. . . . I . .. 70 4 . . - :Jg...—:._ .u. . de.p".a.......0}3»n\flu 1.10.. 0- .. ...: .... p ......1: . .. . : . - . 0 . 4- ‘00 I ’ .. . 0.30.0 a o 0 .. _. 0'... «0.0- 0 .10... 0 ... .. 0‘0 . a . .0. .0. 0 ’00. .o .060}. ... . 0.000... . .. I ..t a ...0‘0. .00.} ll ..00. . 1. . II . I. I . v: .3030?! fl 0 .... J0 .. 0 ...... .0. 0.. am. 0.. .0. .40... . . 3 . 00..§‘ 4.. .0... .000 .f 5. .6. . 0.... 05“.. . f .... . . . v. . ... 10:20.. I II I 0... ...m... 0 . . ..... .In . a ...:‘t. . .11! I. . . - .38.... o l 00 0. . . 9.00....\.......3 ....«X«I..0.0 . .4 .0 0.. .. I .0 .. $7.. . .0. o 000 307.037. .0 .0.. .. 0.... I... . . . .. . . .. ......0. .. I .... .......-. . 0.. . 0. . .0..- . . ..u. . . 1 .w 41 w .....t... ... . I .... ... ...1. 3.1.0.... .. .... .. , 0..-.0 .0 .... 3.....T: 3.40. .. ..n: ...... .. .. 0. 0 0. ...! .... .... .. ... 0... I. . . . 0.... . . . .. . . .-. . ._ . . : ... . . ..0. . . .. ...: . . ...IJ..I. . 0.0. .0. l.P.-0..:. I. 00 £000.. 0..U3~. 0.- .. .. 0. . .Il0I00 . . .30 . . .. .06... . 3.0.0.0543 i . .0 . I I . 1 . .. .0. .. ...... . ... . .. .00 .. I. ... .0. I .. I. . . ...... .. . . .0.. .. “.10. 0 0.3;.3... 0. I00. .. .. .. -30.. ...-0, 0 .7 . 00.0.00..!. I 01.....2: . 0 . 1.00 000. .0 0 ‘.... 000 .10 . . I 00! ... ‘0. . . . . .. T . . - 0. . . .... 0 I ... . . I .. .w ..I? I1. . .50.. to ... FF 0| .0“ in. .300. .8 .0. .9. 0 J00. o 0 .")0F« 0 ."0... ..0 ...;0. 0.... 0. t 0.... .. .03. ... . ..(I... . . .0 .... I .0... . 4. 0 0 . . . ...; 0 .-. 0 .. . ... . - . .. 0.3... .. 0 . 000. .. .... f . . 0 . 000 .0, . 0 0:3 fr“... :0 . 0* ‘Q1 .01”. 0. 0w a 0390.09.10. . 0 U. 19‘: k 0.0.0000 .0.». .0 l. .0... 0.. o. .. . ‘6 0 .. . 0 0 0 . . .. . 0. . . . I 0.0 . ... . 00 . .0 (I ...0 ...x. . ...: .. . ... . 2...}..- . ... ....0 .... 0 .010 , 400...; .0 1.0.0. 10...... . .000 ...... (0.. .11! 0 . 03. ,. _. .00... W. .0... ..... .I .00. .... ... 0. 00.00 . 0 . . . ... .....3 ... . . v. ...6 . 0- 0 0 . . .0. . .. ... «In t... - . . .02.: A:f.. 0.. 0.0 I. '0 00.) . ‘0... .. . .. ..C.’ 00.20.00 ..- :1?! ... . 2.91.... .0 . “$0.. .0- .. . 0 . 01.... .00 . 0:0 .030 .0.. 00.9.0.0... 0..... .00.... . . ..0000. .1. 00 I... ..0. ... . - 0. .. .. 2..., . . . . ......... .31.. 0 .0.... . . Mu- lt.’ .. Jito‘o I. :00‘0. 0.0.1.00 00 ‘.I-0...0 53’00 JA.I. I0'0: 00. . ,. . I . _ .00? .0. 0.0.0200. 0.,I2 .. .0.0 «00.. J I 0... . 0 000...... . . 0.0 . . 01010.. . , 0. - .0.. . v 0. ... Q0 . .0... ...v. 000.. .7 0.... ... . I ~.0....... .090 ..0. ... 14. ... . ...-3a. .. -Q.~.000....1 00.36.00... 0.3. 4.3.1. . .0. . L0 .0230... . .0.. .0. L .0 2 .. . . . . I08. 00 . . . 0 0 . ...I ......J. . ... .|.. . .. ......o . ...-.. I . . .33.. ... .-. ... 0 . ...-....~ .1. 01- ......00. ......0. it . 0.. 391. 0. 0! .00??? 0..-51 00. 30. . . ...0. c ...00 l ..v. .K- I 010.0000. .7. 0 -. .0....00 .0 00. . . 30.0.. . .. . a o 0 Q 7 . .. I 0 A o . ... . ... . £0.30 ... . I0 .. . ... 0 ..v . and :0. .. 000 . .0 000.0 I . . 0H0 013‘. ..I...‘ .0 .. .7 0:...0. 0.. ..l0 . . I. ‘00:...- 03'00 .. .000. .....0 ... 0 . o 0000 .0..... . .0 . .0.. 0 . 0 .. . . O .I I 0. IO. 0.. II .. ....0 00... (.1 c. . ... ....0 ... .. 000. ...«u; . N355: ’30. 0. 0. : . ....0‘30. \........0......0 ......fi .00 0..-.0....0..la.. ......0 : 0 1...... . ... .a . . .....1... .I .. ... I. ..L... ........00 ...: 3...... .... I... a 00.. . .....0. .21....”r020. .u \..0.0«.. . ...... ... ....0. . .103... Zola .0.. 0 $0100... . I I . 0 40v..1.7:.0.... 0.0.7.. .0.. 1...... ...? 0.. 2.0.3.. o I ... o I . ... ..., . . ... . ....0 .. .000. - .. . . .... 0 . . . . .. .00 .... . . d0 .0. 0.. . .‘. 00. 0.0.3.0.. o 0r ...0. ...0- 0...... 0 .. .00 0.1.0.0.. .1 .00.... a. .. .I. .. ...... 0000.010 ...0. .30.... ...00. a 0 00 .... l.. . .39....1.‘ -. O . ...-.00 I . .0. .I. ..0 . .. ... . 0.th. 4.0!.00 .33". .0. 0.0....»006 2 .....3........... 3... £3.30 0.. 03%... I “3.1!."r. . 0. .0. . ....Il.......0 I .. . .0.:- . I.- . I0 .0... .0 . . . .. o 10.. ... I ... .... . 0.... ...I. . .... . ... 00- . . . ... .07.. 0. 0.... .30.. . I Inqasnt‘t “Ur. I. ...0. . . . ...0. 1... .0. .II...: 0. 0.4 ...-r .0.... a .0 “00.”...000 20.4 0. . 3'... .. .90.... . .31.: . .... 0 .. 3.0.0.. ..0 .... .I... . , .u . 0 .. n00 0.0... 0.00 90.... -..... I. .... e . .. :I . ... . . 0 00. .u. .Ir .3 :12}-.. 0... a 00.4 . .... .. 0*! 0.10:3 ...fi.‘ 0......0wdflrvo0, .. “M 0.0”. 3. 0.0.0 0.. . 0.1 kl 0.3.00 .. {(0.0 .wh.0.‘00030' ...A: O I.-. 0.0%.... ”00:0... 0 ’00. . . 0. O ..- 00.’. 0..... lo .I Ix 00 . .0 .00 0 I: .0000... . 0.. .00. .. . 0.. 0.0. ..10 .~ 0.00,... 0. .0..“.W~00..0‘1 .’. 00.. .I . l ..u . 0’. .0. 0. .0000 n .0.. I. 30$... . III-0.. 0.0.0.0 0. J . .00 . . .0.-0 7. ."u' .. . 0 ....01 3.0.1.. 0... . . .9315)... .00...I.C..00V .I .- . O. I 70.0... .0000 . ....0.. .. 0. ..000... .0.... .. 00 . .. . ..\ .030. II ... _ 0.5.0 00. 3 . 0": o 00w 0 n.01r0*1’.u.0"00 . 9 i 0.3 .00 0.. t0 ’rfiJ...’0 0.00 .... k..0u.049.0 no ‘50. II 00 .. 00 00 .0.00A I I“ . . . . 0 .0. 0000‘ . 0 .0000 .0 0 .I 0. .0..“0..00. .0. 0' 0 - .0 .0 @000 0L 0 0... 0 ...-0 .0 . 0': 0.0 0.. ..0 o a . 00.." .0900. ..I owning“ ’- ...C . 0 )~:... ...-$00.00 a.’ 001... 1:. 0' 0 . -¢O 0” ~00 $10.0.* ‘0 do - b.’ ...-.-é’ll ‘2. I 3.000).. .00.$00..‘ 0.030.,0’0 00.. ... u. . ... 0 4- . 2 .00 0...... .. . 0 0...... .0 .... I .00.. .0 . o .. 0.. . 0 I .I‘\.‘ .Q 5. V0.10.0‘0. ‘0 0IIl .h“. a: 00.03””...0 a! 0 C" ..JI A 0 . . 1 0500.0 .90 .0..on 000\-5‘ 0......05. . A0 .000 . .Jd... 00. . 9. £00.00 00 .....J an... 0 ..000. .0.,I 00.000 . .2000.’ 000.000 3 0.. . . .0 . 0.000.. . . .o A. 0.03.} .00— “hfl... u.‘."0 3. ’P .10.. 0.0? ....0 0..... .. 7.....- 0'1.. 0 ...0.0 .0.. ... 0000 .. ...-:00. 00 00.. .. ‘00) ...- . «... .03.».0. .013...- 0 .... 0 l0 . 00. ,0 . .0. . . ...l .. ..I .0- .I00.0... 0..... 00. . 0 ~ . 0 .. ‘00.... .. .. 0.. .. ... . 0 0 .03.. .I 8.1.. .1037. 0'0IQ0..3010 .01000. SIO- _ $0.02.... 0 3.1400 a. .0.. 0. r 00... .... 0 .0..) 0000.. .« 0.9.0.3.. 000. .0 .. .. ..0. . 0. .00.. 0.9.0 . . u . .. I. ... ..000. ....- ..0 0.00. . -I... .. . 10.. 2.0 .. . . . .. I. . . . .0. . 0 . - ...... ... 0.... ...-V... 0.0.. .02.... 0...‘.0 0‘ 0- 0 ..r. 0... I0. .0. .. .00 I . n .00....0. 0.r 0.. .. “£3.00- .0....0 .000... I .30... 0.00300... .0.. .. I .. $00.... I. .0....1015 .0. 3000.. .. 0 0. 0 0..... .. Us: .. .. 0.. ... 0.0 0.. . 00... .001040 ... . .00 ..J . . \. .1..- . 5.0...) . . .. .. ~. 0. . .. .72... 0300 ..r. 0.3.500. .00.: . 1.3.33.0 . . (A) 000. .0... 0.1—: 0 0 I v- I. 0 30.001330! 30.0 . ...I . ... . ... 2 . .. . .00..1. 0. ...... .3000. o ....0... I - 00 .. . 0 .0.... -..-3.009. :03 ‘0 P ....at. . . 00 (”“0” 10. 000. . 0 . r. 20.. . 001.00.. 203...... . . ....00. ...00. I . . 0.0000 .. . 0 s .4 I - .0 .... CI .0 000 .. I .0... . ........l0 . .. 0. 0 ... . .... “32.1.0, 00 . O .‘-..1..I...o . «IS 00 . 0 0 00 Q'..I. « J!.... .0 . ...-0.0 00.04 ...3.‘0 . 0 0 .} .4.00'000. 5.1.00.0 0 0 0... ..0.000..0.0N0 '0'..00 0.. I n 0 . 00 .00 u .00 . 0... ...0. . p 0 .. 0.0.0.0. 0 0.00—5.50 000‘..000. .0., 45.03 . 0..! .J. 0.00 O . ...“. .Vfl...0000. .0 .0 40.? . .. 0. 0.9-0 . ... . . ... 00 :0. ...-000' . .r... .... .0.... .0. .0- n .0200. .. 0.... . . . . .. 30.... . ...0... . I5, ‘. .§EQ§YJ..0€‘ .ltioiki 0... .00! .000, ...: I. v 0 0 1.00 .0 . 00.0.0 .0100. .00. 0.. ... I0 0......0. .0... . 80'“ .. .....- 0...’ 0... 0 .0. I .. . ..0. . . .... -. . 0.?! .0.. . .- ....00 . 0. . .....0 . w: .. 0.., 0%.... ..0: o . ..0 .m ... . .00. 0 . G C. 0 ‘ 0‘00. . .0 000.00’. .. 0.0 01.0.0.0: . 0 ...: 0 .0. o.§ . 0. 0 00 ... . 00.33.00. . 0 ‘00 .00 .. 0 . .... c. .00. . J 0 ..00000 O. 000. 0 0 0.0 .0 0.3 . 0 0.. .0 . . .. .00. $00!: 0.80 $.0' ‘ .0000 t. r .1. ‘0 ..I ..q . .. u 0 .§‘.. 0...0I?0 0000.00.00. #0.}. .....0‘. ..u’ .....v .0. I l 0.0.. 04.0......0 .0.. II. . 00‘ .VI 0.. 0 01.0.0 .. -. .O o 000. