, CSHPE at Michigan, and NERCHE at UMass-Boston) and the American Council Education (ACE). Together with the WKKF program officers, KFHET embarked on the ambitious goal of working collaboratively to support each other in transforming their institutions and to learn about the process of transformation through the interaction of scholars, policy experts, and professional administrators. The CEC was one of several group and individual projects undertaking by the KFEHT partners.
Based on their prior experience with generating a number of successful multi-institutional projects, the NERCHE participants both initiated and became the main catalyst for the formation of the Civic Engagement Cluster. After receiving approval from the Foundation to proceed, an advisory board was established to consult on the design of the Cluster under the leadership of Arthur Chickering. Although introduced during initial KFHET meetings in 1998, the form and foci for the cluster was solidified through numerous discussions and correspondence throughout the following year. The Cluster began to take shape as definitions for civic learning and engagement were clarified and basic criteria for participating institutions were established.
After the primary elements of CEC infrastructure were developed, a Director was hired in January 2000 to manage the project. During the Director search process, an initial Request for Proposals (RFP) was drafted. Once on board, the new Director worked in concert with the Kellogg Foundation to target about 80 institutions as potential participants from a large set of past recipients of Kellogg funds. From that list, 17 institutions applied, and ten institutions were selected based on progress with their own civic engagement initiatives, potential for contributing to the newly emerging cluster, an ability to become institutional leaders for possible future expanded regional sub-clusters, and a number of other criteria. Based on their work with the project, three KFHET institutions (Portland State, Olivet College and Alverno College) were selected to participate in the CEC. It was felt that these three would offer both depth of understanding about the history of the KFHET and an ability to help shape the collaborative efforts of the cluster.
Ten institutions were selected, and offers to participate were made in June 2000. Participants would receive a $ 70,000 grant to cover certain CEC project costs including travel to Cluster meetings. The institutions matched and in some cases contributed two to three times that amount to support initiatives on their own campuses. Accepting the funds required all institutions to send at least one representative to the 2000AAHE Summer Academy in Snowbird, Utah. Two days prior to the start of the Academy, the first members arrived to kick off the new Civic Engagement Cluster.
Implementation Year Overview - Back to Top
(See Table 2 for time line, p. 9)
Prior to the first gathering at Snowbird, Cluster participants had achieved some success within their respective individual campus initiatives. Indeed, forward movement on some large, encompassing campus civic engagement project was one criterion for inclusion in the Cluster. The Cluster Directors (Arthur Chickering and Liesa Stamm) coupled the first CEC meetings with the AAHE Summer Academy intending to complement their participation in that meeting in two ways. First, involvement in the Academy could provide ample opportunity for individual campus teams to meet and work on their specific initiatives. Second, Cluster specific meetings held before and interspersed with the Academy agenda would allow all Cluster members to dedicate their energy to building the nascent organization.
A full discussion of this meeting and its ramifications are detailed in the prior case. To summarize, most campuses were able to send a team of representatives, but two campuses (Rutgers and Oglala Lakota) sent a single individual. The primary purposes of the Cluster sessions was to lay the foundation for the Cluster's work by building a focus for future functioning, to build a basis for collaboration, and to address practical issues involved in starting the new organization. In the end, agreements were made at the Snowbird meetings to establish a set of cross-institutional teams as taskforces to tackle four issues: Assessment, K-12 Partnerships, Student Leadership and Activism, and Curriculum and Pedagogy - RALPH.
Beyond identifying cross-institutional teams and agreeing that the Cluster as a whole should meet in the future, the exact mechanisms by which individual institutions would, in practice, collaborate were not clearly defined. In fact, as originated, the collaboration was not initially a goal of the project. The Directors began to conceive of the ideas of cross-institutional collaboration as a mechanism for achieving the project goals. Hopes ranged from continuing the dialog via telephone or in new cyber formats to making campus visits to identify best practices and building links by sharing information, curricula, and other resources.
