J. ... ,. 3 . . 0 .. . .. . . . . . a ...-.300... 3,501 ...-00...- 0 00.3.... .. .0 . . . . 1.....J... c .0 .00090xo‘ .. 0.0 0...! .01. . .. r.- I I n , . I. _. . o . i. .0 Er 1. .. . . . . . h “h“ 'I. 9 no... IJLWJ u. f0 «9...,» .-J-utéfizéfifimwéfio 0 P Q0. ".0 0 > wa‘.0u‘ . .0: 0‘ .flnasfl.u.t: ,0 9.0..- 0, . I . .... I... .- DOAJ‘I, 83.00.07... ..., II».‘.. .0. ’3: .. .- 0 . .... . .o l.... . o ...:... 0... .III..0..Q. . .00} 0.00.. .3350... ‘5. 3,. . . . . 0. ...:- . “.4. 01%. 0.. 0. ... . I: ..U .m... I . . .. . .. .I - o . o 03 HI... .... .0 «~03... .. 3.1.9:. 0. .0. .10. . .IJ - . 0 . ””7003 .00.:“0.00..|..0...w0....WuJuuquSu in; 0.00..- L nounthu0000 I30 . ...-W. ... “at . J L . . . .0: . 0.; . i. . .... 1.. o - .05 0. 1. 060. .0 ,.... K. . I . 5.6.... .0 .t. . I I. 001.0 . .00 . i ,0? 3.010“ ......III'Qk autul. .hfiflk". ...-00“... “00.0.“: Tnuflooutohuh... ”0'3“ yo... . . ._ . . . a . ... , .... ..:.... ,..)... . . , .. ... ._ . . . Ln. ..:. “ ...... . ... .. flux-1.... .55.... haw-.... 3-2:...3? . . IO .-.. . _, . 0. ..’o0 000‘ 40.1.0.0. . .000! ‘65. b... 0.1... 03“: 0 0.. .0 co .0. ’n . .0»: J; #000... @000 '09,..- 0 . ...:-.0: ... II , .03.... .9 1...... .0. I at»: I ...0 2. 0:... .....d‘. 0 ...}...s‘ . 030......00005 f o . . . . 0 .10.- I. .3 ...".- . _ X. . I00...0.. I 00 I. 03.0 000 0 0.0..‘00 . 0.. . I00 .0... 0.. _ .. 000 . .4 0 u“...e..0:n:0wv Pun... .V 0‘30. 00‘.“ 4“.“ .0 .. $0 in.” ,\.s ‘ .01.-..3 ... . r .0 I00 .2- .Li . . ...:-... 00.0 . . .. .. .2... 0 0.0.0.... . .0501... II. 00.3. 0,. .. o . .. .‘I ... .- .I .... 0.... 2 0. 000.! 0 .0 ..I 00‘ .. .0‘ ....0. 0 . In; . .. . 00 00.. 00 . ,.....Ic.‘ 0 0. .0000 o. . . . . II‘I0I'00-I III: 0.0. 000 .120... 0.03. .0 .0... d 0., ..Iolnvcl ..‘tookdbulflon 00 ,0 0.0- m to . ‘ator! 0 .0. . n .0951 ..: .0 I . .I‘II. .. . . o . 0.000 .130“. ... 0.0.2 ., . . 0 0 0.0.03 31. .00 .t . 0 0.0 0.00.. [...-uh .. .0 . ms“... “.4 at o. .0. 0 no. ....0 0 . 01.0.0020. .... .000. 00... 0.. b ..:..I ... a .0 ..|.. o f .. 3. .0 ..I0000s. 0.3.0.0.... .000 0. ...-0.30.0 .ql. .. 01.] . 000...... . 0 I. «- 0.0 ...biflvloh. 0 . In... .030“. 4 0' ...-.0. I0 0.. I . a... . 00:00.00. .0 . .. I. . .. 00:0 nouiaalno . 0.000 - ‘ . I 0 .0... . .0 ‘0'. . . '. 0.0: I. I. I 5‘0... . 3.0- ...:. I0. 00. ~ . .. I 0. 0 no . ... . 00-001.. . -7..I0§¢'f,.0 .- .0 .. 00-1 . .0 . . .0. ..0. I 0... 3 » . . :0. .fll 1. ... . ..JJ. 0 ..I a. . 20.323- 0 . 0.0.. .001! . .00 .. 10.1....r00..a.000 000 0 03.00.. 0%.! .01“ v. 01. I. 0. 0c 0 .l; . . f ...... ...-..:...Y.’ I... 0-. II 0\ ...-II. 0 a . . y .... :I. . IIthob: 00.3.02, P. .. I0... . 0. I... .0 c I I}? ..O: 000‘ O .00 I 0‘... . 0.00.. 0. .. ..0 00 .00 v I. I . 0 .. 0 6‘ 0.‘.. ‘,v . I‘I . 0 0....I. . I.I 00 . . . ..00 ., 00.5.... 0 00..I000.v‘..-.I .‘ 00.. .. . .. I. I C0,...II ‘0. 0.05": .....‘flé ._ 00" 0h.0.0‘ .... a 00:... 0 0.00 0.0! I 00. . 2 . . . I. I0".h.l.00 . ‘00.?) “0’000Inxn-uI-0.00”.I.0.0n.0.rv0..0.. . 05.90“»? . ”00": 0‘. ‘icz «03,2...a .. ”0.31. .0.- _ I 0 . . c It . . . o 2 . 0... . . . I . 0.. . a a . .I . _ I 20:... $1.. . ..I ...:-...: . 0.20.0...‘00703 ...v .. ... 0.0 05.0 I ....0 ...:-.0... .70.... I. . $05. 0.0.“ .0 ...:. 0302‘. I) ”f‘céxda 00; ““10 l 0-”..7." 0.. . . .. . . . . . ...:}! .01.... 0. IV ..0...0l.0..000.a.000.. ..II .13! .1 .900. 0 0 0.0 0 u"!.00..~’$.0 . . .... o. .I o a .00 :0 Ii 0a.. .- 00. .nogr'0h000uqu‘ “- 5...: ‘i a o 0 .u . .15.}... 0 0 II. 5... .- .. . ...-.3103: . 0 0 o. I... 0.0. ..000 0 .7 «.I‘I .090 '0 00.00000: .060 .. . .0 0. $.uIvM.-3Iutv0dova 0‘ Santa.“ ' to. .0: 0.0.”.93N00-‘0. a: .6 ‘0‘... .0 :‘00.1 0 ...:-S; “f. .Q.0m‘-.I0ro A“ .0." o. I ... . .-., ‘0. II 0.9 I .0... . . . I. I. . . . . v .u .. 00.....0I I. . .. . . . 3. .0 0 0.14.3300.“ .0 0.3“.- - 0 . “mu". .0313‘300 an? ’fi.o..u.t,nbt .0001... oil.) ..r .10 loo-...VI "- ....n to... - 0. Worn-0.. o . . .. . . . . . . . .... 0 .0. ...-0 0 I 0 .0 0- 0 J. .0... Q’s— . . . v . 0.0.. 5.20.1300:I ..II .3 _ .0.......UI.,.. . ...... ... .I’: 0.1.... . ..0. 0 . s 0 00 0:30 ...}: .... 33?$8.~J§il.. . . 3.9.3.3... 100.2% ..-I 0 .MHJ u fl".........‘i.t0u0 . .o . . . v.0. ,0.....I 0 3 .0, 10...!!! ...-00...}... ,..-w! 000 ‘01...)I030. u. 0 0~ s. 3‘... 20 . 0. 003 50.0.... ..I I 0 ..I .0 .c 0 0 . III ...-300,00".a«£,.0-..0-0.‘0 00.. . . -0 0.I000.0I.v.o.fim .o (00 0W O s 00 .... O < 0 00‘ 0 0 C 530...: 0 ..:...I’ 0 .‘I 0.00.00 .‘00. 0.. (1.....02wu. .. ~ . .... . 0 ...-0.6.0.7030... 0.. ....00...II§..0.000} .10.... . .5 .00 ... 0 0. I. 0.00.0 000 ...-01.3.0.3... I. .... . S. ...-.0 .. ~I. . ..:-I . . . .8; ......Sittt .9. , . ll .0: . 2.3.02I.’ B01. 0 u . . . .. . . . -. 0 :00... g 0 02.00 a . . 0’ . . . . 0R0. «0‘30“?3’ .0 .20.. ..00 0 Oil . ...! ’ . :I' I. u. 3 .0...o .1.“W..00n .4... \ . .0. 0.0.00.9, . .... ‘0“.0'. I 0 .... 0 0 0'. .. 060.3..0. - .II‘O. I.n.uk00z0\0ava‘lt‘Iu-I‘h0u 103.0“!0IUI . .rdw .0.“ ”Jun” .nh. 0.203“ ...-0010510“: .0000 0.0»..19455 ‘0... 0 .0..- ..2...-. .. ., , . ... ..0 (.94... ‘0 ’00.1.... ...... .. . LS..I .u. .. 0....)«0... .“IH..HI_.J.I{.00.I.0L.. 0.03307... .. ... ...8 .. .....zl.....o........ 0.. ...:..r ...0300 .0 ...-00 ’0”... If u a "can“... 1w. gauntd...» ~03. I 0b.! ...-‘0’”. 0r, . _ . 0 . . . . . , 2 . . . .. 0.0 0... .... a 0.0 If . 00:: -. ...... (I. . 0.0 0 0 .. 0.0 ...-0.0.1.. ... .... 0:. I..00....0..A.S.I..£Io0.vl 00...... . I... I. )0 .ulu, . I." I0. .. a 0. 3.,.I.0 0‘ 0:03. 00. . ... .I. . 080011; . . 1...... x 1 . .. ... .. ... .0. . 00.0 I .. 2.... ..0 0.. 0.3.... v.‘ 0. .3 0.023 . .. o ...:.filt... .I 0 .010 3.00.0.90r0.00..-.0 -3.0!§\I‘0 aiming“. .... .anw19h03..3. $0.). I. 1:1.5‘... 0.0.0. . . 0 4w .. . . . 00, I00 00:... .. 0‘0. . 3.. . 0:0... .. 00. a 0.0 0.0 II . 0... I 00.8. ‘0’ no. . . .0. . . 0 .2 . . Y’I .0....a.:..01000... .... 0. $0.10 30000000 0 n0 0.. 30.0.... 00. 0 .0. 0 0 0 63’. I J 0.. 10 3 0 00. .00 00M . 4 .0..- . , , .. 0 04L .000 y :70. 0.. . . ’55.,0. I000: .. 2 In. ... ., 0 .I I030! 0 I: .00 i. .p I .II... 0 .00. In... ‘ 00.00400. 0 . O.- .. ...... 400.000....I: 0.0.0.0000 . .0... 00:- .. . . 00.00.: I . 0 u... . ..:-0.0.0.0. 0000’ $00.000L35l3 k, V ”n 2 0 0 .... 1:012“. ..- . . ... . a .. .01.. : .0.“ . . . . .. . n .2000. .. .. 0...... . ... 30;? 3.. oII. 0.0: I. 30000.7. ...-Nu...th .I...ZI.,. ..:.J’nJB .0.0.0 .02....‘0. .6hI...1).-Lmu-Lll.ov., .hkntorJgunvugdnnuflua 0.! ...;SI: 0.000.3033“ 0*? . I}; ,u, ...-z... ...- .. . . .. ..u. .. . .. . ... . . , , . . . .... ... .. . . . . . . ... .9 .. . 52.... . z... ,...-...:...” "...-....- ... ...... ........... .-. ,...... ...-.....r..2.....,.u...--.fiuw;, .... bun. ....” ..afl-t. . .. . .. .. . ... .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .,. I“ 0 .0.- .... 0...». . . 0.. .... 0.3. .r . ... ...... . 0 ... II .0 ... . . . o. 00. I. .0000, 0 .00. 0 1.0.00 .00 00 0... 0 .1 ’00 . 0. .4 .00.... 6’0 90.000.000.00. . .3 .0 Y0. .00.... . . . . . 00. 0 z . ... _ . q .0 . . . .. .00....0..II 0 00.. 0. 8...... I. . .... .0 00 0 0.0.00. 0 I00 0.0 , . . .0 . 0.0 ..:.310... . I .0 "0. a . 0 0 000‘ 0.. - ...... . «qt-r... . If. 1...... ....uh.” ...... . . L? w; . . ......I . "3.2..-. N . . . .... ... , (2.0.3.1.. :. . . . . 30.: ..:...H. ...I... .... - . 3 and“... 1. ...! . dour. ...”u........--IL§..V«.I ...:... ......If..: ...”.x h. «...d. .Wgfihhfltfiifi . .0. 00.31,. 0 0 . . 0 2. ......0...WI.«0o-...... 0 .. . . Z I . . . . . . . . . 0000?..00.n’.0..-u.}.00.Iu-00u...0.~.h0. 0.. 00“,"...03...000P 0L... I I0 0’00:- I‘0’00.040. 20‘135‘0‘I, ..04. 0100......I‘v «Wkflgufio‘£5m033 ...... -..:... . .09. .3. . , . U . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . , . . . 3.. I.-.’ . 0.0.20... : ...-3 . I . 0:. 5.3.0.. :0- 01 35 00. I... .0 000 0 I 000 .0 o. . o. . 0.0 I . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . , .quu 0..”0uOuunvc. . I... 0.” 0 . Own-0.9.0 0. 0 -0 . 000 0 I- 0. ' 0.u0’00’0§..05~.0. Oinycocnu “trvmrc. ...1 I .. 0 0 .100’?. 6.. ‘0‘]; fl .1." c. . \.. 420 .0600 ... . .00.“ ‘ . . . , , . . . . 2 . , . . 0.0.. C000 .00"... ....00 upvnh‘nnall .0. $000... 0000\0I...00 .. 0 02030.3 000...?“ .0... .00“, a 02.03!» ‘.D. C. v. 0- .0 303.0g .0 . . 00120.. . . I a .. 70.0 . . . ,. . .. , . . . .I ...:... 1 I ..1 . .00. I . . .10.! . . iii-21:... 0. 8.. 0.0002030! $13 0. 1000:2909.- . ,. 0.000 D . .. .... ...-5 h . _ "......- .....-.. .....Ir ,......" u..t.fi...............u...-....b nun-...”... 5...: .. .... 2 . ...:.I ......5.... , ...... ......Séxir 00.. . ... .0 . . Io... ...: . 4 .. ; . : .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .4 ‘0. I I. 0.00 Citl-Il 1.03 ......3 0 I 0.0? 0.320000. 0.. .L ,....u. , . . . . ...... . ..I I: . . . o3 ; 0 . . ... . . .. . . . . . 0v .. .4 0”. I . .I. . ”31.0.1.0... I. 0.200 .0. .. 2.0.0. ... .0 5.002001... . 0 2.500... ...-0.0 00. ... b . . 0 0 0.... _ .1 .. , ...... _. _ . .... ..n. . . .. . . _ .. ,..., .u ......h. a...” ".4“...- . ..:...-.. .. - ..:...-..........- ...r. ...-"...:... an”? and-... . a.-“.....-r.uau.e.....a.._ ......Ia. imam-mafia? .. ... 0.. I .. 0 . 0 . . , , . . . . . .1......00 0.0.02.5. .- . .00 .00... .0—00 ... 0000... 1 r . I r .....I .5 ' .0 I . o . .. .... .....I... A a . . : . . I I . .0 . . .. . . . .0 .0 .0. . 3 .. . . :0 8!. I... .. KHz-6.8..I ...:-9.0.4.9311 0:00.. ..:-”6.0g. ... . O 00 I... ‘ a.) 0 ..l I 4 .1 . XI... 0 0 0I0 ... . . .0. a . ”I". - .0 0 . 00.000 500.- I 0.0.00. ‘ . . . . . 4.0.0 0:... . . . . . . . . . 00 I . .0- 00: . 0.0.0.00... I... a? {0‘3 000000 0,0 3‘4- . . .u . ”..:-... ... .... u ax... u...0v . . .. . .1 ...... . . . . . . _. 0.61.006}. 3”.»0...\0020.... I... ll.)-....~WII.PJIInI.-. 0...}.- .0.0....02II..00 11:35.3 0020“”90. . . ... A... , . I..- ...: .. 5.00.... I ...... ..:... .... . . . . . . . . .. .... 0 ...... 0.. .0 ..~.....¢.0’.0.0.00. 03...).JISIIKII .00.I.I.a . 0 I» 0 010014....- ..3l..0. 0 . , . d . .I . .r... .. .. ... x .. I. ... . - . . :u: ... ...... . .. .. _ . . , . . . . .... .... . .40z1.é.3tst..1&0 30.533.59.530: ..:. 5001...“? 3.0”“ :0: .. .1703... . . s . .. ... . 0 . 0. 2,19, ... .o :00. .. .. 0 .70... ... 0.. .0 ..-!I . I , ...0000 .. I 20......) . 0.3... f, 0. {.2050- r.#. {‘z.\.20_3\£3.00:00. . a .00.. . 2 .13.“ 0. 0:00 0 .0 I . .0 0. III 0 0 .. .0... I 00 . .0. ,.n 0000 00 . II. I. .u 0.. . 00. .050005000070 . I l 0 .IIIO I. .0 .....0‘0. ’30... ..Y $110.00., 000005’gl 0 . .0. on ; ‘10:.0000, ' 00 -. .. “..:...” . -- . ..U ,...? .. ...-z. ..-. ,. : . . ..--.....hii... ... ...-... . ...... ......- . .. ...... ans-n... . ...... ...”..- .fl: ....- . ... ...-- ...-......s...553......1......h.......ufi554..hw an: . I . . . . 0 . .. . . . I a, I . . . I 0 a 2 s .. . z. . .. . . .. .. .. ... ”nun... -_.. 3.. .. ... .... . ... .-.. . .... 3...... . . . .. . . ,. ... ”...:? a? ...”..i- .. ...:: . {..:-......3...» ...:... 7.5.... ,......z . .25....“ .ul .. . a. . . I. u.“- 0. “A. "I .000 0 0 . ..: . 0 I.’ 00... i. 0.00. .. . . .- .0 . ... 3 ... ..0 . . . . 2 . . . , non-0. 0.0 .3:me . 002.00.00.0me00 '30.“ “augltjfiao. Inner-“0. our-0H.- . a . . . ... 0 1‘00 . . 0 . . . . . t- I 0 .0 0.0 0 h: . .x- .. ,.... n“ ...... . ...... ..:-31...... . .u. -.-....."..........-..-.... ...:-... ...-.235“...“...B....V.L..§-.u!i.33....» . . .. - 0 0 0 0 . . I 0 00 .00. 0 _ .1- .0 .4 MP..- .. 00.3600. 0.08." o: . ._ . . _ . . . .. . , 0.000.439.0910 00000400.}...‘03 '0. 0.50000. .0050—3. 3.00.0.)- cox-Innudu.uuhinuv‘ao\0.0.3.4003’0.|3!0u.. .35.. . 0 . . 0.. . 1.0 I. ,. . ... I 0.. _. 1705...... 0).. ...: ... 0.. . .... .. ...... . . .83.... . . . ..0 ...... .. 0...:- ... 08.30;”: I!..I.=0..00...00. 1.0.7.3.... 000... . 0.0300. 00.1. W.o0.I..I-33000. ..I! {lbw—4.00.0! .0.I...0,.ll'$ . . I I. - _ .0 . . .0. 2. 0.3.3.2., . ...-,... . ,... . - ,8. 0.1.. 1311.0. . . . 70. .0 0 ..: . . .. . . II .700;0000l.\30. 0. .0 .. I00...I\rl..\? .039: ..0. 0001.331. .00.‘00..’0..u13 a!) 0 I00 .0 .50... 03,387.00... I I 3 0.. a. . 0 . 0 . . . . u 0 . IzII .0... . . - . . . .. :0.. ... I 300.2100; . n 0.. I .0. . . . .. . .. , . . 00.0.0. . ..0000. .0. 60.0073000‘00-1.‘{0-0.1. , . ”1000.0"...fiot0o00.0 I... ..-...00100..ov.,.0.“.; I. 0.. ‘ 1%,.“ I . .00 0 .0I . 00.00. INN”. . 0 Z , . ....a . 0. .0220: .0 at. 2 o I, 0. I. . . . . .. , 00.10 . ...-0.0:... 3.000.000.0000... 0000000 0000 .- 03.....00.I0:.0.0O 0:. . 1.30040 “0 ..I’su’c.’z‘t 0.3.... ..:-'0‘: i. I... 0‘. .a 1- . I I I 10.00. . 0...... II. I. ’ f. . 0.0.0: . .00 0 o . ..:... . I. I. . I I ..0. 0000 0.... 030-0.}.Io; 00,000.10 0.03’3.0.7...Ih0 I 3.0.00." 0.0.,’.w’§’..0€“.0’.00.£‘0 In..." 002‘.- . 5......00 . . - _. ........... .. .- .. . . .. -. ... . . . .. .. ...I. ... x. 0...: ...... : .. . ... 5.0.03. ....0....I-.I.0. .. ..:...) li......§:.’i.z;lz .I ...-0.2.0.2.fi .22.... 2. . LI $151035}... 0. I. ...:. 1....I. . . .0 a . I. .. ...? J. 0 I! .1. . . 0 .38 3... .00. ..nmoh..1.uann.0n.u"..0: .0260... Io.” .....5“ If... .0»): “data-”203.3...- ..-«.l..oI0-M.0!.I ...-a. .... .....0400...¢0...0.00....0Pu”tbsnnflnuvf 0000053. .3 .4 I In" ... .... . .. . . I . 0,; . 0- .. 0- I....-0.00.I. .. .. ....0 . .00 III. .’ 00‘ . .u - . . . 003.04 I. '. 2 £0 3. ., .. .... . .0 . _ “.00” 0. ... ,...." 3“,. ... . .. I ...... o. 30“ 0“ .. I I 0 00‘..0~.!.. I0 . .. I ... 0.0.00.0. . .00 0’0..:a0v0—.0.00. .00.. ..nuWofirn .0'0uwholt0uq 00 ”.00... .‘..I10.'0.0\0I0..0.00 {av-o gnu? ... .... 0 0.. u 0 ., . . I . . .. . .I. t . .... ..:... I... ... ...: 0...... ...-...... .. ...:; 0.0.2.2.... .00 . ls... ...-0.35:0...“ III .00.... «F0 .55 0&000-22... {50.010010}. I . ._ .I .. . “or. ...-I L 0.“ I-iou. I . . . a .I. .... , .30, 00... o .0... . $1105..- ,10 10.0.0 010... I000... ...0,1..n..u..n0u.I.n.00.0J..II-I0$ 16000.30 500.30. 0.32.10.53.83... 0 0 0.0.. “2.0"... 00000" ,a‘afiarogi. 00.03”“... ... . . . .. ... s ... .. ...... o . 1 . _ . . . . . . , 2. ...l ... . I. .....0. I II _ 0...... . .. . . ”on". .... I . . . il30‘93l . 0.00 . ..:. ...:-0.100. 30.000." .’..3. . . . 0,. . 0 . . .0 ...-00, . .00 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . I. :0 I 0 I... . . . 0.“ ..: ... 0 .. 0.... ..0 .. ...-0.0.50.3. n 0.. . ‘12,..0- 0“ 000.:0-2 : 0“us‘.£0..‘00 T. .. 0... .. . . . 0 . .. . , .. . . . . ..., . . ,..... 0L... .0: .. .z 2.3.03 , .0 {... p.00 ... I... 00. 0,....0I....... .0.- . . . . \ri“...0l..0,.: 00.",0u.._-|00flw.000..v¥0 .0001..090§0. 00 ‘3.I.~.2000 oh I . 1.8.1- 0 . I. . .0 ... o . 00. I. I .1 . . I ... l 3000!. ... 20:00:- ...2‘. 0. 0 .I I p I 0030.....- u-G. 0 . 0» ‘.lv0.|000..\0.-0u0 . ”...-2.000“! .05 .. 32'.....1.“:-I~.l.‘..1.fifurfl§03‘no.§’h‘ «0400:3I . . - 0 . .. .. 0 .. . .. . . .. . . . , .. . 0.....0. .. . 0 I’lfc‘ v. 10.00 . .. , . . . ..:Isfilu 00,-. .500. 0 . 1> .0 . I 0 . on; . 0 ... ...:... I . ... I. 4- I... . . I A ... . . . . .. _ . , . , . ..:-.00.)...100- 0000.20.00 I far.“ ... ”Vol..- .. 0.3"”. I 00.. .00 .03.”..030000 r00.9.rfl.»II.-00, .90m.IIU‘JWhIQu‘ZIMHH.»HhS‘.H0-Hna‘cn 0,0400nl-‘(h0u00'04wwfllévflv 0H... . . . . I . . . . . . . ... . .0 a. '0 u .00“ I, . I 0 " ,... .0 00m. ....0 3‘00 . .. .1 0 . . _ . I . . I 0 . ... -. 0.; 0. 0?. 04.231 00 0 0 ...-010000.. 0.0.. 00000.. 0 00 0.. :0... ‘05 Quark.“ ID... 0.00000...000.0 .00 i‘flof002010t:0.".hdvfihuup I . .. , . I . I . 0. O . . 0 I ,. . I. _ . . .0 0 . O ...l I I, 3.0.. o 9 ~ 9. . .... 0.. 0-0 I .00. ‘ . I 00.00. .0 ...v . 00, .....JI...00- .0000. .!.00'§.0. H‘o’..fi“£.i.§’.fik’oaon.0.0 00' . . 001 .... . 0. ... 0. 0- 0 0 . . 0 .. . I . 0 a 0 . . I31. .0 .I: 0.5.0... .I 0. .0”.. on... 0 . I 0 . 0 ... (040 0.. .0. .... .0 ..I. . .. 0... I 0 ..., . . 30.0.0000 00:00:05.... ... . . I}0u\a0.0 . ”$00.30103 0:070". 0003-0303... . I ...I an 0.. l. :0 .. . I o . 0000.. 0.0.1.0 ... “I“... ...0. «IMJ00I’II’ 0'0 . {0... ..I A. ...]. . 00.! 3.0.0.0: . . "0000’“JI3t0ofinva 0u'00a‘30v03 0.0.”0)‘. . . . . . v . . . . . . . . 0000 0 I I 2.03 0. II. I... . I . it‘d“. . 0 0 . . 0 9.. .0 I I .... 0 ...l. 0 . 0 .0. . .I . . , 2.0.0.0.. 00. 0.0! .0 0‘0. g I .. 0.: .00 \c. . 0 . u ”.0. I. I. 0 I190. .00 0.. ....‘0II _ . "'\OI“;II‘.O.."’U bryl' gaunt, r .... . :- . .. . I . .. 0 .0 I. . 0.0 .000; I. . . . . . . . 2 . . 2.2.0.0.}; .. . ... . . 0000.0... 22‘700.‘ 322.00.000.53!- . I .. . .. . .. ..:... .I; .0.:. .30 , ...:...J. . 5|...T ... I. 8. . 1005.. I ...:? 10.000001000101030 .00. c 0 .. , c o. . ...} . I . 00 00.0. 0‘ I. It "O‘u‘.’.“0 Q. ... 10.. . 1 . . 65 . . . 0. . I 30 .... . . . ..:! 00000.38 .0 . . a . 0 0 . 3.0 v. 0 . . . .0v . '00. u" 0 0’. i 0 0 0 ..00. . . . . v" .00 i. 0 .DOII .. .90.!0000‘30. .. . 0. ... .0 . .l o 0 .0 0 J"... . .. ...:”... kn”... (‘1 . 0300-}. I. 000. 3.0000. "Ii‘- . 0 I I 0 .I . .I . ..0 .I . 4. 00.0 .00 ’0’)‘ I .00- .‘0 ...00 0.0 .. 00. .3, . . 9‘ 1‘0. . .. 0 I. I. I 0 .. . - 0 I a. 0 .0310: 0000. 0 , o 0 00... 0 . . o 3.00.. 0.0;. . ‘0‘00'0050 l'. I I .0 I . I 0 I0.- . I 0.. I ...:! . . 0 .0 . . .. .05. 00.9%,"... .0“ .00.... . ...“.0‘0.."00I0 a"... . . .’ $11000 to. . I. .o . .I I ‘0 l. . ... 0 . 9 _ 1 .0 .. . 3.0 .0 L. 00 .1004 . .0 .0. ,0 ... a . ‘00:! 000 0000060 .000. .0 I 00.01. . . . I . . . . o . .IIIIIT . I €00. 0.0.0. .... I. - . . . . 00 0 050. 3 0.0 40'0‘0:30.3 o’II0 . o . . . .0 I 0.. . . 0. - . .\ 003.010.7300 .00.... 0.. 0. 00.0... I 0 7.000. 00 00609000.”! .0 . ..l I . .,0 .I. .. . .. ..- . . 0 . s. 0 400 ... 1.0 . .. 9.300.. I .. 0 ’I. I 003. 1...: 00 0.0000... . . , . . . . . . ‘00.... 00L 00- .0.1000}. R;- .’.0 04 . Q I» . ..1. ..I. .. 0 ...-0 . . I . I ......II. c. “.00 I . 0. . .... .. 0.2.0.013... .0. I: . . .2 . .’."$r0h00I.0’.n1 M340110.’ I . . . .,. .. . _. . . I. . 10 o. . I . . . .u ... II I 0.. . I .5000. .0. 000-3000- ....J . . 000.000.00.00. . 5 It ‘00 I .... .I . .. . .0 I. .... . .u I.. .. I. . .0 0 .000. 0 0:00.00... 0... . 0. 0 20.00. .0. III. ...... I 0. . 0.000.009.00 .0 «0000’. 0 "“000.0. 0 u . .. . . . 2 . . . . . . . _ . r. .. H . . . . . . , . . . _ ... .. .... 3.x... "...... . .. I... .2. .... ...........-.-II....I........”.....-2..h..nnufi .... a ...-..:... I. .. . L .0, 0 0.0 . 0 ,a _ 00 ... I I . 0 0.0 .I . . . . . . . I I . . . . . a? £500,009,. 0 0 0. . M . $0.0. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . ,. . , . .... .. . . , 15.3.? ......-........€....ufi. ...-”5.55.2... ...-.55...“ . 3 0 .0 ... .. . . a .0 . ..0 . III .0. .II ...... .... 0 .I! .00...” .... . . . . . . i’u0oio’393 3-" .IlvnIfl‘.)0.o.nrA.0rIsIQ 3.000 .30.. . o .0. 0 0.. v . 0 . d 00 .0 . - 0 0 . .0 .. 1-. .. . . .mhflIQIJO’: \. Lal...0.0 00".I0I.r00 ’02." . . . ..0 0 . ... . II. .00; ... I. . 0.0... 0.0 - ..: .. I30 L... 0159...... I. _ 0 . .. . ....a .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .0... s . 000...... x . . 3 0 . 1.0-0.1.) 030.....fl0...?u300$ O 03.n00k a: ”0.. . _ . : . . . I. ... I . ... ,0 . .00. . . . . I o. .I. . . . 000 .0. 0 0 .4 ...-.... ..0 II$.:.I ..:-03.0.0012} 05. . ta”. 0 .. I ._ . 0 0 0... 0 . . a Z ..-. o. 0.0 0 I! 0 0.. . _ . _ . . . . . 0 4...... CH“ .HIUHH o. ... .....II... .03... 0.00., 0 unflrufiifilo‘i0.0...I00‘III.C0’."¢U0 000.002.00.500!" I ‘nnunalofln‘.’ I :00... .‘3. . I .I . . . . .. - . I . .. . , a I . I . .‘0 I I . . ... . . . T I .. I. ..: 0 0 .. . ... 0 . 0. I. 0 \. .00 0. 00......“ . 0 .03 . 0 . . I: I 000 I a. . .0...) 2.0.1.304: I . f.“”.u.mn00l..0uuum 00”.“.0091- ‘00..”3000 oi‘ti‘.0}9q.0n.hnur’no.' . ..0 0.. h . . . . . 0 0!. I . I . - . . , . . 0.. ...» . 0. 0 a I. .. . .. ... . .. .00... . I- .l. . (.0303)... .0. . b.0902..niXh..-I:.:fv:0.fl9‘o :0: 30.0.5550. I I . . 0 I ...-I . . . . .. .. 0 0 .0. . 0... . \ a, .. . .. . . I020, .. ‘0 .I. 0.0 . I. 0 . . . . . I .0000 2. . . . 2 .II 000 I: 00‘ 0. I0. . .0 0 . :4" O 0 I J u I .0... .0 0. .0 0 .0. I. ... . 0 I ,. . .... In. I. . I .0... .I .. .. 0 In 0.1”!“ 0“. 008.0.009 ....I... (000..., 00...?! 3000000. 0'. 0 . A 0 . . 0 . o . 00 . . I II s, I... I. ,0 0.... ..0'03... ’ . . , . ., I... . I. . .00. I ..:...z . . .. . . ,. . . .. .. . . , 303.06.. 30:0,}! i§0§000u8503fi110000503 ..JFIGL: 0-300000‘0.‘ I... .. . . . . . . . . . ...... 0. .. ...! 010.00. 0 K . . . . . . . . . . 0.00:2-500120‘ 0.000.000.3000. 0.43.0 0:0‘9.‘ , ”I . . , . . . 0 I .0 . .0 20.0 .. .. ... . 0.. I. . . . . . . .. . . . . , 0.. al.009‘100100... 0.. ’3 003-010.}. .030 ‘00. .. W4 . .. a. It .0 I . L ._ .0. 2 . {I . .... .. ... o . I- a .. , u .. .. . .0 20:0,. . . .... 5.3301”: . . . . . I . 001.00.... Sup... 010.0. 6.2022000...» .ufllflunJii‘ . 000.?! 0,0 0.... I II: . .0 . ,. . 0 . n I. 0.! I . . 00 .I .. 2. . .. 0 ..I'I III I00 I . 2 J I I - a I. v I . 'c I .0 000.’0..!0II.000. 0 , . YI..!00I0I.A I) . 0. . 0 . .. . l. 0 2 . 0.00" ...I ‘00.. H . . . . ., . . , . . . II .A...I.C0.II0L0-n.nt. 0. 00.03"“.000 «0 000.00031030‘ir0063fkir I .l .I. 0 .0 I 0 . v . . . . . . . . ‘1 O _I: z.’ I I! 0’- "l . 0 0 0" I I‘.‘ 7 Q 0 C O 0_‘ -D 0" :I I 'z .‘ :2 ..I 2 I i! 'l .0 ’O O .. .E 2 r :0 0‘ I 1 I 0 I I III; I 12.00 0- .‘t. ".000...‘000."’.§..’I000s.00.0 I r‘.0n”"4bc§uh"hn . f .20 0.. 30...} ...I .13.?! .0. ..I .. 5.3.0.1....00-‘3-3990: . 0 3.0. 0 o . . _ . I0 ... :0. z 0...... .u .10 00 - I.“ I... . .. .- .Io...0 00.00;.L..0.'0.¥0300 .. I 0 o I A . 0 .0 v. 0 o I I 0.0 0 w 0 . 0 . 0 . f... 2... ‘II 0 0.. .0 O '1 I II. 0 . ...:... . o . ... . a I I 0 .I I 0 . . . .0 0 . I .0 . 0.. . I .00 I. .0 .l 0 00 10-1-0. . .. O 0. '0 0 . O. . .0 0 . n O I 0. . I 05.0 I ..I0. ...\.I I ..f. .. .3909... .0 .IO 0 . I . I . . :- I . 0 - . .0 0 . ‘0 a .0. .... ..I 0.... ‘0 . - . ....r 0.0 I . - .. . ....... .- . . . I. I. . .. . . .... ... . . . .. .. ,. .... ..I... 2., . .. 5..-...L. . 3.3.9... o. .u.. .. u I . I 0.0. .00. I.II 0 . ..- ........ .00.. 11.0.0.3 00.0.? ... it. .0 0,000.5...‘00‘ .‘00‘ . . 0I0_0-a....0.¢.\00.§,.v-. 0I-’.0000..$ $000. 0 ~0.0. 004“"; 0"...0. 1-0 50000: .0 I...‘. . 0.... I .- ... I .000. 5.. .. 1.03000... .00.:l0. 2.. $00.00!; 0... 0 OII .0 .0 . I, 0- 0 0.9. . I. .0 I I.0 Ii 0... 3 0.0.0100. .00 I .7000... I. I ..:.0-.. 000 .000 0......‘0. I 0.. U..CI.I.- . .7.‘ I -0053,.I.,.o00. .0.... 0.0 II 00‘...“}’.)0< n.- 0? . ..‘J. ..1I000.....0 ”mme‘ '. i 3 I I ' I 1 . | 3 . I . 5 '3 .I I t‘ '. 5 I 0 5-0 0 0 I . . . I .I. . . . ..: (.0 . .0 . 00' 00 0.0 0.0.000 0. 0.010 . 0 0.. 0. . .0. .0 0 0. . . . 0 0. 0000 02 . 0 . o. . . Ill troll-00- 0 . .. 0. ..I.000 .0 I. 0 ‘ .....I0 . ,0 0.... .0 II. 00.0.. 1‘. ...0 0 . 0 .0 I-.. .0- I ...! . I 00 .00 '..£.. . ‘0..II0.. . . loo. .0... 30.... .. .. ...0 II... . Io. I O. 00.90. . . '0 all I ..\l. ,.. . 00 . u . . S 0 . . I . - .. _ . a . . .0 . I . 0 ...0I 30...... ..... .... . I . . 0 . c 0 I 0I I . .. . 0 0 .3 n . I I .. .. I 0 I. . .. I .',II I0 0.00000..00- .700 00. 0.. 0 ‘05 0 o I I ... . I. 0.. 0.. . . .0. . . . 0. 0.. .0 . . . .I .0... ...I. - .u . .. ‘3’!!!” 0 I U 0 3 '0 0 ‘ : I i ‘. . ‘0 I I ‘ X 5 I (7' . I 0 . 0 I I . . - '0 U . I I U . . . I . . p ' . 0.1‘ I . . Veto-CI.- . 2 . 2.... I... . .0... ..:... 0... . . 300...... .. 0 . 0. III. I v 0!... «I ... . .0 I 0 0 . 0 C II .0 .I. 0 I 0000 u 00. .I. I OI... . L . 0 . I . 0 0 . . I 0 0.. . .v n I o 0. 0 '. I . I . .I O 0... 0 0 0 I000... 0 0 10.00.. .0. 0‘... .. - . .n . . I . . -. u I. . .. . 0 . . I . . ...0 0 . .. u .. ...... _ . v. 0 .010 0 0. . 0 . . . .0. I 0. . I . Q. .0! a. I ..I .0 700.. u. . o _ .. 0 0 0n. ... I 0 0 A I I I... 000 I 0.0 .V.. .0. I .0. . 0 ... -.0 I .0 I0 ... u I ..:I.. .2. .... 0. 00. I. 0. . 22, .03... 0‘... .w . - .1 ‘ . . 0 . . I . I v .0. ..I: 0 . .. 4 0 .0. - . .... . 0 0 . . 00.0-0.I . .. .... 0.... .0 p 0 0 I .2 I . I 0 I . . 0 . .... ... 0- I. ... I I 0.. I . . .....I 000 0 . 0. . ... I00I II. 0 0 I. .0000“. . .0 0. .I .II . . i. u . 00 . . . . - n. . .. . . .. . n ,. ... . . - .3... . I ... 3...... 0 ..I I .. . 3.. 0. ...-2 ... 0. I . . . 0 I 0 I ... . . . ... .0 II I . . 000-10. .0 II .. . . O. .I 0 :0 09. . . I. .o . 0 . n I I- 0... 0 0 . 00 I 0 I. 0 2 . . 0 0 .I0 I ..0 .0 O 0 .4 p I .. o I 00. . . . o0 0 .. 0. ... . 00 .I~ .0 00.0 ... . u .0 .. 0.. . 0 . .. . I. I? OI. - I . III .0 . I .0 .I- 0 o I . I00 .0 .0. 0- I 0 ., a .. .. tcl‘O. III . 000 0,0004. . . I . 0 I: 0 I . . 0. 0 Q . . 0 I . hI 0' .... 0| 0 . 2 . .0 u . I .0 . I. . . I 0 I . C I 4 . l O . I0 . a I n 0 . I 1 - . n I c I ~0 I, I 0... .0 00 .I 0.0.. . . . . v00 0 . I... :0 I. 0...0....000 .. . . .. 0 I. . I I. o 0 I I. .. ...0 . $2.00... .0 ‘....0 . .0000. . 0 .. V I . Q . I . '2 o I. . 0. I... . . 0 . 0 CI p. I. . ... 0 00 . . .. . . . . 0.. 7.0.0.0 0%.] . . . . . . A v . u _ . . 0 .- .. I . . . I0. . (A- .0.. ..:. 000. a .. .I .I I l 0 p 0 I ... I . . 0 0 0.0 0 0 II. . I0 0.. . 0 «...! 000.“. 2 w I: . . . I c I - I ‘ . ..0 I .0 000 I 000. . I .o _ . I 0 . A .07 n .7. 0 . .0 .0 . . D. u . A I I . I I. .0 . I . I 0.3.04. 0 .‘0'. O . I 0 I . . .. 0. II . 0. .0 . . . I 0 ~ 0 I . 0 . .0 . n . . I...” 0.! \ III. 0.0.1.0: h1— .i“"0 .. 0 I. I . .. . . . I . . . . . . o. 0 . ...-.0 00‘... 0.9.. .02.. 0 I . 00.0.... 0.1 r I . - QI . I . . . 0 . .. . . I I. I .00 0 n o I . a... 0 0' . I .. . . .. .. ... 0.6. .....II .00.... >0.0..| ‘Nw‘... “HI-Ix .0714“. o a 0 .n. 0 . I I .- ... 2. ' . .0 . I0 . . ,.. . . . . . I.’ ‘0 . . _ 0 I I n . u I II 0. 0 I - A , . I 2 . 000.0 . . . . . .. .. . u - . . . - . .. - . - - . . . . . .... ...... 2.. a. ...: , . . . ... . . ... . , . . . . 2-. : I!,...-...-...... r.....a.....-.....-..-....7..-u -.:. I ..v I n .J‘ I . .00.... . 2 o , . . .. .00 I. ..l ' 0 . I .. I . 0 . .0 .0 . I. n . 0.. I 0 .0 0 (0 0. ...-0|. I0. I ... . .0 ...I . 0 1...“.30‘0‘. 00.0.. «1.7, I‘. .0 :0. .Il .... I . 1.0. 0 0.0 \ 0 . . v . ... 0 .0 00 .. . 00 . 00 . 0 . I 00..\ . . .. . 53000000. . a '0 . III .. 0 ”O. 0. ..0 Irlwc‘ I00 I. I .0000. I . I 0' m. . O . 3 I r I 0 0L _ . - . I}. . . 0 . W003 m ... 0 I 1 I ..:-0.“..1. . 0.. c . .0. .ol .0: .03.... I? I III I. 0 . 0.0 ... t . 0.0.0.. huh! I .0 ... 0.. :{330600 I 00‘}?- I I I ...I I . 0! I. . . . . . . .. . 0.. . . . . . . 0 .. . .‘I. 0.! I. 3.0.9.. I. .01., r .l 0 .I 0 I . I I. . I 0... .I 0 0- . ’03.. I . ... It 0 s a .0. ‘0 I 0 I I. .. . . I . I»... 0 I I 0 . 0 I 0 0 0 0. . I I- 0. I I. .0'. 0.. “I. 0 I10 0 0 I 0’ ......IIIIU‘.IL4\'0I.’I’I-O. 060/0 0 bl‘v 0 (or O" 0 - - 0 I . I . . . 0.0.0. I. .I . 0 0 I 0 0 YI. 0 n I . I I O . .I I 0 .0. 0 . . A . . . . - . .- o 0.. 0 . ... . . I 0. - 0. . . . .. ... . . . .. .-. 0...... . . ,.. 0909.... .\.00"I(.....muh0\0\v “Ink-‘40... 0 O . I I I I. . . 0. 0. . I ‘. 0 I .00 I .30..I!...l . ....t.00.0.O.I 1.1..-..,0I00.I .0 ...-f0. . 0 . 0 . 0 I. u .0 v I . . t .. . I . . .40 0 ...-0.0 0.00.7... 110.0... .I II.\ .... . .1621 v.0 I I.... III. {II . 0 II .I . 00 . . 6 0 . . I 0 I 0. . . . .00....7. IJIII . .I.I.0. .I.0II. . .. ..I...0.0 3’0 \4 0-1070 I. ....0‘ V . .I o 0 .Q 0 a I I. 09 I - I I. I . 0. . I. 0 . .0. .. 0 0.3..- . .}0:, 0.0 .20. -0.... 0.. .‘0 ..0.00v. .0 (00. 0 I .00 .0000.0~‘,.II\ IIII‘.II.0.00- . I n .. 0 0 I .{4 . I . 70 . 0 0 0 o 0. 0. . I 0. . . . I 0 .I I o 00 ...0. ., I. . 0,. I. .. I 0.30.0050. . . 0.0 0....‘0.I...... . , . 75’ II 0 0 .4 I 0. I 0 I0 0 . 0 .0 . . . . . I . . 0 0 0.. . .I .. . . ... ...-o I 0. 0.0. J .0 . I- I . . . . . .. . .0‘. .0 0 0... I. . . . . .. I 0.110 0.}. .. . 0 - . .a 0 .5. I. 0 I I .0. . . u 0 0. 6 . 0. 0 I . 0- O . “I. ’. 0%....1 I . ... I. . . . .0. 0 .I...I ... .0 II ...... I I . . . .H 0.0. . . . . . . . IOI. 0 00.0. W~\\0 . . . . .40 ..v I - . 0 I . . 0. I I. I I. .00 00 .... 10.. .0} v . n . III-....Ol. . . III I I _. .0. . c 0 . .I . . IA 0 0 I . . I f 0 . .‘ In I. .0 II). I. 0 I I . . 0 I. 5.. I. . ... . .4 N...- I...“0 J0.”- . . . .0. . .0 0.0 In: 0 II. 0.. 0 . . . 0 .0”.‘0.O(‘.0.0I ‘0 . CA... H”... ”00 . . r .0 . _ 0 I .. ... - I I I. . . . . . .1 30... I 0 I . . I. . . 0 {I I: ... 0 .v I. I.)- .0 . .0 .000 I! 0. 0.0. 0:. ..0 . II. . . . .. . . . .i I 0.01.6.0: 0J0”. 0L . . - .0 _. I ..fls . .04 I . . 0. .. 0 0 . . . .0 . Ia .3300. .r. ..0‘ . ..0 00 .000. .‘.I. . . CI 0. .. 0:00.00 ...-1“. 0:. . . . .. . . . . . .00. .03 .1 0;! .. . . .. , .. .0,-0|00. I. .0! u . n . .0 a I . 0 II .I I. .010000 I. . . 0 I . ......u ..:. . ...... 0. . I .... 10.23.50 ..I.. .. . a ‘..0. 3.0.0-... .I . .. ..: 0. .. . .0 . . u .. -00 0", . «.0! . .001 .. 0.. II 0 t . . I 0 c . I I .I ... .I. .. 0 . . 0 . . . I. 0. . . .0. 0 ...! ... 0 .n 0. I00: .0 0.000 0.0.000 0 ... .. ..hl. ... .0. .II I . 30,. . . 0 I.Q.IA.0I|‘.‘0. ... 0‘ . ~ .0 . . . - ... . n a \ .. . . ..u ..., . .. . . u .0. . .0 .1 .....0..0000I00 ... . ,. 1.... .. .0 ‘....I0‘.II..A.04 ~..-00I2. ...... 0.0...I.0.0. .I 0. r. I. . . 0 I I00 I .. I 0 . . I 0. . II I . . I0 .0 I .0. 0 0 . ‘0 cum-0. ..00' 00000 .0 .09.. . . 0 I I I .0. 0 . I 0 o. 0. .0.‘ 00.“...0‘06 n . .. . . ... 0.0.. . I... e I.» . .0 I 0!. l . I I I 4 u . . . I . 0 I0 .0 0 . 0 ' . . . . . . .o .0 T 0 I00 .0 I: . v . 0 . 0 0 a. I . 0 0 I . I , . .I . ”0.. .I.£I . . 0-. ...-... 00 .0. 000”..III,. III! ..0 I .. 00:00-. .0\IO ’I '0 . . . _ 1. I‘ o . . 0 .. .. .. 0 . . 0... p 0 I I.»..0.... . ., I.0 I . 0o . 0 0 ...... ... ... u .0; 0.. .00 .I . I. .0. o. ‘00.... ... .0001 .0 .....- 4|. .0 . _ . . 0 .00. . . 4 I. ...-o . .0 . .....0. . . . ... 0 a. . . I _ 0.50.. 0. .. o. .0 ..0 0... I...00I. 0. 0 . II.I. 1.00 7-00 . I o . , . . .. . .. .. . . . .. 0 .. . a I ..I 0. . . .0 . I- .. .... v-0 I. .0 .0...- ...0I......0 . .0 .0.‘...0... .0 -0. . . 0 .100 .n 0.0. 0...... ‘ .. .. ..I. . _. 00.6.0' ‘50000.];0..QI. . m“ o . . . . o . .. . - . .- .. . .. - .. 0- 0.. . Ia... . II. I. .1. .. 0.. . m0.- 0. . 0 ._ .... m.....t...l!.-: .....l .00.“ 00030.!- .0...... 0. .0. 0 .QIIJII0.0I. 0.. 03.0.0 30...“... II I’I «I If . I . . . I I I . I . . . . .0... .0 I I .0 2... ‘ .‘O I. .. . II . . . ..00 J .0 . 0 II a. . I. 0 y P I I . I O I . I. 0. .0 .00. .0 I v. . I” .. I .0.- ,I . 0 .- 0 .I .... I. .0 0| ”"0. 0H0” 0: n. .. Q - . .IvuoIII‘u ... 3'00 0... O _ 0 O 0 .0 .I......I...n0m0.. I 00 ...?‘II. .I . . . . 0. .II"!.00.0100/.0 . '0 I H 0 . . I 0 O . 0 : I O o . . I 00 1 u. I . I‘ n 0 . .0 .I. .. I. I I I:II. 0.0.. v I .-< 00.0.. 00 C. .0 . .00! II r0 I l 0‘ a n 00 . .l A .‘.0.0 02' 0 . .. I Q \II-.00‘0. .. u v . I a I ... . 0 0 0 . O . . 0 0 0. , I I ~. I .. . .. . 0 . 40 . ....I. I II . I .I .. 0 c . . I o . .. .0. . . 0.. I . I...“ In - 0., c . .. . . ... I .0. .0. 0 0 I 0 0 00.. . I . I ..0u000.:00 . I a! ”s .00 O . 0 0.. .. . 0 I. . I I...’.I.0uu. o 0 0’.-. 0 '5 ... 0 O... . n 0. I . u 0 00 I. o . . . .. 2 . .. . .00.“. . . I u. a. I 00- .0. 00 .. 0 ..0..I - . I u 3-1-0.3”... A..U0; 90.0 .02.-. 10.1....- ..I . 0 . . Q 0 D‘- 0 . ... I . I . . ~01 0.. n - . . u I . - I. I ..0 I. .00 . b . I0 I I. I I . . .0 .0. 0 0.. I00:- 0... n0 . .0. ~ . .00. u . I I. . 0 ..00 . .0 0 . 1.0 4.2.5.0. . I 0 II 0 HI SKY... ' 0. I . I . I . I II a II o 0 . . 0 - I . . . I A I 00 o . 0 _ ‘ I O J u I . I I 0 I . 0 lo I II. I I 0 I 0.. 0 .0 ..W I. 0. I 0 0..0 . . 0|. 0. .0. 0 -.0. . .0... IJH. .0 In. .0 . '0 I0 0).! 0.0 0! ‘ 0|“;- .. .- 0 . v 00 at. I b .0 I 0 . a l . I I . ... .0 0 00 .... .0. .III . 0 0 .III ..I I. ..0. I ...0‘.‘ I... CAI: .0 II 0.00- 0 00. .....l.iI 0 's u I 0.. .0 0 I 0 . II. 1 . . 0 I It .7000; II 0...0 .. .9 0 I. . 0 . 0 .I 0 Q ..:-0%.... 0 . 0 . . , A I 00.0 05.0 C . . u .. _ . 0 . v0 . . X 0. .3. o. .I. . . 0 .0 . I. .. . .l..... 02 .0. ... 0 u . 0 . . 0 . .0I “. .I . 0 . I I . . - . I . 0 I '0 . I. I . . . . v ' I n ., . . . . I . . . I H 0 . 0 . . . C . . .c .n . . . . . I I .0 I ...:-I30. . 0 O .3000. I 0 I I I I .. . . . . - o I . . r . I ..I 0.. 1 I... 1...: 01.04 V... . . I. - I It I . . . 0 I 0 . I o 00‘. . I: 000 . ' . .I00 .00.. o 2 I n I I pi .N . 1.. :u... . .. , \— .0. 00.. .0 3... 2,9 .. ... I 0. . .00. ... . 00.0, I 0 .0. I. ..: n .0 I . 0: I .. «10.... 05 .0 00...?!03‘nnu 3‘. i ...0 00.05920“. .00.- ..prI i’udmhl «ring. .. k ... ...:L .. .... .I... 0 o ...... I 10c . .x . ,. .... .. 0. 0 .0 ...-:70]: .. .. ...:... 05. 0.10. 04.0.... . .0219. 0.2.0.29: .00 00.0311..,0.....1002... . 0.. . : - 5.3.3.1....»35... II..- - - .2. .. . p . . 00. . .0. 1 f... .3... 0. . 0 .. 0.. . . . . . I I.....I -. I...» 080.- ..; 530000.. 0|.» II... . ..0... ..IL...’-..-. . . .2??- -.» . -I. .. .. . I I .. .LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled RECONCILING GOOD INTENTIONS: THE UINVERSITY-USAID PARTNERSHIP presented by GRETCHEN C. SANFORD has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctoral degree in Educational Aministration W1 CLQQ - Major Professor’s Signature 4 /5c:/020m Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDuevindd RECONCILING GOOD INTENTIONS: THE UNIVERSITY-USAID PARTNERSHIP By Gretchen C. Maletzke A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Higher, Adult, and Life Long Education 2009 ABSTRACT RECONCILING GOOD INTENTIONS: THE UNIVERSITY-USAID PARTNERSHIP By Gretchen C. Maletzke The purpose of this case study was to understand the relationship between USAID and US. universities in the context of evolving foreign assistance policy. The formation of the partnership and the characteristics of how the partnership functions beyond the political call for this alliance was studied. My interest was to identify and study what elements in this relationship promote long-term collaboration where the organizations are motivated by reasons other than monetary support and project completions. This study described an analyzed a partnership between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and three US. land-grant universities. The partnership was centered on an international development project, Partnership for Food Industry Development. This project was designed to strengthen food industries in developing countries and promote their producers’ effective participation in the global trading system. Specifically this study examined the impact of organizational philosophy and policies on the formation and sustainability of these relationships. The participants consisted of project staff/faculty from each of the three university partners and agency staff members from USAID and Higher Education Development (HED), a branch unit of USAID. This research project was a qualitative case study where the data were collected through interviews, and document analysis. The major themes that emerged through the analysis of the data collected were: the nature of relationship between universities and USAID; lack of institutional understanding; organizational and philosophical barriers that prohibit international development work. It was realized that in order for a successful partnership to occur between USAID and universities there were specific changes that needed to take place in both organizations. This study focused on the changes that needed to take place within the university. This study confirmed that partnerships between USAID and universities have the potential to assist development experts in the process of international development and capacity building. It also confirmed that the differences in organizational structure among these partner organizations challenge the institutional mission of the university and impact the professional life of researchers who are involved in international development work. The findings of the study added to the literature by providing a better understanding of organizational barriers in place at USAID and universities engaged in international development projects. I dedicate this dissertation work to my family and many friends. A special feeling of gratitude to my loving parents, Mark and Dana Maletzke, whose words of encouragement and push for tenacity ring in my ears. My fiance and best friend, Mark Neisler who never left my side and was there for me throughout the entire doctorate program. I also dedicate this dissertation to my many friends who have supported me throughout the process. I will always appreciate all they have done, especially Robin Usbome for the many hours of proofreading. You all have played an instrumental role in this journey with me. Providing strength, support and endless cheerleading. But what’s more, you helped me to realize the importance of Count Leo Tolstoy’s “The Three Questions”. When is the best time? Who is the most important one? What is the right thing to do? “Remember then that there is only one important time, and that time is now. The most important one is always the one you are with. And the most important thing is to do good for the one who is standing at your side. For these, my dear boy, are the answers to what is most important in this world.” — Jon Muth, 2002 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It is a pleasure to thank those who made this dissertation possible such as my advisor, Dr. Reitu O. Mabokela who provided encouragement, supervision and support no matter where she was in the world. As well as my committee members, Dr. Marilyn Amey, Dr. Robert Glew, and Dr. Jack Schwille. Their support during my doctoral program was invaluable and wide-ranging, whether it was allowing me to call into class from parts unknown or making me laugh when it seemed there was no light at the end of the dissertation tunnel, I am grateful for all that you have done for me. I would also like to thank Mary Anne Walker for her support and understanding as my supervisor during this challenging time in my career. I appreciate the space she created for me in my professional life and her interest in and support of my work. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. ix KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... x INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1 Purpose ..................................................................................... 7 Conceptual Framework ................................................................... 10 Dissertation Outline ...................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................... 18 Organizational Partnership and Organizational Effectiveness ..................... l8 Land-grant University Structure and Function ....................................... 26 The Structure and Function of US Foreign Assistance .............................. 31 CHAPTER 3 METHODS ........................................................................................ 42 Phases of the Study ...................................................................... 45 Instrument Development .................. - .............................................. 48 Data Collection ............................................................................ 50 Data Analysis .............................................................................. 52 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 59 Emergent Themes ......................................................................... 59 CHAPTER 5 CASE STUDY: UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION ........................................ 96 Louisiana State University ................ . .............................................. 101 Michigan State University ............................................................... 109 Rutgers University ........................................................................ 117 Summary .................................................................................... 123 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .............................................................. 133 Overview of the Study .................................................................... 135 Interpretations and Findings ............................................................ 136 Implications ............................................................................... 151 Recommendations for Further Research .............................................. 157 vi Concluding Remarks ..................................................................... 159 APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 162 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................ 179 vii LIST OF TABLES Table l: Workforce location: Full-time employees ........................................... 40 Table 2: Data codes and research questions ................................................... 54 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Open systems diagram ................................................................. 11 Figure 2: Universities as boundary spanners .................................................... 