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . ”0......00gos00t‘00flfliiw0 § , ‘ 0“. v 0 000 I. ...0 1...: 0... 0 0. 0. 00' ..0.‘ v- ...0‘ 00. . . ..0 0 ..0 :1000... ‘ 0'0 .. ... ‘0 C ...0003. . . .000.. 0' . 0.0.0. -.‘00. . u. . . . . . . . . . .. . . 0 . .l....Is.~.‘ To .0.‘.0.l ‘30 0 .. :0— .. 0. . 300..” 00000 0.4 ..fi 07.1. 30:”...2300 ..0.‘ T L: 0 09.0“." I00... 5.00.0 0 W...- 300‘0......0 .. 00 . .. . . . . 00. .. 0.. . 50000.0. l .0. .00 .... 00 0 . . . . . . .. . . km“?! 00.0?» ”3:0 .‘ 3.1.1.? ‘. thou'. 00 .0....(. . .00... 3000 000040-10. 0.. . 00;‘.¢ 00.0.0 0. ..A 005-..:9! - 0...”.0. .l. d 0.0 01000 a. .10.” 3“.0 5...? 00.. 0 0 <0 .0 . o. 0 130.00.. 000““. . ....L‘A 0.0.0. 0.00... .0.. . 0’0 .. . . .. .. . .. .. . . . 0.0 3.03.00.00.23" ‘. 070.. {700 0 i. I. 7A 0 .. 10.0 0 0 00.3.1500: 5.000))... 1‘. .0. . .i.‘00f.‘.0 00 . 010.5 I 0.10.. ...0. .0.A. .. 0 001302.-..‘rr 0... O 0 . .0 .0 . 00 0., Q0 .0.-.0... o. . 3.2. 00 .0"! I . 9 I .- . . . . . . . . J .0. 0..-15.0 .33. ‘V’E‘nn 0.0 . . tors-L . 0 ... 0. . ...010 -I A 03.00 3:0 00 3.... 0 ,sz . ‘- 0"?00vdcl. 0:00 0.0 00 .0"... . ..0. .00 0... ..X100 . t ..0 . .0.. .0. I . .. .. 7.0.90. 0.. 0 0 . . . . .1. ..0..\.0 " 00 7 .0 .é.0‘.04 J’30.00.I=lfl.§' 4‘0. . i0. 7 » 0007.00... . ‘. . 00 00.0...‘0. 000 ‘0.l.00. 0. 0000. 7.00... 0 00 ..I 0..-0 00.. . . ...: 0.. . 10“.” A ‘_ .01. I 0...". . '00:..- .9 .001. ‘00 . 0’0 I 0 00031.00: 0‘. 0 A ..II.00. I0...0'0 0 .00..00.‘.0._0 . ~0...00000.0'. .0 00 010.0. 00.. 00.0 ... .0 .0 0 .00. '.'\0 .. . .0 0 0. I .- .9 .i0 .. I .0 .0. 00.. . 0:0. . . II 4 l 0... ...I0. 00.000 {v.0-Q.10. 000.. I 000 00.9 30 ... 00.0.... 00 ...\..0d a. 00 0:0 .. 0. .0...- 010. . 00.. .-.0. . . ‘00. .. 0... 0.... .000. . . .0000 00.0... . .0 0. . .0331}-.. 0.0.0.0.. 00.0 V. .. . .00 b 0' .0. . ..‘0'3 .. 0.. . 00. 0A 0.. C {.0. . 0.00. ..00A00II I . 3 .. I 006.130....1 0". I; 0000...... Q. "I. I. 0.0. .... .l 0 .. u . . I050 \ .00. 0. 0 0.... 000. .s.‘.0000 ...\.. . 00.50.00010." ....- .. 0...: . .00 .00..00¢v0 ... . 00....00....O0...0 0...... -0. .... 07.00 0 1.0.0.40... .0.... ' :0 .... I .I 00.0. .0... .70. 00.00.. . .0 0 00.00030. 0.. I .0 ...... 000 . ..., 3.0.0....10... 0 01.100. I.\. .0.-.9 I... 0.0.0. .. 00.0.0.0...L 0.0.0.0... Pinia.) 0 00 0.0 00. . a . . ...0 0. . 0.0 00.. 000000.. . 000.0. .. ....l. .0.. 1 .0 0 0... . ($0 0 . . 043 .4. ..0. 0 . . ..0 .0.....'. 0.....0..I.I .0.. .. .. . .. .0.-.01.-.. £33310? . 0. .0 .0301... ......8’00. ..--:0 . 1.... . .... .....00... . .. 1.. ... a. . .0.. . . . .... 0 ..0 00. . .Iaoagooéoffllhu... ... 000.1“...00.‘ .0. 00.00000... ...-I .Y.~....00,V.-\0...01.!0 :9000 I C. 000.... . . . .08.. . 0000.0 . . v 3.... 0.. .0 ... .ff ..1. .- ’9’?! .. .. 73.00.0110 3. .00 Q'I 0’00...’ 000.0, I0. .0.. ...-.00..-o.. 10 20.4. .... 00:040.. . 0.... I. .I0 .. ...1' ....00“ 0....00. . 0.00..- .....0. .00.! .. . .. . ..0.10 .0.. . in. . . .. 0.0 ... 0 . ..J ..W .51.. .50. 0. 0": a, . 050... v. ..0 00nd. ‘Ir0lg. .4 10.0.! .....0 .0 00.0000. .L.. x I 0.? 0. 0. 000. $0.... . 0..-.0 . .10. 0 ...... - l'..9\0. 0.0)0. . . 0 . 00.... .0 .. .00. ..00. ......0... 0.0.9300- .- ..I 0.19.1300 0). .21., .‘3. (’00, ‘50}. A Q0 4 . 0.. ... ... A I. 0010.00.10 . 13 .0”. 000-...0i0i. ‘\ .000. .00 0 120.0 0... 010 . .v 0 . a: ... 0. I 00.0, 0 . .0 . .0.. .0., . I 0 ...-0.5, ...-00 00 ’0 00.1.1.0 ... .00.. ..0. O0 010. a. ...0 E30 ' 4.4: 00.1. .IOLO. . . . . ...... 0. .0’0. - 0... 3.0.0 .... 000 0. 000.3. v ...0 12011;. .010 - .. .0., .00... . ....k F: .0. - .0, 0 s. 0.. .. o. 2 I. . . ...... 0.0.00. 0 0.. 0.. .00.. ...A .0 0 .. .....00....\00.i00.. .i'lol..0.0.000..5 . . ..00000 ....0‘..‘., .0l . 0‘0 . 0314000 0,00h00.0.. 0. .95 0.0.0 : l0. 0.. 03.10. .09. ...-9.0.0.0. 010 - .0. .00.. , 0 ..0 .0000}, . a . ... .0 0000. .000 0. - . ....o . a. 0 .r..~ 0.0.!0‘ ’05.... .0‘5 . .... . 5.60000. .....0 . 0.0.)309 (I: 0.00 .0.. .... .... 0. u..‘ .00. .... .0 00.09 0.3.0.10 .0.. 0. .. .10 .0- .... 0v .0‘0010... ...l \I .... . It. . I .u . . .... .. . . 0.. .0 .0 50 0 ..0. .. . 0000.05.34.03. 09$. ’00“. P s .0. I00. ’90.- 0 00000.00. . '00. 03.00’3‘ 0..,0.‘ - 0.0.0900 00.0. .0 0 9 .0 000. ...o. 0000 .A‘ I 0 .. o 00. 00 0.00 0. .0 0. 0 0. ‘ 000 I I II ‘2 .-.\ 0 .‘0... - .- .. . 00. ...“... 00...,0.o 0. 0.101, 0 00 .0.... 0 s... .0.. 0.0.0 0. - 0.00.010 00 ... J..IO.':0.DI 0 000 V... .-0.... . .0. 2033000.. 000..‘.0000I.-.0 .0....) 0 .000 . .0. 01.....0‘0’ 000.. .” 00.0.00 I. n . . .0.. .0 ......000‘. s ..01 . ...0- ..0 .. .0000000: ..0..}\ 0 .0.J§.-\‘ - .. N0 L:IV.J 5.00200 In 0.0.1. .0 00‘0.‘ 00...... i.- 0000 . .l.‘ 4 ..t. .. 0 0.301000 .00... c 0. 000 ....00 0.. 00.0.0 00. ‘2 00.0 .. . '. 0.0.0 000:.‘0 00. 0.... . .000. . ....I . . . 03.. 0.. I... .0. .0 “,0 3.15000. 010.00 . i 0.0.. - .009. 0 12000.00. .00.. (30.61000000 V ..000-0 010.30.. 0 . 0.. 0.002100 0 0 v ..0 .0 .... 0.00 .0... .0. 0 0‘ .0 . :00 . . . 1,0- : I. .o O . . . 000.1 . 0..0.... 3.....1.’ . 0 . 0.... A 00”.... ... .300: .‘0.I0.0.00’.0 . H? 3. . 300.“...000 ... 0| 0.00.0.0. .0.. .‘Id . .. ... r0 .. ..000.0.000.\ I 00. 0..-.00... . 0.3.9:...00. . . _. 00.0 ..0 .. .... 000. 0030...... 1 0. 0. .... 3.00. . .. .0 ... I . . 1 . I on 0.0.. .‘J‘ I . . g? .0 .. .. 00.00 . .. ..0 0‘3... 00‘? .lt...fi. 0 ’0 I .0.... .. daft... 0000.... . 0... ......0. 0..... 0. . . I 0.. I ...-0..... 0.0- 0. . . .0....1110. I .... 0... .0.. .0.... . '10.. . .0 p . II -.I. 00.0 . .0. 0 I.. , 1...... .. ..0 ... ..0 _. ; . . . . . ... .0. 0 3.5.0.... 3...... ...-0 .05....0..00.000.00..’0; . r0 .. 102.000 s.00.0.o.-‘. ‘0 #0000033- . O. . 0 200.0... 00.. ......000 0. ...0.0.0. I 00. 09 ’. 0.0- 0.0-. . 0090-. 00. 0 ..0! . ...-0. ...0 . . 0..-...... . I ..0... . . . 0.0 . 0 . 0. I. .1‘000II0.0‘ _ '0. p‘UIJ.‘ r..(..'0..)0.0l.5.0.000 00 0.0... 0.0 . .... 10000.00- ... .00.. o ...0. 3.0.05 .- 000 I. 0.. .0 0.00:. {0‘ 3--.-.I 0.....1 . .03.. 0 100,200 .‘I . .0 ..00 .. . 0 .0I . 000 ....00 . 0.000020... 0 . 0. .......0 . . . 0.0 .u .. I... .0.. 0. ”f r0 003 :00! 0.I 00. 0.. 0001.0 0. 1000.- 0¢...0..0;0f6...0 .. I0. .. 3.0.0700 . I... 0 . . . 2000...-.. o . . .. ‘0'; .0..0 .00... €02: - ......)00... ....00 . .0 . .000 0. I ... . .. 3.000 \ 0.. a . 0000.. ..4. 00.3.01... . .0;I.0.A0 0 00 0039‘..- .0 0. . . 000.50.. 000.09.... .0... 4.00.. .I 0. ...000 .J... 0.. ... . l.00.!.....0.. . . 0 00. l . 0-.... I. . . 00 .30.)... .0 . ... 0 .0 ‘00. . . .. . . . ... .1 . .0.’. I000'L. ..I.’~ ‘0' 00100.0. 0.050.?1... .00.. 000. .0. . . 0... ...0 ...0II-..v|. . 3.00. .090. . Z...0 0..! 0....‘500. . .0-0 00000000.... 0. .0. 0 .3 .. ... ... .0.... .0....0-0 0.. ..0. . .0. .. -. ..0 L... 0.. I p o. .0 .0100... q 0312.0 ul 0 - 0r... .‘.00..... I0 . .JJ(1«.\..IC..0:.. ...b’..000. . ... .. 0.0 .. 0.... 0 .... ... 0 30:03. 1. . . 00 0.. .90.-..0 .... .0200. 9.0.0.... :0. n. 0.0.;- .. I . . . . . - ... 0...... . .0 3...: ... .0. 0..) 3.0.0.0)... . 0.0.0-}... 9.30 .00. 0.10... .... ......000 .50. .0.. 0'... '9‘. 0 0 i 3.1:... 0 00:... . I0 0.- .0. .03- . 20......0200‘ ..0, .0 5.0.0. . .0. .1330. . . . ...... 0.. 00‘... . ... . . I... ..0. ”00 8.1....“ .4 .I... . 0....0..IA. ’03.. t... 00 7......0... ..0 ...“. 01...? ......n 3:... p. I . I.“ 00.. 2». I ... a... ..000. . . . .. 0 .I . ...I... ... . .o . 0.. ... ...... . .... 0 .0.... -..... .0. .0....0‘. ......00. .0. ..‘d .0. . l‘ .00.0.I.~.0 000d . 0......) .0.........0 . 0‘ 0. In ’0- #030... 030001.31503‘2 . 00- 1.0. 00.10. 00...- :.”000.. . ... . 3. 00.20.00 .. 50. ... . .. .I.0 .... 0.0. .. . .. . .nge ..T. o 09.. 0.00 .. .... .0303! 03.0.1101. . u. .0 2.1.0.... . . .- A ...... ...... .. 9.0.... 0.08.0. .0000-.. ._ 2 10.0.35... .. 02... 000 0-00.02!!! . . ..0.. I. . . . .0 000.0. 3.00 . . - .. 00 .0.... . .. . .u. . I 0 .0 .. 0.1.001... ... .0.. .. . . -. .v .. .... . . 00 3.0.). ..0 0.08.‘..0.......0.0. . c. 0.0 . .0.. .... .00., ..0- .0.... ... 