In the months following the Snowbird meetings, each institution submitted the required reports detailing progress or changes made on the campus initiatives. Also, the CEC Directors visited each campus. Then, attempts to bring together the cross-institutional teams during this period were mainly only successful for the Assessment task force. Meeting in Milwaukee in December 2000, members of the Assessment task force were able to begin the challenging process of defining their purpose, building a common set of understandings, and selecting tasks and assigning responsibilities. The other task forces either were not convened or were abandoned because of a lack of initiative or reciprocation. For example, efforts were made by one Cluster member to initiate action among the RALPH team members. Because of non-response, no further activity was undertaken. Later, the development of a web-based communication tool by participants at Rutgers fulfilled a similar purpose and mitigated the need for the group.
Between July 2000 and February 2001, aside from the meeting of the Assessment group, most Cluster activities revolved around individual campus efforts to grow their own initiatives. When those interests happened to coincide with the efforts at other campuses, perhaps a phone call or email contact was initiated. Not much beyond the trading of documents took place prior to the El Paso meeting held in February 2001. Additional cross-institutional collaboration occurred in the form of joint presentations at four national conferences and meetings.
It was during this Texas meeting that more concrete discussion about the operation of the Cluster as well as future cooperation between campuses occurred. The remaining cross-institutional task forces (Assessment, Student Leadership and Activism, K-12 Partnerships) were allocated time to met during the El Paso meetings. Also, a new one focusing on women's leadership was identified and supported with an initial group meeting. In addition to the benefit of social interactions that such a meeting brings, a number of the members had solidified ideas about what they wanted to get out of the meetings and set about making concrete plans to collaborate with other institutions from the outset of the meeting. For example, representatives from Olivet College approached other cluster members to firm up visit dates for their Road Scholar program. Another promising collaborative venture started at the El Paso meeting revolved around a conversation between five cluster institutions about the need to promote social and racial justice. From that conversation, these institutions (Morehouse College, Spelman College, Oglala Lakota College, Rutgers University, and the University of Texas, El Paso) are initiating a student-centered program designed to better understand the instances of racial and ethnic discrimination and develop collective actions to address these injustices.
A significant portion of the conversation in El Paso revolved around the issue of future funding. The WKKF had made it clear that it would not provide any additional funding for the group past the June 30th close of the project. The reality of WKKF funding coming to a close and the uncertain probability of finding alternative funding generated a wide concern about the prospect of any further collaborative work. The ensuing intensive conversations were aimed at generating alternative funding proposals for different collaborative efforts and the possibilities of new arrangements realigning institutional support.
Still, while WKKF funding for the Civic Engagement Cluster will end,
work may continue in a number of different areas. Most prominently,
an extension to individual campuses was requested and granted sustaining
institutional activities until completion. The Directors housed at NERCHE
were provided with support to continue working until December 2001.
Also, the promising work of the assessment task force is already being
encouraged by AAHE through the waiver of fees for participation in this
year's Summer Academy.
Within the context of this overview, we begin an extended illustration of the case at the institutional level with developments at each cluster institution. Next we discuss the work of the cross-institutional teams. This is followed by a summary of the work done by the Cluster Directors in the Central Office. Lastly, we close with the lessons learned from the case analysis.
|
18-21 July 2000 July – August 2000 January 2000 – May 2001 Sept 2000 Sept 2000 December 2000 8 -11 Feb. 2001 February 2001 April 2001 June 2001 30 June 2001 |
First meetings at Snowbird Utah in conjunction with AAHE Summer Academy Institutions prepare and submit action plans to CEC office Liesa Stamm and Arthur Chickering make numerous campus visits Anne Brown hired as associate director of the CEC Kellogg Forum established at the University of Michigan Assessment Task Force meeting in Milwaukee Full Cluster meeting in El Paso, Texas Cluster institutions provide updated progress reports to CEC office CEC office updates the Kellogg Forum with progress report and requests a no-cost extension Cluster institutions notified that a no-cost extension has been granted Project funding period ends, subsequently Assistant Director and support staff released. |
Institutional Implementation - Back to Top
An overview of the original individual campus plans is provided in the prior case study, and so will not be repeated. A summary of activities completed or still being developed is presented in Table 3 (pp. 10-11). In this section we will address any revisions to the institutional plans and their purposes. Also, we will identify any challenges or barriers, and strategies that were employed to overcome these obstacles.