71 ix AFD AWP CTO DAI DFID EGAT FAA FDA F&V GDA GNP HED HACCP HIPC LGU LSU MSP MSU NASULGC NGO NP NYU KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS Agence Francaise de Dévelopement Annual work plan Cognizant Technical Officers Development Alternatives International Inited Kingdom Department for International Development Economic Growth Agriculture and Trade Foreign Assistance Act . Food and Drug Administration Fruits and vegetables Global Development Alliance Gross National Product Higher Education Development Hazard analysis and critical control point Heavily lndebted Poor Countries Land-Grant University Louisiana State University Meat Seafood and Poultry Michigan State University National Association for State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Non-Govemmental Organizations Natural products New York University PFID PSU RU SIDA USAID WTO Partnership for Food Industry Development Pennsylvania State University Rutgers University Swedish International Development Agency United States Agency for International Development World Trade Organization xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In 1949 President Harry S. Truman’s inaugural address outlined the Point Four program, a new attempt by the United States to aid developing nations in attaining modernization, economic growth, and development. Truman stated that the way forward was through development of human capacity: Fourth we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of under-developed areas. I believe that we should make available to peace-loving peoples the benefits of our store of technical knowledge in order to help them realize their aspirations for a better life. And in cooperation with other nations, we should foster capital investment in areas needing development. Our aim should be to help the free peoples of the world through their own efforts, to produce more food, more clothing, more material housing, and more mechanical power to lighten their burdens. (Read, 1974, p. 5) Following Truman’s speech, an executive committee of the National Association of Land-Grant Colleges offered the president its services as the basic means to provide the store of technical knowledge for aiding developing countries and, as a result, universities were the first institutions to offer such assistance. However, they did not engage in this work as solitary entities. It was necessary for these institutions to partner, either collaboratively and/or contractually, with US. governmental agencies to conceive of and implement their work. The strongest university linkage to a governmental agency was the one forged with the United States Agency of lntemational Development (USAID) (Bratton, 1990). USAID is the American government’s primary instrument for the provision of technical assistance to developing nations. As globalization has become a powerful force in today’s world, the perceived need for international development practitioners to collaborate has become stronger. People and organizations involved in development assistance are becoming increasingly interdependent as a result of rapid economic and technological change (Moseley, 2007). For the purposes of this study I have conceptualized development as a means of leveling the playing field that result in changes of such magnitude that there is measurable and lasting material improvements in the masses of people’s lives. This study examines the relationship between US. universities and USAID in the context of a large international development project focused on agricultural commodity value chains'. During its 46-year history, the relationship between USAID and universities has changed due in large part to the political shifts in Washington, DC (Lancaster & Van Dusen, 2005). These shifts redirected the development philosophy and the focus of foreign assistance. Also significant during the historical evolution of this relationship is the development of multiple missions by universities, which often conflict with the university core principles of creativity, autonomy, and diversity (Beattie, 1991; Busch, 2006). Universities, especially research universities, found themselves needing to respond to the demands of external stakeholders while managing the internal needs of students and faculty. The land-grant universities held on to their traditional mission of affordable and practical education for all (Thelin, 2004), but they expanded their mission to include ' Permission was granted to name the universities in this study. research, undergraduate, graduate and professional education, as well as a wider role in public outreach and extension (Rhodes, 2001). Ultimately these shifting policy constructs among both organizations have the potential to impact their international development philosophy and historical relationship with each other. When conceptualizing international development work, it is important for both universities and donor agencies to give great thought to their institutional collaborators. The motivation for conducting international development work is different for academic institutions and development organizations such as USAID. Literature examining organizational partnerships indicates that collaboration among organizations yields sustainable partnerships that are capable of reaching their stated objectives (Gray, 1989, 1996; Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Moseley, 2007). However, each organization faces different challenges and constraints to forming partnerships and working toward shared goals. For the purposes of this study, partnerships are defined as “purposive strategic relationships between independent firms who share compatible goals, strive for mutual benefit, and acknowledge a high level of mutual interdependence” (Mohr & Spekman, 1994, p. 135). USAID and universities join efforts to achieve goals that each organization, acting alone, could not attain easily. These partnerships can also offer access to new technologies, monetary and human capacity, and knowledge (Amey, 2007; Powell, 1987). Although this partnership is nearly five decades old, there are elements of it and subsequent activities within it that have failed to obtain desired results. This study seeks to understand the formation of the partnership between USAID and land-grant universities, and an understanding of the resulting components associated with this working relationship. There are many reasons why USAID and land-grant universities form partnerships. Policymakers consider these partnerships a mechanism for meeting national foreign assistance goals while assisting universities in transferring their knowledge. Additionally, the university can serve as a liaison between governmental agencies and the host country (Amey, 2007; Moseley, 2007). The political nature of these relationships factors into the allocation of funding, and has an impact on the research that focuses on effective and efficient development assistance theory and activities. The politics result in a disconnect among the foreign aid agencies and academic researchers. As a result, what is seen as a development assistance trend among the policy community becomes the basis for funding allocation and sets the direction for agency philosophy. For example, over the past two decades the World Bank and USAID have held that education, and particularly primary education, has a direct connection to development outcomes (Bennell, 1996; Botchie & Ahadzie, 2004). However, recent research provides evidence that formal post-basic education has the largest direct impact on income levels of the poorest 45% of the population, leading to poverty reduction (Birdsall, Levine, & Ibrahim, 2005; King, Palmer, & Hayman, 2004). Additionally, a recent World Bank report indicated, higher education investments generate major external benefits that are crucial for knowledge-driven economic and social development, including the long-term returns from basic research and technology development and the social benefits accruing from the construction of more cohesive societies. It further states, “Tertiary education exercises a direct influence on national productivity which largely determines living standards and a country's ability to compete in the globalization process (World Bank, 2002, p. 163).” Despite the publication of this research and a widespread paradigm shift among educational experts, federal agencies continue to formulate US. foreign assistance policy based on unproven research (Brinkerhoff, 2002, Dichter, 2003). The above example demonstrates the challenge of forming partnerships between organizations that have very different philosophies and policies. It also illustrates the impact policy can have on the direction of an organization’s work. Policy decision- making at the agency level, combined with miscommunication between donor agencies and academic researchers, can impact the focus of long-term international development work. Although partnership formation among organizations has been extensively explored in the literature, the understanding of the characteristics of partnership success is not clearly articulated (Amey, 2007; Borys & Jemison, 1989; Gray, 1989; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). This dissertation examines why universities and USAID enter into partnerships, the organizational context from which they approach their relationship, and a reflexive examination at what has been done to sustain these partnerships. Looking back over the history of the relationship will provide a foundation for understanding the firture. In recent remarks to the US. Department of State, Henrietta Fore, acting administrator of USAID and acting director of US. Foreign Assistance, announced a new era of foreign assistance — the Global Development Alliance (Fore, 2007). Fore described this new era as > the Global Development Alliance (GDA) is USAID's commitment to change the way we implement our assistance mandate. GDA mobilizes the ideas, efforts and resources of governments, businesses and civil society by forging public-private alliances to stimulate economic growth, develop businesses and workforces, address health and environmental issues, and expand access to education and technology. Alliances incorporate the breadth of USAID and partner resources to arrive at solutions only available through pooled efforts. The resources united are as diverse as the alliances themselves, including technology and intellectual property rights, market creation, best practices, policy influence, in-country networks, and expertise in development programs ranging from international trade to biodiversity protection. (Fore, 2007, public address). In a November 2007 speech at the annual meeting of the National Association of State Universities and Land—Grant Colleges, Fore said that political and financial circumstances present “an unusual opportunity to more effectively link higher education in America and developing countries” (Wheeler, 2007, http://chronicIe.com/weckIy/v54/i13/13a02502.htm). She hosted a conference in August 2008 with leaders from higher education institutions in the developing world and the US. in hopes it will result in stronger partnerships between the universities and donor agencies. These initiatives provide relevance and significance of this study as a contribution to the understanding and strengthening of the university-USAID collaboration. Taking into account the pressure on universities to secure external funding and the new direction USAID will take in conducting international development work, it has never been more important to more fully understand the nature of this partnership. Administrators from both organizations can benefit by creating an environment that can endure times of political paradigm shifts and disagreement, making way for shared understanding of international development philosophy to guide the work of the partnership. Purpose The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between USAID and US. universities in the context of evolving foreign assistance policy. The formation of the partnership and the characteristics of how the partnership functions beyond the political call for this alliance was studied. My interest was to identify and study what elements in this relationship promote long-term collaboration where the organizations are motivated by reaSOns other than monetary support and project completions. Specifically, I examined how the changing organizational philosophies at both universities and USAID have impacted this organizational collaboration. Next, I explored the barriers and synergies of collaboration between these organizations in the context of the Global Development Alliance. Without recognition of these issues and action to remove or reduce the barriers, advocacy for partnerships will remain a rhetorical issue with no basis in reality. Resources may be wasted in the desire to have partnerships provide quick success, or the partnership strategy may be prematurely condemned to failure if there is no evidence that it leads directly to improving the well-being of developing countries. The problem may, however, lie in lack of attention to the partnership process. This research bases the need for partnerships on the history of international development work . and its lack of sustainable impact (Dichter, 2003; Garilao, 1987). Further demonstrating the point that development assistance has been ineffective is the following excerpt from a 1989 Washington Post article: “The Agency for lntemational Development, after spending tens of billions of dollars in 25 years of trying to help Third World nations stem poverty, has concluded that the program largely failed to achieve its objectives and suggested that a complete overhaul may be necessary” (Ottaway, 1989, p. A5). And in a 1992 letter to President George H. W. Bush, Vermont senator Patrick Leahy wrote that ...our international assistance program is exhausted intellectually, conceptually, and politically. It has not widely understood and agreed set of goals, it lacks coherence and vision, and there is a very real question whether parts of it actually serve broadly accepted United States national interests any longer. . .As a whole it is failing to address adequately fundamental American interests in the global population explosion, international environmental degradation on a massive scale, and seemingly ineradicable poverty and hopelessness in the developing world. (Leahy, 1992, p. 33) Development assistance has largely failed to work because it cannot work. This is so because of human nature, the complexity of the developing world’s problems, and most important, the inevitable structural distortions and contradictions within the development assistance industry. To put it another way, the organizational imperatives of the industry have generally worked against, in the case of this study, the university’s ability to act on what they do understand about real development, rendering them ineffective. Effective participation of these organizations in a partnership requires change from the current methods of international development programming and organizational partnerships. Systems and paradigm changes carry political implications that while not addressed in this research, must at least be acknowledged. Paying attention to the process of partnering may provide opportunities for a better understanding of these implications. One of the objectives of this study was to provide an understanding of university partnerships that goes beyond the general descriptive nature in existing literature. This study is grounded in systems theory, which shows that the partnership acquires resources from its environment that are transformed into activities that institutionalize it. As the partnership develops more effectively, it contributes to effective international development initiatives. The study is further informed by institutional theory to identify sources and types of pressure that affect partners’ ability to anticipate challenges. Together, these theoretical perspectives, which are described in detail later in this dissertation, provide a useful framework for how individual partners define required change, both within the organization and in its institutional environment and to decide whether this change is possible. While there are various studies that have examined organizational partnerships and international development (Brinkerhoff, 2002, Dichter, 1983, Garilao, 1987), few research efforts have employed open systems and institutional theories as a framework for understanding organizational partnerships engaged in international development work. Examining partnerships in practice, this research addresses the following questions and sub-questions: ' What is the nature of the relationship between USAID and US. universities? 0 To what extent do the partnerships under study reflect open systems theory? 0 To what extent have the partnerships under study developed characteristics for effective functioning? 0 How have the evolving organizational philosophies and polices at both the universities and USAID impacted the collaboration? 0 How does attention to the partnership development process affect development of a partnership? 0 What facilitators and impediments to the partnership development exist in the partnerships under study? 0 What impact will a deeper understanding of this partnership have on the new era of foreign assistance, the Global Development Alliance? Conceptual Framework This research is informed by two organizational theories; open systems theory and institutional theory. Open Systems Theory This seeks to identify the nature of the partnership that exists between universities and USAID, as well as how the complex decision-making associated with this partnership lead to dynamic international development initiatives in the recipient countries. The open systems theory describes a system as a set of interacting elements or sub-systems that make up an integrated whole, forming part of larger systems. Because open systems theory deals with organizations in general and across all sectors, it is applicable to university-led international development efforts and other organizations contributing to development. Open systems theory provides a framework to study partnerships as social 10 systems with sub-systems that interact with each other and with the environment (Katz and Kahn, 1979). Figure 1: Open Systems Diagram .-.. 1. Environment: All ofthe elements outside the system that have the potential to ‘ affect all or part of the system. 7 In ut' p 3. Throughput: The Resources are . process of conversron or taken or . . transformation of resources reeeiVLd l'l'nm within a system In“) the external . ' the -..—o-— environment. 5'- . m. 5. Feedback: A continuing source of information concerning the relationship with the external environment used to make the necessary changes in order to survwc and to grow. Image adapted from CSAP Institute for Partnership The historical roots of open systems theory lie with von Bartolanffy’s general systems theory that describes dynamic, recurring patterns in biological systems. Open systems theory adapted this to the study of organizations, proposing that systems maintain themselves through contact with the environment. An open system is defined as a coalition of shifting interest groups, strongly influenced by environmental factors that develop goals by negotiating its structure, activities, and outcomes. Open systems theory 11 argues that organizations are social systems made up of a structuring of events or processes. Social systems are anchored in attitudes, beliefs, and motivations of humans, representing patterns of relationships characterized by variability in objectives that change over time and by control mechanisms to decrease variability of human behavior in the interest of stability (Katz & Khan, 1978). The theory stresses complexity and variability of parts, looseness of connections, amorphous system boundaries, and attention to process, not structure (Scott, 1981). Properties of open systems include inputs, transformation processes, and outputs (Katz & Khan, 1978). Inputs represent importation of energy and the influences of the environment on the system. These inputs are transformed into outputs that are returned to and influence the environment. This import and export process represents a cycle of events that decreases the natural tendency of a system toward entropy. Positive and negative feedback loops lead to dynamic homeostasis, where positive feedback allows an organization to respond to changes in the environment and negative feedback serves to correct deviations, opposing changes and maintaining stability (Ashmos and Huber, 1987). The concept of equifinality allows that a final state can be reached from different initial conditions and by multiple paths. Organizations are controlled through rules, regulations and norms in their environment. Therefore, organizational functioning cannot be understood in isolation since any system is a sub-system of a larger system. Open systems analysis seeks to define the boundaries of a system and the elements making up the system, their interactions, and the connections between them. Starting with the system of interest, analysis must indentify the larger system of interest is embedded, as well as the sub-systems (Katz & Khan, I978). 12 As an organization or social system grows, it must develop five sub-systems that represent differentiation of activities for survival. The interaction of these sub-systems requires integration and ensures that the system is greater than the sum of its parts. Building on Talcott Parsons’ Theory of Action and its four components of a social system (goal attainment, maintenance, integration, and adaptation), Katz and Khan (1978) offered a framework that can be applied to the study of partnership. Organizations must transform inputs into 1) a production or technical sub-system (e.g., international development and partnership development activities); 2) boundary spanning structures to facilitate exchanges with external organizations (e.g., the procurement function to obtain materials or the liaison function to maintain relations); 3) maintenance to hold the social structure together by reducing variability (e.g., cultural norms, values, and beliefs); 4) adaptive structures to respond to changing environmental demands (e.g., planning, environmental scan, and feedback systems); and 5) managerial sub-systems (e.g., control, coordination, directing, regulatory mechanisms, and authority structure) (Katz and Kahn, 1978). As a part of the adaptive sub-system, a negative feedback loop involves goal-oriented behavior and acts through self-correction to maintain equilibrium and stability in a changing environment. A positive feedback loop leads to instability and to change for organizational survival (Katz and Khan, 1978). Defining the system by identifying the boundaries between the system and its environment is often arbitrary, depending on the person studying the system (Scott 1981). Indicators for boundary identification include interaction rates, types of activities, spatial and temporal characteristics, and the degree of influence. Boundaries are defined in functional, not geographic, terms to include organizations producing similar products 13 and services and critical exchange partners, sources of funding, regulatory groups, professional and trade associations and other sources of normative influence. Non-local and local connections, as well as cultural and political influences, are considered for inclusion in the system (Scott 1981). This framework is useful in describing the component sub-systems of partnership that are required for effective functioning. The utility of the open systems approach is that the importance placed on the environment calls for scanning for changes and bridging boundaries and interdependencies. The open systems approach allows identification and elimination of potential dysfunctions (Morgan 1996). The explanatory power of open systems theory is, however, limited, given that it provides a framework to describe and classify organizations within their environments (Ashmos and Huber 1987). Open systems theory views organizations only as physical entities, ignoring the importance they have in constructing meaning in the human system (Flood 1999). Inattention to interactions among interest groups or stakeholders also limits its usefulness (Harrison and Shiron 1999). Hence, an expansion of open systems theory is required. Institutional Theory Institutional theory builds on the open systems perspective by adding that the environment is not only a stock of resources and technical information, but also a supplier of legitimacy and meaning (Thompson, 1967). Early institutional theory argued that organizations reflect rules and structures in their external environments, rather than result from internal, rational decision-making processes. Organizations take on patterns of functioning and meaning from their environment, providing them 14 legitimacy and stability where they accommodate the requirements of these influences. Organizations are thus more about the process of organizing than about the structure of organization (Weick,l979). The environment is a sourcehof information and a stock of resources. Most institutional research focuses on why organizations are structured as they are and on the isomorphism between organizations that this process produces. Additionally, the theory provides some understanding of why organizations are interested in collaboration, because it can help organizations adjust more efficiently and effectively to increasing complexity (Hatch, 1997). An organization’s structural complexity increases as the environment becomes more complex. With increases in uncertainty, organizations increase their formalization and control processes. Increasing complexity and uncertainty leads organizations to become more interdependent, looking for ways to coordinate (Scott, 1981). The institutional model consists of four elements: 1) macro processes within power and social structures (the nation-state, professions, culture, and the economy) affect or control development of the environment of organizing; 2) the institutional environment is made up of a set of organizations with identities, structures, and activities that influence a particular organization; 3) causal connections (or types of pressure) between institutional elements and organizational identity, structure, and activities; 4) sources of influence on organizations (e.g., public regulation by nation state, scientific or professional norms and guidelines) (Meyer, 1994). Within institutional theory, two types of organization exist—technical and institutional. In technical organizations, success depends on outputs and profit. In institutional organizations, on the other hand, success depends on acceptance of society’s norms 15 and values (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991). Significance of the Study The university-USAID partnership is unique because it goes beyond the idealistic perspective that the collaboration can strengthen and enhance development work being done around the world. I looked at the relationship and its constraints from both the perspective of the university and USAID. I will highlight elements of USAID-funded development projects as a way of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the partnership. As mentioned earlier, the timeliness of this study is critical as USAID plans to shift the focus of foreign assistance. Understanding the nature of this partnership will be important if both entities are to move forward and strengthen their collaboration in this next era of foreign aid. In thinking about this macro-level restructuring of donor agencies, the key drivers of foreign aid implementation must be considered — in the case of this study the focus is on the US. university. Dissertation Outline This dissertation begins with an introduction that outlines the background, rationale, and limitations of this study. The first chapter provides an example of how research has been misinterpreted, leading to inappropriate foreign assistance policy and subsequent difficulties in delivering effective livelihood enhancement information and projects. The second chapter of this dissertation reviews the literature, which is divided into four sections. The first section of chapter two examines organizational partnership literature and organizational effectiveness. This literature informs the study through a theoretical perspective, helping to answer questions that probe the structural barriers and synergies within the university collaborations with USAID. The second section in the literature 16 review explores the collaborative efforts between universities and USAID. It begins by detailing how USAID came to work with universities and why universities have been significant contributors to USAID’s work. The third section of chapter two analyzes the organizational structure and role of land-grant universities in international development work. Finally, the structure of USAID will be examined and placed in context with the organizational structure of the university. The third chapter is a discussion of the methods used in this study to analyze specific university-led development projects as well as university and USAID policy documents germane to these collaborations. Chapter four presents the findings of the data collected. The fifth chapter contains a case study of a representative development project — The Partnership for Food Industry Development. The sixth chapter discusses implications of the research conducted and offers recommendations for strengthening university-USAID collaborations so they will result in sustained partnerships in the host countries that bring enhanced livelihoods and economic growth to their citizens. 17 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE In this second chapter, four areas of relevant literature have been reviewed. This review begins with the literature that examines organizational partnerships and organizational effectiveness. Next, I discuss the university-U SAID collaboration. In this section I examine the legislation outlining this collaboration and the framework for USAID research projects. Next, I present the structure and function of the US. research university — its mission, how it validated itself as a development agent and the recent critiques of mission creep. Finally, I review the structure of USAID within the context of its collaboration with land-grant universities. Organizational Partnership and Organizational Effectiveness We live in a global society. It is no longer effective for organizations to work alone. At one level, these partnerships provide universities with monetary resources while opening an outlet for knowledge transfer that is advantageous to the donor agencies. Within the public, private and voluntary sectors, the need for collaboration, including cross-sector collaboration or work done beyond conventional boundaries, is recognized as a vital component of success (Amey, 2007; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). The academic literature on university collaborations with donor organizations is mixed. Some authors are quite critical of the collaboration (Leach & Meams, 2005) while others examine the nature of these relationships positively (Roper, 2002). Before exploring the specific reasons why the literature cites the university-USAID relationship as contentious, it is important to understand this relationship. 18 The following serve as motives for understanding the university-USAID alliance. First, USAID has shifted attention on university-donor agency work at a time when federal foreign assistance allocations are dwindling along with state government support to land-grant universities. Both organizations are looking to do more with less, while realizing that how they are working in developing countries will need to be more innovative and efficient. On the minds of the donor agencies is shifting foreign aid directly to the recipient countries. This has a direct impact on the academic institutions involved in international development work. Conventionally, U.S. development organizations and institutions of higher education compete for and procure foreign assistance money to conduct development work around the world. However, donor agencies are starting to feel that the cost of doing business with Beltway firms, corporations and academic institutions is too high. Rather, they would like to see a larger portion of their aid go directly to the recipient country (Kharas, 2007; Matthews, 2007). Second, strong environmental forces, along with global competitiveness, have increased the demand for innovative, collaborative development efforts —- those that can be provided by the American university. Third, much of the technical assistance work being done by universities is a precursor to more complex collaborations. There is potential for the work to transform into a long-term relationship with the host country, leading to multiple university partnerships that are holistic in nature (Moseley, 2007). A better understanding of the university-USAID alliance should help in the design and management of these programs. Fourth, working together will enable each partner to better understand the cultural differences in the host country and therefore realize the challenges of creating and implementing development partnerships (Moseley, 2007). 19 Though the potential benefits of linking the intellectual resources of a university with the problem-solving needs of a donor agency seem quite compelling, doing so presents a challenge. Coming to an understanding of the factors associated with partnership success could aid in the on-going management of the partnership. While there is a wealth of academic literature on the gaining popularity of post- secondary academic alliances with governmental agencies with public/private corporations (Amey, 2007; Gray, 1996; Mohr & Spekman, 1994), very little has been researched about their sustainability and the sustainability of their work. There seems to be solid evidence as to the reasons why organizations enter into partnerships, otherwise known as “joining” (Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2007) and the fundamental differences in organizational culture is understood (Amey, 2007; Amey et al., 2007; Cyert & Goodman, 1997; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). In addition, much of the literature regarding characteristics of systems explains the process-oriented elements of partnerships. Despite these well-researched areas, many partnerships fail. In particular, the university-USAID partnership has seen its fair share of insoluble dilemmas and unexpected twists of fate (Bratton, 1990; Moseley, 2007). The ensuing discussion offers a detailed description of key themes that emerged from the partnership literature. I will now take a closer look at what the literature says about the above partnership themes: “Joining ” Universities form partnerships with public agencies and private organizations for a variety of reasons (Amey et al., 2007). Securing external fimding for research and implementing international development initiatives is one reason that universities may 20 partner with a public agency such as USAID. This external pressure to capture monetary resources in support of faculty research, along with changing institutional goals and mandates, presents a persuasive reason for US. universities and USAID to work together. The partnership may be viewed more as necessary for institutional survival and less about general philosophical agreement regarding international development needs and expertise. Individual relationships among the organizational network also serve as a reason for these institutions to enter into a macro-level partnership. In this situation, individuals recognize that they have a common interest and expertise that can be strengthened through collective partnering. Such relationships may look more like Gray’s definition of collaboration, a term often used synonymously with partnership. Gray (1989) views collaboration as the process by which parties who see the world differently search for solutions that go beyond their individual perspectives: “Collaboration transforms adversarial interactions into a mutual search for information and for solutions that allow all those participating to insure that their interests are represented” (p. 7). Collaboration implies interdependency and joint ownership of decisions. Although not always initiated in a collegial fashion, Gray argues that collaboration involves problem solving, direction setting, and implementation, thereby amounting to a fairly logical approach to addressing organizational needs (Amey et al., 2007). Dijfirences in Culture Universities and government organizations have fundamentally different cultures. The differences manifest themselves in divergent goals, time orientations, languages, and assumptions (Busch, 2006). Universities create and disseminate knowledge, while 21 governmental agencies regulate and mandate policy after appropriating financial resources. Most governmental organizations think of time in terms of annual appropriation goals and other short-term constraints (Busch, 2006; Cyert & Goodman, 1997). For the university, time frames are much longer and less defined. These environmental differences can cause conflict and tension among partners and work against an effective university-USAID partnership. Consider the following example. USAID engages a university in an international development project in education. The university proposes a 6-9 month, in-country needs assessment and background data gathering. USAID refuses to fund this portion of the proposal as it feels that the university should already have this information. Academic researchers believe strongly that, even in situations where they have a long history of working with a specific population, there are elements of that population germane to the current research project they must discover in order to conduct effective and sustainable development work. The languages among these organizations are very different. “Theories,” “models,” and “variables” are terms that are important in the university environment, but play a lesser role in the vocabulary among agency staff. Many of the basic assumptions about work are different. For example, the basic tenet for most academic work lies in the contribution the individual researcher makes to the field, going beyond the contribution they make to the university community (Dill, 1982). Despite the fact that the university is paying their salary and providing job security, a faculty members’ reputation in their respective field is very significant (Dill, 1982). In contrast, USAID mission staff and Washington, DC-based staff see their hierarchical superiority as the critical constituent (United States Agency for lntemational 22 Development, 2007). Performance evaluation is connected to specific project objectives. These fundamental differences in motivation among governmental agencies and the university are key to understanding successful partnerships, as they can work against these relationships. These cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings. Governmental agencies do not understand how work gets assigned in universities or how university manages contracts and grants, nor are they familiar with the investments in human and physical capital that preceded their relationship with the university. University partners typically do not understand the decision-making of the legislative body that has a direct impact on the goals and objectives of governmental agencies, or the time demands that they must adhere to. Partnership as a “system ” Implicit in the partnership literature is the assumption that if partnerships are entered into for the right reasons and all things are equal in their respective environments, partnerships will be successful. The flaw in this assumption is that the partners can control their external and internal environments. An added challenge in the university- USAID partnership is the ambiguity that surrounds the recipient country. It is no great surprise then that many academic alliances end in failure. Given this inconsistency, there is cause to question how success in international development is being measured and for what purposes. In developing a study that will look at the nature of the university-USAID alliance, it is necessary to define what I consider partnership success. For the purposes of this study, I view partnership success as relationship longevity vs. dissolution. Mohr and 23 Spekman (1994), describe this as an “affective indicator (satisfaction), [which] is based on the notion that success is determined, in part, by how well the partnership achieves the performance expectations set by the partners. A partnership which generates satisfaction exists when performance expectations have been achieved” (p.136). There are certain behavioral characteristics that are attributed to partnerships, such as, “commitment and trust; communication, information sharing between partners; and conflict resolution techniques, which tend towards joint problem solving, rather than domination or ignoring the problems” (Mohr & Spekman, 1994, p. 137). Kanter (1988) suggests that strategic partnerships result in blurred boundaries between organizations in which there emerge close ties that bind the two together. In these relationships there exists a set of process-oriented constructs that help guide the flow of information between partners and manage the depth and breadth of interaction. Extant literature has focused on commitment, coordination, interdependence and trust as important attributes of partnerships (Anderson & Narus, 1984; Day & Klien, 1987; Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987). The existence of these attributes implies that both partners acknowledge their mutual dependence and their willingness to work for the survival of the relationship. Should one party act opportunistically, the relationship will suffer and both will feel the negative consequences. Commitment Commitment refers to the willingness of partners to make an effort on behalf of the relationship (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). It suggests a future orientation in which partners attempt to build a relationship that weathers unanticipated problems or project failures. Because more committed partners will exert effort and balance short-term 24 problems with long-term goal achievement, higher levels of commitment are expected to be associated with partnership success (Angle & Perry, 1981). Trust and Communication Pruitt (1981) indicates that trust (i.e., the belief that a partner’s word is reliable and that a partner will fulfill its obligation in an exchange) is highly related to an organization’s desire to collaborate. Williamson (1985) states that, relationships featuring trust will be able to manage greater stress and will display greater adaptability. land (1972) contends that a lack of trust will diminish information exchange and the effectiveness of joint problem solving. Once trust is established, partners learn that joint efforts will lead to outcomes exceeding those they would achieve on their own (Anderson & Narus, 1984). In order to achieve the benefits of collaboration, effective communication between partners is essential (Gray, 1996). Communication captures the utility of the information exchanged and is deemed to be a key indicant of the partnership’s vitality. Information Sharing Information sharing refers to the extent to which critical, often proprietary, information is communicated to one’s partner. Huber and Daft (1987) report that closer ties result in more frequent and more relevant exchanges between high performing partners. By hearing information and by being knowledgeable about each other’s work, partners are able to act independently in maintaining the relationship over time (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). The systematic availability of information allows people to complete tasks more effectively, is associated with increased levels of satisfaction and is an important predictor of success (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). 