1.0.. (0.. 0.1.0.0.» 30.00006 0 09.. 0.... ...0 0.0 .0.. 0. . ...000. III ... ....0‘0 . . 0.. .‘ 0 3.00. . I. .. .0.... 1. ... . ... . 0.. ...0.. .0 0.00. .00. ... . .... . . .2... ... 7 ...I . . s. . ..I ... .0“. 300.08.32- .. ... 1.0.0 .900 . 5..“ .l- 00»... .. 0... ..0 - 080.... . . 0.00....780: ;.0‘0.D....l . v . .01... . .00. .0 . ... . .. ... .. .fl’...‘ ...0 ...... . . 0a.. . 0 001000. . .. .. w ... A . - . 0 . .0.-9.70:2... 0 . .. .. ...0‘. ...... co. . 0. . 0 A 5.0 ...... ‘1’? .....L’.0\I00..0. 0 0.. 0 .0.. .003 ...: .. 0.003.) . 0 ..1100000 IV 000 .000 .. .I... 0‘ 000.0,...000 .0. .0. C . . ..0.’ Ou‘l10iq . 01 .' a. 0.00 O . . .. .0. .0 I O . 0. .0 .0.-0 00.1.. .0 00 . . .. .0......0 .- .... .00..01..... .0. 0.30.3. ..."...00.:~..0’.o .. Y. 1.0. ..0 ....l ‘.IJ0....1$.0.J.00.0 .....I0'o .330... .. o 3.000 ...-... ..00 0. ... .. .00. 0. .. . .910 1-01. . I . . . . ... o 0.0.. .. . . 0 . . .... 1....9000 ..I 0..-00., :0 .0060 00 «o... 000.0 . 00.. . .0000 O 0.. 00.. 0. I. I. 0. ..I 0.0 '0 L01- .3 .. . .0.. I .. . 0 u . . Y... I) . 0 0 0.. . .00!- . . . ... ... 0000......»0 .... .. .._ .- . . .000. 2-0.-0“A.0.0l ..‘3. 0.. ‘01:).0. . .. 0 100... 000.0. 02.0.. 0 00.0 I0. .0.. .. . . 0 .0. . 0. .....0. .0.-0... .0200. 0. :1... I. 51...... ..l‘I . II... . . IIVII I . . . . 0 ..00. . ...... .0 ...! ...-... 9 ... 00...... . I I .0 .0.. 1.6.3.. .... 05...... 33...... .37.. ...‘h. . ...J...‘-A‘00.... .9000... . 0:00 . .0 . .00" 0000 .0'10 23.09.0009 0.31.0... I. ' . 000 .00... I.00 1. 00. 02.000. .. . 0 00. .. 0 ... I . . . L ..0 0...... . . .0.. . . 0.. 0 . I.” 1.35 2' $02,. 0 .0.? ...r.0000.. . .01! 0.0000 ..0. F'vllx..000000".o 0.0 0.000. -.0.‘0 ..I.llda 0’ ‘03....1 ..0. A. 0 . .0. . . A00! . 0’0 0.. I . 0 '- 30: 05“}: . 0 .....0 .. . . 00 0. ... . 00.. . . I ’-.\I ..0 0... I. . . ...0. 0'. A .0. 00 00....300..0.’0 0001‘ 0.00000 «0.000,. .....t 0:00.00 . I ..0..’ .9 .0 . 001.00 00 . .. :00 A0. 0 I 0. 0:0 '50. . '10... 0.0000001! 000.- . . 0 0 0. 00- . ... . . . I ... .. ... 0. 0' . ...).0... ... Q .00. . 0 .05.... 0.0.00... ...10 3:00. ‘-.0~.00..IA.30 0000.000. 0.1].gz v .....00. ‘0. ...JI....0A.0.-000 . I ..00. . .... .0.- OJ 0. II. ...... ’. .0500 .. . 0.0 . .0.-00.0. ...00 2 0 1:0. 10.0 .. 00 .. I0 ...: . . 0 . 00000... . ...:I d... 0.- .. ...: .0.!7 . .0 ‘0‘..I000‘I. . . . .00 I} 0.0 .0 «.0 ..00 0| - . 000,0 1... ..0I0 5000......0: . 0M .2 0... .0 . . I 0 .0.. . . 0. Ir . . . 0 . o. .. .0 .....UI. 0.90..._' . . 0 .030 0.100.. 0.1000072. . I ...... .... ‘ . . . 3.133000% .0. .0030. 0:. , I. ...0. .. .0 00b 00 0 .0 00.. I 0 ...... . 0 t .0. .0 . . Q. 0 . . ‘. ..‘y‘oisau. 0 I. . .0 s 02“! 0. . 000-010.. 0000 ...0 0.0.0.... . 0 .3 1 . . U ....0 . . 0 ...}..20. . . ..0.0 10.0 0. . . 0.. 0..? 0.. .0110... 00.40.03... 0..-0.20.0- . .00“ 00. 30.9.. 00 . 0 0000. ..0 0 .. 00 0'0. ‘0 .2000 0 . .v. .0 00.500 .0 , . .1’ I00 0 . l. ......0‘. .h 0.0 0”;- 00. . 7.3.00.0. I. 0...... .3 . . 0...! 9 ....I . . . 00.. . . . 0.... _ . . .0.0n..ll...0.0..0. 00. ... . . . '0. 0.0». . «.00.. 0.1.0 ti... 2 . .0. . .. .0... .. 000. . 0x.3.. . ..0 .0.. ..0 0 00. 0940... .. . 210...... $0.00 0... . 3.1.1.2102: . 0 . - .|0. .... 0.0.0... .3000 00.00 0 .0. .0 .0 . 0.. l. 113 .0 .0 00.1.... .0.: .0. Q‘ ... .0 I 0 . . .0 . . 50.00 .. . .... . ......9 ....~.Q.L . .00.. .‘u0.0.. 0.0.0 .. ... 00 0.‘\.0 . .. ...l‘.... 04 .. ... .0. .0 . 0.. .. 0 0‘. 0.. 00 0.. 0 ' . . . 0 .. 01 10:00 .0 1.00: .0... 003...... . . ......00050 ..-.~ l0C.-0 - ..0. . 0... . 05. .. .0 . 0. . . .0.0.0 000.... .0 I... .. II-.. ...-.00 o. . .. '40,...‘0 0‘. 0. 0..0 .. . ..0 . . . . 0 D- 0 0 .1000. 0... I I. ..000. .. o . 0.0 0. 00- ..VI....0 . Z 00.0.0 . 0 on. .000 o .00... 0. ...l I 0.09.... 0.00. I .0. .0..».I..O 0A.. 0:." ... 00‘. 0.00.000. 00000.3- 000... 0000.00.00! I? . 00 .00.. 0. . 0000 .0.. .00 22.0... 00 .0 . 0.01.30 .. v.0 I I 0. ...: ‘ . . . . ‘40 04.;0. 00 ’0 ...00 .0 . .00....- ....~' .‘.00. I 0‘} .0 0 3 00. 0 .m 0‘ 0:0 . 00- .. I t . . .00 .0 . . 0 . . s0. 0 A .0... . -.. . .. 0.0.000...) .II.0.|-0 0 . .00.... I. 03.0. . . 0 . (1...... 0.- .. . -0 o. 0 . . . 00.0.. . .- 0... .r. .. o . . .0... .0110.- 0 0 ...}..0.I’I0 I .-.0 - I. - .0. . . . . . .0I0 .1 .00. .. .0.. ,0... . .0 .. . .l 00. :0. . ..0. .0. . . . . ‘2'01 .. .1030i00.‘0..0. 0000’..‘I\.0" . .00.! .0. . .0. 00.... . .0. .. I . 0.. . 0 -. .l.... 1.3..-. ...!I0 . .0... . .I..... _. I. 0.. I \ 00. . . .0.. . .... . . . . . . .2333! 0. .0.0..0. .0003091010?‘ .81: 0 0.00.... .. . .0. ... 0..- I . . ...... I ..00... . . ...... . . .10 4;... I: . . .... . . . v .. 0 .. .... . . . . . . ... .....I....0.0-..0..r00 ...-.01....020‘i ..0 0 “a . .0. . . 2.39.0 3...: . ... .. .... . 0: . . . . .. 0. -.. I .. .. .. . . -..... i .. - . ... . 11000130000701.000030133. 0.0. .0. .. .5“ '10 .00. v - 0.0.. . . K .9 .0. .0. 0.. o. ‘0 . .-'0-.0 0.. .. . . . . .. ... . A. I... I... . . .. . 0. A. I10. . 0..‘0~0.L0..§.I..:Il.l0lqn0g.i. I .. A00 30... . 0 0..-00.40. .0 . 000. I . . ... .. .0.. 0.0.9.. . 10.. . .0. )0. . ..00...0....I. . . .0.. 0. 00- I. ..00. 30110.0: .0...0....000. 00010.... 0‘ 30000.00, ’0‘? . . ... .. . . ...... . . . ...: .... .. .... 0. .I a .....00. .00....10000? .010. )3 . . . ..fl . 0 ... 0 . . ... . - . L0.- . . 3.. . .01. .0...I .... .... .0.-300.00. .0 0.0oti'. it. . ..a .I .0.... . _ . 0 10.1.0... .00. .0. . .... . .. . ... . 0 .09.... .0 . -. 0 .... 0 0.201.307.8000 37‘“ . 0. 0 . . . A ..0...0.. :90 .0 .... . ..00) .. I f .. £0 0 ... .. .0 .‘0. .. u. I. 0 0. L 0.. .132... 3.0.0.0030. . t. . ... 5.0.0 . . . 3.1.7:.-. 00...... 0. . . ... - 0. ... .0., ... 0 .. ......0 ...: I. .0 . . 4. 0.01.... ..0.0I.00..’0‘0’..00,.0..0J. ‘0. .72.. ..0‘...0 '00... . 0 ...... .I t . . _ . n I. . .130.‘ ... . - 0.. .0. . ..0 1....00. .00. .. ...... 0. 00\ .1 .1 . I . 00 0. 001090.. ....0'0...00-0.I100.0.‘fi0I-“ . 0. 0.000‘ 0.90. 3 ...00. 00l0: . . I0 0 n . 0. 0 . .. .. .0. 00 0.00.0. 2‘... o 000.0”00....“0.00 ...-"...: ..0.‘.0.~00‘300O000 . .00 0.. '0 . . 0 ... . . .000 00.: . . I 0 . 0 ...- . . 02.0, 0.0..- ’0. :00 .. .‘Q’J 0‘00 l'!.-'.. 0‘0.‘.‘0£I0;£ 000-0000 *0. . . ...-000.00 :00... .0100... 0. . . . . I .. .... . .0 00. ... . 0A. . . , .... . I ‘9 0a~ . 3000' ..0' 0.. 0.00 01.4.. .0. 00.003.‘ ‘loz‘m: 0.0. ... .. 6!. .003. .00.... 00... . . ..03. ...... .. 0.. .... 0.. .00 . 0 ...00 s‘...‘ -.. . ......II...-:§..0...n.....§ l‘.‘.l.0000§.0‘00.00’..0 (...... ... . . . “.0 ._ ... .-. . . 0... . .00 .. ...... . .0. . I ... . . ; ...: .. ... ... .0 . .. ......J..... 0.00.9... 1.10.51a0-I .-.A0.|\..00.Il00£.0.l ... . . . ... A .. .... . ..I .0.. . ...... -.. 0 I . . . .. . . . 1.0.1.. .0... I................. J ...I ...... ...‘0...0.00.0.. 000.00 0.. . .. . 0 . .. ..0. ... 0.. i. . . .. .... 000...! . 3.02:2..00 . . . , . . 0 .0 ... .0 I. ... 0 . 3.9.3005; .131‘000O0‘A} .. . I .0 0... . ..0 .... 0. .. 000...! 0000.... . . 1.0.2.0.... 0 0. .. ..00 ... . . . . . . . . .0.... . 1.00.0 .000 . 00.0... 000. 0 viii-50.00.0300... . .I 0.0900! .41.. 0.. 0.... 10.230030. n ...0 00 0.. .. . ... . . . .... ...... ... ...: . v5.00... .... .. . . . . . , .0.... . . . 2.00.}, . . ..00 ... .... 009.3 I. . 3.1303910 0. .. .. . s . . . . . . .. .. 3.1. 0. ..0 0. . -. .5 I000..0000.00...|0r0 2.00.0.0..." . . . 0 0 .. 00.0.. 0. 0 . . ..0‘0.‘0 .0’0300 .6 .I 0 . 0 000.110 0.0 ....9 :08“ ,. 4... . I. . .I I 0 0.7.0.00 ‘. . . 0 . .‘J 0 - . :00. 1.... .. .... :1)... . .0.... . . 0. 3...... 0. 0..-cu. I . . . . . .. .f 0.. 0. .. r . 0 . .. . . . . . .... 00.x . 09... . . r0 ... .O0I0 000 . 90 . 0 0 I. 0 00.0! ... .0. . .0 .. -. .00.. .00.. 0.. ...000.00.0.. . 00. 0.0.0- .0. . . . . 00. . . 0.0 9.20..0 . 0A. . . '4. I .0... l . . . .0! 0 $0.03; 0 . . .I....' .... . . ...0 . I 0 I . I....00.0...0 0o..0.’000. . 0000. a 0.. 0.0: .... ... .10....r . o .. .‘JQ’? . . . . . . $73.0 .t 30.0030. ..I'O. . 00‘l100. .