|
Institution
|
Campus Initiatives
|
Collaborative Efforts
|
| Morehouse College | o Put into place a racial justice program o Leadership team meetings o Freshman seminar series o Mentor/Mentee program |
o Collaborate with Spelman College and Circles Project o Participate in all cluster meetings o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group o RALPH team |
Kansas State University |
o Form on campus task force o Demographic profile o Faculty profile o Propose new leadership curriculum for secondary major o Develop assessment plan o Enhance coordination among leadership programs and activities |
o Participate in all Cluster meetings o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group |
| Alverno College |
o General Education course – “The Globally Effective Citizen” o Related off campus internships o Community outreach center o Student civic engagement committee o Civic and political engagement research project o Political science support area |
o Participate in all Cluster meetings o Host and support the Assessment task cross institutional task force o Student Leadership and Activism Cross-institutional Task Force o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group |
| Rutgers University | o Graduate Student Service learning Instructor’s
Certificate o Faculty development grants o New Jersey Civic Learning Consortium Clearinghouse |
o Participate in all Cluster Meetings o Participate in Circles Project o Facilitate web tool development and host the web site o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group o Leadership and Activism Group o RALPH team |
| Spelman College | o Develop service learning courses o Build assessment and evaluation program o Develop partnerships with community o Hire a coordinator |
o Participate in all Cluster meetings o Collaborate with Morehouse and participate in Circles Project o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group The University of Denver o Develop and promote a Rocky Mountain sub-cluster o Create other funding opportunities o Faculty development workshop o Participate in all Cluster meetings o Student Leadership and Activism Cross-institutional Task Force o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group o Leadership and Activism Group o RALPH team |
| Oglala Lakota College | o Propose new courses o Infuse character education across the curriculum o Mini-fitness centers and activities o Develop evaluative measures o Create a new college vision statement o Implement distance learning component |
o Participate in all Cluster meetings o Coordinate visits from Olivet students o Participate in Circles Project o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group |
| Olivet College | o Change functions and foci for Civilizations Studies
course o Roads scholar program |
o Participate in all Cluster meetings o Connect with and coordinate site visits with member institutions for road scholar program o Lead RALPH development o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group |
| The University of Texas at El Paso | o Build relationship with area high schools o Institutionalize civic learning courses o Centralize and reorganize the center for civic engagement |
o Participate in all Cluster meetings o Host February Cluster meeting o Collaborate with Olivet Roads scholar program o Participate in Circles Project o Student Leadership and Activism Cross-institutional Task Force o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group o K-12 Partnerships |
| Portland State University |
o Develop graduate level courses o Spring symposium o Infuse civic learning into faculty and student orientations |
o Participate in all cluster meetings o Student Leadership and Activism Cross-Institutional Task Force o Assessment Cross-institutional Working Group o RALPH team o K-12 Partnerships |
The bulk of the work at each campus can be credited to the persistence and leadership of each team leader and a few dedicated cluster members. Working through their campus committees, much of the proposed action has either reached fruition or is on track to be completed according to the timelines provided. Spelman College, for example, reported that they had utilized their proposal as a clear guide for action "and have not deviated." "Modifying on the fly," intermediate steps were necessarily adjusted at other campuses while the end result remained the same. As Olivet's team discovered, these kinds of modifications were necessary because the plans were created in the abstract. The realities of carrying out specified steps and the political climates on several campuses caused corresponding shifts in execution and quickened or extended planned timelines.