25 The University- USAID Collaboration USAID did not attempt this development assistance alone. Through the course of its history there were many development partners. This study focuses on the university partner and the impact of these organizational structure and belief systems that may have affected their collaboration. A vast amount of literature has noted the failure of USAID development assistance, including the role that the development partners play in this lack of success (Dichter, 2003, Brinkerhoff, 2002, Bratton, 1990, Moyo, 2009). This literature review explores the structure and organization of both the USAID and US. land-grant universities and their role in development assistance projects. It also looks at the collaboration mechanisms that bring the university and USAID together, and the organizational theory surrounding external university relationships. In order to understand why and how these organizations come together to work on such sensitive topics as the livelihood and education of one’s population, I first need to understand the structures surrounding their organization. Beyond a general understanding of their organizational missions there must also be a thorough understanding of the programming that has been completed by this university-USAID partnership. The programmatic details will allow for an evaluation of the characteristics of the programs and determine their effectiveness. Land-Grant University Structure and Function In 1862, almost 50 percent of all US. residents lived on farms, which employed almost 60 percent of the labor force. The business of the day was agriculture, and the land-grant college system was mandated 26 to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts. . .in order to promote liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. (1862 Morrill Act) Initiated in 1862 with the passage of the first Morrill Act and expanded in 1890 with the passage of the second Mom'll Act, the university system was the first embodiment of a post-Civil War national philosophy about higher education - the concept of higher education of a practical nature for citizens of ordinary means (Thelin, 2004). The two Morrill acts and two subsequent pieces of land-grant legislation — the 1887 Hatch Act and the 1914 Smith-Lever Act — together endowed the university with a three-part mission of research, extension and teaching (Kerr, 2001; Thelin, 2004). The conduct within basic and applied research for the public interest must recognize that scientific and societal issues are incredibly complex in nature, requiring collaboration across departments, disciplines, colleges and centers (Kerr, 2001). The raw materials for basic and applied research on many of the issues facing the developing world are already at hand. Land-grant institutions, especially those that are also research universities, have a breadth of content, a depth in disciplines and a commitment extending from basic research to a range of practical concerns (Bratton, 1990; De Datta, Dillaha, & Williams, 2007). This capacity situates universities nicely to engage in international development work. But Beattie (1991) explains that simply conducting research — even if it combines basic and applied work and cuts across disciplines — does not ensure that it will be used to solve critical problems. Many of these issues, most specifically those faced in the developing world, must allow those populations who need the research to feel some ownership of the results. Land-grant universities were conceived of as “people’s 27 universities” that, as Peters and Lehman note, not only work for ordinary people, but also with them by involving them as full participants in shaping and conducting serious educational work (2002) . They call for “direct engagement with the people and their context—bound problems and goals” (Peters & Lehman, p. 5) . A connection between ordinary people and the research from which they can potentially benefit not only creates a civic understanding of the land-grant mission, but also provides meaning and authority to public scholarship (Beattie, 1991). The strength of the concept of public scholarship is dramatically illustrated in international settings. For example, the development of the System of Rice lntensification (SR1), which involved farmer skill, experimentation and learning, rather than promotion and adoption of a fixed technology, is quintessentially “public scholarship” (Uphoff et al., 2002). The SR1 recognizes the varied conditions under which rice is grown, emphasizes new learning from farmers, and incorporates scientific research. In this example the science behind enhancing the rice genome is important, but the efforts that were taken to translate and transfer the advances to the developing world, along with making the knowledge applicable in the local context -— the benefit will only be realized in the wealthier populations (Leshner, 2002). Some of the literature reviewed submitted that land-grant universities can and are obligated to contribute to the solutions of pressing problems, build on their comparative advantages such as the public service tradition, and develop an effective outreach infrastructure (Beattie, 1991; Kerr, 2001; Rhodes, 2001 ). The second aspect of the land-grant mission, diffusion of scientific and practical knowledge through cooperative extension systems and other outreach mechanisms, promotes the public good. Cooperative extension programs are 28 structured systems which reflect a corporate and purposeful university commitment to outreach (Bonnen, 1998, p. 57) . They help distinguish land-grant universities from other higher education institutions. As Harold Enarson, president emeritus of The Ohio State University, said: It was the deepest article of faith that the university would not only generate new knowledge but would also apply that knowledge to real-life problems. This is what is distinctive in the land- grant concept. (Enarson, 1989, p. 3) The third aspect of the university mission is to be accessible to students. “Accessibility was originally described as promoting the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life” (Firebaugh, 2002, pp. 13). Today’s goals for accessibility include making undergraduate education and outreach available to students who are diverse socio-economically, ethnically, racially, and chronologically (Rhodes, 2001). The above discussion of the land-grant university (LGU) mission and organizational philosophies brings insight to understanding the LGU-USAID partnership. But it was not just the intrigue of these organizational missions that brought these two institutions together in a collaborative partnership. The Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), specifically Title XII of the FAA, built the bridge that would bring LGUs and USAID together. The Foreign Assistance Act and Title XII Public Law 87-195, known more familiarly as the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), was a benchmark event in the history of modern development assistance. This piece of legislation has persisted for nearly 50 years and is the framework that guides 29 much of the work done by LGUs for USAID. The first comprehensive section ( 103) of the FAA focuses on development sectors dealing with agriculture, rural development, and nutrition (United States Agency for lntemational Development, 2006). In 1961, the world was still predominantly an agrarian society. Those involved in the development sectors believed that the path to economic growth had to go through the fields and rural markets as well as industries, and USAID’s portfolio reflected that (United States Agency for lntemational Development, 2007). A broad-based strategy to diminish rural poverty is discussed in Section 103 with descriptions of the wide range of institutions and approaches needed to make a difference. Section 103 was amended to include language that explained the types of research and applications that ought to be included in development strategies. Sections 296-300 of the FAA characterized provisions for land- grant universities. ...Given the long track record of land-grant and other eligible universities in US. farm productivity, their knowledge should be deployed in agricultural development abroad, particularly with regard to five specific components: the capabilities of US. universities to work abroad; research and extension institutions in developing countries; international agricultural research centers; contract research; and research program grants. (United States Agency for lntemational Development, 2007, p. 2) Section 296 also stated that USAID “should” involve the Title XII institutions “more extensively in each component,” provide mechanisms for them to “participate and [provide advice] in the planning, development, implementation, and administration of each component,’ and also develop “cooperative joint efforts” (USAID, 2007 p. 3) 30 involving the universities and agricultural research and extension institutions and agencies abroad. The final part of Section 296 defined the term universities. The first stakeholders included were the universities that benefited from the First and Second Morrill Acts (1862/1890) as well as the sea-grant colleges designated by the 1966 act. In 2000, the Native American land—grant colleges identified through the 1994 Act were also included. Section 296 also identified as eligible other United States colleges and universities which (1) have demonstrable capacity in teaching, research, and extension activities in the agricultural sciences; and (2) can contribute effectively to the attainment of the objective of this title. The last decade has seen a significant decline in USAID support for agricultural development and participant training, as well as the involvement of US. universities in these activities (United States Agency for lntemational Development, 2006). Reduced USAID support to universities has resulted in the dissolution to university consortia, declining international development degree programs, decreased university participation in development activities and internationalization of curricula (De Datta et al., 2007). The primary reasons for this decrease in University-USAID cooperation are reduced flexibility in USAID’s budget due to congressional mandates and a significant shift within USAID from long-term to short-term development goals (De Datta et al.). The Structure and Function of US Foreign Assistance Historical Framing of Development Assistance from The West Development assistance, or the act of Western nations providing monetary support and human capacity to alter the economic and livelihood of the world’s poor, 31 began in the late 19405. The reasons why these Western nations were driven to this task are varied. Some of these countries concentrated on their national interest, while others drew on their former colonial loyalty and political conditionality. Regardless of reason, at the core of all of these efforts is the conscience of the nation being driven by the question, how can we stand by and allow poverty in our midst? One merely needs to skim a historical text covering economics and international development to begin to understand the trend in economic development around the world. The 19803 and 19903 brought the abandonment of neo-Keynesian versions of state-market relations and implemented neoliberal models of development (Harvey, 2005; McMichael, 2004). While leaders in Western countries are directing this paradigm shift, some developing countries adopted neoliberal economic models in an attempt to position themselves in a capitalist market; and in a third category, leaders in heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) had neoliberalism forced upon them, largely through structural- adjustrnent programs with international financial institutions (Harvey; McMichael). Neoliberal economic models encouraged governments to shift their efforts from ensuring citizens’ welfare to enhancing conditions for free trade, in part by dismantling trade barriers (Martinussen, 1997). Neoliberal policies have led to reductions in state expenditures (e.g., the provision of social services such as health care and education), deregulation, privatization of public sectors and, more generally, a cultural shift from the promotion of the public and community good to individualism and individual responsibility (Harvey, 2005; Martinussen, 1997; McMichael, 2004). This process of integrating one country’s economic, social and cultural values with the rest of the globe is also known as globalization. However, globalization has been 32 billed by some economists, politicians, and academics as the best means for a developing country to fight against poverty (Bhagwati, 2004; Sachs, 2005). Countries adopting principles of free trade will witness economic growth and prosperity that will then equalize their participation in the world markets. The ‘main engine of growth’ is the creation of jobs in the private sector (Palmer, 2005). However, employment is predicated on the poor receiving needed skills and better education. Since budget constraints imposed through structural adjustment program conditionalities mean that a country’s government can not provide jobs to its citizens, the country’s primary role is two-fold: they provide education and skills training, and they need to create an environment in which the private sector can expand. Much of the emphasis in policy development of governments remains on education as the primary route to poverty reduction (Altbach, 1998). Developing countries attempt to solve issues of unemployment or underemployment by reforming their education and training systems. Each reform yields similar recommendations — the education and training system should be more oriented towards work (Healy & Robinson, 1992; Palmer, 2005; Sarnoff, Sebante, & Dembele, 2003; Vivian, 1994). The United States “with its action-oriented, problem solving culture, led the early development organizations to take on the task of helping others develop” (Dichter, 2003, p. 5). It is easiest to think of the evolution of development assistance in “eras”. The first era (19503 - 19603) is referred to as ‘growth with modernization’, focusing on institutional and infrastructure development (Dichter, 2003, p.7). Development meant Western-style modernization. Social and political change was to be gradual and 33 evolutionary and national development was measured solely in terms of such yardsticks as growth, GNP, national income, savings, and direct foreign investment. Beginning with the early 19603, works focusing solely on the attainment of economic growth are based on W.W. Rostow’s Stages of Economic Growth (1960). The key goal in the Rostow model was to attain a level of economic growth where mass production and mass consumption make up the major mode of economic life. The second era (19703) focused on human development and was known as the ‘ growth with equity era’ (Dichter, 2003, p.9). This era emerged from a series of critical works in the late 19603 (Griffin, 1974). This period does not formally begin, however, until the 1973 speech by Robert McNamara, then president of the World Bank (Bryant, 1982; Geindzier, 1985; Schultz, 1981). The development literature from this era is no longer monopolized by economists as anthropologists, sociologists and educationalists, and many other social scientists were formally inducted in the invisible college of development studies as legitimate participants. It was inevitable that these softer (from an economist’s perspective) social sciences needed to be included. The ‘growth with equity’ period goes beyond neo-classical economic yardsticks measuring growth and modernity (Dichter, 2003, p. 12). All of the ‘growth with equity’ approaches, from the critical Marxist approaches to the Keynesian interventionist approaches, have certain aspects in common. All spring from the conviction that traditional reliance on growth of gross national product (GNP) will not benefit the poor in developing countries, or will not benefit them quickly enough. ‘Growth with equity’ theorists give considerable emphasis to social and political variables in achieving growth and equity (Dichter, 2003, p. 13). They argue that one of 34 the crucial limitations of previous approaches was their narrow focus on simple economic factors, i.e., land, labor, and capital, to the exclusion of political, social, and cultural factors and their importance in national development. Implementing development projects that fell in line with the paradigms of these development eras became the responsibility of bilateral agencies, regional institutions, the United Nations and other international development agencies. In the United States the most notable participant in this work was the United States Agency for lntemational Development. USAID Structure and Function USAID was created by executive order in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act. It was the first US. foreign assistance organization whose primary emphasis was long-range economic and social development assistance efforts. Agency documents state that the organizational structure provide for the foundation for USAID to effectively and efficiently achieve its goals of providing humanitarian and transition assistance, promoting sustainable development abroad, responding to natural and man-made disasters, and addressing key global problems (USAI D, 2006). The agency’s organizational structure and subsequent units reflect the USAID’s five core values — “managing for results, customer focus, teamwork and participation, empowerment and accountability, and valuing diversity” (USAI D, p. 5). Organizational Structure in Washington, D. C. As a part of the foreign assistance reforms announced in January 2006, Secretary Rice created the Office of the Director of US. Foreign Assistance within the Department of State (USAID Policy, 2007). The director of this office serves concurrently as the 35 USAID administrator. USAID’s mission is carried out through four regional bureaus in Washington: Africa (AFR), Asia and the Near East (ANE), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), and Europe and Eurasia (E&E) (USAID Policy). The regional bureaus are supported by three functional or pillar bureaus: the Bureau for Democracy (DCHA), which provides expertise in democracy and governance, conflict management and mitigation, and humanitarian assistance; the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade (EGAT), which provides expertise in economic growth, trade opportunities, agricultural productivity and technology, and education; and the Bureau for Global Health (GH), which provides expertise in global health challenges, such as maternal and child health and HIV/AIDS (USAID Policy). The structure is also said to follow these organizing principles: a. Flattening and Delayering: Agency organizations must have no more than three organizational layers, nor more than four supervisory levels, and a minimum of reporting and clearance levels. The overall goal for the Washington Bureau supervisory ratios is at least 1:11 and for overseas missions 1:7; b. Simplification: Agency organizations must avoid unnecessary complexity and layering in designing organization units; c. Teamwork and Teams: Agency managers are responsible for determining when a team is the appropriate structure to staff a particular work task. All Agency organization units are required to operate according to principles of teamwork; and (1. Participation: While the authority and scope of these directives are limited to the boundaries of USAID organization units should make an effort to 36 build and use expanded teams and virtual team membership consisting of relevant development partnersz, key stakeholders, and major USAID customer representatives to ensure their participation and contribution to Agency goals and objectives (USAID, p. 5). The organizational document expands the explanation of teams and teamwork in the following ways: USAID's organizations are built around teamwork as an important mechanism for integration and participation. By enabling various specialties within a Mission, Bureau, or Independent Office to work together, and by supporting partnerships between field and Washington-based experts, the Agency is better able to identify and agree upon objectives, stretch limited resources, and bring maximum expertise to problems. Managers are responsible for examining the type of work required and the nature of the desired result when considering a team—based management approach. Although current USAID organization emphasizes teamwork, the organizational documents reviewed state that a team structure may not always be the most effective means of achieving work objectives. It is therefore, the responsibility of managers to determine the optimum organization structure that most effectively accomplishes the mission of the organization and the Agency. Within USAID, four types of teams are typically found: a. Parallel teams: These are used primarily for temporary 2 USAID’s definition of partner: “An organization, individual, or customer representative with which/whom the Agency collaborates to achieve mutually agreed upon objectives and intermediate results and to secure customer participation. Partners include: host country governments, private voluntary organizations, indigenous and international non-govemmental organizations, universities, other US. Government agencies, the United Nations and other multilateral organizations, professional and business associations, and private businesses/individuals” (USAID, 2006, p. 23). 37 teams/committees/working groups, to accomplish a one-time, short-term purpose. b. Aligned teams: These are formal organizational units with a permanent staff and a supervisor with all supervisory authorities. c. Permanent teams: These are not formal organizations but exist within the formal organizational structure as sub-units for the purpose of accomplishing the mission-related work of USAID. These units are headed by a team leader. (1. Strategic Objective (SO) teams: These are formed to achieve a set of results or strategic objectives. Members cross-organizational lines and may have a home base within another established organizational unit. USAID documentation (USAID, 2006) explains that teams are built, to the greatest extent possible, using the following characteristics to ensure their effectiveness: a. Results-Orientation: Teams are formed around shared and understood goals and objectives. Goals are cooperatively structured to enable the best possible match between individual goals and team goals. b. Empowerment: Teams are given the authority, responsibility, and resources necessary to achieve objectives and make effective decisions. Participation and leadership in parallel teams are distributed among group members; authority is equalized and shared. c. Mutual Accountability: Team members hold themselves accountable for the team's goals and for performance and results. (1. Customer-Orientation: Team goals/objectives are set with a focus on customers. e. Multi-functionality: Complementary skills and multi-functional 38 membership are emphasized by drawing parallel team members and, to some extent, permanent team members, with the knowledge, skills, and expertise to respond to customer needs and achieve desired results, from across functions. f. Information Sharing: Open and accurate expression is emphasized. Information must be shared in a transparent manner. g. Incentives: Incentives and awards are used to reward team accomplishments, as well as individual initiatives. Members are held accountable for their performance and receive constructive feedback. Risk taking is encouraged. h. Self-Management: Parallel teams internally solve normal management problems, for example, distribution of work, interpersonal conflicts, employee absences, performance issues, discipline, etc. Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. i. Performance Measures: Teams must have a means of assessing progress toward achievement of objectives and identifying reasons for failure or delinquency. Organizational Structure Overseas USAID implements programs in 88 countries overseas and its organizational units are known as “field missions” (USAID Policy, 2007). The US. Ambassador serves as the Chief of Mission for all US. government agencies in a given country and the USAID Director reports to the Ambassador. The USAID Director or Representative is responsible for USAID’s operations in a given country or region and also serves as a key member of the US. government’s country team (USAID Policy) USAID implements programs in 88 countries overseas and its organizational units 39 are known as “field missions.” The US. Ambassador serves as the Chief of Mission for all US. government agencies in a given country and the USAID Director reports to the Ambassador. The USAID Director or Representative is responsible for USAID’s operations in a given country or region and also serves as a key member of the US. government’s country team. (USAID Policy, 2007, http://www.usaid.gov/policy/afr07/mda_0200.html) USAID’s workforce consists of just less than 8,000 employees in the foreign service and civil service, as well as Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs) and those in other categories, including employees detailed from other US. government agencies, personal service contractors, and Fellows. As the chart below indicates, FSNs make up just under 60 percent of USAID’s workforce. Approximately 76 percent of the total USAID workforce serves overseas (USAID Policy, 2007). Table 1 WORKFORCE LOCATION: FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES (as of September 30, 2007) Location Number Percentage Washington 1,879 23.54% Overseas 6,1 03 76.46% Total 7,982 l 00% It is interesting to note that the organizational structure and guiding principles discussed above closely parallel the organizational literature and institutional partnership literature reviewed in earlier sections of this literature review (Amey, 2007; Gray, 1996; Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Moseley, 2007). 40 This chapter has presented relevant research regarding organizational partnerships, organizational effectiveness, and the structure and function of USAID and land-grant universities. This collection of literature will provide a solid foundation for understanding university partnerships and how the organizational structures of universities and their partner organizations influence the collaboration. This literature review also provides a historical context of foreign assistance in the United States and identifies the trends in development strategies. 41 CHAPTER 3 METHODS This study used a case study to examine the relationship between USAID and three US. research universities. A retrospective, qualitative case study methodology was used to study the process of partnership. A qualitative approach permitted a deeper understanding of the Partnership for Food Industry Development project as an example of the university-USAID partnership by setting out the contextual conditions, especially important as foreign assistance transitions into this new era of foreign assistance. The case, the Partnership for Food Industry Development Project (PFID), a collaborative assistance program between US. universities and the food industry, launched by USAID in fiscal year 2001. This project was designed to strengthen food industries in developing countries and promote their producers’ effective participation in the global trading system. Specifically this study examined the impact of organizational philosophy and policies on the formation and sustainability of these relationships. This dissertation this addressed the following questions and sub-questions: ° What is the nature of the relationship between USAID and US. universities? 0 To what extent do the institutions under study reflect open systems theory? ° How have the evolving organizational philosophies and policies (at both the universities and USAID) impacted the collaboration? 0 How does attention to the partnership development process affect development of a partnership? 42 o What facilitators and impediments to the partnership development exist in the partnerships under study? ° How will a deeper understanding of this partnership impact the new era of foreign assistance? Case study method The case study methodology is a specific way of conducting social science research. Other strategies include, but are not limited to experiments, surveys, and analysis of archival information. Each method has strengths and limitations depending on the following three conditions: “ a) the type of research question, b) the control an investigator has over actual behavioral events, and c) the focus on contemporary as opposed to historical phenomena” (Yin, 1994, p. 1). Since this dissertation asked how and why questions, and the context of this study is a real world event the case study methodology was used. Additionally, the case study methodology was useful in understanding a complex social phenomenon while retaining the organizational processes of both the universities investigated and USAID (Yin, 1994). The case study methodology adapted in this dissertation is the one used by John Middleton as a part of a World Bank evaluation of education projects: Evaluation in World Bank Education Projects: Lessons from Three Case Studies (Middleton, 1985). The guidelines for the case study design are based on Borg and Gall’s case study design in Educational Research (Borg & Gall, 1971). 43 According to Middleton: Case study is a form of naturalistic inquiry useful in studying complex social processes from a holistic perspective. . .The purpose of the method is to increase understanding, not to verify prior hypotheses and propositions. Unlike positivistic research, which seeks to verify the facts of a social process as scientifically verifiable elements of reality, [a] case study is concerned with understanding social reality from [the] points of view of people engaged in the process under study. (Middleton, 1985, p. 68) As Borg and Gall (1984) suggest, a successful case is one which can be representative of events, groups, institutions, or projects. Once such a case has been located, it follows that in-depth observations of the single case (or group of cases) can provide insights into the class of events from which the case has been drawn (Borg & Gall, 1984, p. 408). The case study design used in this study can be classified as a historical case study design. According to Borg and Gall (1984): These studies trace the development of an organization or an organizational relationship over time. This type of case study design usually relies heavily upon interviews and documents. (p. 489) As with any methodology utilized in social science research, there are limitations to the case study methodology. There is the possibility for the case study to lack rigor; in this situation the researcher has inserted biased views to influence the findings and conclusions. A second limitation or concern about case studies is that they provide little basis for scientific generalization. “Case studies, like experiments, are generalizable to 44 theoretical propositions and to not to populations or universes” (Yin, 1994, p. 10). This study sought to generalize theories rather than to provide statistical generalization across the US. research university population. “ As three notable social scientists describe in their single case study, the goal is to do a “generalizing” and not a “particularizing” analysis (Lipset, Trow, & Coleman, 1956, p. 419-420). Phases of the Study Development of the research study involved three phases — case study selection; background of the Partnership for Food Industry Development case and instrument development; and study implementation (data collection and data analysis). Phase I — Case Stuay Selection This project was selected as a case study based on suggestions made by faculty members involved in international development work with USAID. These experts, who included representatives from the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University and a former USAID employee who is now working in the Office of lntemational Development at Michigan State University, were key in formulating my decision. Each expert detailed two to three projects that would be appropriate and I, as the researcher selected PFID. Criteria for case study selection included; 1) the project needed to have multiple higher education institutions involved in leading a component of the PFID project; 2) the partnership must be in operation for a minimum of three years but still active; 3) the partnership needed to be directly between USAID and the higher education institution. 45 The university under study needed to be the prime contractor, rather than sub-contracting from another development firm serving as the prime contractor. Phase II — Study Design and Instrument Development Phase II of this research involved the design of the study and development of research protocols. The study involved mixed qualitative techniques, including ° preliminary telephone discussions with key project personnel at the three universities actively engaged in PFID ' visits to each university (Louisiana State University, Michigan State University, and Rutgers University), where I met with key project personnel and carried out interviews with participants; permission was granted by the universities to name them in this study with the understanding that individuals would remain anonymous. 0 visiting the United States Agency for International Development where I met with the project officer and other agency personnel who are involved in PFID. I also met with a program officer at the Higher Education for Development office, a USAID unit that works specifically with US. and international universities who are contracted to form partnerships. Background of the Partnership for Food Industry Development The major units of analysis in this study are the three US. universities that are engaged in the Partnership for Food Industry Development Project. Louisiana State University (LSU), Michigan State University (MSU), and Rutgers University (RU) are all currently 46 funded as Leader with Associate Awards. LSU and MSU began their programming in 2001 and RU received their award in 2006. While each university partner will work in specific sectors of the agriculture industry, they will all complete this work under the philosophy of the PFID project. PFID’s objectives are: to promote science-based legal, regulatory and policy frameworks for international trade in food products, to adapt and apply food processing and marketing technologies to create value-added projects, and to improve food product safety and quality. Leading this effort are US. universities in partnership with international food . industries, a development alliance that represents a new direction in university-led foreign assistance. MSU leads a public-private sector partnership that focuses on the fruit and vegetable sectors to improve quality and safety standards in the context of a global marketplace. LSU leads a public-private sector partnership that will focus on the meat and seafood sectors to develop support systems, business networks and high standards of quality for food industry competitiveness. The third U.S. university to engage in the PF ID project is Rutgers University, which leads a program designed to strengthen and build partnerships between the public and private sector in the commercialization of natural African plant products by small farmers. Leading up to the time of this project award the food industries were becoming increasingly global, integrated, and responsive to consumer demands for high quality, safe and responsibly produced food products. At the same time USAID found it necessary to shift its agricultural strategy and projects that intersect with the legislative mandates set forth by Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act. Driving this shift at USAID was the onset of a new executive administration in the federal government and 47 the subsequent USAID process of reorganization. The new USAID agriculture strategy identified four themes: “accelerating agriculture using science-based solutions, including biotechnology, to reduce poverty and hunger; developing global and domestic trade opportunities for farmers and rural industries; bridging the rural knowledge divide through training, outreach, and adaptive research at the local level; and promoting sustainable agriculture and sound environmental management.” The PFID project focuses on theme two: developing market and trade opportunities for farmers and rural industries. A case study methodology is, therefore, well suited for the study of partnership, given that it, too, is a system that influences, and is influenced by, its environment. The partnership is indistinguishable from its context, where explanatory variables can be found (Yin 1993). The selection of this case study and the knowledge it produces could help individual partners define required change, both within the organization and in its institutional environment and to decide whether this change is possible. Instrument Development As mentioned earlier, open systems and institutional theories provided an organizing framework to examine partnership development. The model and its elements provided a framework to develop interview instruments, starting with questions on background information to describe the partnership and to identify the development need being addressed. Open systems theory provided a framework for questions to ascertain the extent to which a transformation process (inputs-transformation-outputs) has occurred to establish the requisite sub-systems of the partnership system. Feedback loops represented an important part of open systems theory because they permitted identification of problems, 48 facilitators, and impediments, as well as the need for change in partnership operation. Used in conjunction with institutional theory, an open systems framework permitted an understanding of the sources and types of pressures for these facilitators and impediments. Finally, because organizations use feedback data to make rational changes, interview protocols will include questions regarding attempted changes and results of those changes. Existing self-assessment questionnaires and documents providing advice on partnership formation contributed ideas for the type of evidence to be sought and for questions to be included in the research protocols. Once such example is Busch’s External Review of the Collaborative Research Agreement between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. and The Regents of the University of California (Busch, 2006). This qualitative research followed a constructivist tradition in which truth is not absolute but rather varies and arises from consensus among stakeholders within a given historical and temporal context. The case study in this research therefore presents the meanings given to PFID by their members, as depicted by the researcher (Lincoln and Guba, 2000). While efforts were made to control for researcher bias, qualitative research is inherently subjective since it represents the researchers’ attempt to find meaning or to ‘construct’ his/her reality of the subject studied (Baptiste, 2001). 49 Data Collection Interviews with Key Actors and Observers Interviews were conducted in the preliminary phase of this study with different sets of actors: university administrators, USAID administrative officials, and project staff (at both the university and USAID) as well as faculty principal investigators (PIs). In total I interviewed ll-university faculty and staff and 4 USAID/HED personnel. The faculty members ranged from non-tenure track assistant professors to tenured professors. Interview participants were ensured anonymity however, they were aware that the name of their institution would be used in the study. There was also variability in their international development experience. Among the USAID/HED personnel interviewed, two of the participants have had careers in academia, serving as professors at public universities. These open-ended interviews were used to solicit the overall perceptions of key actors in an attempt to learn more about the university-USAID collaboration and gain a sense of selection criteria for the case studies. The interviews were purposefully conducted with a wide range of people to provide a broad perspective on the strategic alliance between land-grant universities and USAID. As such, no attempt was made to ensure a ‘random sample’ of interview participants. The selection of interview participants was initially made to maximize the diversity of standpoints, although I did employ a snow-ball sampling approach. I conducted the interviews in a face-to-face setting. Regardless of the physical environment presented, the interview followed the same protocol. First, the participants were made aware of the voluntary nature of the interview, and each participant signed a public consent (see sample letter in appendix C). The interview was conducted as a semi- 50 structured conversation where there were pre-identified topics of conversation presented in a structured format. I identified the following general themes to organize my interview protocols: 1) general background and understanding of organizational mission and commitment to international development work, 2) organizational structure and governance; and its influence on the partnership process, 3) organizational relationship with state and national government (fiscal appropriations and legislative priorities), 4) personal and organizational philosophies (how have these changed over time, future organizational direction). As I anticipated, new topics surfaced during the course of the interview and these were followed as they appeared to be relevant to the broader question of the nature of the university-USAID partnership. An example of the interview questions can be found in Appendix A, although clearly not every question is relevant to, or asked of, every participant. The interviews were tape-recorded with the participant’s knowledge and consent in order to ensure any verbatim quotations were reproduced correctly. The tapes were formally transcribed, no voice record was maintained after the conclusion of this study. Each interview lasted between 1 to 2 hours, and as unanticipated schedule changes arose, I adjusted the interview schedule accordingly. In such cases I prioritized the list of interview questions, which enabled me to collect the most significant information in the time allotted. The notes taken during the interview were written up and supplemented with the tape recordings, in an electronic format soon after the interview. Official Agency Documents Policy documents from USAID-Washington, the State Department, and the White House were analyzed in order to provide descriptions of policy and policy interpretation 51 implemented during 1992-2009. Numerous documents, including policy strategy papers, retrospective technical assistance studies, and technical assistance contract documents will be used in the preliminary stages of the analysis. These documents will provide an essential background for understanding development activities at the selected institutions during the focused time period. University Policy Documents In order to gain an understanding of the selected university approach to international development work and the procurement of monetary resources, I studied strategic planning documents from the campus units involved in such work, including reports from the central administration. These documents provided insight as to how the land-grant universities being studied differ in their organizational structure and culture. Sector Activity Evaluations I analyzed documents available from USAID-Washington that include general evaluations conducted by the USAID Office of Monitoring and Evaluation. These documents provided a historical framing of the development work conducted, leading up to 1992. This analysis will enable me to understand the shift in philosophy and policy that affected the university partnership. Data Analysis In order to gain optimal value from the data, the researcher needs to organize and analyze the information collected (Merriam, 1998). As Maxwell (1996) indicates, this is 52 how researchers make sense of the data that they collected and are able to apply their findings to interpret the larger meaning of the data. The process involves “preparing the data for analysis, conducting different analyses, moving deeper and deeper into understanding the data, representing the data, and making an interpretation of the larger meaning of the data” (Creswell, 2003, p.190). In this study once all the interview transcripts, document analysis and sector activity evaluations were completed, the data were read and reread to categorize the responses according the perceptions of the respondents. The data were analyzed using the constant comparative method of analysis (Merriman, 1998). This analyzes data for categories, patterns, themes, and issues and then compares them for relationships and differences. The data were then coded and rearranged into categories that facilitated the comparison of data within and between these categories and aided in the comparison to guiding literature (see list of codes below). The data were further reviewed to look for relationships that connected statements and events within a context into a coherent whole. In the analysis of the data, topics and trends that were expected to be found were looked for and emerging information that contradicted the expectations was sought and analyzed. This was done in order to gain a wider theoretical perspective in the research (Creswell, 2003). After the themes and trends were identified, a “data accounting sheet” was designed and implemented (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 80). The data accounting sheet provided a framework to arrange each theme and link to the research question by participant or group of participants. This process provided a visual representation of the volume and frequency of the subthemes in the themes as well as the corroboration of data and testing of emerging conclusions (Miles & Huberman, I994). 