- 00.0 . .070. ....0.. ... .. .... .0100II00. 00 0.500000 0 0.0... .0 .001 00.0.0.0. .. I. .0 .... 0 .0.. 0 ...... .00 . .. .... . .o . ...0 t. .04. PI?.$.‘.“‘0IO.V.:§“.‘;IU 0.. .... 0. .I 4‘ o 00-. .0. C I .0 0 U . F It 0- I o. ‘ p. .. I0..’0.l 0.0).. . 0.0.0 . .. 0.....00 . 0 0| . .. .. I. 0 .0 . . . .' 0000000.) ‘3...’ . ... . .I.AI 0 .‘ . 0 .0....0 . t.) X . .. ...-00.0 6.30. ..Y 3.00,... .. ... 00.0. . ...V 0. .. ... I 1.0 . .... ...: I . ....0 . . . . . . ..0 (0.00003. . . .. I. . .0.:1 s - - o .- ... ... . . ‘IDSJ. - .. ..0, I . .0.. 0. ... 00 O .. .0. ...I0.. ... II. . .0..- ... ...... . . ..0: ... .0 t 0 . . . . . . . . . I . 4.... 0.0.3.0....00..200‘0 00.0.. 0&0... 3.00.20 girli'n . I . 0 . 0 _. I ..V 0 I 0 L. . . . .0000 u. .000 .0: 0 0 0. 00...? 000‘- . . 0.. 0 000.0 .0 I... . . I 0 . .0.I .. .0... .00 . . . . ... Y . .w .. I. J . . 0..!‘0.20Jq04..0\\040 00:0.000u‘g30 $0001.90”... ‘15., 0“ I.n4 ... . 0..... - .0.. 0. . .. 0... .0 . . ...... Q. . ..0 . .‘ r. .l 0.0 .0 00... . 0... ... . l 0 0.00.. .0 . . .10 I . . . 0.. 00- . . ...-.0 {.‘l .00. 0005 l"" . .0. 0 ... 4.010105 7.00».an II: 9.0.0-.. .zu.‘ gag-1.00;! .. 0 00 0 ..0 .- 4 ... J. .. 4. I. l .0 .. ‘0..le .. .. 00o. . 00 .0 0 . ... 00.. .0.... .. .. - ...00.0 0 . .0 0‘ .0. o .I . .90 . . . Q. . . 0. 0. \Il _ ... .. I ..0l . . :00 0 .0. .‘(l.0.0.0.0'0¥.. .0 .0..’.0‘00..0§020. ‘00..‘0.0000!II.‘0O 3‘ . 31...; .03. .. 0 ..0 .. u... .00. . 0 .. .0.... . . ... (0..! .0.. .. .... ... _ . 2 ‘03....- ... . .. .I- . .0.. .0 .. ...0. 3 . ....z..00.....0..-..0(0 ()0... 0.00. 03.)}-."1 ....0... 0.049.030. .00.! 0 6...! .0000... .0 o ...0. . .. .. .. . ’00. I 0 . .... - ..t. . . . 0. . .... ... 3.0.0.00 . .. - ... .........f.~s. ... 3-01 . .... 1107.00.30! 1040.02...- L.....I-0I0.0~ d‘........00r..1.0. 30.300000; . . .... 0.. . I . 0 .. . .... . I . 0.. ...-.... I . I 0.. .... .....0. a 3‘ 3-72.. .0400. 3.93113200‘.’ $.fl0‘lfl00tsvbbi I .51‘0‘020; . . 0. 1.... . ... ..........I....00..l:.t.. 30.....NI0 ..0...1\‘.00.,I.0.I. 00.10.00! .. . I I .00.. 0..... 0. . 0 ”.0.. 0.00.0. . _ . ... .00. - . .0! 0 0.0 f......0.00.0. ...ls. 1.0... 0.0. 00. -\I 0 ..0 . ....l.‘ a. . . 0. . ... ... .... ... . . . . .................- .. .-. ...: . . rvl .. 0.00.......a..'......0.0..0I-.I‘0.3-. 5.0.31.0:ng .050. . 0‘4. 0 . . 00.0. 04.0 . . . . . 00.. . f 00. .00. .I. 0.. 4 G. .I .0.‘c 9‘. .003... ‘ 0. ‘03. in.“ .i.’ 040i.“000...' it +0 ,90‘ 0.. .. .(0-000 0-000 - ...!I . II... . ...... . . .. . . .. . . ”3-02....3 . . . . 01010.6...00'.§';.41.I: 0‘ 0.0. . 0‘0 0 .0 0 0.00 . . I C I... .00.. I .0. .0.. . - . OH . .0030; v .10 000 \o. .l.|..01. .0 . 00. 0 I .0.‘o$ 0' .. . . . '0. (.0 .... . . 0.0m 0 - 0 ..0 . ... L0 0.0- .Io . . . . . 0. .. . .. .0...00.0 . .000 .00 .. . 3.0.7.00... IL . 0 l4... .0 .0 . . o 0 0 . 0 0.0. — .0.I ..I- 1 1.0.. . 0 00I.. .I 0.. $ .30... .10.. 0. I - . 0i .... . All I .-... 0 00 . .....1 I .. . 0.0 . .l .. . .I.00.00 ..V II .u.0..... - 10.08 . - .0 . .. 0.9-...) .....Z. . .. ... 0..II... Il00. .0 I00.00 09r,0.. ...0. 9.00. 00...... r .. .00I‘-.0 .- .000. ‘0 .7 .0 .... ‘0 ... YOI. .0 I. ..Cc 0.0 .00.01.. ... .. . 001.00: 0 ' | '00,.00...I .0-. ..0 ... n‘ .. . . ’00.. A. .‘0... .00 . r ...).l . "l 0 ....00- . 00' 00 . . .0020...‘ . .. a. ..0..0. . l . 0.1 00.0 ...: I‘d I ......0...I. . ...I .. 00... . . . .. 0.10.. .10.v-. I . 0.0.0.- I .. t .a .0.-.0. . . ...... o 1.00 0..-0...).0 .....‘0....\ .I 60.0 0.0 . \30 0 0.. .. '0 0... C. .0 4.0 . . 2-10.. 0.0.0.. . . .... 3.0.0.0. ... Z 3 IO . tn 0.. I l 000. 0.0: .0. . .00 .00 -0000. 0.... .... 00....- . . -0.- . . . .0 .0 .0. 000. ..0 O . . 0. .30000 I ..0 ... ..0..0 Il‘ 0'10 . In.» -0 | I I 9.00..- 0‘ 00.. I. , 0I .00- . 0 0. ... I G 0| 0. .-. 00 I I I 00... l... . .. O 0.00 .0n-0O.'II. 0 0|. I In: A J0." . .. I1: 000.. -I t v . 7.. . . .... .. 0r... 0 . Int. \..c II .0 . .. I. 0 I.- . -00.o . 0.0.. ... 0 I ‘0‘ . .0.. 1.. ..J - . 0‘0-.1 00 0 IO...L..a’ef..... .0....5.09.3 4 05.0000 .0. I0. - .. II 0. I00... 0.. 0.! 0 O . l0- 0 00 0.0.... .0. ... 4 1.0 ...00 .0.. 00‘. v .0. 0 O .0000. l0.'000 CI 0 .00.‘,. 0 IQ. 7.00.0030000 I. O . . ....00. 0 . .. 00-.0 . . .T. .. .4 . 0..D.I -. .0. .50 III-0. .0.0.0=.| .0) . .- ..IAII . . .0 0 5 0 . I... .. 0 . 0‘0. 4.. .. I. 0.. .. ....... 0..; . 0.. \ 0 . 0‘1‘ 0 - 0 ‘ 0 0 0 .. .. . 0 0 I v. c -I.0 . l ....I.0.~.. 0.... All-.0 0 . ..00.I .... 0. - .. I. 0 - ..0 ... .. . .... 0.0.0.. . 0 .. .00 '0 4. .00 . c 0 . .... 2.000 0 03.0.. I000 - 0.. I..0 . I . .... :0. . ..0. . '0 O O l .0 I- .0. 0 0. 0 .. . I ... I 0. 0. ... o 04.0 00 010... . '0 II.- 0 . 4 00 .... . 0 000’ .. 0 A00. 0 0 .00 0..-... 0 I . .-.. r 00 . .0. .. . .20. . I... ,I . ..0. I0 0 .o I . 0. 0- . l0 .. ...... \ .... ...-0. ..0 ..l .0 . I. . . . ....O 0.0. .001... -Q I. . .. . . .... L. .J . 00 I... . I z. . .6 o .0 .00.. . .0 ..0 .. 0 . . 00 . I .0 . ..0 0 . t . ... 0 - 000 .0 . . .. .. I 0 0.. . 0 .l Q.§ 00 ....0. ... I 0 , 0. 0.0 0“, .0. . 0‘0 . .0.. o .0. 0. 0 00 00 J . 0. 0I .00 I.. 00 . .000 ... u .0. . 0. .0.-.0 0 . ... 0 . I 0‘ 0 .0...0. 0.. 00. . 00. .0., :30. ..0. 0. 0 \ ,I .0... . .00. . . I 10.. 0 ‘ . . 1.0 I 0. .. . '0... . I. O 0.... ....0.0 .0 .50.. 0 v o. o . . -. 00 0 o p. . I I. 0 .. . C 0 0. 0 . . . . ..0. . ..0 0 0 0... .I 0. -‘.00‘.JI..0.. 0.03210. .0 . . .000 .' 0 I . ... . .4 0...? «.0. I I I0 00... 0 0.0 . .. o . . J. . I .0.. . .0. - .... .. . . 00....0 0 . .0.! .. .0000. . .0. - . .. . ....A 01....- . .0... . . I no 0 0 .. 0. I0 . 0. 0 ... 0-0 ... .0....000- . ... . .0. . . _ 0 .00. .0... ..0 0 o I 0 . . . . . 0 . o. .0. 0..0. . O .... l . . . 0.0 .. 0 0‘ .I'II, . 0. .. 0 0‘. . l 000... .00.-.. ' 0....- 00.‘ ..I‘ . . 0.. 000 .... - . -...I‘. .0000‘0..... 00 .. . .00 I. 0.0 000. I.. 0.0!. I . .. ...... . . . I. In. . . 0 0... I ..0) - ... .00.. \0.“. 000 0... .. 00 05.00. -0.”... . . . . ‘001'.00i4.0 00,;ng 00.3.0003... r 00 0 4. 4 .V. . 0 . . 0‘ 0.. .- . 0.0 . 1.0.0 ...0 I .0 o 0.-. 0 .0. . I 0 .. .I O ... .. I - I0. . .. .0 0.0... -. I ... . ..I' ....0 .. .90... . . 0 V D 0.- .0.--.. .0. 0, \. 00 .0. J0: 0.00. . .... ... . .I . . _ .I .. .. I 0 I . 0 .. ...-.0... 0.0 ... I ..00‘ .0 . . .. I I I50 I. I I-. - . .I.... . I..0 . ... ... 00 I 00...... .. .0. . ... 0.. ... 00... O . .. . . ... ...I .. . I. 00.0 .. .0.-.0000: . . . 0 0. I 0 ‘ I .00 II 0 00 . t c 0 I 0. 0 I 00. 0 . . «a. I .... . .. I . .0 - 0000. . 00 . .0 I . l . 0. 0.; 0.. 0... . I .0.. ..0 .' -.. . 0 00 00.0.... .0.. 0.05 000 .. - .. «I. t . O I. .I u 0 0. . . 0.0 .0 . ... . . 0. ... .. 0 . . . . .. 0 .. \0 . 00 . 0 . 0. . - . . ... .... .0 00 0 . I. - I0 0 .0 .0 I. 0 ... . 0.0000. . ... .0. . 00 . .90.. .... .I. 03"... 1-..‘0. 0..'| ‘1I.00‘000l‘0..0t . u .0 -II.o . . 05:... . 0 ...Ir - I . . ..00 . .. 0 . A . .......0..... .. 0 .0 I . . . . I. 0 . .. .... ... . .0. I I . n .I ... I ..0 0. I. 0.90. . . 0A 0.. ... .0....50. 000,20..,v [0700- 000 . .0.‘.000..O.000.¢03.0‘0.0. 0 . I0 I.- 0 0. . ..03 0 . .00 . . a - , . . ..I 0 . 00. .0 . .. . I... ... o ..l . . . . _- ... -. . . . .I . . >5 . . 0-0.0.3.. ’0200‘ 0030.....0.0.0.l0-l'005‘..00flt.0fr(’l)00.!.;" . .- I o ..00- I. II.0 II II. \lnc . 0.). . . . .0-II - .. I. - 00 .... 0.. .00 I._ I .. .\.00 -0- ...0‘0‘ .........$.0.SO 0.40 :1..£'\‘.§.£§ ‘400f|.1:.| .0 . .L 0 0 ...: . . 000 0.. ... . .. . . . Ir . .0 I. .. . . 0.0 . .0. A . . r 0 00.00.. ....0? 0..... 000.00.: 0.00 ..00'.0...l III! .00., 0. 000‘ l . 0 D - I . 1.1 .0 0 0. .0 ll. . I - ‘00 . . . 0.... u . . . . .. . I \ , I I .0 II . A . . 0...... 00- II '0‘...1I‘.’.0000000..\| .‘i 0 II') c- l 000 . 0 0 I 0 .0.0 .. . .90 0 1.3.] Q . .0 0.0 0 0 - . . .0 o. . 0 -0 I . 9.. -. 0. I . I 0 . ."‘ .0. . I v I. .0 00 IA. . II .0 .0 . ...0 . 0 0 .0. . 0.. . . _ ' . . ... 0...... ... . - ..0.-.I. r . I . l . 0 w .. 0 .- I ‘00. 0:0 00. 0.0- -. .. I 0:00 ... - .. .0 . I I .0‘ .. 0.. 0.. 0 ..00 0 . I I 00 ..00 0‘. 