In one case, the University of Denver was encouraged by the CEC Directors to move the formation of the Rocky Mountain sub-cluster to the fore whereas it was originally slated for initiation after the completion of the grant. This required shuffling priorities for Denver, making it challenging to work on other campus initiatives. Other institutions found that because of personnel changes or other reasons not dictated by the Central Office, priorities for particular action items had to be changed. In some cases, the realities of working with various community agencies or the scope of particular initiatives necessitated dropping some portions of the original plans. El Paso's need to shift one effort toward a different local high school, and moving the women's leadership initiative out of the cluster project at Kansas State are two examples.
In all cases, those initiating the plans experienced some kind of barriers or obstacles that lead to varying degrees of resistance to their campus projects. The largest common obstacle was the ability to obtain adequate resources to fund the initiatives. This was less of an issue for those institutions with well-established programs like Alverno or institutions that had hired individuals at the outset to generate civic learning initiatives. For example, both the University of Denver and Morehouse College had hired team leaders in order to bring specific projects to the institutions. It was only later when these individuals were made aware of the Cluster grant that the institutions applied. Inadequate institutional-level funding on some campuses led to a dependency on WKKF allocations. In turn, delays in receipt of funds from the Foundation affected the ability of some members at particular institutions to move as quickly as they would have liked. For example, the El Paso team reported the need to exhaust "precious political capital to beg, borrow, and steal" funds to support the team's participation at the Snowbird meetings as well as funding one person's salary.
Aside from the resource dependency issues inherent in adding new programs, the next largest barriers reported were: 1) the lack of time available to cluster leaders, committee members, and those targeted for the initiatives (faculty members in particular), and 2) the ability to gain an audience and approval from appropriate campus authorities and decision makers. Because these programs are generally additions to or cut across existing programs rather than a substitute for current programs, working on them required a trade off with current responsibilities for participants. Finding time to involve everyone in meetings or getting members of the community engaged in the initiatives was very difficult. One case in particular exemplifies this. The Oglala Lakota College's facilities are spread across a large reservation that requires a three-hour drive for some to attend meetings. These treks are more difficult during severe winter weather. Persuading faculty and staff to participate in Cluster related events or planning meetings is a logistical conundrum. As a result, project gains are highly dependent on individual action by team members. A representative from Alverno presents another type of time related issue setting up a paradox for Cluster participants. Involving faculty and staff in such national consortia can detract from their ability to work on campus responsibilities. Participating in national collaboratives like the CEC takes time and the effort often removes key campus project leaders from campus and thereby limiting time spent on local initiatives
Other campuses do not face such geographic or time barriers, but skepticism creates a similar gulf. All the campus teams experienced resistance to their initiatives by those who were targets of the cluster reforms. "We have never done this before;" "your plan is broken;" or "you can't tell me how to teach this" were phrases encountered by most. The implication is that there was something wrong with the initiatives. Other causes of skepticism and resistance were an uncomfortableness with or fear of change that the initiatives were imposing. For example, at Portland State the sweeping changes in the curriculum were requiring teaching writing skills by faculty who may have entered a particular field to avoid that very prospect. Manifestations of resistance ranged from non-participation disguised as apathy to extreme "vocal," vitriolic minorities speaking very critically at faculty senate meetings.
Individual teams employed a variety of approaches to engage the resistance and to overcome these barriers. To surmount resource dependency issues, cluster leaders sought external funding via other grants or by tapping the support of other local consortia. Others were able to use the WKKF funds as slack to leverage other institutional resources to cover expenditures. A method for tackling the common lack-of-time lament was to make sweeping changes that simply could not be ignored. Another approach was to intentionally not bill initiatives as pilot programs. Others used the legitimacy of upper-level administrative offices to support and mandate compliance. Reducing skepticism was accomplished by involving a wide range of personnel on the project. Team leaders carefully chose faculty and staff members who demonstrated an inherent interest in or could buy into a particular segments of a project sparking ownership in the initiatives. Some teams worked to build a network of allies that could either provide resources or advocate for a particular portion of the initiative. Others adopted the challenging approach of aligning institutional culture with the Cluster initiatives. Continually reiterating a new core rhetoric and mission as well as hiring faculty that were in tune with the new thinking accomplished this. One other method for reducing resistance mentioned by respondents was boosting project legitimacy by touting the affiliation with and prestige of the other nine institutions and the Kellogg Foundation.