53 Table 2 Data Codes and Research Questions Codes Relevant Research Question University perceived barriers to partnership To what extent do the institutions under study reflect open systems? Lack of institutional understanding How have the evolving organizational philosophies and policies at universities and USAID Organizational barriers at the university that prohibit international development work To what extent do the organizations under study reflect open systems? What facilitator or impediments to the partnership development exist in the partnerships under study? Suggested solutions to organizational barriers and partnership challenges What impact will a deeper understanding of this partnership have on the new era of foreign assistance? How does attention to the partnership development process affect development of a partnership? Communication protocols with USAID = How does attention to the partnership development process affect development of a partnership? Structure of PFID project Case study design and development. PF ID project development at the university Case study design and development. Nature of the university-USAID relationship What is the nature of the relationship between universities and USAID? Boundary spanners What impact will a deeper understanding of this partnership have on the new era of foreign assistance? Global Development Alliance What impact will a deeper understanding of this partnership have on the new era of foreign assistance? 54 Data Verification Verification of data was achieved through the triangulation of data. The data were collected from three different sources (interviews, institutional documents, and sector activity evaluations) and examined in order to develop a coherent justification of themes (Creswell, 2003). I employed member-checking to verify my findings (Creswell, 2003). Member-checking was used to determine the “accuracy of the qualitative finding by taking the final report or specific descriptions or themes back to participants and determining whether participants feel they are accurate” (Creswell, 2003, p. 196). In this case, a purposeful sampling of the study participants were provided with their individual interview transcripts and information detailing the emergent themes to read and review. They then had the opportunity to indicate if they felt the transcripts accurately depicted the views and opinions regarding the research questions framed by the study. With these methods of data verification in place, I am confident in the validity of the study findings. Role of the Researcher It is also important for readers to understand my role as the researcher in this study. In essence the text is what 1 have learned from and about partnership, including what it means in intensely personal terms; the subtext is my evolution, how I have thought about and practiced partnership over the years; and the context is the institution of higher education, in my case the land-grant university. There are pieces of my discussion that are autoethnographical, which is a postmodern form of inquiry, interpreted by Michael Quinn Patton as work grounded in this question: “How does my own experience of this culture connect with and offer insights about this culture, 55 situation, event, or way of life (Patton 2002, p. 84)?” Autoethnography is an attractive approach when it is less desirable (or even possible) to separate the domain being studied from the analyst studying it, and when “the other”, the situation, and self are perceived to be inextricably intertwined (Patton, p. 84-85). Qualitative researchers Carolyn Ellis and Arthur Bochner define auto ethnography as a means to connect the personal to the cultural. “Back and forth autoethnographers gaze. . .focusing outward on the social and cultural aspects of their personal experience; then, they look inward, exposing a vulnerable self that is moved by and may be moved through, refract, and resist cultural interpretations (Ellis and Bochner, 2000 p. 739).” In reflexive autoethnography , which is the form of authethnography used in this work, “authors. . .bend back on self and look more deeply at self-other interactions. ..[such that]. . .personal experience becomes important primarily in how it illuminates the culture under study (Ellis and Bochner, p. 740).” What emerges in my reflexive autoethnographic observation and analysis is a product that parallels Laurel Richardson’s evocative Fields of Play: Constructing as Academic Life (Richardson, 1997). Among many things Richardson writes about the value of crystallization. How she describes it is how I feel about partnership, my work, and myself as a professional engaged in partnerships: The central image is the crystal, which combines symmetry and substance with an infinite variety of shapes, substances, transmutations, multidimensionalities, and angles of approach. Crystals grow, change, and alter but are not amorphous. Crystals are prisms that reflect extemalities and refract within themselves, creating different colors, patterns, arrays, casting off in different directions. What we see depends upon our angle of repose. (Richardson, 1997 p. 92) 56 I don’t remember when I began to have doubts about the effectiveness of development assistance. The more international development work I engage in, the more colleagues I interact with the more crystallized the compromises become. We are forced to reconcile the organizational differences and divisive missions. In my na'r've way I was not used to thinking of development assistance as an industry. I genuinely believed that we could foster the capacity of the developing world population. The more I have seen the more I realize that development organizations act in their own self interest. I spend an enormous amount of time in front of my computer writing grants, reports and memos, and manipulating budget numbers, trying, as I came to realize, to sell something, not on behalf of the poor or necessarily in the interests of development but on behalf of the organization for which I work. Summary This chapter has provided an overview of the methods and procedures that were used in the compiling of this qualitative research project. The decision to use qualitative research was based upon considerations of the problem, the personal experience of the researcher, and the audience (Creswell, 2003). The design of this research project was a case study in which the researcher was both a participant and an observer of the educational partnership studied. The role of the researcher was explicitly stated, as well as an acknowledgement of my biases, which were taken into account when commenting on the case (Merriam, 1998). Because partnerships occur in the social world, where contexts and phenomenon cannot be replicated exactly, qualitative research uses different standards that quantitative research to judge quality. Qualitative research standards used 57 in design of this case study involved: conforrnability, credibility, dependability/consistency, and transferability. The strategies that were used in this research project for the selection of the participants, data collection, and data analysis were described. Chapter IV will present the findings from the analysis of these data. 58 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Introduction This study reviewed the relationship between USAID and US. universities in the context of evolving foreign assistance policy and the increase of internationalization on US. campuses. I studied and identified elements in this relationship that promote long- terrn collaboration, where the organizations are motivated by reasons other than monetary support and project completions. Specifically, I examined how the changing organizational philosophies at both universities and USAID have impacted this collaboration. This research looks at the history of partnerships in international development work and their lack of sustainable impact. Effective participation of these organizations in a partnership requires change from the status quo. Paying attention to the process of partnering may provide opportunities for a better understanding of these implications. One of the objectives of this study was to provide an understanding of university partnerships that goes beyond the general descriptive nature in the literature. Few research efforts have been based on open systems and institutional theories to understand organizational partnerships engaged in international development work. Emergent Themes The three central themes presented in the following discussion highlight the participant’s perceptions of the university-USAID partnership. These themes also reflect the impact organizational structure has on this partnership and the outcomes of the international development work that is undertaken by the partnership. The central themes and sub-themes are: 1) Nature of relationship between universities and USAID; 2) Lack 59 of institutional understanding; 3) Organizational and philosophical barriers that prohibit international development work. Nature of the relationship between universities and USAID This theme has been organized into the following subthemes: l)social and political context which discusses the organizational missions of US. land-grant universities and USAI D, how the philosophies and policies of the organizations studied impacted university- USAID collaboration, and the trends in foreign assistance that cause these organizations to change their structures. 2) The university as the boundary spanner in international work between USAID and the host country government, NGOs, universities, private sector and citizens. 3) The power relations and inequalities in the university and USAID. Social and Political Context To fully understand the nature of the university-USAID relationship, it is important to realize the social and political context of these organizations and its intersection with the organizational mission of the institutions in this study. In the ensuing discussion, I will highlight trends in foreign assistance, which have been perceived by the participants as having an impact on the international development work done by US. universities. Included in this are the participants’ thoughts on changes occurring on their respective campuses and in higher education sector in general. Without being directly asked, most of the participants considered the land grant model when crafting their response to the question, “what is the mission of the university?”. As noted by Jacob: 60 I think the most important thing is [that this institution] is a unique institution in the land-grant system in America. This has a definite impact on the original mission of the university as well as adapting new missions. The original mission of land-grant universities is teaching, research and outreach. Many of the faculty members interviewed acknowledged that the mission of the university has changed and made more complex by the addition of multiple missions. As Peter and Jack note here, multiple missions may mean conflict among certain aspects of the university. I think the most significant mission of the institution... is in discovery, scientific discovery. In intemational development, how scientific discovery can be used to improve the economic livelihoods of those stakeholders overseas with whom we work. Our university mission for its national work is toward scientific exchange and cultural sensitivity in order to appreciate a diversity of cultural belief systems and lifestyles. Our university is trying to intemationalize our curriculum, and increase our exchanges, mainly at the undergraduate, and at the graduate level. (Peter) The most significant mission of our institution is obviously research. We like to think it’s teaching and education, but it’s research. (Jack) Another interesting point that Peter references above, that is also mentioned by other faculty members when discussing the mission of the university, was a two-pronged connection they see between the impact of the international work engaged in by the university and how it drives the current mission of the university. Also significant to this is the role of international work on student preparation for the workforce. 61 I think that the university benefits because certain segments of it now understand what the role and scope of the US. in global affairs, which better equips its teachers and students who go out into the world. If the students are receptive, they will have an appreciation for the fact that we live in a global society. [This state] is slightly different, because our population, even if its widely traveled, still tend to have peripheral viewpoints. This is because universities have been entrusted with the educational pursuits and are expected to. In my mind, the role and scope of the universities is to be diversified and liberal in their thinking, and that espouses a tolerance for differences of view, which really embodies the whole academic process of developing the individual and the individual’s thinking, based upon some background of information. (Jack) Probably the most significant role we play is in generating and transmitting knowledge, and doing that in ways that address the great problems of the world but also the little ones. This is where we fit in [as international institutes]. Examples are the problems of hunger and poverty worldwide. Really, what our mission is, is preparing students at the university to address those big and little issues. (Steve) All three universities visited for this study are classified by Carnegie as Research UniversityNery High research activity (RUN H) research universities, more commonly referred to as research-intensive universities (http:I/w'ww.carnegielbundationergw’classi lications/index.asp‘?kef79 l ). These institutions have adopted a shift in their mission away from teaching and outreach to one more focused on research, but the participants indicated that this paradigm shift no longer 62 meets the needs of the residents, the nation or the world. Jacob applies this perception a bit more broadly by addressing the value added by linking the university’s international work to its mission: Today it’s a different story because the [university] president wants to move from a land-grant to a world-grant [university] [through the] “Boldness by Design“ plan. The question becomes ‘how do we provide greater value to the whole university that goes beyond just this scholarly activity and technology transfer?’ (Jacob) The integration of international development research and project work into organizational missions has enabled higher education institutions to become more acutely aware of the role of the US. in the world and in the lives of their students. This aWareness seems to be moving all three universities in this study to intemationalize their campuses. Because each institution defines campus internationalization differently, the philosophy and organizational structure embodied was different at each. If the interviewee made comments regarding the internationalization efforts on their campus, further probing revealed that the origin of this initiative was not a mandate by the state government. Rather, universities listened to other stakeholders, in addition to the state government and took cues from one stakeholder in particular in order to conceptualize the program — the employers of their graduates. We have to remain accountable to our stakeholders, namely the employers of our graduates. So much of what they deem significant falls on us to provide in our curriculum and in our students’ experience while on our campus. (Steve) 63 This is an indication the universities in this situation are operating as open systems, which partially addresses one of my research questions: To what extent do the organizations involved in the partnerships under study reflect open systems theory? More directly related to this study is the impact university work with USAID has had on the organizational missions. The participants in this study had mixed reactions regarding this impact. Some expressed that there were both positive and negative aspects to partnering with USAID as it pertains to how the university identified itself and was held accountable to stakeholders. Peter confirmed that the mission had been affected by the partnership with USAID, with the following comment: The collaboration with AID has affected the mission because it’s focused us on the vision and the mission that we’re trying to achieve through our USAID projects. I think that’s had kind of a push-pull reaction with the rest of the university — at least within our school — in terms of bringing in other faculty members and generating a more intense interest on the USAID mission. He added: 1 think that AID has affect[ed] the mission of our academic institution in another way too. Historically, there was always a debate in international programs when I was at other institutions and now that I’ve been [at this institution] for the last seven, going on eight, years, [the question] is where should the emphasis at an academic institution be? I see that that paradigm has shifted, we now place great emphasis on international research and activities abroad. Much of our funding comes from USAID and so, relationships with USAID have impacted the shift in the mission. 64 Many of the interviewees’ comments need to be framed by the current situation in land-grant universities. All three of the campuses studied have experienced a substantial reduction in state funding, changing the status of each campus from ‘state-supported’ to ‘state-assisted ’. Nearly every state is bracing for budget reductions, for some these reductions may be as high as 25% (Kelderman, 2009). This reduction in funding has resulted in an increased expectation by university administrators that the faculty will generate more external funding than it has in the past. This shift in responsibility has increased the number of international development/research grants that faculty members are competing for, but has not resulted in increased monies from USAID. However, the competition for the same — and in some situations, reduced — grant money from USAID has increased. This point is best summarized by George’s comment below: I think the collaborations come back to the question: “how has USAID affected the mission of our academic institution?” There’s always that crude metaphor of a dog and a tail, with the dog being the university and the tail being an external donor, at times the tail is wagging the dog in this situation. Universities think they want the external funding but think little of the consequences that come with the money. It all changes the paradigm. There are always pros and cons to different [paradigm] shifts. But I think the one issue that we have to recognize is that change does come. The expectations of science change. Globalization, regardless of where you fall in terms of how it impacts the university, is an element of change that the university must deal with. One can’t deny that there’s this strong change occurring. 65 The “dog and tail” metaphor used by George highlights one of the main concerns expressed during these interviews. Everyone interviewed acknowledged that organizational change was, in most cases, positive. It symbolized responsiveness to the changing needs of society; however, the majority of respondents also commented on the fact that the increased pressure to bring in external dollars drove the university mission in ways that were not in the student’s best interest. Additionally, the large amount of money coming from USAID seemed to cause the university to fit themselves into a mold that USAID wanted, which deviates from the university mission. In many of the same ways that the university paradigms are shifting in regard to how they identify themselves, so too is USAID working through changes to its identity and mission. As discussed in chapter 2, trends in foreign assistance have had a significant affect on the university-USAID partnership. Before discussing the findings of this emergent trend, 1 will first highlight the context of foreign assistance and its influence on USAID. Trends in foreign assistance causing organizational structural changes As a federal agency, USAID is very much connected to the shifting priorities of the US. government. The nature of this structure concedes that with each new executive administration come new priorities, along with the expectation that these priorities will be implemented early in the administrative tenure. The main policy that guides university international development work is Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act. This is not new information for many working with federal agencies. What is worth noting is the 66 collective wisdom of those participants who have worked in higher education and/or international development for one or more executive administrations. US. foreign assistance has been part of the evolution of international development for the past 40 years or more. It’s gone through these twists and turns, with Title XII being part of it, and the advent of the private sector, the development firms, Chemonics and DAI and so forth, which have really changed the landscape for universities and how we do our work. Interestingly, they didn’t exist back in the early 803. If you look at the real flow of resources at this point it’s not to universities. Maybe there’s a little uptick, I don’t know, but not much compared to what it used to be. (Steve) The significance of Title XII to the international work of US. universities is explained in Thomas’ following comments: At the end of the Cold War, people who thought they knew why they were funding USAID lost sight of what they were doing. They weren’t winning the Cold War anymore, and nothing really came up to take its place. Then we got treading off in this direction where we thought we could shoot our way to victory and didn’t need to play nice with anybody. Now that wheel seems to have turned, and we perceive that all victory doesn’t come out of a gun. We also have to cooperate with friends — and even speak to enemies — to come up with a peaceful solution -— funny how that wheel turns. If you go back to the Atwood administration and USAID during most of the Clinton years, [USAID] was basically struggling for survival, trying to recruit a new identity. [Atwood] really turned his agency attention away from universities 67 in favor of NGOs at that time. That was a sorry decade for USAID-university relationships. When [Administrator] Natzios came in with the first Bush administration, that [pendulum] somewhat swung back. It clearly showed [Administrator] McPherson’s influence on Natzios, because Natzios came out of the food AID program, which didn’t involve universities. For him to embrace universities so much at the beginning of his tenure was a very positive sign for that relationship, but then the [Iraq] war happened, his attention went elsewhere and not much more happened with it. Thomas’ comments delineate the fact that partnerships with US. universities have not been held with the same significance during different presidential administrations. Government priorities are linked to the trends in foreign assistance discussed in the literature review. Decision-making that often times follows false pretenses set by misinterpreting data, while attempting to fulfill a national sense of good will and diplomacy. What is notable, however, is that some type of connection and partnership between LGUs and USAID has remained, despite the shift in attention to other policy issues. Power dynamics Another sub-theme that emerged during the participant interviews focused on power relations between universities and USAID and to some degree the power dynamic that plays out between USAID and host-country partners. The level of power vested in USAID to effectively generate partnerships with US. universities and host-country partners is important for a variety of reasons. Firstly, because USAID is one of the largest foreign assistance donor agencies coupled with the pressure placed on land-grant 68 university campuses to generate external funding, there is a tendency for universities to propose development programs they are not capable of delivering. Faculty member participants and one USAID representative acknowledged that universities would take on tasks that they knowingly were not good at nor fit with the institutional mission. During one interview a university participant stated that they have to do what is of interest to USAID and in the way that USAID wants it to be done so they can continue to win awards. If they were to decide otherwise would result in a serious decline in funding and thus a decrease in the size and scope of their office. Secondly, universities have no agency to effectively partner with host-country organizations and individuals in a manner that would create sustainable collaborations because USAID operates with a short-term technical assistance mindset. This is driven by the argument that the balance of power is tilted towards Congress, where they dictate the way in which foreign assistance work will be focused, and credibility derived during Congressional 3-5year snapshots in time. So within the scope of mission programming, which has been as low as three-year designs and now it’s up to five-year and grants and contracts within that framework, it’s such a focus on quick payoffs, short-term. (Thomas) While the discussion of power relationships is significant, it will require further investigation in future studies to critically analyze these power structures and the role of universities in the USAID foreign assistance architecture. The outcomes of international development work are dependent not on absolute assumption of power by USAID, but on a more complex, complicit understanding between the agency, universities, and host- country collaborators in which all three depend on each other to appreciate benefits from the continuation of the partnership process. 69 Universities as boundary spanners Some of the participants asserted that this partnership is maintained throughout the cyclical nature of foreign assistance because the university served as a ‘boundary spanner’ for USAID. Boundary spanners are people or, in this case, organizations who cultivate and ensure a flow of ideas across organizations. During the interviews it was suggested that the university serves as a boundary spanner for USAID and in-country governments, NGOs, international universities and the private sector. See figure I for a graphical representation of boundary spanners in the open system. We bring people together, and the ones who’ve got the ability to do the best job to facilitate these engagements and solve problems will help span between government and private industry to solve issues which are of public and private need, and bring these diverse parties and groups together. Especially when it’s on a global basis you need to have something, which is a university, that has the number of resources to be able to go and do something like that. (Jacob) One participant added that not only are universities boundary spanners, but LGUs are uniquely poised to serve as this connection because of their entrenched history of working in the developing world as a neutral broker: The land-grant tradition is one that is more based on those partnerships of working in communities and solving local problems, and all those sorts of things. The fact that we’ve worked so much with the private sector as a land-grant institution makes it easy for us to bridge organizations like USAID and international NGOs, much of it is working with the private sector. We’re 7O comfortable doing that. Would NYU or University of Cincinnati be the same? (Steve) Figure 2: Universities as Boundary Spanners Boundary Interface (late-keeping Interface Project Interface - .i.. F“ Unismtty . LGatekeepers/ USAID _j Development » _,‘ Bounfi'y Champions Decision Project Spanners Makers . . \ A Host Country Environment Unstructured problems and Universities Opportunities are identified ' Pre-Project Implementation (Project . Development/Conceptualization) Image adapted from Garcia and Smith (2007) Despite this organizational interdependence that was defined in part by Malcolm Gladwell’s (2002) notion of the boundary spanner, there is still an enormous lack of understanding between these two institutions. Generally speaking, these institutions do not understand what the other does, why it does it and what it does not have the capacity to do. This will be the next theme that emerged from the analysis of interviews with key participants. 71 Lack of institutional understanding The second theme will analyze the lack of institutional understanding on behalf of both universities and USAID. The following sub-themes emerged while analyzing this data: 1) different definitions used by each organization — while the same words may be spoken, they are not defined in the same manner indicating that universities and USAID do not have a shared vision; 2) dissecting the organizational structures that block the flow of work; 3) the perceived organizational barriers to collaboration; 3) the impact this lack of organizational understanding has on negotiations, day-to-day work, and the overall effectiveness of development work; 4) revisiting the idea of boundary spanners — in this theme boundary spanners are analyzed as individuals within organizations that understand the other organization in ways that enable them to close the institutional gap. The positive side of it is that a lot of people in [US]AID do believe that universities have a lotto contribute to this game. The continuing challenge is figuring out how, what the appropriate tool or mechanism is to let the universities do what they do best, if we’d ever agree on what that was, which we probably won’t. (Thomas) Thomas’ comment was reiterated in nearly every interview conducted. A significant finding was the acknowledgement by the participants that they had very little organizational understanding of the partner institution. There was some difference in their level of discernment based on experience and exposure with international development work. 72 Speaking different languages The experience of the interview participants has been an almost complete lack of understanding around the organizational structure of each other’s institutions. In negotiating and implementing work plans there are misinterpretations about what is feasible regarding timing of activities, time on task, and how the project philosophy will be discussed with the host country partners. At the core of the misunderstanding is divergent language. ...the definition of development work, the definition of research, the definition of timeliness, the definition of expectations varies, it’s clearly [an issue] with our partners overseas, but more importantly this is a problem with USAID. We all use very similar terms, but they have very different meanings. When there’s a significant difference in that understanding, that’s when there’s problems. (Peter) The use of language that is not clearly understood by partner organizations presents a barrier to collaboration that infiltrates many elements of the university-USAID partnership. It is important to note how the university defines research and what types of research are valued by the academy. Universities define research as the search for new information and understanding. The outcomes or products of this research is highly variable and the value placed on these products of research are every bit as variable, as they are highly dependent on the academic discipline they are produced. Organizational structures that block the flow of work Organizational roles are not clearly defined because the partner institution is not able to conceptualize the strengths and capacity of the other. The structural barrier that is 73 realized by both the university and USAID is the difficulty in cooperative agreement procurement. Universities do not understand what their legal requirements are for delivery of service at the same time USAID does not know how to contract universities to do a job that they are capable of doing. So overall, there tends to be a focus towards structural development and infrastructure reinforcement. But the projects that are funded don’t necessarily substantiate that viewpoint. So there appears to be somewhat of a disconnect even within the agency as far as what the top officials are saying USAID is going to do and then how the middle and lower management people implement on a project basis. (Jack) We don’t have the expertise as a development agency. We have less than we had before and we may have never had the amount of expertise to be able to tell a university where it can best apply itself. We can suggest to universities places where they can work, and depending on their expertise we can provide opportunities for universities to apply the expertise they have, but if we constrain them as a contractor it frustrates both sides. They’ll never be as agile and timely as a contractor, and from a university point of view the contracture of relationships put crippling constraints on their exercise in imagination, which is what universities do best. There is considerable experience where universities succeed and where they fail. A lot of it has to do with what they’re asked to do and I think there’s probably still and maybe always will be large sections of AID that don’t understand or appreciate university roles. Communicating that, 74 understanding it before communicating it is an ongoing issue on both sides. (Thomas) Perceived organizational barriers to collaboration Another significant breakdown in communication among universities and USAID that contributes to contractual misalignments is a lack of understanding around institutional missions. ...you have to understand USAID for what it is. USAID is not really a humanitarian organization — it’s not like a foundation. It’s not Gates or MacArthur or Kellogg. It’s got a very different mission itself. If you’re looking at the degree to which [this university] and our mission is aligned with PFID you can’t look at that independent of USAID and USAID’s mission, which governs PFID in many ways obviously. It has to. It governs where you can work, which countries. It governs which commodities. USAID’s mission is not the same as the university’s, and USAID’s mission has to do with it’s an arm of the State Department, it’s making friends and building relationships in certain countries and not other countries. (Steve) The misalignment of institutional missions drives other organizational misunderstandings. Most notably the issues surrounding the inclusion of applied research in development programs. As research-intensive academic institutions, the three universities studied feel strongly that research is a critical component to effective and sustainable development work. USAID on the other hand, feels that they cannot justify to Congress the funding of academic research. Tied to the issue of research is the projected 75 timeline for development work funded by USAID. In most cases development projects are funded for 3-5 years which enables USAID to remain fiscally accountable to Congress for their foreign assistance appropriations. Including applied research in development programming would extend the project timeline beyond 5 years according to USAID representatives interviewed. ...applied research that responds to consumers and responds to industry and so forth, but it has to be built into how you do business in any development project. I think that has been — the importance of [applied research] has been badly estimated in any development project. Accountability for the short-term, although it’s a misunderstanding because in some ways a lot of this research is done quick, during one [agricultural] growing season done, out, here it is. There is an inability on the part of universities to really work closely with industry to define the applied research and to be convincing about it, because we tend to focus on pure academic research, we’re not very good at focusing on applied research. We tend to be the sort of basic and higher order stuff that gets published in journals easily. The structure and design of individual development projects must be wholly tied to the 3- 5 year timeline and what program impact can be measured at the end of the funding cycle. Universities and USAID do not see eye to eye on evaluation and impact. Because land grant universities are in the business of transferring knowledge to their constituents and USAID is focused on how many people participate in their development projects, it would seem that these two institutions could capitalize on each other’s interests and strengths. However, their disconnect causes a gap in long-term use 76 of knowledge generated in development programming. This is summarized by the following participant comment: ...content experts go away and do this activity and that activity and all the knowledge and information activity gets captured by whoever the delivery agent is and doesn’t go anywhere. It just ends up in a report in Washington DC, sitting on a desk somewhere and there’s all this information and knowledge there but none of it ever gets out apart from the people in those activities, but it’s all government—funded money. Where the hell are the deliverables that people can share with other people? (Jacob) Impact of organizational lack of understanding When participants were asked to think about the barriers and limitations to the university- USAID partnership more globally there was an acknowledgement that there needed to be a continuous educational process to learn about one another. I USAID procurement people tend to come out of the Department of Defense. They’re trained in defense related contracts, most of them have never done grants and cooperative agreements. That’s an entirely new animal. They’ve never heard of Title 12. They don’t understand that legislation. Each one has to Ieam a new one when they get involved. They’re mostly incredulous, “You can’t do this, you can’t do this, you can’t let somebody have that much latitude.” So it’s a continual education process within our own ranks. From the university point of view there’s no reason for most of the faculty or researchers to understand what USAID’s particular mandate and strengths and limitations are either until they’ve 77 actually experienced it. So there’s not a very good common forum to work into a relationship in any systematic way. We need to work on mutual appreciation for what [each other’s] respective roles are and respective organizational needs. USAID still much too much asks universities to do things universities aren’t good at. That’s a failure of appreciating what universities are good at. USAID CTOs [Cognizant Technical Officers] and P03 [procurement officers] keep in mind what a land grant was set up to do. This has been frustrating — and I hope that the paradigm might be changing now with agency emphasis on partnerships. (Thomas) The current paradigm within USAID regarding the best role for universities has created a “body shop” mindset among university faculty members. This is the thought that parts and pieces of development projects are brought together in an attempt to construct the full project. In this manner, universities are asked to fill in a specific piece of the ‘car’ and there is very little programmatic integration or unification. Faculty participants interviewed in this study have been made to feel by USAID that they are garage mechanics who are contracted to do short-tenn development activities and there is no expectation by USAID that a long-term collaborative partnership will develop. For example, we’ve often gotten brought in what we view as the “garage mechanic.” There’s a garage mechanic syndrome that inflicts universities, where USAID gives lots of money to the university and there is no resultant long-term impact. Boundary spanners 78 University participants discussed their hope that this ‘body shop’ mentality would evolve into a deeper understanding of the value added components universities bring to development programming. Again the notion of ‘boundary spanners’ was raised in the interviews. So I think the universities need to think about themselves differently and the funders need to think about us differently and the faculty members who are engaged in it need to think about it differently, but there is this real opportunity here to be this big bridge and the span, which goes between the issues that are going on in the world and bringing it back here on both a research and an outreach and an educational component if that makes sense, but that’s a real challenge. So it’s partly a boundary spanner, it’s partly an innovation engine, and it’s partly like we’re the seed capital, the priming of the pump to get new systems and new ideas and new ways of doing things linked together. Then we’re also the ones who can sit back and reflect on things and look at them differently because the organizational structure of the university creates the space for us to do this. (Jacob) ' Similarly, Chris adds the following comment: ...the way that we’ve been talking about these boundary spanners are the people who have got the vision and the ideas and can span between organizations, but that’s where leadership in these processes is a very important mix, because if you have the wrong leader in here you’ll get very different outcomes, right? But that’s the challenge, in order to do the visionary stuff and evoke change means not only do you have to have a good leader [at the university] but you’ve also got to 79 have a CTO and a leadership team at USAID who understands what you’re doing and who’ll give you the flexibility to go and do things, and you’ve got to have an institution here, which will help you do things as opposed to fight against you. (Chris) The leadership component discussed above by Chris presents itself as a common thread in this theme. Although most of the discussion around this theme posed limitations and barriers this element of the interview was positive and presented a solution to the problems experienced by the participants. On some campuses there was considerable discussion on the key PFID personnel who exhibited great strength as leaders (past and present). The participants, regardless of their organizational affiliation agreed that the project leaders had the capacity to facilitate the partnership and by the same token they could create barriers that prohibit institutional partnership. It was typically these leaders who had a strong institutional understanding — the boundary spanners — that closed the knowledge gap for both universities and USAID. However, the barriers and limitations are not sole responsibility of the project leaders, these also inherent to the organizational structure. To better understand the platform universities and USA] D operate from when approaching international development work, it is necessary to explore these organizational and philosophical barriers that prohibit their engagement. Organizational and philosophical barriers that prohibit international development work The third theme emerged as two inextricably linked thought patterns: partnership barriers within USAID that are perceived significant by universities and organizational structural barriers that exist within universities that prevent partnerships with USAID. 