0 .0.0« . 0 . I. 3%.. I . 0 . ....9 ..I . .. ..I .0 0 . . I . .00 0 0‘ A. I ... 00"! 0 .0 0I O. ' .o 0 0.... 0 I I0. . o I . I .0 . ... s... . .0 .0. 20.. 0.0. - .0I0 . o 00 I 0 0 .0. a . .0..0..004I.00. 1| . . - C c 00. .... ..0 0 . 004.. VA. I . 0 0 0 A00- .0. 0 .0000. .0... .0... 000.. "Afi. 0.0.4.. 0 Q. I- 0 0. . . 0 0.0 O I . .. L.0..|..0. ‘. .. 000 0 o 10 0 0 0 .. . b1- . 0 0 . .0 .. I 0 0 . r ..r- .00... o... 0 . 0 ._ 0. . .0. 00 9| 0| . J 0.0 . . 0 0 . .0 .. . 0.. ..0. .. . ._ \l .... . 0. ..0... . .0 J c 0 s. . v. . 0 .. 0.0 . a. l 0 0 . t. ...) 0’0..0 I 0v. I ...I . .0. 0.0 0.0 ... . 0.0 . .. . . I I O .0 u ‘ .I r .. .0. ...0 00 K I. . 0 0 o 0 , o - 0 0 I.0.. ’ 0.. 0 0 . . . .0 . 0 0 I . 0...‘ .l... 0 0 0. ‘ 00 .v0. 0- 0 I 0. 0 0 o 0 . 0 o 0 O I 0 7000 0 i 000.0 000 0 00 I - 0 I0..0 .. ...-.0. .0.... ‘. 00 .|. I II. .00 . 0I.. 0 0 ... I 0 . . 0.... | ... .. 0.. r .- - . II . 0 .0 .. . n . . 0 .u. 0 .0 . .0-0' I0.|0 ..v. . 0 I.. . . . 0 0 0 .. I . :00 I 0. 4.. 0 10 . . I 001 -00 II V .. ..0. 0 .0 .00. n .z .2}... ,. o. .0 .o 0- ... 00‘. I00 . 000' II . . . § . ' I .. I. I0 . .0u.(1 .0 .0 0 . o . .. .... . . ‘I c . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 I a .0. . . 0 . . . 0 . 0 . 0 I . .0 . . . . .00 0. -- .0.. . 00) 0 000 . 0. 0‘ . .. . . H. , o 00. '0 .. . . 0.0I. 0. o .. . 0., 0 00 0. . .0 ... I - . . . I . 0. . 0 0 . I000 0 . 0 0.. .. . 0 , 0 o s. . I40 0.00 . I o. 0. 0.0 0 Q A ... 0‘ I . - . 0 0 10.04.. .. 00.0...0 .. .0 . . 0 0 0 .0II .0 0. I000. 0. ..0000 . t .0 q 0 o. . .0 . I I I 0 . o 01 I .0 ..I ’0 9 00 I. 00 0 0 0I0 I. u ‘10 0. 0.0 I I I I .. 0.03.4...» 0.. ...... ..0. O . 0.. - O I. .0. . r . I0 .. . . .- .I.. . I I 0 ._ .... 13...; .o .0. 0..! . ... . 0 0. .. . I 0.00 . ..0 I 0 .0: 00 0 . . I. . 0 - 0: I 0. I. . . . 00.0 .. L .00... v. 0 9 . .12 I. I . 0..- 0 ... 0 I . V . 0 . ‘I- . I .. . I - 0 ... . ‘0 . , . I u 0 . A. .. 0. l 00 I 0. .0.. 0.0000... 0.0. 00000 0.? 1.... -.. 0. - 00 V. 0.... 4 0. . V . 00. I . I I. . . ,o. .0. . .I I l I «.0. 0. 0 00 .. .... 00 d 9...- 0 0 I - 0' o .010. I 0 1.. . A00 0 .0.. .00 0.. ... T ... I ... ... ... 0 . 0. s. . I! .0- I It a . 0 00. . .0 0 r . 0. ..0 0.0.0.0 . . 0 0.. 00I .0 0 . 0 I I. O I... p I .0 .... 0 0.. 0.. I . . 0 . 000 0. ...0. I - l .. 0.. I0. I. I)! . 0 . 00 .. I. 0. I. v I 0 a. .0- 0 , 0Q. . . 0.0I 0 a - '0 . 0 0 0.10. o . 0 . . o 0 .0 . 0. . I c ....04 I0. A . . 0 ..I 0. .0 0. :3. . . .. . . . . | - ... ... 0. 0. 0 0 . I - I I... 0 0. o ...-0 ‘0‘0. F I . . I o . . 00.00 b 0. .0. .00. 0 . I . I. .80. II. . .. . <0 .0 . 0 .. 0 ... . . .I00 . . 0 ..0 I 0.0. . 0 .00 .0 .07 o 0.. 0 . u. - I0 - ( 0 a . ... O... . 0 . . 00 00II .II o . I . c . . -. ... I 00 I I . o . . 00 0 . .I .. I . . 0. .0 La... .. 0 .. ... ..0. 0 00 I . .. . 00 .01 .0 . . 9..- 0 9 .2 0 . .. 0 . . o 0 .0. 0 I. _ I 0 .. ... 0. 00 ¢ . I0 . . .0 . .0 0 I ... . . . 0. .0.-0 I.- - .I 0 6.. . . z . 7 . 0 .0 0-0, .0 1.0 0 . .0.... o 0 0 § 0 '0 0 .. .0 1...... I . 0 0.. 1... 0 0 .0. . 0 . c ..0 (a. . 0 I0 0 .» ... . 9 .0 . I00 00 .I \ .0 .. . I I 0 .00.! r . 0. .00 . I. 00 .0 ...1 I .. 0 o I 0 ... I. .0! . 0. I 000 ... I . . .000. 0‘0 . I O 0.. 0 . 0 . 0 , - 0L0. ..000 . II I. -I . . ...-O O . . 0. 0 l .— 00. ... 0 0 0 .0.. .0 I .00 0. .0.. . O . . 0.. 0 0 -. .00.}00 - .o 000' .0. I 9 . I.' I .-.. O 0 I 0. I... . .. < 00. 0 A 0 I II00,- . I... ...... I 0 .0 . 0..... - I . .7 0. 0 . 0 .0 0 .. L .. 0.. 0 I 0 - ...-l .. .. . . ...... .. . I .0. . I I- I - 0 .. . 00 . 0 . 00. 0. . .. . ... ..0. . .. . 0 .. v ...I . ..0 . - I o 0.. ... 20.. .. I 0 . . . ..II 0- I . .0 . I 0. . . .. . 0. .. ...... . . . ...: 0 .. 0. . I . . ., . 0. 311...... ... .JIv. . 0000. I 0 . II - . . 0 4.. ... .¢ .. .. . . 0 - 0 . . 0.... I I I0 .0.- 0 0 - 30.0... ’ . .0 . . . . 00.. 0 . .0 0 0 0 :0. . . . .0 oo'fI. .2- . 0 ....0 030‘? . .00 .0.... 0 o .. 0 . I .. .. . I. .. . .. . . . ...I - 0 . .- 0 , . 0... 1 ... 0... ...0 . - . I. - .n' -.\ .. Lo . ..0 .. . 0 4 I 0. - .. .o .. I, . ... . 0 I . .0 . . . I . 0.00. . 0 . . . 0 0 . 0 0- . II. , . J . . . .. . II 0.... 0x 000 0.. 0. 0 0 I I 0 . 0.0 I 00.0! - 0. . 0.. I .... 0 I 0 I . . 0 . 0... 0. . 00' 0I.0 . 0 V I , . 0 I01 ... Q. . . .| I I .I I 0 0 0.0 . .I00 I .00.. I J. I- 0.0- - . . . I 0 o 0 I 0. O I 0 o A. .0 ..0 s O .. I .. I .. 0' .l 0 I . o. 0 l . .. I. . . . I I . .0.: I. . I .00 .H. .. .... . . . .0. . I 0 . ..u r - .0 0‘ . n o - 0. . 0.0 . ...0. 0 (I -0 . ‘ ... .... 00 0 0 . .. ' . 0 v I . u I. . n .0 .. 0.! I I o. 0 . . II I. I 0 . V 000 I . . . . 0 . I g I .... . 0 0 0 0‘. . .0 . . .0010 0 A0 0 I v .. IA. Irv. 0I - C .. .. .0.. 0 0 I ...-O 0. I . 0.0. 0 J I ... . . . I . | . 000 . 0 0 I . 0 ‘ 0 . 30.0."..020 Q0. 011.0..0‘V00 .01....30'0... 0..- -0|..0 .. I ... 0 0 c. . - . I 0 . 0 . .. 0. . 0 _ c . 0. I 0 0 . . 0 .0 . . . . .. - a - III. . . . 1 0.. ...0 . 00 0 II 9.0 .. 040.9000.‘ 'r000.0 .I‘.’ 1000..\...000.\.00 I00. . o u 0 . 0 0 . L? I I 0 . 0 . .0. I 0 0 I . . 0 .. I .0 2 0 . 0 ... ..00 o . .. 9 . I O V501. . . . I ..0 .0... 0. 0 .- I O . . . f .. I A .. .... 0 . . .V \‘7000 0....-‘010000 is..0.vI00.-I‘00' I” . . . 0.0. . .0 .0 3:0 .+ . 0 0 . . . 0. . I . 0... .0. Q. 0 . 0. 0),'. L OI .. u. . '0 . .00 . .4 0»... 0.. 0. .0 0 . 0v I‘. .0 .. ... I . . V . 0. J.§$‘Il-00 '0 2.! 0.10:.70‘0. 0. \0’0.10I0."0 . I 0 . 0 I . O . .. I. 0 .. . 00 0 0 0 I | ....0 0 ... I I . I 0 .. I. . 0 .0 I . 0 0 . - ~ 0.. I0. 0 .00 I 00 . .llll 5.00.30..- I. ...il‘..'0\.)0 {12.00 {ti 0 0 I 00 I9... I . .9 .. .0. 0.. I0 ... VI . I 0 ..0.. a . 0 . .. I. J . _...II .0 . . Q 0. Q I - u - . . .. .0 . ... I o . . 0- I . . 0.0V 0. s. I. , 0..! If 00.0.1000 - I £‘O..000‘0. i‘Q‘C . _ - 0 II I0I .. a ......0 . . . I 0.9 00- . . I 0 a\ . 0 . - . . G .. I I . 0 0.. . c . 0r ... 0.. 0 . . - I 0. 0 ... 0 . I 00)- 0.00 0... . .0 0 0.090.I00I- O. - £‘09.;010-0‘0§ .' .0 0 00. .0 ‘0- ... o 00... A .... 0. .. . 0 no. r .0 Q0 1.0. . II 'o . \ .. .. . 0.0.... . .... , |Io...0...0.0.. (0.. .. 0 II. . '. I ‘.000'.000.‘000 , I'I.‘.II1‘I§'.I - .. . . II . - .0 .0... . I. . I . 0. .00..»00 .90 lo I 0 l .. _ .- 0 ... 0 0. . . .. I 00. 0 .. I I 0 . .. I 0 ..0000’!‘ 0.6 «I- A‘I...’ . o .. i.000'-0II,0.- - .I I-.. I . I. . I 0 0 0. n (I . . . . . ..0 v on -. II... . I. 0. A 0. .I . . 0 V .5 0 Q . 0 . .00 0 I I I 0 .. 0.. 0. 0 0 0 - 0300‘ 01... 0.0.04... 0-. I 03:0.0‘.‘ . 0.1. II 0 {O . .. . . q 0 0 I .....0. . .- . . 0 1300-070‘0.‘ IDII .00} "-| ‘0'.’ I. I 0 0 - s . ..- . ... 0 0 I O 0 I . . I 0 .00 00:. I |I (.0 ‘00 00f.....|.ll00-,\.0‘101 . .. 0.0 I . 0 1. I. .I. I‘c'l'IIIII 0 0. . 0 . II . 0 0 s . ..II: 0 , . 0 I . - 0 In I . . .IIII‘ !.$ I . ' I I I - 0. , I . . . ’0 i' [0%. ‘O-. . . I 9‘ ’(0.I_II.N0. 01‘ - III I . I -. ... I. a . 0 . I . 0- .0 .00. ‘ 9% ,flysugafl'-‘o 0nd ‘8... . . .... o . u , I I A n. .I-. 0 0 . , -' [Il- . o... - I, ’0 D I 0.0 0 0 . . . I - . . 0 . - . I . 0 .00.. .004. .0- - 0 . . I I..0A 0' I I'l- 1' I‘ll '1'.- Il- I| III-l. I I - . This is to certify that the dissertation entitled COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS THAT PROMOTE SEAMLESS LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES presented by KATHERINE A. STOLZ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education 422M,7///%%/ Major P?ofessor’s Signature /I fl/g'? 