Implementing Cross-Institutional Teams - Back to Top
Rather than leave collaborative efforts to emerge on their own, the Cluster Directors expended considerable energy to support the development of a collaborative atmosphere among the institutions and to provide support for and encouragement of campus projects. Dedicating time during the Snowbird meetings, they carefully constructed an agenda and activities to support the development of cross-institutional teams. The discussions revolved around acquainting participants with each other and their projects, gaining skills in and understanding of the benefits of collaboration, and the potential in using cross-institutional working groups that focused on shared critical needs or issues for the institutions. These teams differed from institution project plans and were not anticipated in the individual institutional proposals. The hope was that, if they worked, each cross-institutional team would be real collaborative ventures emerging from expressed institution interests. Given time constraints and multiple priorities, the Assessment Taskforce became the focus for and encouraged by the CEC staff organization.
The K-12 Partnership taskforce was suggested by the El Paso team to deal with issues relating to partnering with primary and secondary schools. Except for discussions at the two national Cluster meetings, this group did not meet or produce any results. During their second meeting at El Paso, there was a large amount of sharing of best practices, and the group began to generate ideas for the future. However, these ideas were not sharpened as they were threatened by potential discontinuation of funding.
There is a similar story for the Student Leadership and Activism and Curriculum and Pedagogy cross-institutional task forces. Almost unanimously, interviewees had no knowledge of any action taken by these task forces, and were not able to articulate any value added to their individual efforts. Essentially, the responsibility of organizing these groups usually fell to the person who raised the topic. While leadership for these groups was identified, promises to initiate meetings and action after the El Paso usually fell by the wayside except the Assessment team. Attempts to lead the RALPH were met with non-response from other members. The second meeting held during the El Paso Cluster meeting proved to be the last for RALPH. Members of this task force determined that the focus really cut across all cluster activities, cementing the decision to discontinue the team.
The Student Leadership and Activism group found that their second meeting in El Paso was productive. There was a focus on exchange of ideas, progress of individual efforts, and a recommitment to the education of students for leadership. Participants talked about sharing and exchanging best practices as well as web based work and wanted to look for ways that student work could be shared.
Another cross-institutional team addressing women's leadership issues was newly formed at the El Paso meeting stemming from an emergent interest. Their first meeting was exploratory revolving around discussion of related issues and sharing of thoughts. Although common interests and a need were articulated, no commitment was made to fully develop this group as a cross-institutional task force. Other emergent groups formed at the El Paso meetings that are more promising. For example, the Circles Project got off the ground in El Paso and several collaborations were pulled together to present materials at certain conferences.
Only the Assessment group and the Web development operation proved workable beyond discourse at the national Cluster meetings. How were these two different? The Web development group actually was not a collaborative, cross-functional team but a separate initiative developed between Cluster staff and Rutgers to serve all Cluster members. A person who was already building a web-based communications resource led the Rutgers team. In collaboration with by the Cluster Director and Associate Director, he assumed the responsibility for developing the tool. Input on form and function from other institutions was sought at the national meeting in El Paso.
The Assessment working group was different in that the Cluster Directors
strongly suggested that participation included at least one representative
from each institution. Other cross-functional teams were dependant on
voluntary involvement. Most institutional teams felt a palpable need
to work on issues of assessing and evaluating particular initiatives
primarily as a means for justifying the efforts as well as improving
them. Moreover, a second meeting was organized by CEC staff to occur
at Alverno in December 2000. A third meeting of the Assessment group
occurred during the El Paso Cluster meetings in February 2001. The clear
purpose, solid organization and leadership including the development
of subgroups, and strong individual campus interest proved an excellent
set of catalysts for productive discourse.