80 The subthemes are the perceived barriers within USAID: funding instability, rigidity in project goals and objectives, and the abuse of power on the behalf of USAID personnel. The second subtheme are the following structural barriers in place at universities: lack of faculty incentives, broad scope of interest and engagement, inability to tell the university’s international development story and lack of staff support. Interview participants highlighted structural barriers that they perceived to be prohibitive to the university-USAID partnership as well as identifying structural barriers they knew existed at their own institutions that decreased the effectiveness of international development work. In other words, the university faculty participants shared the perceived barriers they had regarding USAID as well as discussing the structural problems that existed at their universities that are constricting their ability to work with USAID. The difficulties cited in this discussion are very connected to the earlier theme of “Lack of institutional understanding.” It is also important to mention that the power dynamic is evident in this theme, I will not, however, focus on this issue in this study. The following quote highlights the power dynamic between these two organizations: We’ve changed partners based on donor insistence. We’ve dropped activities. We’ve told our partners to fire local staff [because USAID instructed us to do so]. I always dream of making the great moral stand and saying this is the line; you can’t cross it. And then I wake up and realize, hey, this is reality: they’ve got the gold — they make the rules. (Chris) These power dynamics are an area I will focus on in future work that falls beyond the scope of this dissertation. 81 University perceived barriers within USAID USAID is held accountable to the United States Congress, therefore, their decision making and strategic planning must factor in the expectations held by Congress. Congress has mandated that USAID is not authorized to fund any project for more than ten years. This is more fully explained by Helen’s comment: The legal language probably colors the development goal. We cannot authorize anything for more than ten years as a program. We cannot authorize a grant or contract for more than five years. If USAID is happy and is getting something out of it the next five years is considered virtually automatic and therefore the winning university gets a ten-year program. No reason to think we’re going to accomplish development goals in ten years but that’s a statutory limit for what we can do at one time. Helen’s last sentence is a major philosophical difference of development work for land- grant universities and USAID. This was discussed widely by many of the interview participants. So to be looking at a two- to three-year turnaround and then okay, slam, bam, thank you ma’arn, let’s move on, we really compromise what we do in that way. It’s not that we don’t get good work done. It looks different and there are things that we’d like to do more of and feel strongly about that we can’t do. (Steve) Steve and the other interview participants who commented on the short duration of the projects funded by USAID made the point that this regulation has a negative impact on their long-term partnership with USAID but more importantly the short duration of projects make it extremely difficult for universities to develop strong, sustainable 82 partnerships with host-country partner organizations. This limitation surfaces several other times during the interview, each time the correlation is the organizational structure of USAID and its impact on the generation of credibility and sustainability with host- country partners. Linked to Congressional mandates and regulations is the perception held by the university faculty members interviewed that the expected outcomes imposed by USAID are too ambitious for the time given for the project work to be completed and they are largely irrelevant for the context in which the work is being done. I think there’s a real problem with the short timelines and artificial incentives that get developed in USAID projects. I think the deliverable requirements are too harsh. I think if we spent more time worrying about appropriate impacts for the long term and then allow us to have more flexibility in how we did things to put deliverables out there, which made sense, the development work being done would be more effective and sustainable. (Jacob) The perception that the “deliverables”, the outcomes that USAID contractors agree to provide or “deliver” are not appropriate was mentioned often through the course of my interviewing. This is notable because the faculty linked this barrier with another limitation that will be discussed shortly; that is, the lack of research funded by USAID. Interestingly, the faculty interviewed stated that the issue with the project deliverables solidified the idea that USAID’s development work is ineffective. Poorly conceived deliverables have a really bad impact on economic sustainability, right? And if we start saying how many people we got trained or how many companies we started up, well I can go and start a bunch of companies 83 but if I don’t start them up in the right way they’re all going to fail. I can give them some official incentives to start up but they won’t last after the project, right? So we get lots of programs that we started but what’s the long-term impact and sustainability of these things if we do them in the wrong way? (Sadun) It seems that decisions regarding what each project will be required to deliver is based on the expectations Congress has for USAID in terms of what kind of return they will receive for their investment. In order for USAID to hold themselves accountable they have devised performance indicators that are easily tracked. This mechanism has also been perceived by faculty as a serious limitation to an equitable partnership with USAID: ...the system must be very easy to prove to Congress that there was “impact” from the development work done because you just count the number of people that you affected, that you trained, how many training programs did you do, how many of this, how many of that. And everything is in silos so they can track. (Mohan) The “silos” Mohan refers to are very discreet categories that USAID has determined worthy of measurement. These are items such as the number of women or girls that participate in any given event, how many people attended the event, other demographic information about the participants that make show diffusion of information to broader pepulations. As mentioned above, faculty feel that these indicators are not appropriate metrics for this type of work and further, the “silo” measurement mechanism does not allow for any type of innovative or sustainable development work to take place. Most 84 especially, in the in minds of the faculty, the value added effect of conducting applied research in development projects. I think USAID is under huge pressure to deliver results very fast, just constant, quick turnaround. For the things that universities do well and are most consistent with our mission, things like applied research, knowledge generation, and building the capacity in sister institutions around the world as an example. They take a long time. I think [USAID] just had such pressure for short-term turnaround on projects and showing X number of increases in income or whatever it is. They have under-valued research, badly, because of other pressures. If you get some of those USAID folks in a room off the record and with cold beers or whatever they might say that, and many do actually. (Steve) George also adds this comment related to research: I think it’s very hard to change the agency’s view in today’s world of hyper accountability, the indicators that — people don’t often think about research and the importance of it ‘cause they don’t understand how it can make them so much better, and I’m not talking about sort of esoteric research, which unfortunately is part of the bad name. There’s a place for basic research and so forth and that’s usually at all attractive to development agencies, but there’s a lot of applied research that can really guide and help and there is a failure on the behalf of the development agencies to understand that. I think most CEOs of major companies realize the importance and that they are not out front on the current research. They also realize that it is in their best interest to invest at least 10 or 15 percent of their budget or more on research, because if they don’t they will be 85 out of business because they’re not investing in the new ideas and where things are going. Interview participants in both universities and USAID indicated that because USAID did not really know what to do with research, namely, there is no mechanism to apply the research in an outreach component in development projects, causes research reports to sit on shelves rather than impacting the populations where we are working. While this study focused on an agricultural development project, it should be noted that USAID’s inability to utilize research does not occur only in the agriculture sector. This challenge exists in other sectors like education, human rights and rule of law. Steve comment’s on this barrier below: that’s probably the biggest area of misalignment if you will, or a little bit of incompatibility. I think it’s unfortunate. I think it’s really unfortunate in that in here I’ll go out on a limb to say I think USAI D is off base in underemphasizing the importance of good research. Because of the make up of the personnel at USAID, no one understands the significance of research, what it can do to enhance the sustainability of our work, so when universities are given a little room to conduct research, like in the CRSP projects the information stays within the agency and is never utilized. This comment by Thomas recognizes that USAID acknowledges that they do not know how to utilize research conducted by their partners: I think especially in the last 15 years it seems like we’ve even leap-frogged the corporate world and tell me “what you’re doing for me lately” and research programs don’t get you anything in the next 90 days or more or six months or 86 two years even. So within the scope of mission programming, which has been as low as three-year designs and now it’s up to five-year and grants and contracts within that framework, it’s such a focus on quick payoffs, short-term. There is no time for research or its application in our projects. As was discussed in chapter 2 of this study, USAID received appropriated monies from Congress. In a fairly regular manner Congress changes their funding priorities and this has a direct impact on USAID’s ability to maintain funding to specific projects. The entire group of faculty members interviewed has had experience with this funding instability. They cited this as another major barrier in forming a partnership with USAID. Again citing the negative outcomes this funding instability has on their partnerships with in-country partners. I think the biggest concern; at least what I hear from our campus, is what’s the long-term impact to this relationship and this partnership if these kinds of things keep entering into our scope of work. We have no credibility then. So even all the great science in the world doesn’t mean a thing if nobody wants to partner with us because we’re known on the block as the ones who pull out partway through. It hurts our credibility. And not only does it hurt, say, a university on the West coast, but say then if another university came in afterwards, it’s still an American university and it’s still a USAID funded project and it carries that negative reputation. (Peter) Equally important to the interview participants (from the universities and the federal agencies) was the personal connection they have made to project staff. Participants cited that the personalities of project personnel had an impact on their ability to engage 87 effectively with other organizations. Officially both land-grant universities and USAID state that they do not partner with individuals, rather they partner with institutions. There is recognition though that despite this official procedure of partnering, individuals can play a critical role in the success of the partnership. There was a period when the CTO [Cognizant Technical Officer] allowed us to do lots of different things, had latitude and really had a lot of trust that we knew where we were going and our work took off in a lot of relevant and connected directions, and then the personality problems and relationships set in, which is what put the PFID project on this campus grinding halt. Then there was no latitude or shared vision with the CTO, zero. We felt as if the CTO continually said: “We’re gonna make you bastards pay” and it really shut the project down. Now it’s opening up again with a different CTO at the helm we are given a fair amount of latitude in terms of the development, and the knowledge network we created this has really allowed us to get excited and do some new and very creative things. When they didn’t give us that and said, “You’re gonna do it this way and this is the only thing we want you to do” we saw our connection to our in-country partners shrink and our outputs also declined. So I would say that’s probably one of the more important things to me, universities need to be trusted and given latitude to be creative and opportunistic and all those things. USAID has an official policy regarding contractual protocols, this is very clear and concise in terms of what institutions are eligible contractors. However, the USAID representatives recognized that the people within an organization really build the partnership. Here Thomas discusses this social stratification: 88 ...we’re supposed to trust our partners and I try to do that. There is great variability in people’s confidence in themselves or confidence in their partners to get the work done. A useful distinction I learned in an undergraduate sociology class, gemeinschaftlich [sense of community and unity, no sense of social stratification] versus gesellschaftlich [socially acceptable, based on social class], this is best used in thinking about levels of organization. USAID operates officially entirely gemeinschaftlich. We don’t recognize individuals. We contract with institutions, not with people. I think that’s a fallacy and a fraud. Development gets done by people, and you might think the same institution is going to find us good people next time around. It may or may not be true because organizations change with the people they have. I try to deal with people. Whatever university in this case gets the job, they’re going to appoint somebody to lead it, and it may or may not be the same somebody that was listed on the application. Work with who’s there. I think that web of human relationships gets things done. Thomas’ comments link back to the notion of ‘boundary spanners’. In what he discusses above, the success of development work is really done by those individuals that have a sense of understanding of both organizations. While the legal binding agreement may be held at the institutional level it is these boundary spanners who forge the organizational values of each partner institution. Progress is made through these individuals since the organizational structure is generally unwieldy and slow to change. This portion of the discussion did prompt me to ask “so what brought these organizations together in the first 89 Initially, Title XII legislation, discussed in detail in chapter two, paved the way for universities to conduct development work for the US. government. Continual and current collaboration seems to be driven partially by organizational reputation and the demand for external funding. 1 would say that much of our international development reputation has been based on programs that have been USAID funded from the CRSP starting back in 1980 to some of the big capacity building programs back then to a PF ID and the food security work obviously has been huge. Those are things that have really shaped [the university] reputation in international work, has been thanks to USAID. That’s been a very, very critical partnership to our international evolution. (Chris) In addition to the perceived barriers that are in place that prohibit the partnership between land-grant universities (LGU) and USAID, are the tangible structural barriers that exist within LGU’s. This is the second subtheme that will be discussed next. Structural barriers within universities The faculty interview participants were candid in discussing the structural barriers in place at their universities. The common climate on all of these campuses seems to be the change in state funding. All three universities have seen a decrease in state funding which has impacted faculty work and administrative expectations of the faculty. The result for faculty has been an increased pressure to procure external funding, and increased production of scholarship. At the same time the university has decreased support staff to many of the academic units. The message of “doing more with less” is the current unofficial mission of these land-grants. Many of the faculty interview participants 90 indicated that the organizational structure of the university is too rigid for the institution to be responsive to donor agencies. I think the paradigm of universities has to change. We have to begin to work together and learn to be responsive in similar ways as the international development beltway firms. We need to come to the table as an equal partner with the ability to respond and get those larger contracts. The structure of the university must allow the institution to be responsive in a manner that is equitable yet perhaps on different philosophical platforms as the international development beltway firms. (Jacob) The current university structure, as explained by the faculty and international development administrators interviewed, is a series of unlinked ‘silos’ where knowledge, expertise, scholarship, and outreach are rarely integrated in ways that benefit the institution or its constituency. So from an institutional standpoint that’s been up until now a really important role in just generating funds. These activities are great because the university just makes a hell of a lot of money out of it, but don’t see any benefit beyond the fundraising ability. So it’s been running for a long period of time and we’ve made a lot of money for the [central administration] office but it’s not really developed into a lot of scholarship and it hasn’t been leveraged in a way to have a direct impact back into the state and back into our other programs. It’s all been a one-way stream. So there’s this great reputation that we’ve got in the field for doing relevant, sustainable development work but that doesn’t get linked back. It’s just this push out [of] knowledge, blah, blah, blah, knowledge transfer, and it 91 really hasn’t been brought back to benefit the university. That’s been fine when all the university wanted us to do international outreach funded by money coming from USAID. Faculty become these engines that keep on pushing stuff out and the university is happy because it generates indirect costs and covers overhead. Today it’s a different story because I think with the President has envisioned a new role and mission for the university, this drive for scholarship concurrently with the whole globalization of the food industry we’ve got an interesting situation where the question becomes how do we provide greater value to the whole university that goes beyond just this scholarly activity and technology transfer? (George) Internally, the structural barriers are far more complex than those just presented that impact the external accountability of universities. Those interviewed asserted that the core underlying problem facing their institutions is the lack of change and growth structurally that supports the philosophical shift in the institution. There are two main areas of the organizational structure that were cited as being particularly problematic: faculty incentives to conduct international work and the ability of the grants administration office to provide grant management support. I think one of the barriers is that usually the individual faculty members are not really released from their other responsibilities, the USAID projects are an addition. Not many scientists fit into role of making a research and teaching career out of their international experiences. And most of us are in much more well-defined or narrow disciplines or areas of interests and it’s really hard then to intemationalize those activities. (Jack) 92 Beyond a better balance in faculty life, as discussed above by Jack, some disciplines are unsupportive of international work. Relatively little value is placed on the outreach component and potential scholarship that results. The faculty interviewed stated that incentive programs have not evolved with the increased institutional interest in interdisciplinary work among faculty (Jacob, Peter, Jack). Popular incentives among these faculty members are: summer salaries, decrease in teaching load, inclusion and value of international work in the promotion and tenure system, and a return of indirect costs recuperated to individual faculty. Another institutional structure that has not grown in equal paces with the external generation of funding are the grants administration units on campuses. These offices like many others have felt the impact of decrease staffing. Additionally, there is a lack of intellectual capacity to manage contracts from many different funding agencies as well as the needed project reporting required by most. [The grants administration office] is freaking out because it doesn’t know how to deal with the increase in volume of international work and the university is struggling because they don’t have enough resources, right? It was really easy when it was all under one funding form. Now there’s a lot of different ways. So it’s really obvious here that there’s just not enough resources coming from central administration back into the [grants administration office] to be able to support these types of activities, and there’s not enough incentives coming back to the colleges or individual faculty members to be able to go after these types of activities either. I used to negotiate with [the grants administration office] how much of the indirect cost I’d personally get. But for some reason they wield all the 93 power. It’s like they hold the power even over the provost and the president’s office. So I think those kind of things, those internal structural barriers need to be looked at. (Jacob) This chapter highlighted three themes that emerged from faculty and agency participants in this study. In order to strengthen the partnership between land grant universities and USAID one must first understand the political and social context of these organizations. Both operate on reduced funding from the government while being asked by government to do more work with a broader focus. Internally, both organizations have changed their organizational mission in an attempt to meet the changing needs of their constituents. These paradigm shifts have not all been the result of internal decision making, in some cases changes were made out of necessity, the trend in foreign assistance has had great influence on the direction and nature of the work being done. Those interviewed for this study discussed the idea of the university as ‘boundary spanner’ enabling USAID to conduct more effective international development work. As such, the university will bridge the political, social, knowledge gap between USAID and host country governments, NGOs and private organizations. The notion of ‘boundary spanners’ was also significant as related specifically to the university-USAID partnership. Participants cited the fact that individuals within these organizations made it possible for there to be organizational understanding between these two institutions. Despite the significance of boundary spanners, there seems to be an enormous lack of organizational understanding between universities and USAID. Initially, this lack of understanding impacts the conceptualization of their work. Duration of projects and the inability to provide stable funding sources has negative implications for their work. 94 Ultimately this lack of understanding permeates all facets of the partnership and in some instances drives the structural barriers that are in place. The final theme discussed in this chapter is that of organizational and philosophical barriers that prohibit international development work. The barriers that were cited as the most onerous in conducting international development work are: USAID’s irrelevant and ineffective project outcomes and deliverables, the lack of research which informs their development work, and the exertion of organizational power on their partners so that they fit into a model that is accepted by the US. government. Land-grant universities also have barriers and limitations that impact their ability to conduct international development work. The two main barriers identified in this study are the lack of faculty incentives available and deficient support units within the central administration of these institutions. The following chapter will discuss at length the organizational structures of the three land-grant universities studied and how each campus designed and implemented the Partnership for Food Industry Development project. 95 CHAPTER 5 CASE STUDY: UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION Context of Case Study The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between USAID and US. universities in the context of evolving foreign assistance policy. The formation of the partnership and the characteristics of how the partnership functions beyond the political call for this alliance were studied. My interest was to identify and study what elements in this relationship promote long-term collaboration where the organizations are motivated by reasons other than monetary support and project completions. Specifically, I examined how the changing organizational philosophies at both US. universities and USAID have impacted this organizational collaboration. Next, I explored the barriers and synergies of collaboration between these organizations in the context of the Global Development Alliance. Without recognition of these issues and action to remove or reduce the barriers, advocacy for partnerships will remain a rhetorical issue with no basis in reality. Resources may be wasted in the desire to have partnerships provide quick success, or the partnership strategy may be prematurely condemned to failure if there is no evidence that it leads directly to improving the well-being of developing countries. The problem may, however, lie in lack of attention to the partnership process. This research bases the need for partnerships on the history of international development work and its lack of sustainable impact (Dichter, 2003, Garilao, 1987). Effective participation of these organizations in a partnership requires change from the current methods of international development programming and organizational partnerships. 96 Purpose and audience of the Partnership for Food Industry Development Case Study This study used a case study to examine the relationship between USAID and three US. land-grant universities. A retrospective, qualitative case study methodology was used to study the process of partnership. A qualitative approach permitted a deeper understanding of the Partnership for Food Industry Development (PF ID) project as an example of the university-USAID partnership by setting out the contextual conditions, especially important as foreign assistance transitions into this new era of foreign assistance. The intended audiences for this case study are US. university faculty members, administrators, USAID chief technical officers, and USAID administrators. The PFID case study provides access to Land Grant University (LGU) institutional leaders, policy makers and USAI D officials to a comparative model of a university-lead - with direct procurement through USAID - international development project built on public and private partnerships. The comparative model allows the above-mentioned stakeholders to objectively view organizational processes. This systematic review may serve to enhance organizational structures and processes as well as encourage organizational understanding between US. universities and USAID resulting in the delivery of more effective international development work. Organization of the case study The three land-grant universities in this study are organized as stand-alone case studies. Key issues that transcend all three cases are discussed at the end of the case 97 study. These key issues are integrated into the emergent themes discussed in Chapter 4. The case studies are bounded by the current project period —- 2001 to 2009. PF ID Project conceptualization and development The major units of analysis in this study are the three land-grant universities that are engaged in the Partnership for Food Industry Development Project. Louisiana State University (LSU), Michigan State University (MSU), and Rutgers University (Rutgers) are all currently funded as Leader with Associate Awards. The "Leader" is the initial award to the partnership, and the "Associates" are the agreements or grants made to PF ID by USAID missions and bureaus to the already competed mechanism. An associate award is thus a cooperative agreement issued by a mission or bureau to a PFID program. LSU and MSU began their programming in 2001 and Rutgers received its award in 2006. While each university partner works in specific sectors of the agriculture industry, they all complete this work under the philosophy of the PF ID project. PFID’s objectives are: to promote science-based legal, regulatory and policy frameworks for international trade in food products, to adapt and apply food processing and marketing technologies to create value-added projects, and to improve food product safety and quality. Leading this effort are US. universities in partnership with international food industries, a development alliance that represents a new direction in university-led foreign assistance. MSU leads a public-private sector partnership that focuses on the fruit and vegetable sectors to improve quality and safety standards in the context of a global marketplace. LSU leads a public-private sector partnership that will focus on the meat and seafood sectors to develop support systems, business networks and high standards of quality for food industry competitiveness. Rutgers University leads a program designed 98 to strengthen and build partnerships between the public and private sector in the commercialization of natural African plant products by small farmers. Leading up to the time of this project award the food industries were becoming increasingly global, integrated, and responsive to consumer demands for high quality, safe and responsibly produced food products. At the same time USAID found it necessary to shift its agricultural strategy and projects that intersect with the legislative mandates set forth by Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act. Driving this shift at USAID was the onset of a new executive administration in the federal government and the subsequent USAID process of reorganization. The new USAID agriculture strategy identified four themes: 1)“accelerating agriculture using science-based solutions, including biotechnology, to reduce poverty and hunger; 2)developing global and domestic trade opportunities for farmers and rural industries; 3)bridging the rural knowledge divide through training, outreach, and adaptive research at the local level; and 4) promoting sustainable agriculture and sound environmental management.” The PFID project focuses on theme two: developing market and trade opportunities for farmers and rural industries. Role of partner organizations As the donor agency in this project, USAID is held accountable to Congress, but its role is not neatly packaged as it must also work with the USAID Mission offices in the host countries where project activities will occur. While USAID is headquartered in Washington, DC it operates first through its overseas Missions. According to the operational objectives of USAID, the work of the PFID project must address the development of local institutional capacity in order to help the work of the Mission 99 (USAID/ALO, 2005). In this project the Office of Agriculture in the Economic Growth Agriculture and Trade (EGAT) within the Washington DC office of USAID (USAID- DC) manages the cooperative agreements with the US. universities. Additionally, there are five Missions investing in the core funding of PFID. They have individual development objectives that they have formulated in concert with host country advisers, therefore, it is unlikely that they will have the same objectives, priorities, or development philosophy, which makes it challenging for the university partners in the PFID project to deliver what they have been contracted to do. The university partners in this project are prime contractors, meaning the funding from USAID flows directly to the university. They have been awarded a “leader with associates award” (LSU, 2005) that is also know by USAID as a cooperative agreement. The three universities, Louisiana State University, Michigan State University, and Rutgers University, are responsible for creating partnerships with the public and private sector of the host country that support the Mission’s strategic country plan and strengthen food industries. The funding for this project comes from two different sources. Each university partner received what USAID terms core funding; this money covers indirect costs that the universities have as well as travel into the partner countries. This core funding does very little in the way of supporting project programming; the funding to support these activities must be generated by PF ID buy-ins, this is money that is generated from investment from the USAID Mission and the private sector. It is the responsibility of each project team to generate the buy in money. Because the Missions have their own priorities and they are subject to funding reallocation from USAID-DC 100 they have not been a consistent source of funding. All three universities cited budget cuts of nearly 30-40 percent at some point in the PFID project cycle. The political nature of USAID as a US. federal agency defines organizational boundaries that limit it in developing sustainable, authentic partnerships with public and private entities in the host countries. These boundaries regulate the flow of knowledge and other resources between USAID and its outside environment. However, whenever problems surface beyond the boundary of the organization, it is the activities across sector boundaries that provide a solution to the challenges faced by USAID Missions (Hoe, 2006). These activities are referred to as boundary spanning (Hoe). This case studies the notion of the university as the boundary spanner for USAID Missions and host country public and private organizations. The university as boundary spanner communicates across organizational boundaries as a politically neutral organization (Sarason & Lorentz, 1998). In this case politically neutral is conceptualized as not having a political agenda to accomplish in a given country. Universities can enter into development work without political baggage that would impact their ability to create partnerships and serve as a facilitator of a co-created strategic plan for change and capacity building. It supports the linkage of these organizations and facilitates resource sharing across the boundaries of USAID and the host country stakeholders. The social networks created by the university’s long-standing relationship in developing countries prove significant in the front end of the PF ID project; it is at this time that individual decision-making is the primary mechanism for advancing the work of the project, and later in the project implementation, organizational decision-making takes precedent (Reid & de Brentani, 2004). 101 Louisiana State University History and Demographics In 1853, the Louisiana General Assembly passed legislation for the development of a state institution of higher education, which created the Seminary of Learning (l’Universite’ de l’Etat de la Louisiane) near Pineville, Louisiana. Louisiana State University currently has an enrollment of nearly 30,000 students with a ratio of students to faculty ratio at 22:1. There are 1,241 full-time faculty members at the university (829 male/412 female) and 195 part-time faculty. The university defines its mission as “to be a leading Doctoral/Research- Extensive university, challenging undergraduate and graduate students to achieve the highest levels of intellectual and personal development” (www.lsu.edu/missionstatement). Contributing to this institutional mission is the National Flagship Agenda, a seven-year plan to enhance current LSU programs and generate new innovative programming. Another guiding principle of this plan is the acknowledgement of the accessibility and the accountability LSU has to its public constituency. Namely, the institution must hold itself responsible for demonstrating that it has used state funding wisely and that the faculty and administrators are engaging in shared governance. The guiding principles of the National Flagship Agenda — cutting edge knowledge generation with attention to the institutional roots - are at the core of the LSU AgCenter. The purpose of the LSU AgCenter is to develop and deliver practical, useful information to the residents of Louisiana. There are multiple departments that contribute to the delivery of this information; the AgCenter is divided into the following units: 102 extension service which is the outreach body of the Ag Center, and the agricultural experimental research station. The AgCenter is not a degree-granting unit of LSU and receives no funding generated by student tuition; it does however, provide funding for the following 11 academic departments3. While the overall mission of the LSU AgCenter is to provide off-campus educational programs to disseminate technical information generated in the above mentioned departments, there is another significant component that contributes to the knowledge base of the institution — the lntemational Programs unit. The specific mission of lntemational Programs is to design and conduct international research, education and outreach programs. The mission reads: “International Programs complements and strengthens the mission of the AgCenter through its international endeavors by extending its work and purpose beyond state borders” (www.lsuagcentercom/en/adminstration/about us/chancellors office/lntemational+Progr ams/lntroduction). The International Programs unit actively engages in foreign assistance programming. For the past 50 years, the LSU Ag Center has led the LSU system’s international outreach and exchanges efforts by working in and with more than 30 countries (http://www.lsmcenter.com/en/administratiomabouLus/chancellors_office/1ntemational 3 The 11 academic departments that are linked to the Ag Center are: Agricultural Chemistry, Animal Science, Agriculture Economics & Agribusiness, Audubon Sugar Institute, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Entomology, Experimental Statistics, Food Science, Human Ecology, Plant, Environmental & Soil Sciences, Plant Pathology & Crop Physiology, Renewable Natural Resources, Veterinary Science. 