24 2670 Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer LIBRARY Michigan State University 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 KlProj/AccatproleIRCIDateDue.indd TITLE: COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS THAT PROMOTE SEAMLESS LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES By Katherine A. Stolz A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education 2010 ABSTRACT COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS THAT PROMOTE SEAMLESS LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES By Katherine A. Stolz This instrumental case study employed a qualitative approach to explore ways that partnerships were built on a large, decentralized campus to support the seamless learning for students with disabilities. The number of college students with disabilities is increasing today, yet higher education lacks coordinated systems that provide a coherent learning experience for students who have specialized needs. This study addressed two overarching research questions: In what ways does a student affairs unit that provides disability services interact with campus partners to promote student learning? What factors influence the interaction between these organizational units? To explore these questions, Buchmiller Hall at Midwestern University was selected as the site for this case study. Three Buchmiller staff members were interviewed, in addition to nine individuals who Buchmiller staff identified as campus partners. Two campus leaders, who provided a broader view of organizational dynamics at MWU, where also interviewed. First interviews took place during spring and summer of 2009, followed by second interviews during the late fall of 2009. Document analysis supplemented data collected through on-site interviews. After data were collected and transcribed, several themes emerged during analysis of the data. Findings in this study examine themes that emerged in regard to factors that were supports or barriers in collaborative efforts with partners. Discussion explores support and barrier themes in light of three research sub-questions that address how, why, and when collaboration took place. Participants described three types of boundaries, which included boundaries of position, identity, and space. They described two primary ways that they negotiated these boundaries, using both a structural and human component of navigation. Values of individuals and leaders emerged as an important theme during the process of navigation, in addition to the importance of individuals having the necessary tools to act upon values. Finally, when certain elements of context aligned, an “incredible moment” was created, in which the above themes came to light. Present throughout all themes, the context of disability presented unique characteristics in partnership efforts. After discussion of the themes, implications for practice and research are provided. To my parents, Thomas and Cheryl Stolz, who have supported my education in every way possible, fiom the very beginning. iv ACKNOWELDGEMENTS I must acknowledge several individuals who have over the past years given their support through my doctoral coursework and dissertation completion. First and foremost, I thank my parents, who have sacrificed in so many ways to provide a solid education for me, both growing up and through college. My mother and father, Cheryl and Thomas Stolz, have been hugely instrumental in who I am today and built a foundation that provided a true love of learning in my life that have led me to endeavors such as this dissertation. In addition, they both served as careful editors through the final stretch of the dissertation, spending painstaking hours reading and re-reading chapters. I have never had so many conversations about preposition selection as with my father in the past several months. I hope to never experience that number again. Dr. Monica Marcelis Fochtrnan was my writing partner to whom I owe many thanks. We spent Wednesday evenings together, in addition to many other times, discussing themes and ideas, organization of text, sentence structure, and the writing process itself. Monica was a huge support for me, especially when I needed someone just to say, “Good job.” Others I must thank include my fiance, Loren, who was an amazing listener through many long hours, discussing organizational dynamics and what I was learning through this dissertation. Sometimes we see many similarities in our worlds of higher education and financial risk consulting, although they are very different at the same time. Loren’s parents, Rennie and Joe Madden, also served as editors through this dissertation writing process. My sister, Anne Stolz, is wildly brave in giving a year-and- a-half of her life to teaching elementary school children halfway across the world and persevering through several major natural disasters there. Her and my mother’s commitment to Catholic education is something I greatly admire. Anne was also an important support through the half-decade of this doctoral degree. I would also like to extend a thank you to Dr. Cindy Helman, who has served as a professional and academic mentor figure for me through my years at Michigan State, in addition to Dr. Amy Franklin-Craft who has shown support as my supervisor over the past two years while I was writing, and Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski, my advisor and committee chair. Finally, I must thank the many individuals who made this dissertation possible by willingly sharing their experiences with me. Because of their openness and dedication to helping students with disabilities, writing this dissertation was in ways an enjoyable experience. The commitment of the individuals who participated in this case study serves as an inspiration to me as I continue in my professional role of working with students in the journey that is their college years. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ............................................................... 1 Seamless Learning .......................................................................... 1 Students with Disabilities ................................................................. 3 Organizational Partnerships .............................................................. 5 Research Problem ........................................................................... 7 Purpose and Research Questions .......................................................... 8 Defimtrons ...................... 9 Summary ...................................................................................... 10 Document Overview ......................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 12 Organizational Collaboration and Partnerships ........................................ l3 Partnership Terminology ................................. ' ........................ 13 The Process of Collaboration in Higher Education ........................... 14 Models for Collaboration in Higher Education ...................... 14 Factors that Hinder the Process of Collaboration .................... 16 Logistical Barriers ............................................... 16 Structural Barriers ............................................... 16 Motivational and Goal-Oriented Barriers .................... 17 Factors that Promote the Process of Collaboration .................. l7 Counters to Logistical Barriers ................................ 18 Counters to Structural Barriers ................................ 18 Counters to Motivational and Goal-Oriented Barriers... . .19 Collaboration in Higher Education .............................................. l9 Collaboration in Student Affairs ................................................. 20 Disability in Higher Education ........................................................... 22 National Context of Disability Support Services .............................. 24 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)25 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 .............................................. 27 A Shifi in Roles and Responsibilities ........................................... 27 Disability Support Services in Student Affairs. ... ... ...28 Organizational Partnerships Surrounding Disability Support Services ............. 29 Summary ..................