A future meeting was planned by the Assessment task force in late June in Denver to coincide with the 2001 AAHE Assessment Conference. However, it is difficult to determine the impact that this committee's group work will have on the individual efforts, or the larger scale assessment of the Cluster itself. Most interviewees reported that there would be some gain for the individual campus efforts, but were unable to articulate what that gain would be. Although future efforts for this group may be hampered by the pending termination of project funding, the group may evolve into some other form.
The Cluster Directorship's Changing Role - Back to Top
As the Snowbird meeting reached its close, the Cluster leadership's role shifted from key architect in designing the Civic Engagement Cluster to a more ambiguous one. The Snowbird meeting was meant to launch the larger collaborative, encouraging the development of a group agenda and to provide guidance to individual institutions on developing their own campus projects. The Central Office administration, housed at NERCHE, was to maintain the organizational infrastructure and provide support and guidance, but not dictate approach. As the agenda fluctuated during the Snowbird meeting, the Directors demonstrated a fair amount of patience and flexibility. By design, the Central Office leaders were to move from the key leadership to a supporting position, all the while maintaining a delicate balance as catalyst, advisor, evaluator, and importantly, central liaison and intermediary with the Kellogg Foundation.
Beyond Snowbird, the Director worked to ensure local progress by requiring the submission of an action plan by each institution, which included progress updates on initiatives outlined in their respective proposals. Also, a team from the Central Office visited all but one of the institutions at least once to provide consultation and observe progress in person. More importantly, the Central Office staff made a concrete decision to convene the second national meeting of the Cluster in El Paso Texas, February 2001. CEC central office staff provided advance planning, logistics, and synthesized an agenda. Two benefits were anticipated. First, because this was explicitly a Cluster meeting, there was no pressure to attend a simultaneous conference like Snowbird's Summer Academy. Thus, attendees should have been able to focus entirely on Cluster related matters. Second, the University of Texas, El Paso agreed to host all meetings and auxiliary events. This was done to showcase the work at El Paso, to provide an opportunity for cluster members to visit one of the participant institutions, and to empower cluster members to assume more responsibility for the action of the Cluster.
Beyond Snowbird, the Director worked to ensure local progress by requiring the submission of an action plan by each institution, which included progress updates on initiatives outlined in their respective proposals. Also, a team from the Central Office visited all but one of the institutions at least once to provide consultation and observe progress in person. More importantly, the Central Office staff made a concrete decision to convene the second national meeting of the Cluster in El Paso Texas, February 2001. CEC central office staff provided advance planning, logistics, and synthesized an agenda. Two benefits were anticipated. First, because this was explicitly a Cluster meeting, there was no pressure to attend a simultaneous conference like Snowbird's Summer Academy. Thus, attendees should have been able to focus entirely on Cluster related matters. Second, the University of Texas, El Paso agreed to host all meetings and auxiliary events. This was done to showcase the work at El Paso, to provide an opportunity for cluster members to visit one of the participant institutions, and to empower cluster members to assume more responsibility for the action of the Cluster.
The Nature of the Cluster Collaboration - Back to Top
A number of other issues exacerbated the task of building relationships among and between organizational actors. A primary concern for all respondents was that funding would be ending just at the time when the collaboration was just starting to show some results. While most efforts were receiving local funding to sustain campus initiatives, the unstable nature of funding of the CEC damaged motivation for building on the successes of El Paso meeting. Moreover, the way in which monies were distributed reinforced individual campus initiatives rather than support collaboration among and between colleges.
It became clear during the Cluster meetings that the various institutions had very discrete, specific programs going on at their own campuses. Also, the commonality among their projects across the ten institutions was not always. As one interviewee speculated, perhaps the Snowbird meeting was held too close to the initiation of individual campus initiatives placing the twin goals of collaboration building among institutions and supporting individual campus progress at best, in interference with each other. In some instances campuses were necessarily absorbed in cultivating their own projects to the point of being distracted from or simply unable to build collaborative bridges to other institutions. The combination of lack of progress on some campuses and limited similarity of projects among campuses may have prohibited constructive communication. Moreover, differences in campus culture, type, and programs served as barriers to pulling people together on common issues. This led some to assume that what was being done at other campuses and the strategies they used to achieve success were not applicable to their own situations.