103 +Programs/lntroduction/). Currently, its programs are active in 13 countries in five regions of the world. The current structure of the lntemational Programs office is such that they are completely funded from external dollars entering the unit in the form of grants. The office staff is appointed on a percentage basis to the different projects that are currently in operation through the lntemational Programs Office. For example, one staff member may have 80% of his or her time appointed through the PF ID project and 20% appointed to another project. Decisions regarding appointment take into consideration factors such as the size of the grant, expertise of the staff, and time currently appointed based on needs of the new projects. It is important to note that the lntemational Programs Office does not receive funding from the central administration of the university. The unit administrator is part of the administrative hierarchy of the university, and therefore the salary for this position comes from university general fund monies at the university. The program coordinators of the lntemational Programs unit are not on the faculty at LSU; they are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the unit and its projects. Faculty members affiliated with the lntemational Programs office are paid through project pay on an overload basis. This means that faculty members are unable to buy themselves out of their courses or other responsibilities with project pay. Rather, they receive project pay in addition to their current salary and their engagement on the project is in addition to their other work. The lntemational Programs office places particular importance on strategic partnerships with the US. private sector, institutions and universities overseas with potential for two-way exchange, and specific agencies of the US. government such as the 104 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The LSU agriculture extension and research programs are further enhanced by the internationalized university community as the result of international relationships with universities, governments and the private sector. The experienced gained through international development work at LSU has lead lntemational Programs to understand development issues by addressing the whole industry and the ‘rural’ industry sector ‘space’, rather than specific content areas of expertise (http://www.lsuagcentcr.com/cn/administration/about us/chanccllorsiofficc/lntemational +Programs/Introduction/). PF ID for Meat, Seafood and Poultry (PFID-MSP) The Louisiana State University PF ID-MSP is focused on a “global strategy for processing meat, seafood, and poultry” and the project occurs in two phases (Phase II AWP, 2005, p. 3). Because of the USAID funding regulations, cooperative agreements are only funded for five years. At the end of this cycle if USAID has been appropriated funding in the same technical area they are able to solicit another five-year cooperative agreement. Phase I of PFID-MSP was from 2001-2005 and its budget was $2 million US. dollars. In April of 2004, LSU AgCenter submitted a scope of work (SOW) and a budget for Phase II. LSU was awarded a cooperative agreement for Phase 11, beginning in January of 2005 and scheduled to close in January of 2010. The budget for Phase II is $2.5 million U.S.D.. In each phase, LSU partnered with the World Food Logistics Organization (WFLO), the World Laboratory Branch in Ukraine, the National Institute of Animal Husbandary, Veterinary Medicine of Moldova, and in Phase II it partnered with Stellenbosch University, South Africa, Africare — the Zambian national office; and 105 Cooperative League, USA (CLUSA) in Nicaragua. This project includes: ...assessments, support mechanisms, capacity building and the fostering of business partnerships. This is a partnership that combined complementary strengths and expertise. The LSU AgCenter brought its research and education capacity, as well as its proven record of working with industries and producers. The WFLO represented the “cold chain” industries and brought its state-of-the-art knowledge and worldwide experience in the preservation of perishable products (Phase II AWP-South Africa, 2005, p.4). The geographical locations for the PF ID-MSP include Ukraine and Moldova in Phase I and Southern Africa, (with an initial focus on South Africa and expansion to Namibia and Mozambique); Central America, (with initial focus on Nicaragua); and Eurasia/C18, (with an initial focus on Azerbaijan) in Phase II. In its initial conceptualization, the project was geographically located in an area of the world where the LSU AgCenter had previous experience conducting development projects. The decision regarding the project locations for the LSU PFID as well as the other two campuses was not mandated by USAID, but rather the universities made their own decision. In the case of LSU, the selection of Ukraine was very deliberate. The decision to add Moldova to Phase I was made based on the need to expand their work and its close proximity to the Ukraine. The addition of Moldbva necessitated the development of partnerships with local organizations and the establishment of relationships with the government entities. To some extent existing partners (World Food Logistics Organization (WFLO), the World Laboratory Branch in Ukraine) were utilized to establish the relationships in Moldova. 106 Phase I The technical assistance provided by LSU and its partner institutions in Phase I included assessment of the industry chains and the development of solutions (technology advancement, institutional capacity building, human capacity building), establishment of support systems, linkages and business partnerships; and the understanding and development of food safety, sanitation and standards (Phase II AWP-Nicaragua, 2005). Resulting commercial gains for the food industry included improvement in food plant efficiencies, improved plant capacity utilization and product quality improvement, resulting in increased earnings, employment and export potential. These results also increased the demand for the raw product, which in turn will enhance incomes of agribusinesses and small farmers. The following are the project objectives for Phase I: I) investigate the status of the industry; 2) develop awareness for critical issues among key players; 3) formulate support mechanisms; 4) create technical and educational capacity; and 5) foster business partnerships. The proposal emphasized concrete technical assistance and links among the food industry with US. counterparts. Resulting commercial gains for the food industry include improved food plant utilization and product quality improvement. This initiative is expected to assist Ukraine and Moldova to regulate this industry and facilitate their complete participation in the WTO (Moldova already has entered) (LSU, 2002, p. 3). 107 Phase II Phase II was rolled out in five stages: 1) industry assessment/crosscutting analysis; 2) assembly of key stakeholders; 3) identification of critical issues, prioritization of needs, and impact on local cultures; 4) development of solution strategies; and 5) implementation of strategies (Phase II AWP-South Africa, 2005, p.3). The main thrust of the program activities was technical assistance provided in collaboration with the US. food industry counterparts. Specific objectives for the South Africa PF ID-MSP are: 1) Establish a Post-harvest Technology Center (PTC). The primary objective of this center will be to improve opportunities for value added post harvest technology by becoming a repository and clearinghouse for information related to the food industry, training and information support. 2) Promote food safety, security and quality though HACCP — this area is addressed through training (particularly training of host country nationals intending to be authorized HACCP trainers), consultations, HACCP compliance verification and policy advocacy; and 3) Promote value added post-harvest technology — this area includes identification, analysis and promotion of processing of cold chain technologies (Phase II AWP-South Africa, 2005, p. 5). The PFID-MSP project at LSU has created very solid relationships with their in country partners that draws on a longstanding relationship. The project has also generated very innovative partnerships with other US federal agencies, most notably the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA worked with LSU to conduct food safety training in the host countries. This partnership is an indicator of LSU’s ability to serve as a 108 boundary spanner. Another significant characteristic of the LSU program is the leadership of the Ag Center. The director is highly respected and faculty and project personnel feel that the project’s success is due in large part to his engagement. In many ways the director is a boundary spanner, as he is able to engage with USAID and the LSU administration in a manner that satisfies both organizations. Overall, LSU manages the PFID project within the framework of their cooperative agreement. The structure of the Ag Center allows them to engage faculty for the technical expertise needed in the project activities, but they are not pressured by academic expectations of research and publications. This dynamic posits the university to deliver the PFID project in exactly the manner sought by USAID. Michigan State University History and Demographics The Agricultural College of the State of Michigan was founded in 1855 with the passage of Michigan Legislature’s Act 130 and classes began in 1857. Michigan State and Pennsylvania State University, both founded in 1855, actually predate the Morrill Act. They are considered the nation's pioneering land-grant schools, having been founded as part of the scientific agriculture movement that led to the land-grant program Total enrollment at MSU is 46,045 students, with a student to faculty ratio of 17 to 1 (College Portrait, 2008). There are 2,576 full time faculty members, 36% are women, 21% are from minority groups, and 93% have the highest degree in their field. The university defines its mission as advancing knowledge and transforming lives by: ' providing outstanding undergraduate, graduate, and professional education to promising, qualified students in order to prepare them to 109 contribute fully to society as globally engaged citizen leaders ° conducting research of the highest caliber that seeks to answer questions and create solutions in order to expand human understanding and make a positive difference, both locally and globally ° advancing outreach, engagement, and economic development activities that are innovative, research-driven, and lead to a better quality of life for individuals and communities, at home and around the world (http://prcsidcnt.msu.edu/missionphp) Enabling the faculty and administration to carry out this mission statement is the strategic positioning of the university provided by Boldness by Design, launched by MSU’s President, Lou Anna K. Simon in 2005. This strategic positioning will reflect on MSU’s land-grant values while committing the university to being recognized worldwide as the leading land-grant research university in the United States by 2012 (http://boldnessbydesign.msu.cdu/Dcsign_Glancc.5132). Boldness by Design identifies five strategic imperatives: l. Enhance the student experience by continually improving the quality of academic programs and the value of an MSU degree for undergraduate and graduate students 2. Enrich community, economic, and family life through research, outreach, engagement, entrepreneurship, innovation, and inclusion 3. Expand international reach through academic, research, and economic development initiatives and global, national, and local strategic partnerships 110 4. Increase research opportunities by significantly expanding research funding and involvement of graduate and undergraduate students in research and scholarship 5. Strengthen stewardship by appreciating and nurturing the university's financial assets, campus environment and infrastructure, and people for outstanding performance today and tomorrow (http://boldncsstfidesign.msu.edu/Design Glanceasp) The international components held in Boldness by Design are critical in the successful transformation from a land-grant to a world-grant institution. For more than 60 years, MSU has had a strong history of engagement in international development work. Currently there are nearly 1400 faculty members on campus engaged in international research in 170 countries (http://www.oid.msu.edu/capabilities/). The university has procured approximately $21 million of external funding to support the international research and project work of faculty on campus; of this 23% is USAID funding and of all the federal funding that MSU receives 52% is from USAID (OID, 2008). The interdisciplinary campus environment has been called upon to carry the Boldness by Design strategy forward. There are a myriad of offices on the campus of MSU that are involved in international research and project work; these units are highlighted in Appendix D. PF ID for Fruits and Vegetables (PF ID-F & V) The PFID-F&V project collaborates with public and private partners to increase the competitiveness of small and medium-scale producers in local, regional and international markets. This is a USAID-funded leader with associate cooperative Ill agreement. There are five USAID Missions currently investing in PF ID-F&V: Central American Regional Office in Guatemala, India, Nicaragua, South Africa, and the Southern Africa Regional Office in Botswana. The PF ID project was initially funded in 2001, and to date MSU has received nearly $15 million from USAID. The PF ID team at MSU is in its second cycle of programming since its onset in 2001 (Contracts and Grants Administration, 2009). PFID is housed in the Institute of lntemational Agriculture (IIA)(described in Table 2) within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. IIA receives a portion of its operational funding from general funds from the college. Some of this money supports the director of 11A but by and large the faculty, specialists and staff are working on soft money — that which is procured from external funding sources. The faculty members engaged in the PFID project commit percentages of their time. MSU faculty members are prohibited from exceeding 100% level of effort in reporting to their college and central administration. In this respect the percentage of effort enables the faculty to buy themselves out of certain activities, i.e., teaching of a class. They are not paid overload pay, as is the case at Louisiana State University. There are formulas to determine what percentage is needed for course buy out and time in days that faculty are expected to contribute to the project work (MSU, 2008). In addition to partnering with the five USAID Missions mentioned previously the PFID-F&V project has partnered with the following organizations: 112 Table 2 Partner organizations of MS U PF ID Business & Universities Host Country Non-govemmental Industry Governments organizations Fort Hare Presidential Catholic Relieve ClES—The Food University, South Commission on Services (CRS) Business Forum Africa Competitiveness, Nicaragua Instituto Cup of Excellence H. Brooks & Co. Centroamericano de Administracion de Empresa (INCAE), Nicaragua University of Food Distributors Royal Ahold Botswana, Association Botswana Technoserve University of lnteramerican Tamil Nadu (TNU), India Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), Nicaragua 113 Table 2 Continued Produce Marketing Lutheran World Association Relieve Maharashtra State Pick’n Pay Agricultural Board (MSAMB) United Nations Melissa’s World Food Program (WFP) World Relief Market Matters Hortifruti PF ID-F & V Central America Program (CAP) PF ID-F&V’s Market Access for Farmers Central America regional project has two principal objectives: maximize market—led rural diversification and stimulate both farm and non—farm income growth for small— and medium—sized firms and farmers, through new business alliances and increased access to dynamic markets. In support of these objectives, the project implemented actions that improved the quantity, quality, and product safety of selected non-traditional agricultural products, principally fruits and vegetables, and their export sales. This project supported actions that expanded the base of private sector agri—food firms and farms in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua that can compete both regionally and globally. Activities 114 improved the linkages between small- and medium-sized producers to export markets and increased the gross value of exports of targeted fresh and processed non-traditional agricultural exports (httpfl/wwwpfid.msu.edu/camerica_pr0iect.html). PF ID-F & V Nicaragua Phase I - Market Access for Nicaraguan Farmers. Under a Leader—with— Associates grant awarded in July 2003, PFID-F&V implemented a program to assist Nicaraguan farmers to become more competitive and to increase their access to high value markets. These efforts were focused around the development of partnerships with the above-named organizations. PFID-F&V in Nicaragua provided tailored technical assistance programs to participating small- and medium-scale producers and firms. The goal of the program was to assist producers to consistently and efficiently produce high quality and safe produce for the local, regional, and export markets (http:wawvgafid.msu.edu/nicaragua-background.html). Phase I lasted for 14 months, and because of its success MSU proposed follow on market access activities in a second phase of PF ID-F&V that commenced with the second tranche of USAID funding. PF ID-F & V Ghana The Ghana Private-Public Partnership Program for Food Industry Development (GHPPP) was: "A partnership for sustainable development for strengthening Ghana's edge in horticulture; serve as knowledge platform for small-scale producers and suppliers to meet global quality standards" (http://www.pfid.msu.edu/ghana-project.html). PF ID-F & V Southern Africa Under the USAID Rural Livelihoods Activity (USAID Strategic Objective 15), PFID- F &V has created a Southern Africa Regional Agri-business Partnership program 115 comprised of host country institutions non-governmental organizations, universities, government agencies and local farmer associations/organizations and the private sector. Together the PFID members develop business linkages, provide technical assistance, build indigenous capacity, and develop and apply information technologies. PFID educated and provided training in market development to small-scale producers, producer associations, producer cooperatives, food processors, exporters, and the public sector. Ultimately, the program worked toward the development of a more competitive economy in the region, diversification of rural livelihoods, reduction of hunger and alleviation poverty, increased business management capacity and improved market competitiveness, expanding trade capacity, and enhancing market demand-driven agricultural development (http://www.pfid.msu.edu/southema-project.html). PF ID-F & V South Africa Through a partnership with the University of Fort Hare's Agricultural Rural Development Research Institute (ARDRI) and Center for Development Studies and a strategic linkage with Pick 'N Pay supermarket, PFID—F&V is working to: 1. Increase market access for historically disadvantaged emerging farmers in the Eastern Cape; and 2. Build a sustainable capacity for continued market access. Achievement of these objectives of this activity resulted in improved incomes and rural employment via the multiplier effect. PF lD-F & V India Through partnerships with mango growers, processors, export organizations, and 116 Indian government organizations, among others, PF ID-F &V strengthened the small and medium mango grower base by providing capacity building at all levels. Education and training in Good Agricultural Practices and other sanitary standards, as well as employment of certification systems, lead to better yields, pesticide use in accordance with regulations, and a more efficient supply chain (http://www.pfid.msu.edu/india- project.html). PF ID-F&V partnerships also identified and facilitated resources necessary for enhancing the mango supply chain such as cold storage facilities, improved packing and grading facilities, testing facilities, and logistics management. The MSU PFID project is the largest of the three PFID projects in programmatic scope, core funding, and in-country buyins. The breadth and depth of this project comes from the institutional capacity and history in the host countries. The PFID team at MSU has been very aggressive in seeking long-term, creative programming with their private sector partners. The faculty involved in the project have focused on generating applied research articles after they have completed their work in the field. The research generated has served the private sector partners and has assisted in identifying industry gaps where supplemental funding has provided a platform for solving these challenges. The PFID project at MSU has encountered organizational challenges with USAID much the same as LSU and Rutgers. When these issues arise the project personnel has focused on the areas of the project that are affected and not allowed organizational differences to become pervasive in all areas of the project. Overall the PFID project has been successful despite challenges experienced in the field and on the campus of MSU. Rutgers University Rutgers University was chartered in 1766 as Queen’s College, the nation’s eighth 117 institution of higher education. Rutgers is one of nine colonial colleges established before the American Revolution. The college opened in 1771 on a campus in New Brunswick, New Jersey with one instructor and a few students. Rutgers College became Rutgers University in 1924 as the university expanded in enrollment and academic programs. At the turn of the century, Rutgers offered academic programming to women in the New Jersey College for Women, later called Douglass College. The end of World War II and the newly enacted GI Bill once again increased enrollments at the university (Thelin, 2004). “Rutgers was becoming an institution for all people, and in 1945 and 1956, state legislative acts formally designated Rutgers as The State University of New Jersey” (http://ruweb.rutgcrsedu/aboutru/inbriefshtml). Today, Rutgers has an enrollment of nearly 50,000 students and more than 9,000 faculty and staff on three campuses in New Jersey. Within the university system there are 27 schools and colleges, 100 undergraduate majors, and more than 100 graduate and professional degree programs. “The university graduates more than 10,000 students each year, and has more than 350,000 living alumni residing in all 50 states and on six continents. Rutgers also sponsors community initiatives in all 21 New Jersey counties” (http://ruweb.rutgers.edu/aboutru/inbrief.shtml). The ratio of students to faculty is 18 to 1 (http://ruweb.rutgers.edu/about-the-university.shtml). The university has a threefold mission of: 0 providing for the instructional needs of New Jersey's citizens through its undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education programs; ° conducting the cutting-edge research that contributes to the medical, environmental, social and cultural well-being of the state, as well as aiding the 118 economy and the state’s businesses and industries; and performing public service in support of the needs of the citizens of the state and its local, county, and state governments. This mission will be carried out through the five key ambitions of the Rutgers University president (http:wawpresidentrutgerseduh. The five key ambitions are: l. Enrich every student's experience of learning at a major research university from his or her first day on campus through a major transformation of undergraduate education Achieve research distinction for discoveries that address global human challenges Affirm their place as The State University of New Jersey by providing an outstanding education, discovering and applying new knowledge, and serving the needs of the state Enhance the campus environments, which are essential to the excellence of the university, the quality of education, and the loyalty of alumni Attract increased support by adopting an entrepreneurial spirit as they seek to achieve our boldest aspirations (http://www.president.rutgers.edul) The second ambition in particular is connected to the university’s international research and development work. The president has identified areas of academic opportunity where the university can draw upon its interdisciplinary strengths in order to make a contribution to the state, nation and the world (http://wwwpresident.rutgersedu/achievingshtml). These areas include climate change, renewable energy, advanced material and devices, nanotechnology, stem cell research, transportation, nutrition and homeland security 119 (http://www.president.rutgersedu/achieving.shtml). The PF ID project is one international development project that has linked the university’s contributions domestically and globally. PF ID-Natural Products (PF ID-NP) The PFID-NP project began in 2004 (three years after the LSU and MSU PFID projects commenced), and was designed to create sustainable economic development for rural sub-Saharan African communities through the development of the natural product sector. The original award of core funding from USAID was $2.5 million for five years. One focal area for the PFID-NP project has been diversification of rural livelihoods that has had a significant impact on rural women in the targeted communities (http:wawmfidnp.org/aboutus.htm). The strength of PFID/N P is the programs ability to bring together a wide range of partners from the public and private sectors. Representatives from governmental, academic, NGO, and private sectors, come together with rural communities to create a broad and sustainable network for the development of the natural product sectors. PFID/NP and ASNAPP together have the unique ability to create sustainable economic growth through development strategies which target all levels of the commodity chain from seed to store (hm)://wwwggfidngorg/aboutus.htm). To carry forward the project goals the university provides scientific research, technology transfer, capacity building, infrastructure development support, and market intelligence in targeted areas (httpz/Nm w.plidnp.orgx’mission.htm). PFID-NP focuses on 120 crop clusters such as teas, spices and functional foods, as well as medicinal and aromatic plants, with organic production as a key area for market development. A sub-focus is the commercialization of botanicals that are also applied as traditional medicine, used by more than 75% of Afi'ica’s population as part of primary health care. Special emphasis is thus put on the protection of diminishing plant species that were previously decimated by wild harvesting. The countries of focus for the PF ID-NP program are South Africa, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Ghana, Rwanda, Senegal, and Angola. The project works with 16,000 small farmers in the aforementioned countries which has lead to the development of new plant products generating $17 million in trade facilitation (Imp://wwwpfidnperg/impact.html). PFID-NP has also facilitated the formation of more than 140 public/private partnerships. Project partnerships include Stellenbosh University in South Africa, University of Dakar in Senegal, Agribusiness in Sustainable Natural African Plant Products (ASNAPP), and Kwarne Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Ghana. Rutgers partnerships are structured a bit differently from MSU and LSU. ASNAPP serves as an in—country NGO and the PFID-NP project operates within the ASNAPP structure; each of the partner countries has a branch of the organization. ASNAPP operates on a broader basis than the PFID project; some PFID activity may involve the ANSAPP team, but it is likely that there are other activities. In each country the strength of the organization is dependent on the project personnel, their relationships with the ministries, and the USAID Mission. The level of organizational maturity in each country determines the organizational structure. In some instances the program is registered as a legal NGO. In others the work is done under the 121 PF ID project as the organizational structure has not matured to the point where it can operate as a registered NGO. Rutgers thinking around this structure is a matter of sustainability. The principal investigators of the project have structured the PF ID work in a manner they feel ensured the greatest possibility of creating sustainable outcomes that are driven by the grass roots level of each of the stakeholders in the partner countries. Each ASNAPP branch has a different level of funding from the respective USAID Mission in the country. In some countries the ASNAPP office has receive much of its buy-in funding from the Mission as opposed to private sector investment, yet in other countries there is minimal Mission buy-in, and ASNAPP is predominantly funded from the priVate sector. The level of funding does not always correlate with the relationship ASNAPP or the PFID-NP project has with the USAID Mission. As was discussed in previous chapters, the USAID Missions have their own programmatic goals and political strategy. This has created challenges for the PFID-NP team as they navigate their way toward developing the most effective way for the project to work in the country. Communication has become the key to their success. According to the program administrators they inform the Mission of what they are doing and regularly submit project reports to the Mission officials, and in some situations they have provided talking points to the Mission that show the Mission in a positive light when they are shared with the US. embassy. The initial PF ID-NP project conceptualization was driven by the request for proposals (RFP) from USAID, but a significant consideration in the decision-making matrix was the university’s previous experience, international research/development project strengths, and its ability to deliver the goals and objectives set forth in the RFP. 122 Another significant contribution to the proposal development process for PFID-NP was an evaluation of its institutional understanding of USAID, and the organizational structure of Rutgers. The Natural Products division of the university has prided itself on its inclusive nature, and its ability to formulate partnerships that are equitable and mutually beneficial. The program administrators feel that this philosophy has led to many publications regarding its research and productivity. In the case of the PFID-NP project the university had to give special consideration to how it would handle issues of intellectual property. The bottom line approach to Rutgers’ programming in the PFID-NP project has been the formation of a strong foundation in the partner countries. This foundation enables the project team to withstand obstacles it encounters. Such obstacles may be personnel changes, partner relationship building and budget cuts. In each situation, the in- country partners and project office must be able to face these obstacles, problem solve, and thrive in a constantly changing environment. Summary This chapter has detailed the PFID project at three US. universities: Louisiana State University, Michigan State University, and Rutgers University. Each institution has a similar history as land-grant universities. This classification instills commonalities in their foundational philosophy of an institution of higher education. These are the three- part mission of research, extension and teaching (Kerr, 2001; Thelin, 2004). The conduct within basic and applied research for the public interest must recognize that scientific and societal issues are incredibly complex in nature, requiring collaboration across 123 departments, disciplines, colleges and centers (Kerr, 2001). Land-grant institutions, especially those that are also research universities- as is the case with these three universities- have a breadth of content, depth in disciplines and commitment extending from basic research to a range of practical concerns (Bratton, 1990; De Datta, Dillaha, & Williams, 2007). This capacity situates these universities nicely to engage in international development work. Despite their similar beginnings these universities have created institutional identities over time that have distinguished them from each other and many other universities. These differences and in some instances commonalities will be presented within the context of the emergent themes that were discussed in Chapter 4. Those themes are: the nature of the relationship between universities and USAID, lack of institutional understanding, organizational and philosophical barriers that prohibit international development work. Nature of relationship between universities and USAID To fully understand the nature of the university-USAID relationship in the context of the PFID project, it is important to realize the social and political context of these organizations and its intersection with the organizational mission of the case study institutions. These universities have been affected by the challenges of state funding rescissions and how these rescissions have impacted the university budgets. One university in particular experienced a cycle of funding cuts in 2006, and now faces an additional 4% cut in funding it receives from their state. This has several implications to the land-grant mission; most notably their outreach capacity to the residents of its state — 124 these cuts will discontinue the extension service. The extension service is a well-known entity of most land-grant universities, providing transmission of research knowledge to the state residents. Directly related to this study is the increased pressure faculty experience to attain external funding. In this sense the PFID project has been a welcome contribution to the universities’ operational budgets in a time of shrinking state support. One university indicated that it felt its international development reputation was derived primarily because of the work it had been able to do with USAID. Similarly, another university indicated that it felt a certain prestige was brought to their institution because of the work done with USAID. Specifically linked to this study is the history of international research/development work undertaken by the institution and the university’s capacity and scope of procuring external funding to conduct international work. The conceptualization and development of the Partnership for Food Industry Development (PFID) project was significant in these case studies. Each of the three universities studied used the RF P from USAID as its starting point for proposal development. Each institution reflected on its existing strengths and country networks, and considered how this acquired expertise could assist them in delivering the goals and objectives of the project. The project personnel at all three campuses agreed that, generally speaking, universities are asked by USAID to operate in a way that is not in alignment with their organizational structure. This poses challenges in responding to agency requests and delivering the outcomes expected by USAID. Where the project development diverged at these universities was the point in which the university proposes to be something it is not. One university in particular made a point of indicating that it 125 provides USAID with all that is asked of it because its administrative unit is reliant on the funding. The other two universities contend that they must pushback on USAID in an effort to reach a greater institutional understanding. In this case the universities hold firm to their institutional mission and do not agree to adopt the structure and function of a Beltway firm. This does not mean that the pressure on all three universities to procure external funding is not present - indeed it is. The interview participants on each campus indicated that they felt under enormous pressure to submit proposals that would bring funding from federal agencies, private foundations and corporations. PFID project structure and philosophy is similar among the PFID-MSP, PF ID- F&V, and PFID-NP. To some extent the structure was laid out by USAID, but what really ties the project together is the focus all three universities place on the development and sustainability of partnerships in-country and with USAID-DC. Underlying the partnership with USAID-DC was the success of the in-country partnerships and subsequent investments by the Mission and the private sector. Those interviewed at each of the universities indicated that the relationship with USAID (DC and Missions) was linked to the level of success they were experiencing with the buy-ins. The reasons behind this are linked to the university’s ability to perform as the politically neutral broker or boundary spanner for the Mission, other entities of the public sector, and private organizations. In this context, the university as boundary spanner communicates across organizational boundaries as the politically neutral organization (Sarason & Lorentz, 1998). The university supports the linkage of these organizations and facilitates resource sharing across the boundaries of USAID and the host country stakeholders. The social networks created by the university’s long-standing relationship in developing 126 countries prove significant in the front end of the PFID project; it is at this time that individual decision-making is the primary mechanism for advancing the work of the project, and later in the project implementation, organizational decision-making takes precedent (Reid & de Brentani, 2004). USAID-DC appreciates the university as boundary spanner because it enables the Mission to carry out its goals. Another difference among the universities was the organizational structure each has in place for housing a large international development project. Two of the institutions have an administrative unit that provides staff support in the day-to-day management of these projects. At one of these institutions this unit is situated in an academic college and in another university, there are close ties to many different academic units. This structure has advantages for the project staff and faculty members (in two situations these are the same people) engaged in the PF ID activities. Having this organizational support unit enables the faculty members to continue focusing on their research and teaching. This is especially true in the case of two universities where faculty members are unable to buy themselves out of teaching. This structure may also provide a better environment for junior faculty members who have not yet achieved tenure to become involved in international development work. The remaining university houses its PFID program in an academic department where the principal investigator (PI) is also the project manager who overseas day-to-day operations while maintaining a full research agenda and teaching load. This is taxing on the faculty member and may also affect the work of the project and the faculty member’s contribution to his/her other responsibilities. These diverging responsibilities for faculty and staff at universities contribute to the lack of understanding between universities and USAI D. 127 Lack of institutional understanding This emergent theme raised several significant issues that have a serious impact on the university-USAID partnership. A more detailed discussion of an issue raised in the previous section is appropriate here — the misunderstanding of faculty responsibilities at a research land-grant university is a common problem for all of the universities studied. In order to uphold the philosophy and vision of their institutions - which are organizations sought by USAID- faculty members have an obligation to their students and research. This obligation poses restrictions on their time and their ability to travel for weeks on end during the academic year. The interview participants said that their experience with USAID demonstrated that these obligations were not valued let alone understood by the agency. USAID’s congressional mandate for the PFID project is a five-year duration with the opportunity for a second five-year project cycle if the project outcomes are sufficient. The substantial amount of development work accomplished by each of the universities by this USAID regulation has created a “body shop” mindset among university faculty members, which is the thought that parts and pieces of development projects are brought together in an attempt to construct the full project. In this manner, universities are asked to fill in a specific piece of the “car” with very little programmatic integration or unification. Faculty participants interviewed feel that USAID treats them like garage mechanics who are contracted to do short-term development activities, with no expectation by USAID that a long-term collaborative partnership will develop. This body shop mentality goes against the goals and objectives of the PF ID project in establishing long-term public/private alliances. It is in this mindset of establishing partnerships that 128 universities can be of greatest value to USAID-DC and Missions — the notion of the university as a boundary spanner can contribute to the goals of the PFID project and has the potential to strengthen the relationship USAID-DC has with the Missions. The interaction between USAID-DC and the Mission offices was a point of discussion in each of the universities participating in the PFID project. The dysfunctional organizational structure had a direct impact on PFID’s progress, since funding was procured from both USAID-DC (core funding) and the Missions (buy-in funding), which caused decision- making, work planning, and host country partner consistency with the universities to be very challenging if not impossible in some situations. Organizational and philosophical barriers that prohibit international development work Another largely misunderstood issue by both universities and USAID is the agency funding strategy. LSU, MSU, and Rutgers perceive the budget cuts as an inconsistency of resource obligation that negatively impacts their in—country work. The budget cuts have had an impact on partner trust because the funding is not there to carry out planned activities, thus making it necessary to scale back the overall scope of the project to adjust for the decrease in obligated funding. The PF ID project personnel explain the impact of budget cuts as having a long-term negative global effect on the host country partners because this negates the trust built with these partnerships which not only makes it difficult for the PFID project,'but for all other subsequent development work. On the other hand USAID takes its directives from the US. Congress, which includes all of the priorities and subsequent changes in priorities that Congress puts forward for federal agencies to carry out. Sometimes the shift in priorities does not take 129 place at the Congressional level, but rather at the agency level when changes in executive leadership occur due to presidential elections. The change in strategic direction of Congress and/or the federal agency can lead to a shift in appropriations that