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 34 Constructivist Paradigm .................................................................... 34 Subjectivist Epistemology ........................................................ 35 vii Relativist Ontology35 Qualitative Research .............................................................. 36 Case Study ................................................................................... 37 Research Questions ......................................................................... 38 Unit of Analysis .............................................................................. 39 Single-Case vs. Multi-Case Selection ................................................... 40 Methods and Data Collection ............................................................. 44 Interviews .......................................................................... 42 Document Analysis ............................................................... 45 Selection Criteria ........................................................................... 46 Case Selection ..................................................................... 46 Participant Selection .............................................................. 47 Participant Safeguards ..................................................................... 48 Judging The Quality of Case Study Research ......................................... 49 Credibility .......................................................................... 49 Transferability ..................................................................... 51 Reliability ........................................................................... 51 Confirmability ..................................................................... 51 Authenticity ................................................................................. 52 Assumptions ................................................................................. 52 Situated Position of the Researcher ...................................................... 53 Data Analysis and Written Report ....................................................... 55 Summary .................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................... 57 Overview of Buchmiller Hall .............................................................. 57 Personal Assistants and Disability Management Plan ........................ 57 Unique Organizational Structure of Buchmiller Hall ......................... 58 Overview of Participants and Their Roles on Campus ................................ 59 Buchmiller Staff Team ............................................................ 59 Campus Partners ................................................................... 60 Campus Leaders ................................................................... 62 Participants’ Definitions of Student Learning .......................................... 65 Learning is Individualized ....................................................... 66 Learning Happens Outside the Classroom ..................................... 67 Students Are Co-Learners ........................................................ 68 Learning Requires a Safe Space to F ail ........................................ 69 Student Learning is Empowerment ............................................. 7O Importance of Collaboration in Promoting Student Learning ........................ 72 Summary .................................................................................... 73 CHAPTER 5 OVERVIEW OF PARTNERSHIPS WITH BUCHMILLER HALL ........................ 74 Types of Partnerships ....................................................................... 74 Partnerships that Involved Specific Projects ................................... 74 viii Partnerships that Involved Ongoing Working Relationships ................ 76 The New Building Partnerships .......................................................... 78 The Series ........................................................................... 78 The Project Team ................................................................... 80 The New Building Process of Collaboration .................................. 81 Negotiating Physical Space ............................................. 81 Merging Systems ......................................................... 83 Retaining Programmatic Identity ....................................... 84 Summary .................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER 6 FACTORS THAT WERE BARRIERS OR SUPPORTS TO COLLABORATION... ..86 Factors that Were Barriers to Collaboration ............................................ 86 Size and Decentralization ........................................................ 87 The Hierarchy ..................................................................... 88 Embedded within Multiple Systems ............................................ 89 Understanding the Needs of Students with Disabilities ....................... 91 Keeping Up with the Everyday .................................................. 93 Factors that Supported Collaboration .................................................... 94 Shared Mission and Goals ........................................................ 95 Mission and Goals of the Units ........................................ 95 Mission and Goals of the University ................................... 96 Committees as Formal Opportunities to Connect ............................ 98 Sharing a Common Language ................................................... 99 Finding the Point Person ........................................................ 101 So Large—Having a History Helps ........................................... 102 Letting Go ........................................................................ 103 Summary ................................................................................... 105 CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS .................................. 106 How Does Interaction Take Place? ...................................................................... 107 Types of Boundaries ............................................................ 107 Boundaries of Position ................................................. 109 Boundaries of Personal Identity ....................................... 110 Boundaries of Physical Space ......................................... 113 Navigation of Boundaries ...................................................... 115 Navigation: The Structural Component .............................. 115 Navigation: The Human Component ................................. 117 Why Does Interaction Take Place? ...................................................................... 121 Reasons Surrounding Participants’ and Leaders’ Values .................. 122 Participants’ Values .................................................... 125 Leaders’ Values ......................................................... 126 Having the Necessary Tools ................................................... 127 Necessary Tools: Taking a Seat at the Decision-Making Table ..................................................................... 129 ix Necessary Tools: Using Clear Communication ..................... 130 Necessary Tools: Knowing Their Circle of Influence ............. 133 When Does Interaction Take Place? .................................................................... 134 Implications and Limitations of the Current Study .................................. 136 Implications for Practice ........................................................ 139 Pathways for People to Meet in Formal and Informal Ways... . .139 F ormalized Recognition of Collaborative Efforts .................. 