Further complicating the connectivity among cluster members was the confusion about the underlying intent to develop encompassing transformative efforts at each campus. Most interviewees reported that their work had resulted in change on a smaller scale, but that complete transformation would require expanded timelines well beyond the frame of the grant period. The very focused nature of individual campus efforts seemed to preclude the need for extensive collaboration as the Cluster was intended. How to interact and collaborate with the other institutions was very difficult to articulate at the proposal phase and has had to be learned after the institutions began to meet. One final obstacle identified by respondents was a number of personnel changes caused by team membership fluctuation, producing a lack of continuity in attendance between meetings, which effectively stalled collaboration.
In practice, most participants found it difficult to move from an individual to a collective conceptualization. This was reinforced at earlier meetings geared primarily toward sharing stories and connecting individuals. Most campus team members went to the Snowbird and the El Paso meetings with open minds to share, and to see what they could get out of the meetings. The idea of collaboration evolved mostly when individual campus projects benefited from establishing working relationships with members from other institutions. For example, the Oglala Lakota College initiatives centered mainly on changing the lifestyle of the local students and communities whereas the Olivet Road Scholar initiative is one of the rare programs that will require students to visit some of the other campuses in the Cluster.
In one sense, several participant views are captured in one comment at this stage, the nature of the Civic Engagement Cluster "isn't collaboration. It is just a forum for learning about what each other is doing." This perception led to frustration, as another interviewee expressed, "sharing is not really collaboration. I have been doing that for so many years, I am getting tired of that." The very real benefit lies not in simply the sharing of information, but customizing the learnings to individual campus efforts. Collaboration becomes necessary when joint initiatives require working together, like an emerging joint effort between Rutgers and Spelman. Rutgers maintains a campus extension in Africa and Spelman is interested in getting some of their students involved in that project. Neither of these efforts were a part of the original grant, like the Circles Project centering one social and racial justice. However, through a process of discovery and discourse at the El Paso meeting, their like-interests were matched.
One interviewee sums up the sentiment and perceptions of the widely held view about the nature of the collaborative: "I don't think we have done anything except come to the meetings and track the document flow. There has been an occasional telephone call and exchange between someone on our campus and someone within the cluster and that is all we have had time to do. We didn't really get started till later and the project is just starting, really. I think people are very good at working together. The conversations are surprisingly frank. There are people at various levels of responsibility within the institutions so the composition of the group is great. So, in that sense, it is succeeding to try and clarify its task which is important to do six months into the program...so in that sense it is starting to get some focus."
Unfortunately, the funding problem may be the key in further developing the spirit of collaboration that is beginning to emerge. On the upside the Central Office Directors and others in the program are working to secure funding to fill the need when the Kellogg Funds expire. As of this time, no permanent funding has been obtained. However, based on progress reports collected after the El Paso meetings, the CEC Director has developed a project summary and has worked one new grant possibilities. Even so, with no promise of longer term funding, efforts to maintain the collaboration efforts are difficult.
Implementation Lessons - Keys to Productive Collaboratives - Back to Top
What can we learn from this experience? Some lessons reinforce and
amplify our earlier findings in the prior case study (see Peterson &
Anderson, 2000). Others are new. Above all, these learnings serve two
functions. First, they can aid institutional leaders in developing stronger
multi-institutional collaboratives. Second, they can serve as points
for future research. All lessons presented offer advice for building
productive multi-institutional collaboratives.
References - Back to Top
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Peterson, M. W. & Anderson, A. D. (2000). The civic engagement cluster:
A case study of building interorganizational collaboration. Unpublished
Paper distributed by the Managing Institutional Change and Transformation
Project at the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Peterson, M.W. & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Qualitative and quantitative
approaches to academic culture: Do they tell us the same thing? New
Directions for Institutional Research, 17 (4), volume 68.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
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