result in cutting the PFID project or other similar development projects. Often this is not explained to the funding recipients. At the point in which it happens there is generally very little notice and occurs purely as a business transaction. The interview participants explained that while they understand that Congress controls the federal purse strings, they would like there to be better communication regarding the changes and perhaps agency reflection and dialogue with Congress on the long-term negative impact in the host countries. The rapid shift of agency priorities does not align with their vision and mission of providing humanitarian and transition assistance, promoting sustainable development abroad, responding to natural and man-made disasters, and addressing key global problems (USAID, 2006). Agency documents also state that the agency’s organizational structure and subsequent units reflect the USAID’s five core values — “managing for results, customer focus, teamwork and participation, empowerment and accountability, and valuing diversity” (USAID, p. 5). The interview participants stated that it is incumbent on USAID to stand firm on these core values and advocate to Congress why shifts in funding are disruptive to current development work going on and end up producing ineffective outcomes. Each of the universities experienced other forms of misunderstanding and miscommunication with USAID. As each of the PF ID projects launched and organized their activities in-country it became necessary for the universities to hire local staff to carry out the bulk of the work and vision of their PFID project. In some of the host I30 countries the stateside entity of the project (the universities) found it quite challenging to hire staff. In one situation the university was told that none of the nominated candidates for a position would be approved, and instead it should hire a candidate recommended by the Mission. In another instance, the university hired a staff member, only to turn around in two months and fire this person while being told by the Mission to hire another candidate that was hand picked by the Mission. This type of power dynamic skews the equity in the university-USAID partnership and is not an apprOpriate mandate within the contractual agreement between them. At some point in the course of the PFID project the universities experienced a display of power by the USAID Mission or USAID-DC regarding staffing and project organization which left them questioning their role in the project and nature of their relationship with USAID. Project staffing stateside within the universities. was a point of notable difference in these case studies and is linked to the issue raised earlier in this chapter regarding the organizational structure of the PFID project on the campuses of the universities. Hiring faculty to commit and contribute to the work of the PF ID project is easily navigated on all three campuses. One institution is structured in a way that requires faculty members to track their level of effort based on a percentage of the effort. This percentage cannot go above 100% and they are unable to work on overload pay for their efforts on this or similar international development projects. In some situations, faculty members from this institution are able to buy out their time in a course they are teaching. It is important to consider in this situation the ripple effect this has in the faculty member’s academic unit because another faculty member must be able to pick up their colleague’s teaching load. Another campus tries to pick up the summer salary of the faculty member as an incentive 131 to their contribution of expertise to the project, but there may not be project funding to do this, and budget cuts to core funding has made compensation for faculty work in general very difficult. Finally, the third institution expects its faculty members to balance their time on the project while maintaining a full load of research and teaching. Another organizational barrier in place at these campuses is the lack of capacity within the university administrative units, most especially the grants and contracts unit. Nationally, this unit of the university system oversees the contracts procured by the institution and manages the external funding that comes to campus. There is a difference in the perceived lack of capacity in their respective grants and contracts office. At one university there is a complete lack of confidence and feeling of support by faculty members in their interactions with this unit. One reason for this may be the extreme increase in externally funded projects this institution has seen in the last five years. The growth in external funding may not have been matched with an expansion of personnel to handle it within this office, or a reorganization of policy and practice to better meet the needs of the faculty members and their ability to respond to donors. This chapter detailed the three universities that have been funded by USAID to carry out the goals and objectives of the Partnership for Food Industry Development project. These case studies have provided institutional history and current campus demographics to explain each university’s approach to international development work. Additionally the case study focuses on the project structure and emphasis based on university strengths and capacity. Finally, the chapter aligns the issues that surfaced in each of the case studies with the emergent themes discussed in Chapter 4. I32 CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This case study described the process by which Louisiana State University (LSU), Michigan State University (MSU), and Rutgers University (Rutgers) participated in an international development partnership with the United States Agency for lntemational Development (USAID). It also chronicled the changes that occurred in the beliefs, practices, and sense of efficacy the project personnel experienced as a result of their participation in the partnership. During the USAID’s 46-year history, the relationship between it and universities has changed, due in large part to the political shifts in Washington, DC (Lancaster & Van Dusen, 2005). These shifts redirected the development philosophy and focus of foreign assistance. Also significant during the historical evolution of this relationship is the development of multiple missions by universities, which often conflict with the university core principles of creativity, autonomy, and diversity (Beattie, 1991; Busch, 2006). Universities, especially research universities, found themselves needing to respond to the demands of external stakeholders while managing the internal needs of students and faculty. At the same time, foreign assistance has been deemed a failure by scholars in economics, social sciences, and public policy, to name a few (Easterly, 2006; Dichter, 2003; Moyo, 2009). Resources may be wasted in the desire to have partnerships provide quick success, or the partnership strategy may be prematurely condemned to failure if there is no evidence that it leads directly to improving the well-being of developing 133 countries. The problem may, however, he in lack of attention to the partnership process. This research bases the need for partnerships on the history of international development work and its lack of sustainable impact (Dichter, 2003, Garilao, 1987). In an interview with the Guardian regarding her book on foreign aid in Africa, Dambisa Moyo said: More than $1 trillion has been sent to Africa over the last 50 years. And what has it all achieved? She wants to know. "Between 1970 and 1998, when aid flows to Africarwere at their peak, poverty in Africa rose from 11% to a staggering 66%" roughly 600 million of Africa's billion people are now trapped in poverty. She would admit that aid has done some good on a local level, however her conclusion is uncompromising: "Aid has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster for most parts of the developing world" - and Africa in particular, which is "shearing off. The rest of the world is going one direction, on one growth trajectory, and Africa is going completely in the opposite direction. And yet we sit around and discuss sending another $50billion dollars of aid? 1 mean, come on (Moyo, 2009). To support and assist the reader in understanding this research study, the final chapter of this dissertation will begin with an overview of the study. The overview will include background on the project, a restatement of the purpose of the study, and a review of the methodology utilized in the study. Then the research findings presented in Chapter IV will be further examined. The chapter will continue with a discussion of the implications related to the significance of the research findings that were derived from the data. Also, recommendations for further research in the area of university partnerships focused on international development will be offered for study. The chapter 134 will conclude with my personal reflections as a qualitative researcher on this research project. Overview of the Study The purpose of this study was to understand the relationship between USAID and US. universities in the context of evolving foreign assistance policy. The formation of the partnership and how it functions beyond its original mission was studied. My interest was to identify and study what elements in this partnership promote long-term collaboration where the organizations are motivated by reasons other than monetary support and project completions. Specifically, I examined how the changing organizational philosophies at the universities and USAID have impacted this organizational collaboration. Next, I explored the barriers and synergies of collaboration between these organizations in the context of the Global Development Alliance. Examining partnerships in practice, this research addresses the following questions and sub-questions: ° What is the nature of the relationship between USAID and US. universities? ° How have the evolving organizational philosophies and polices at both the universities and USAID impacted the collaboration? 0 What impact will a deeper understanding of this partnership have on the new era of foreign assistance, the Global Development Alliance? A case study was used to examine the relationship between USAID and three US. research universities. A retrospective, qualitative case study methodology was used to study the process of partnership. A qualitative approach permitted a deeper understanding of the Partnership for Food Industry Development (PFID) project as an example of the 135 university-USAID partnership by setting out the contextual conditions, which are especially important as foreign assistance transitions into this new era of foreign assistance. The case study methodology adapted in this dissertation is the one used by John Middleton as a part of a World Bank evaluation of education projects: Evaluation in World Bank Education Projects: Lessons from Three Case Studies (Middleton, 1985). The guidelines for the case study design are based on Berg and Gall’s case study design in Educational Research (Borg & Gall, I971). Interpretations and Findings The primary or central research question that guided this study examined how the organizational philosophies and structures impacted the university-USAID partnership in the context of a Global Development Alliance (GDA) project. In response to this research question, the study participants from all three universities and USAID indicated in their answers given during interviews that the GDA project mechanism provided an opportunity for more effective work to be done in host countries, however, they did not feel that the organizational structure or philosophy of the land-grant university or USAID was aligned in a way that allowed for effectiveness and sustainability of such projects. These findings suggest that the GDA is a project mechanism that deserves full reflection and evaluation and, in another perspective the relationship between universities and USAID must be carefully analyzed. Many of the partnership members indicated that they appreciated the opportunity to work with USAID and felt that, institutionally this work strengthened the university’s reputation in the international development arena. However, they also indicated that they did not feel like a respected as a partner, and that USAID power dynamics played a negative role in the PF ID project. The findings of this study 136 support the Mohr and Spekman (1994) assertion of affective indicators of partnership success. Partnership success is determined by how well the partnership achieves performance expectations set by the partners. The findings also support Kanter’s (1988) premise that strategic partnerships result in blurred boundaries between organizations where the partnership is impacted by its external environment. The three case studies in this dissertation confirm the partnership challenges between closed and open organizational systems (Chapter III) and specify lessons for effective partnership. The themes that emerged from the data after an analysis indicated that the partnership challenges occurred because of the nature of the US. university-USAID relationship, a lack of institutional understanding among the partner organizations, and organizational and philosophical barriers. A deeper analysis of the data revealed that the notion that the university and individuals within each organization served as a boundary spanners (Gladwell, 2002) captured different levels of partnership/project success. The discussion of the findings that follows focused on the impact made in the themes that emerged from the data. The themes are presented in order of significance of their emergence from the data collected; 1) Lack of institutional understanding, 2) Organizational and philosophical barriers that prohibit international development work. 3) Nature of the relationship between universities and USAID. Findings that are discussed within this section are positioned in relationship to the findings detailed in the review of literature found in Chapter 2 of this study. 137 Findings by theme Lack of institutional understanding The lack of institutional understanding that is exhibited between the universities and USAID in this study emphasized that these organizations define key terms differently, and while the same words may be spoken, they mean very different things, which indicates that the organizations do not have a shared vision of their work. Additionally, there are organizational structures in place that are not mutually understood thus blocking the flow of work. This theme also highlighted the positive nature of the university as a boundary spanner among USAID and host country partners. The findings that emerged from this study indicated that participants from the universities find the mission of USAID to be misaligned with their funding mechanisms and timelines for completion of development projects. Further, the university participants feel that the funding instability experienced from USAID has long-term negative impacts on the host country partners. The USAID study participants take an incredulous view of the university’s desire to incorporate a research element in their work. This lack of appreciation for applied research is viewed by the universities as a major flaw in the development work conducted by USAID. This current paradigm within USAID regarding the role of universities in development work is a “body shop” mindset - a notion that universities provide short- term technical assistance in pieces and parts rather than a consistent and respected project partner. Existing research has indicated that post-secondary academic alliances with governmental agencies with public/private corporations (Amey, 2007; Gray, 1996; Mohr 138 & Spekman, 1994) have gained popularity for a number of reasons, but very little has been researched about their sustainability and the sustainability of their work. There seems to be solid evidence as to the reasons why organizations enter into partnerships, otherwise known as “joining” (Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2007) and the fundamental differences in organizational culture is understood (Amey, 2007; Amey et al., 2007; Cyert & Goodman, 1997; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). In addition, much of the literature regarding characteristics of systems explains the process-oriented elements of partnerships. Despite these well-researched areas, many partnerships fail. In particular, the university-USAID partnership has seen its fair share of insoluble dilemmas and unexpected twists of fate (Bratton, 1990; Moseley, 2007). The key element that seems to be missing in the university-USAID collaboration is mutual appreciation for the strengths and capacity each organization brings to the partnership. Gray (1989) views collaboration as the process by which parties who see the world differently search for solutions that go beyond their individual perspectives. She says “Collaboration transforms adversarial interactions into a mutual search for information and for solutions that allow all those participating to insure that their interests are represented” (p. 7). Collaboration implies interdependency and joint ownership of decisions. Although not always initiated in a collegial fashion, Gray argues that collaboration involves problem solving, direction setting, and implementation, thereby amounting to a fairly logical approach to addressing organizational needs (Amey et al., 2007). Throughout the partnership experience described in this study, the lack of institutional understanding was demonstrated. The closed nature of USAID prevents the 139 agency from reflecting on what its external stakeholders are saying about the effectiveness of their work and the needs of the countries where they work. The research findings in this theme concur with the literature; organizational partnerships such as the university-USAID collaboration can benefit individual as well as the broader development communities (Cyert & Goodman, 1997). On the one hand, mutual appreciation and institutional understanding can help development experts see beyond the dilemmas that frustrate alliance success. At the same time, an equalized partnership poses new challenges because the project and its tasks are no longer in alignment with the aforementioned body shop mindset. Under this equalized partnership model there is encouragement and support of the institutional boundary spanner to create authentic relations for both the university and USAID, where trust is built and transparency is infused in the project work (Saranson, 1998). Boundary spanning in an upward and horizontal direction enables universities and USAID to understand their discrete organizational differences, but boundary spanning in a downward direction provides a fuller understanding of the success or failure of local partnership interventions that enable more effective development work to occur (Gladwell, 2002). The research literature provides evidence that the boundary spanner model has the potentiality for strong, sustainable partnerships to form; in addition this model provides a road map for organizational change based on environmental input. However, this is not seen among the partnerships between the three universities and USAID in this study. There were attempts by the universities to pilot this model in their PFID work, but the efforts were not officially recognized by USAID. 140 Organizational and philosophical barriers that prohibit international development work Findings from this study indicate that the organizational structure and philosophy of US. universities and USAID have a negative impact on creating successful partnerships between these two organizations, as well as the international development work that they complete. Interview participants highlighted structural barriers that they perceived to be prohibitive to the university-USAID partnership, and identified structural barriers at their own institutions that decreased the effectiveness of international development work. The biggest organizational barriers in USAID cited by the universities are: 1) the short timeline for project delivery, 2) outcome monitoring and evaluation that is irrelevant and a poor measurement of development, and 3) the inconsistency in core funding from USAID. USAID in being held accountable to Congressional mandate is not authorized to fund any project more than 10 years. USAID has further restricted its funding mechanism to a three to five year timeframe. Under this conceptualization projects are re-competed every three to five years; in this way the current contracting institution may be unseated from the project and a new contracting institution will pick up the funding. There are multiple reasons why USAID chooses this means of delivery. Most often this protocol allows USAID to ensure outcomes that it deems satisfactory, rather than working closely with its partners to communicate and modify work plans to bring about mutually agreed upon outcomes. The findings of this study indicate that key project personnel from the university and USAID officials believe that this mechanism negatively impacts development goals, those goals being: to promote science-based legal, regulatory and policy frameworks for international trade in food products; to adapt and 141 apply food processing and marketing technologies to create value-added projects; and to improve food product safety and quality. Most emphatically, the faculty members participating in this study stated that it is impossible for the development goals to be accomplished in five years, which leaves their in-country partnerships in jeopardy because those relationships take time to cultivate and build trust. Without this time and space the university (or any other US. development partner) loses credibility in the eyes of their in-country partners. This not only makes the current project extremely difficult to implement but it places road blocks in the way of future U.S. entities thus perpetuating the debilitating economic environments in the developing world. Linked to Congressional mandates and regulations is the perception held by the interviewed university faculty members that the expected outcomes imposed by USAID are too ambitious for the timeframe given for the project work, and they are largely irrelevant for the context in which the work is being done. According to the university participants, the indicators deemed significant by USAID do not tell a relevant story of what is happening in the field because of the project programming and interventions. They suggest that these indicators provide a story of numbers that are ea3ily defended when shown to Congress. Further, these numbers are immediate and they can be depicted as having great scope. Generally, the PF ID project provides numbers of attendees of training programs and their complimentary demographic information. This reporting mechanism and lack of analysis prevents USAID partners from reviewing performance indicators that have comprehensive meaning and determinants that the program has had a positive sustainable impact on the local citizens. These more comprehensive types of indicators are not immediately tangible; it takes time for these data to become I42 institutionalized, and some element will always remain dynamic. Understanding the gap between implementation plans and the actual operations can be difficult and, because they are dynamic, a continuous review is important for consequential adjustments in targets of analysis. This does not fit into a five—year project timeframe. There is a gap in the monitoring and evaluation component of the PFID project as there is no opportunity for monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the university-USAID partnership, nor the effectiveness of the partnership among the three implementing universities. Monitoring and evaluation specific to the partnership approach and process includes the informal aspects of governance, the role of intermediaries, the partnership’s added value, and outgrowths of partnership work. The synergistic results of partnership work are very difficult to articulate and measure: What did the partnership produce that the individual organizations acting independently could not have attained or produced (Brinkerhoff, 2002)? Synergistic contributions often relate to building social capital, organizational capacity, and other multipliers. Synergistic results are rarely fully articulated and measured and it may be impossible to do so in a quantitative way, but efforts to specify these advantages are important to promoting and learning fi'om partnership approaches. Building from the literature, partnership effectiveness can be gauged by the extent to which the partnership reflects known success factors. Whipple and Frankel (2000) surveyed business leaders in the food, health and personal care industries regarding their conceptions of alliance success factors. Of a list of 18 factors generated from an extensive literature review, they found general consensus around five (though the ordering of these varied). These five factors were: trust, senior management support, ability to meet performance expectations, clear goals, and partner I43 compatibility. In this study the PFID project participants were asked what they thought were the three most important characteristics for successful, long-term organizational partnerships. In no particular order, here are the most referenced terms: by trust, communication, project/partnership impact, and collaboration. It is then in the best interest of US. universities and USAID to work together on strengthening and institutionalizing these success factors. Too often project delivery expectations do not align with the elements of effective partnerships defined in earlier sections of this study. The third organizational barrier cited by the university participants is the lack of core-funding stability from USAID. Faculty member participants indicate that this inconsistency is very disruptive to their project effectiveness. Co-coneeptualizing a work plan with the in-country partners, only to learn a few months after it has been submitted to USAID that the project will not receive the funds initially obligated, negatively impacts the in-country partnership as well as the effectiveness of the work. The budget cuts have had an impact on partner trust because the funding is not there to carry out planned activities, thus making it necessary to scale back the overall scope of the project to adjust for the decrease in obligated funding. The structural barriers within the universities are equally, if not more prohibitive than those within USAID. Two of the most prominent challenges that face U.S. universities in conducting international development work are: 1) faculty incentives for conducting international work, and 2) the deficient capacity of grants administration units on campuses rendering the university and faculty principal investigators unable to be responsive to donor agency requests. 144 There are few faculty incentives in place at the university to foster motivation and participation in international development. The institution’s expectation that faculty will seek external funding, conceptualize the project, travel on a regular basis to the project sites - all while maintaining a full teaching and research load - is an unfortunate reality for the faculty participants in this study. Beyond being able to balance faculty life, some faculty members receive little to no support from their academic disciplines to engage in international development work. Relatively little value is placed on the outreach component and potential scholarship that results. The faculty members interviewed stated that incentive programs have not evolved with the increased institutional interest in interdisciplinary work among faculty. The findings of this study are in direct correlation to the research on incentives and their impact on partnerships. The literature indicates that the relative emphasis and content of tangible and intangible motivators will influence the type of individuals recruited to the partnership, the depth and source of their commitment, and the ability to retain them (Brinkerhoff, 2002). Faculty members seek tangible incentives such as a reduction in their teaching load, a partial return of the indirect cost recuperated by the academic home of the faculty member, which ultimately reached the individual faculty rather than benefiting the whole department and payment of summer salary. Tangible rewards demonstrate that organizations value skills and individual contributions. However, given the additional work and potential stress that partnership work can entail, material rewards are not always sufficient and may be detrimental to the institutional mission if not properly balanced with intangible incentives (Brinkerhoff, 2002). 145 A primary means to promote intrinsic motivation in the partnership context is to institutionalize and add value to the internationalization of campus. All of the study universities are in the midst of large internationalization programs and subsequently campus administrators are attempting to shift the mindset of faculty and students to one of global awareness. As an open system, the university must also enculturate their external stakeholders to this new organizational philosophy. A piece of the internationalization puzzle is the university-USAID partnership. Partnership incentive programs require socialization investments that orient faculty and staff to the partnership’s objectives and values. Promoting an environment where international work is a valued aspect of tenure/promotion regulations and expectations, will motivate faculty to approach their responsibilities in new and innovative ways. For example, the findings of this study showed that faculty members would seek out international research that is interdisciplinary in nature rather than as a single investigator when they feel supported and see the value in peer collaboration. The second finding of this study shows that the grants administration units on two of the campuses are unable to manage the workload generated by external grant awards. One of the concerns USAID has in partnering with US. universities is their inability to be responsive to agency requests in a timely manner. This concern is generated in part by the difficulty USAID and faculty investigators experience with the contracting and grant administration units on campus. The increased pressure on faculty to generate external dollars that support their work combined with the GDA funding mechanism has also placed increased pressure on the grants administration units on the three campuses studied. The GDA model of funding necessitates a large number of sub-contracts with 146 private sector partners all of whom require the grant administration unit to review and approve the contract. The findings of this study indicated that two universities’ grant administration units were not adequately prepared to handle the increased flow of work. The open systems literature provides an understanding of the importance of an organizational system’s transformation in a time of growth and change (Katz and Khan, 1978). As an organization or social system grows, it must develop five sub-systems that represent differentiation of activities for survival. The interaction of these sub-systems requires integration and ensures that the system is greater than the sum of its parts. Building on Talcott Parsons’ Theory of Action and its four components of a social system (goal attainment, maintenance, integration, and adaptation), Katz and Khan (1978) offered a framework that can be applied to the study of partnership. Organizations must transform inputs into 1) a production or technical sub-system (e.g., international development and partnership development activities); 2) boundary spanning structures to facilitate exchanges with external organizations (e.g., the procurement function to obtain materials or the liaison function to maintain relations); 3) maintenance to hold the social structure together by reducing variability (e.g., cultural norms, values, beliefs and trust); 4) adaptive structures to respond to changing environmental demands (e.g., planning, environmental scan, and feedback systems); and 5) managerial sub-systems (e.g., control, coordination, directing, regulatory mechanisms, and authority structure) (Katz and Kahn, 1978). As a part of the adaptive sub-system, a negative feedback loop involves goal-oriented behavior and acts through self-correction to maintain equilibrium and stability in a changing environment. A positive feedback loop leads to instability and to change for organizational survival (Katz and Khan, 1978). I47 Nature of the relationship between US. universities and USAID To fully understanding the university-USAID partnership, it is important to have a sense of the context in which the partnership exists. The findings that emerged from this study indicated that the participants consider the organizational mission a significant driver of the university-USAID partnership. The original mission of land-grant universities is teaching, research and outreach. Many of the faculty members interviewed acknowledged that the mission of the university has changed and made more complex by the addition of multiple missions. The findings further demonstrated that there is a connection between the international work that the university engages in, the preparation of the university’s students, a university’s accountability to its stakeholders and the mission guiding the institution. The findings point to the research-intensive element of all three institutions as a notable shift in the mission. The applied integration of international development research and project work into organizational missions has enabled higher education institutions to become more acutely aware of the role of the US. in the world and in the lives of their students. This awareness seems to be moving all three universities in this study to intemationalize their campuses. Because each institution defines campus internationalization differently, the philosophy and organizational structure embodied was different at each. The findings of this study support the theoretical claim that universities are open systems in that they adapt and change because of input from their stakeholders. In this particular piece, the cue came from the employers of the graduates from these institutions. The employers’ indication that graduates needed a more global awareness skill set has been heard on these campuses, who are now responding to this 148 need through the integration of their international work. More directly related to this study is the impact university work with USAID has had on the organizational missions. The shift in the land-grant mission from one of teaching and outreach to a focus on research is not in alignment with the current financial deficit that state universities find themselves in. This decrease in funding has solidified the obligation of faculty members to generate external funding. The findings in this study indicate that faculty members engaged in international research and development work look to federal agencies, like USAID at a time when funding flowing from federal agencies to universities has diminished. This study looked at the PFID project as a successful model for generating external funds for the university as well as generating long-term relationships with public and private sector partners in the host countries. The findings indicate that project personnel find the GDA mechanism to be a better method of conducting international development work, as it allows for sustainable programming to be implemented, and it is designed in such a way that applied scholarship having a positive contribution to aCademic and donor communities was also generated. However, in order to avoid the “shelving” of this scholarship, USAID must open the agency to the idea that it can enhance its development priorities, and ultimately, generate more effective outcomes that are both responsive to Congress and relevant to the host country needs. The conflict of the organizational structures-the open vs. closed system model-is prominently demonstrated in this discussion of the usefulness of applied research. USAID as a closed organizational system and impenetrable to its external environment, defines its 149 boundaries with an emphasis on the internal organization, which is self-reinforcing and independent of environmental impacts. In summary, this study confirmed partnerships between land-grant universities and USAID have the potential to generate effective and sustainable development in host countries of the developing world. It also confirmed that the current organizational design, philosophy and mission are not structured in such a way that international development work is completed in an effective and efficient manner that is mutually beneficial to both partners. The findings collected from this study added to the literature by providing a better understanding of how focusing on partnership formation and evaluation by universities and USAID impacted the work of the partnership. The study also provided an understanding how the participants’ engagement in the PF ID project affected their perceptions of organizational barriers and compatibility. Specifically, the data collected in this case study reveal that from the perspective of the participants of this partnership the GDA model of project development was more conducive to university participation than other project models experienced. The participants regarded the need for a better understanding of partner organizations as a significant determinant of the future success of the university-USAID partnership. The PF 1D project provided these organizations with the opportunity to create long-term relationships with host-country partners that otherwise may have been impossible to forge. The notion that the university can serve as a neutral boundary spanner for USAID was perhaps more significant in the minds of the faculty member participants than the USAID participants; it nonetheless provides a platform for future investigation, discussion, and modeling. 150 Implications Although three case studies cannot provide a solid foundation for the development and implementation of all university—USAID partnerships, this study would suggest that partnerships between universities and USAID have the potential to be an effective and efficient means to support the development needs of host countries. Collaboration between a university and USAID has the potential to be a powerful instrument to support the development needs of host country recipients of foreign assistance. Because of the efforts of the designers of the PFID partnership, LSU, MSU, and Rutgers, along with USAID offered to provide a program that addressed the need for sustainable development interventions in the agribusiness sector of several developing countries. The PF ID project design provides a potential platform for USAID and universities to reflect on how they engage in their work, assess the trends in foreign assistance that have allowed ineffective development programming to take place, and how they have historically factored into this work. In the case of the land-grant university, much reflection needs to occur on the university’s role in development work with USAID. Critical questions that need to be addressed are: ° Does this work align with our organizational mission? 0 Will the partnership with USAID enhance or maintain our reputation of being a fair and neutral collaborator in the developing world? 0 How can the institution provide an internal infrastructure that supports faculty members’ pursuit of this grant funding? 151 The university-USAID partnership in the context of the PFID project was successful because of several factors. First, the participants perceived that the program was designed to address the specific needs of the agriculture sector in select countries. The university project personnel were given the latitude by USAID to seek their host country partners and build the relationship based on existing strengths in the country. Additionally, the project design called for the thrust of project activity to come from the in-country project team with backstop or intellectual support from the US. universities. Despite the above success factors there are several challenges the PFID project generated that are also applicable to university partnerships with USAID beyond the scope of PF ID. First, USAID’s demonstration of power negates the partnership. Unless there is institutional understanding among partners, decision-making and project delivery will be ineffective. USAID’s connection to Congress causes significant disruptions in the delivery of development programs. Further this relationship between USAID and Congress bind us, almost irrevocably, to development approaches that do not make sense. This model of doing external development is inappropriate, yet universities, as partners with USAID, are instructed to take direct action; that is, to plan, justify, budget, and ‘do’ things in measurable project-sized bites. Money has increasingly become the driver rather than the fuel for universities to engage in international development work. This quest for money has in essence commodified the mission and goals of US. universities, as well as USAID. This commodification has reinforced the idea of the direct-action project. Such abstractions as the idea of research informing institution—building does not sell well to Congress; to sell development requires something bite-sized. In the world of US. foreign assistance, universities need to be accountable for what they sell, so the project - with its 152 work plan and other mechanisms of seeming finite and achievable - fits well with the bite-size imperative, but it does not achieve host country development. The moral basis from which we initially derived our desire to offer development assistance has narrowed into a politically correct urgency to alleviate poverty right now. That, in turn, drives USAID’s, and ultimately Congress’, foreign assistance priorities. But this urgency for solutions contradicts the most widely determined lessons universities have learned — development takes time. The pride of research universities is their ability to think methodically, clearly, and rigorously about important issues then translate that knowledge into application for the general population: Additionally, universities approach challenges that need definition and solutions in a way that connects to the external environment, and is experimental and politically neutral in nature. Hence, there is a significant need for university administrators, faculty and stakeholders to reflect on their institutional mission, their organizational strengths and weaknesses to decide if the partnership with USAID really accomplishes their international development goals. If academia serves to offer its students the opportunity for personal growth and awareness then should it not model those characteristics in its own practice? To take the internationalization initiative on these campuses a step further in the context of international development work with USAID, campus administrators must examine how institutions the size and scope of LSU, MSU, and Rutgers, will be able to offer international experiences to their students. Engaging more faculty members in international research may provide more learning opportunities for students. This is an important consideration since study abroad alone will not enable academic institutions to reach their internationalization goals. 153 The university should also consider what support mechanisms are in place internally for faculty members who are either currently engaged in international work or are considering it. Evaluating the service units on campus to see if they have the capacity to support faculty endeavors is critical. In the case studies described herein, two of the universities did not have the appropriate internal infrastructure in place to administer the PFID project. This caused unnecessary stress on the faculty members involved in leading the project, not to mention prohibited their ability to work effectively in the host countries. Cross-campus dialogue regarding best practices needs to occur and new models of service need to be adopted on campuses. These models must be mindful of budget constraints and campus culture and climate, but administrators must keep in mind that there are transaction costs for doing business, and while they can be reduced research . cannot be done for free. Finally, universities must set international goals for the institution that are attainable and diverse. As universities think about their current strengths and weaknesses they must be mindful that there are foreign assistance trends that will have a profound impact on the nature of the institutional work around the globe. It is unlikely that USAID will undergo a full systemic restructuring that will cause it to act as an open system that would make it more responsive to the structure of US. universities. This study indicates that the incompatibility of these two organizations leave little chance that their collaboration will be successful. USAID is not however the only donor agency by which US. universities can partner. U.S. universities must diversify their funding portfolio among other federal agencies, as well as private corporations and foundations, in an effort to generate 154 consistent funding for interventions and research in the developing world. This type of strategic planning takes time at all university levels and must be transparent in nature. Faculty members must think of their international work in a proactive manner rather than reacting to solicitations for funding. It also means that in order for an institution’s reputation and active research to look attractive to potential donors it must be multidisciplinary in nature. Faculty members must be given the space, encouragement and support to come together in working groups to discuss their ideas and co-create research agendas. Integrated approaches to international development work are sustainable and effective; they will speak to potential donors in ways that single investigator proposals cannot. Additionally, this multidisciplinary approach will enable faculty member working groups to leverage funding from many different sources. Positing this research in the reality of three case studies has the advantage of generating findings that were formed in the stark world of practice, rather than in scholarly debate. The practice of philosophy is quite different than those who modify and transform universities. Most philosophers do not concern themselves with budgets, funding, legislative mandates in developing academic institutions. They do worry about logical consistency, convincing others, and producing an adequate set of claims. This study is primarily for the benefit of university administrators — especially large research universities — who are faced with an endless set of emergencies, crises, and reorganizations. They have little time to reflect on the consistencies of their views and actions. They utilize a reconstructed logic, rather than logic in use (Kaplan, 1964). It is significant in this case to remember President Eisenhower’s farewell address, quoted 155 below, that warns of the need to avoid both the domination of university faculty by money and the capture of public policy by scientific-technological elite; Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we - you and I, and our government - must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own case and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the 1033 also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the 156 insolvent phantom of tomorrow (Eisenhower, 1961). The university-USAID partnership has the potential to dominate universities through financial inputs. This does not enhance the critical inquiry necessary to sustain democracy. Recommendations for further research The place and role of US. land-grant universities (LGU) international development projects and research is in need of reexamination. As state funding continues to dwindle and LGUs redefine their identity in an effort to remain relevant to their stakeholders the task of securing funding for international development work will become increasingly more difficult. In an effort to address this difficulty, there has been an emergence of university partnerships with various donor organizations. To date, one of the most financially productive partnerships has been that with USAID. However, the financial procurement does not ensure relevant and effective collaborations. Therefore it is essential that the partnerships are intentionally designed and implemented to be most beneficial to the host countries, as well as mutually benefitting universities and USAID beyond the contract. Although there has been research on international development partnerships and the potential for these partnerships is powerful, there seems to be the need for additional research to delve into this area. From the body of research considered in this research project, the following are recommendations for further research in the area of international development partnerships that should be considered. By framing this case study within the parameters of the social and political context of the university-USAID partnership and the participant’s perceptions of organizational barriers that prohibit this partnership, the scope was narrow. If researching 157 this type of partnership again, I would broaden the scope of the project to take into account other areas to get a bigger picture. It would be of significance to delve into an analysis of the power dynamic that exists between USAID and its contracted entities, as well as examine a university partnership with a private corporation or foundation as a comparative mechanism, the impact of the role of the leaders of the university in the development, implementation, and efficacy of the program; or study another type of USAID funding mechanism (i.e., Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP)). The analysis of any of these areas would add depth and breadth to a study of external partnerships formed by universities. Another area that would benefit from additional research is the nature of the partnership among international assistance agencies and international universities. Specifically, how do universities partner with the United Kingdom Department for lntemational Development (DFID), the Agence Francaise de Dévelopement (AF D), or the Swedish lntemational Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)? The organizational structure of both the development agency and universities is likely to be different than USAID and the US. LGUs, thus their ability to collaborate and achieve development goals may serve as a possible model for the United States. Preliminary research indicates that the AF D funds faculty researchers for long-term projects; it is generally accepted that the faculty researcher can expect funding from AF D for the majority of his/her career if performance and need are maintained (Rioux, 2005). This comparative study might offer useful insights on how these international agencies value their university colleagues, if the partnership yields different development results, and how universities reconcile their development work with their stakeholders. 158 It would be beneficial to return to the same LGUs after five years to determine if there have been any changes in the organizational structures that have impacted their international development work, and to examine how their relationship has changed with USAID. It would be informative to determine how the faculty members engaged in the international research felt that their involvement with other USAID programs has impacted their research. Similarly, follow-up conversations at USAID in five years may yield information regarding changes in its organizational structure, shifts in the agency’s relationship with Congress, or .changes that took place as a result of a new executive administration. Concluding Remarks In 1949 President Harry S. Truman’s inaugural address outlined the Point Four program, a new attempt by the United States to aid developing nations in attaining modernization, economic growth, and development. Truman stated that the way forward was through development of human capacity: More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and the skill to relieve the suffering of these people. The United States is pre-eminent among nations in the development of industrial and scientific techniques. The material resources which we can afford to use for 159 the assistance of other peoples are limited. But our imponderable resources in technical knowledge are constantly growing and are inexhaustible. I believe that we should make available to peace-loving peoples the benefits of our store of technical knowledge in order to help them realize their aspirations for a better life. (Truman, 1956, p. 227). This was the birth of Point Four and in essence, the establishment of development assistance. About it, Truman says in his memoirs: “Point Four was conceived as a world wide, continuing program of helping underdeveloped nations help themselves through sharing of technical information already tested and proved in the United States. The principal item of expenditure would be the skill of our technicians teaching these people how to help themselves” (Truman, 1956, p. 232). The soundness of Truman’s vision after 50 years of development practice is the notion that we should transfer knowledge rather than money. It was with this notion in mind that the reader will have little difficulty recognizing strong elements of utilitarianism, pragmatism, and positivism in the US. land-grant university-USAID partnership in this case study. Partnership is a rational response to the complexity of international development assistance as it provides institutional partners an effective means for operationalizing, promoting, and providing socialization for the transfer of knowledge and implementation of sustainable development programs. The case studies presented demonstrate one mechanism of the university-USAID partnership in three different public universities, each of which is grappling with the constraints and opportunities posed by globalization, internationalization of its campuses, decreases in state funding and the expanding role for universities to engage in international development assistance. The study’s findings 160 indicated that global trends both necessitate and facilitate partnership approaches. The recognition of interdependencies, and associated conflict, assists previously disparate actors in finding common ground and shared concerns. Does this mean that partnership is universally good? The practical answer is no. Participants’ preferences will shape the selection of the partnership option, as well as its design and implementation. This study has also demonstrated that the university-USAID partnership requires substantial investments in effort and commitment. It is essential to justify these investments based on a shared belief in the partnership’s added value, which rests on its defining dimensions of mutuality and organizational identity. Only with such justification and belief will partners be sufficiently willing to make the necessary adaptations, share power, and be proactive in maintaining mutuality and protecting respective organizational identities. The knowledge I have gained in being a participant observer has increased my awareness of many things that 1 otherwise would have not recognized. The significance of human interactions and the feelings attached to those interactions have become much more apparent. This knowledge will remain important to me long after this dissertation is completed and I move on to new endeavors in my personal and professional life. 161 APPENDICES 162 APPENDIX A 163 APPENDIX A Interview Protocol for research universities: The objective of these interviews is to gather a broad range of perspectives of the nature of the University-USAID partnership. At this point in time I am not sure of the appropriate order of the questions and this is by no means a complete or refined list of questions. Type of partnership and where it is in its development: 1. What is the goal of this partnership? What international development need is it addressing? What is the time frame for accomplishing this goal? What activities, if any, were undertaken to determine the feasibility of the partnership? (e.g., assessing fit between goals and cultures in partner organizations; potential barriers identified; needs assessment; plan for partnership development in place) What are the three most important characteristics for successful, long-term organizational partnerships? What kind of agreement exists between your university and USAID? Please describe the structure of the partnership. To whom is the partnership accountable? Name any committees and their functions. Results of the partnership Development Process: 6. What barriers does your university face in participating in the partnership with USAID? (Personal characteristics of USAI D’s representatives, structural factors within USAID or environmental factors). I64 7. What are the main problems experienced by the partnership? How are problems resolved? (Problems include partnership relationships, leadership, adequate staff, decision making problems, inadequate finances and other resources, categorical grant requirements, incentives for staff to participate, trust among partners, community resistance, lack of authority from funding and other government agencies, and legal or regulatory problems. 8. What factors have facilitated development of the partnership? 9. Please describe any efforts that have been made to change/remove impediments created by external sources (e.g., requirements attached to firnding) — within the partnership? Within your university? What were the results? 10. Does the PFID partnership have its own identity that is recognized for its contribution to economic development in the host countries? If yes, how does your university recognize the partnership? The development community? The federal government? Implementation of the Partnership: 1 1. Please describe the structure of the partnership. To whom is the partnership accountable? 12. How are decisions in the partnership made? 13. What is your university’s motivation for participating? 14. Please describe the influences that affect what your organization can do in the partnership? (coercive [laws, funding sources], normative [professional norms, public opinion], or mimetic) How do they affect your organization? I65 Information and feedback for the partnership 15. How does the partnership monitor relevant events in its environment? 16. Overall, has your work with USAID changed how you think about international development work? If so, in what ways? University Mission: 17. In your opinion what is the most significant mission of your organization? 18. In what ways has collaboration affected the mission(s) at your academic institution? 19. From your perspective does the mission of your institution fit with the PFID project? 20. What barriers does your university face in participating in the partnership? (Personal characteristics of partners’ representatives, structural factors within the partner organization or environmental factors). 166 APPENDIX B 167 APPENDIX B Interview Protocol for US. Agency for International Development: The objective of these interviews is to gather a broad range of perspectives of the nature of the university-USAID partnership and to be able to assemble case study selection criterion. At this point in time I am not sure of the appropriate order of the questions and this is by no means a complete or refined list of questions. General understanding of the partnership and its goal(s): 1. What is the goal of this partnership? What international development need is it addressing? What is the time frame for accomplishing this goal? 2. Please describe the role of the partner universities in and their contribution to the partnership. What is your role? 13 your role described in your job description? Are there organizations that are missing from the partnership that would improve the partnership efforts? Implementation of the partnership: 3. How are decisions in the PFID partnership made? 4. Are there resources available for development of the partnership? What are they? Are they adequate? 5. How does USAID communicate with the partner universities? 6. What are the three most important characteristics for successful, long-term organizational partnerships? 7. How is the partnership with universities understood by internal stakeholders? External stakeholders? 168 Partnership development process: 8. What barriers does your organization face in participating in the partnership with these universities? 9. Overall, has your work with universities changed how you think about international development work? If so, in what ways? 10. What are the main problems experienced by the partnership? How are problems resolved? (Problems include recruitment and retention of partners, partnership relationships, leadership, adequate staff and decision making problems) 1 1. What factors facilitated development of the PF ID partnership? 12. Please describe any efforts that have been made to change/remove impediments created by external sources within the partnership? Within USAID? What were the results? 13. Does the partnership have its own identity that is recognized for its contribution to economic development in the host countries? If yes, how does USAID recognize the partnership? 169 APPENDIX C 170 APPENDIX C Consent Letter Dear Colleague, In recent years, the relationship between land-grant universities and governmental agencies, namely, USAID has been changing. New opportunities for collaboration between public and private institutions in the funding of research, the setting of research goals and the priorities of technological development have emerged. The examination of the collaborative partnership between land—grant universities and USAID is the basis of my dissertation research. I am requesting that you allow me to ask you questions about your understanding of this partnership and the outcomes of the related international development projects. Your permission to tape the interview is requested so that I may use the tape to aid in compiling detailed notes from the interview. I will be engaging in verbatim transcription of the interview and the tapes will be destroyed at the end of the study. No voice record will be maintained. The interview will take approximately one hour. My concern is with the nature of the partnership between USAID and land-grant universities and the elements required for its success. As such, I will not be asking any personal questions or requesting any private information. For this reason, and because I would like to report on the views and activities of a wide range of persons involved, I will consider your responses, unless you indicate otherwise, for the public record. They will therefore not be treated in a confidential manner. ' Of course, your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may feel free to withdraw from the interview, to skip and items or request that the recorder be turned off any time during the interview. Your help and cooperation would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions about the interview, feel free to contact my dissertation chair, Dr. Reitu Mabokela, 517-353-6676, mabokela@msu.edu. If you have questions about being a human subject of research please contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, the chair of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 517-355-2180. Sincerely, Gretchen Sanford Doctoral Candidate, Michigan State University Department of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education Your signature and date below indicates that you have read the above letter and indicate your agreement to participate in this study. Signature Full Name: Date: 171 APPENDIX D 172 Appendix D MSU units involved in international research and project work Unit Name Description Academic Affiliation Center for the Advanced Study for lntemational Development (CASID) CASID promotes and coordinates the study of issues related to international development from the perspective of the social sciences and liberal arts. CASID provides assistance to College of Social Science faculty seeking external funding for cross-unit, cross-disciplinary international development research and project activities in collaboration with the Office of lntemational Development and the Institute of lntemational Agriculture. College of Social Science Institute of lntemational Agriculture (11A) IIA provides a focal point for inter-departmental programs at MSU and engages faculty, students and industry partners through innovative programs around the world. The Institute is home to many of MSU's externally funded international development project activities in the areas of food, agriculture and natural resources. Through IIA, MSU's faculty open new vistas for collaborative research, offer College of Agriculture and Natural Resources 173 exciting new training programs for international scientists and other professionals both on campus and in developing countries, and extend our scientific expertise to improve the lives of impoverished populations of the developing world as well as those in communities and industries in Michigan. Institute of lntemational Health (IIH) The Institute of lntemational Health was established in January 1987 to marshal university resources to address problems of world health and to serve as a center for information on world health issues. The IIH facilitates faculty and student research and academic interests in international health and for international health projects overseas. The IIH works with the health-related colleges, as well as with social and agricultural scientists, nutritionists, and a variety of interdisciplinary units, to foster and coordinate research, education, and development at the international level. Collaboration with these units enhances the IIH's ability to approach world health issues from a multidisciplinary perspective by enabling College of Osteopathic Medicine 174 the Institute to draw expertise for its international operational requirements from many disciplines, providing inputs to the health sector in its broadest sense, from the medical sciences to nutrition and from the sociocultural correlates of health to the effects of the environment on human health. The IIH collaborates with MSU-affiliated community hospitals throughout the State of Michigan that are used for the clinical training of our medical students. These hospitals contribute health experts for IIH's overseas projects and hospital- based training for visiting foreign health professionals. lntemational Studies and Programs (ISP) ISP is a university-level office, headed by a dean, that supports and encourages international activities throughout the institution. Contained within ISP are offices with responsibilities for study abroad, international students and scholars, international development activities, and Peace Corps recruiting, as well as area studies centers focusing on Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe and Russia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Not officially linked to any college, has academic linkages to all 15 colleges on campus 175 ISP has strong ties to thematic international units across the campus focusing on international aspects of agriculture, business, education, gender, health, and languages, and works closely with the academic colleges. ISP is involved in international outreach activities with schools, government offices, businesses, and non- governmental organizations in Michigan and beyond and has developed a number of free international-content web-based resources for students, educators, and the wider public. Office of lntemational Development (OID) The focus of OID is to facilitate collaborative research efforts and develop multi-disciplinary projects. Since its inception in January 2000, OID has worked with faculty members and graduate students across campus to help advance MSU and collaborate on international development activities. OID bridges the gaps between MSU's various colleges and departments with colleagues throughout the world. OID works with all fifteen Colleges and Units across MSU's campus with an emphasis on cross-disciplinary projects with faculty from the Not officially linked to any college, has academic linkages to all 17 colleges on campus 176 College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the College of Veterinary Medicine, the College of Social Science, the College of Communication Arts and Sciences and the affiliated Centers and Institutes of lntemational Studies and Programs. Title VI Area Studies Centers The US. Department of Education (ED) formed Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs to support foreign language acquisition, area, and international studies at US. colleges and universities. Title VI primarily provides domestically based language and area training, research, and outreach while Fulbright-Hays supports on-site opportunities to develop these skills. Congress recognized the Title VI programs' critical contributions to national security prior to 9/11. In Section 601 Part A of the Higher Education Act as reauthorized in 1998, Congress found that: 0 The security, stability and economic vitality of the United States-in a complex global era depend upon American experts in and citizens knowledgeable about Not officially linked to any college, has academic linkages to all 15 colleges on campus I77 world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs, as well as upon a strong research base in these areas. Advances in communications technology and the growth of regional and global problems make knowledge of other countries and the ability to communicate in other languages more essential to the promotion of mutual understanding and cooperation among nations and their peoples. Dramatic post-cold War changes in the world's geopolitical and economic landscapes are creating needs for American expertise and knowledge about a greater diversity of less commonly taught foreign languages and nations of the world. MSU has African, Asian, Canadian, European and Russian/Eurasian, and Latin American/ Caribbean Studies Centers 178 REFERENCES 179 REFERENCES Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge. the university, and development. Greenwich: Alex Publishing Corporation. Amey, M. J. (Ed.). (2007). Collaorations across educational sectors (Vol. 139). Hoboken: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Amey, M. J ., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for partnership and collaboration in higher education. In M. J. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations across educational sectors (Vol. 139). Hoboken: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Anderson, J., & Narus, J. (1984). A model of distributors' perspective of distributor- manufacturer working relationships. Journal of Marketing, 54, 42-58. Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 26, 1-14. Beattie, B. R. (1991). Some almost-ideal remedies for healing land-grant universities. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(5), 1307-1321. Bennell, P. (1996). Rates of return on educationzDoes the conventional pattern prevail in Sub-Saharan Africa? World Development, 24(1), 183-199. Bernstein, R. J. (1976). The restructuring of social and political theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Berry, G. R. (2001). Telling stories - Making sense of the Environmental behaviour of chemical firms. Journal of management inquiry, 10, 58-73. Bhagwati, J. (2004). In defense of globalization. London: Oxford University Press. Birdsall, N., Levine, R., & Ibrahim, A. (2005). Toward universal primary education:lnvestments, incentives. and institutions. New York: UNDP. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2002). Qualitative researchfor education: A n introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bonnen, J. T. (1998). The land-grant idea and the evolving outreach university. In R. M. Lerner & L. A. K. Simon (Eds), University-community collaborations for the twenty-first century: Outreach to scholarship for youth and families (pp. 25-70). New York: Garland. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1971). Educational Research: An introduction (second ed.). New York: McKay. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1984). Educational research: An introduction (fourth ed.). New York: Sage. ‘ 180 Borys, B., & Jemison, D. B. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organizational combinations. The Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 234-249. Botchie, G., & Ahadzie, W. (2004). Poverty reduction efforts in Ghana: Skill development option. Legon: Centre for Social Policy Studies (CSPS)/Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER) University of Legono. Document Number) Boyce, M. (1995). Collective centering and collective sense-making in the stories and storytelling of on organization. Organizational Studies, I 6, 107-137. Brinkerhoff, J. (2002). Partnership for international development: Rhetoric or Results? Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Bratton, M. (1990). Academic analysis and US. economic assistance policy on Africa. Issue: A Journal of Opinion, 19(1), 21-37. Bryant, C. a. W. a. L. (1982). Managing development in the Third World. Boulder: Westview Press. Busch, L. (2006). External review of the University of Califomia-Berkley and Novartis. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Cyert, R. M., & Goodman, P. S. (1997). Creating effective university-industry alliances: An organizational learning perspective. Organizational Dynamics(Spring). Day, G., & Klien, S. (Eds). (1987). Cooperative behavior in vertical markets: The influence of transaction costs and competitive strategies. De Datta, S. K., Dillaha, T. A., & Williams, J. (2007). Trends in USAID support for C RSPs and other university involvement in US. foreign assistance. Paper presented at the The ASA-CSSA-SSSA lntemational Annual Meetings. Dill, D. D. (1982). The management of academic culture: Notes on the management of meaning and social integration. Higher Edcuation, I I . Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11-27. Eisenhower, DD. 1961. Farewell Address. Washington, DC 181 Enarson, H. (1989). Revitalizing the land-grant mission: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityo. Document Number) Fine, G. A. (1984). Negotiated orders and organizational cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 239-262. F irebaugh, F.M.. (2002). Land Grant University Missions-Why Bother Now? William Henry Hatch Memorial Lecture for 2002. NASULGC. Chicago. Fore, H. (2007). A new consensus in international development. US. Department of State. Garilao, E. (1987). Indigenous NGOs as strategic institutions: Managing the relationship with government and resource agencies. World Development. 15, 1 l3-121. Geindzier, I. (1985). Managing political change: Social scientists and the Third World Boulder: Westview Press. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gray, B. (Ed.). (1996). Cross-sectoral partners: Collaborative alliances among business, government and communities. London: Sage. Griffin, K. (1974). The political economy of agrarian change: An essay on the green revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Healy, J., & Robinson, M. (1992). Democracy, governance and economic policy: Sub- Saharan Africa in comparative perspective. London: Overseas Development Instituteo. Document Number) Hoe, S. L. . 2006. The boundary spanner's role in organizational learning: unleashing untapped potential. Development and Learning in Organizations. 20. 5. p. 9-11. Hoffman-Johnson, G. (2007). Seamless transition in the twenty-first century: Partnering to survive and thrive. In M. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations across educational sectors (Vol. 139). Hoboken: Wiley Periodicals. hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston: South End Press. Huber, G., & Daft, R. (Eds). (1987). The information environment of organizations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 182 Kaplan, A. 1964. The conduct of inquiry. Scranton. Chandler. Kanter, R. M. (Ed.). (1988). The new alliances: How strategic partnerships are - reshaping americna business. New York: University Press of America. Katz, D., & Khan, KL. (1978). The social psychology of organizations, 2"d Edition. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Kelderman, E. (2009) College press new ideas as they brace for bumpy state-budget sessions. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 55, 18 (A18). Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kharas, H. (2007). Trends and issues in development aid. Washington, DC Brookings Institutiono. Document Number) King, K., Palmer, R., & Hayman, R. (2004). Bridging research and policy on education, training and their enabling environments. London: Development Studies Associationo. Document Number) Kinscheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138-157). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Lancaster, C., & Van Dusen, A. (2005). Organizing US foreign aid: Confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Brookings. Leach, M., & Mearns, R. (Eds). (2005). Environmental change & policy: Challenging received wisdom in Africa. Oxford: James Curry. Leahy, P. (1992) The future of foreign aid: Views fiom the top. Letter reprinted in Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management Journal. Winter 1992/93 pg. 33-36. Leshner, A. (2002). Science and susainability. Science, 297(9), 897. Lipset, S.M., Trow, M., & Coleman, J. (1956). Union democracy: The inside politics of the international typographical union. New York: Free Press. LSU. 2005. First Semi-Annual Report Phase II, Partnership for Food Industry Development: A U.S./Ukrainian/Moldovan/Georgian/Azeri/Nicaraguan/South African Partnership January lS-June 30, 2005 Madden, K. (1995). Householder' experience of 'save the environment' messages. Australian Journal of Communication(22), 82-102. 183 Martinussen, J. (1997). Society, state, & market: A guide to competing theories of development. Halifax: Femwood Publishing. Matthews, D. (2007). Personal communication with program officer. In Sloan Foundation (Ed.). New York. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McMichael, P. (2004). development and social change: A global perspective (third ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Middleton, J. (1985). Evaluation in World Bank education projects: Lessonsfrom three case studies. Washington DC: World Bank. Miles, M., & Huberrnan A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135-152. Morrow, R., & Brown, D. D. (1994). Critical theory and methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Moseley, W. (2007). Collaborating in the field, working for change: Reflecting on partnerships between academics, development organizations and rural communities in Africa. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 28, 334-347. Moyo, D. (2009). Everybody knows it doesn't work. Interview with Aida Edemariam of the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/19/dambisa—moyo- dead-aid-africa; interview accessed March 7, 2009. Ottaway, D. (1989). Foreign Aid largely a failure, a US. report says. The Washington Post. February, 21, 1989. p. A5. Palmer, R. (2005). Beyond basics: Post basic education, training and poverty reduction in Ghana. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Peters, S. J ., & Lehman, K. P. (2002). The quick hitch, organizing for public scholarship in southeast Minnesota. Cornell: Cornell University, Department of Education. 184 Phase II AWP-South Afi'ica. 2005. Partnership for Food Industry Development-Meat, Seafood and Poultry: Phase II Annual Work Plan. Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, LA Phase II AWP-Nicaragua. 2005. Partnership for Food Industry Development-Meat Seafood and Poultry: Phase II Annual Work Plan. Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, LA. Powell, W. (1987). Hybrid organizational arrangements: New form or transitional development. California Management Review, 30(1), 67-87. Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press. Read, H. (1974). Partners with India: Building agricultural universities. Urbana: University of Illinois. Reid, S., de Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy frontend of new product development for discontinuous innovations: A theoretical model. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 21 (3), 170-84. Rhodes, F. H. T. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American university. New York: Cornell University Press. Rioux, 1.8. (2005). The influence of Le Monde coverage on French foreign aid allocations. lntemational Studies Quarterly. 49(3). 481—502. Roper, L. (2002). Achieving successful academic-practitioner research collaborations. Development in Practice, 12(304), 338-345. Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth: A non-Communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rothe, P., J. (1993). Qualitative research: A practical guide. Heidelberg: ON: RCI/PDE Publications. Rubin, H. J ., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousands Oaks: Sage. Sachs, J. D. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. London: Penguin. Sarnoff, J ., Sebante, E. M., & Dembele, M. (2003). Scaling up by focusing down: Creating space to expand education reform. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Association for the Development of Education in Africa. Sarason, S.B., Lorentz, EM. (1998). Crossing boundaries: Collaboration, coordination, and the redefinition of resources. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. 185 Schultz, T. (1981). Investing in people: The economics of population quality. Berkely: University of California Press. Steier, F. (2003) The Changing Nexus: Tertiary Education Institutions, the Marketplace and the State. Higher Education Quarterly. 57(2), 158-180. Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (Eds). (1993). Postmodernism and critical theory in higher education: Implications for research and practice. New York: Agathon. Truman, H. (1956). Years of trial and hope, vol. 2 of memoirs. Garden City, NY. Double-day. United States Agency for International Development. (2006). Implementation of Title X I]: Report to the Board on International Food and Agricultural Development Washington DC: USAID. United States Agency for lntemational Development. (2007). Retrieved January 1, 2008, 2007, from www.usaid.ov/about_usaid Uphoff, N., F emades, E., Long-ping, Y., Peng, J ., Sebastein, R., & Rabenandrasana, J. (2002, April 1-4). Assessments of the System of Rice Instensification (SR1). Paper presented at the lntemational Conference, Sanya, Chinga. USAID. (2006). ADS Chapter 102: Agency Organization. USAID/ALO. (2005) Working with USAID. Powerpoint accessed from the web: http://www.aascu.org/ALO/Synergy/Synergy2005/usaid.pdf. Accessed on 2/14/09. USAID Policy. (2007) Mission and Organizational Structure. http://www.usaid.gov/policy/afrO7/mda_0200.html. Accessed on 2/14/09. van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Vivian, J. (1994). NGOs and sustainable development in Zimbabwe: No magic bullets. Development and Change, 25, 181-209. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense making in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 186 Wheeler, D. L. (2007, November 23). US. Agency to Strengthen University Partnerships. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 54, 13 http://chronicle.com/weekIy/v54/i13/13a02502.htm. Whipple , J.M. & Frankel, R. Strategic alliance success factors. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36, 3, 21-28. Williamson, 0. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press. Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research on Lanaguage and Social Interaction, 32, 185-193. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science quarterly, 17, 229-239. 187 l| lair 62 3 1293 030 l s E R A R m L v- H S R E w N U E T A TI 5 N A m H m M . ... ... . .. on .n o . .. . . u . .. I I . s . . . u . . . a I . . . w e a s .. . . . . . . .. . I o . c . . .. . . . . o . . c . r .... . . . . . . ... .. . a . ... . . . o . n . ... . . . . . . . a. .. .a. u . up . .o . .- .. I o O ‘ - ne'- . n n. -. Q a . .. .. . 1 . n . 1 . .. . . ... . ... .- o u . u o. n . . . 4. a . .. . . . . n n I. I . i p a u - .. . o n .. .. at .. I - . . .. n . n s . I . .u . . ... . ... . o u . s . .. I In! - - n a . l n a .1 . . . ... . u . L . - o O .u - O D - tr. . . r. e O .u u . I - O .... . . .. .. ... . o n o e p ..I. o .. .n . . I I... a . ... . .. . . . O n u l u .- I... . . ... . . . . . .l. .. .. r . n. .. . s . . . . . . no . .. . ... an‘. I V o . . ... . .. ... . ... . . . .. v... 0 .. . not I. Q no... V .. .. o . . . . . . .3. . . ... . i. u- . o. n. n .I ... n .‘ no ... . . o. .. . . n . ... . I .0 n . v . .o . . . v. . . o I o v . '0 \ u I. ..a . . .. I ... i I .. . .... . nu. . ..J. . .... . I l w 1.. c a. .. . .. - . ..