141 Clear Pathways of Communication .................................. 142 Building on Areas of Expertise ....................................... 144 Implications for Research ...................................................... 146 Learning Outcomes for Disability Support Services ............... 147 Leadership in Building Partnerships to Support Students with Disabilities ............................................................... 148 Future Studies in Additional Types of Institutional Environments ............................................................ 149 Limitations ................................................................................. 150 Summary ................................................................................... 152 Document Conclusion .................................................................... 152 APPENDICES .................................................................................... 155 REFERENCES .................................................................................... 160 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Participant Information .................................................................. 71 xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY As today’s campus populations are becoming increasingly diverse, the needs of college students are changing. At the same time, in light of current economic trends, fiscal budgets are tightening and stakeholders are putting forth increased calls for accountability (ACPA, 1996; ACPA & NASPA, 1997; ACPA & NASPA, 2004; ACPA et al., 2006). Within this context of change facing higher education, colleges and universities are beginning to re-examine ways in which student services are delivered in order to more effectively promote learning (Blimling & Whitt, 1999; Kuh, 1996; Nesheim et al., 2007). In particular, scholars and practitioners must examine and develop more coherent and interconnected systems of support for students with disabilities on college and university campuses (Myers, 2008; Parker, Shaw, & McGuire, 2003). The first chapter addresses the purpose of the current study, which examined ways in which a student affairs unit, Buchmiller Hall, promoted learning for students with disabilities at Midwestern University (MWU) by developing collaborative efforts with campus partners. This chapter includes the following: overview of the research problem, significance, research purpose and questions, and definitions used in the current study. In order to introduce the research problem, this chapter opens with a discussion of seamless learning, students with disabilities, and organizational partnerships. Seamless Learning The current study explored campus partnerships designed to provide students with disabilities a seamless learning experience by integrating student services in a variety of ways. As Kuh (1996) stated, The word seamless suggests that what was once believed to be separate, distinct parts (e.g., in-class and out-of-class, academic and nonacadernic, curricular and co- curricular, or on-campus and off-campus experiences) are now of one piece, bound together so as to appear whole or continuous. (p. 136) A dichotomy between academic and student affairs has traditionally existed within the organizational structure of colleges and universities (ACPA, 1996; ACPA et al., 2006, Kuh; Lamadrid, 1999; Magolda, 2005). However, today a growing recognition emphasizes that clear-cut boundaries and linear approaches that separate learning inside and outside the classroom are no longer the most effective approaches to student learning. Rather, learning should be considered in a holistic, or seamless, sense that cuts across the academic, interpersonal, and developmental dimensions of students’ lives (ACPA & NASPA, 1997). As student affairs professionals provide services “that smooth the student’s path on campus and keep obstacles out of the way of learning” (ACPA et al., 2006, p. 14), they promote seamless learning that allows students to integrate new knowledge and experiences. “Health and counseling services, advocacy and intervention services for students with disabilities, and programs that support minority students are all examples of student affairs interventions that support learning by removing or modifying barriers” (ACPA et al., p. 14). One example of “smoothing the path” is coordinating student services across campus. Students with disabilities are particularly likely to be “shuffled” between systems on- and off-campus because they have specialized needs related to health care, legal rights, classroom learning, and physical mobility with which many student affairs professionals and educators are not familiar. As a result, a salient need exists to provide a less fragmented learning experience for students by providing disability support through partnerships and increased coordination of services. Students with Disabilities A growing number of students enter higher education today with varied backgrounds, experiences, and abilities. Because of today’s diversification of college students, “it is increasingly important for students to become managers of their own learning processes and goals” (ACPA & NASPA, 2004, p. 11). Developing a greater sense of independence is particularly important for students with disabilities because they experience a distinctive shift in responsibility upon entering college, in large part due to current legislation. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was ratified in 1990 to ensure that students with disabilities are provided equal access to learning opportunities. Supplementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA is the primary disability-related legislation that prohibits discrimination based on disability in higher education and ensures that college students have access to reasonable accommodations that meet their needs. The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (2008) broadened the definition of disability to be more expansive than what had been interpreted through court cases since the ADA was passed in 1990 (Shaw, Keenan, Madaus, & Banerjee, 2010). Under the ADA, when individuals graduate from high school and transition to college, their roles as students change and the responsibility for seeking out accommodations shifts to them from teachers and the secondary educational system (Gordon et al., 2002). Because students with disabilities are expected to advocate for themselves and manage their individualized needs, they often face the task of navigating among various units on campus that each serve a separate function or provide a specific service. In other words, disability support services that integrate student learning are rarely woven into the fabric of an institution (Myers, 2008). Instead, students with disabilities are expected to take initiative in order to coordinate services they receive fi'om various areas on campus. The National Council on Disability (N CD) described the incoherence and misalignment that often surrounds disability services, presenting challenges to students who must coordinate multiple systems. The NCD (2003) stated, We know students and families cannot prepare themselves to succeed in systems about which there is inadequate information and inconsistency of support offerings. We know that such systems, as diverse as they are, operate independently of one another and with limited accountability, [and] cannot hope to efficiently address the growing demand for support. (p. 22) Empowering college students with disabilities to navigate various student support services in a way that allows them to engage in seamless learning is significant for a number of reasons. In 2003, 11.3% of college students reported having a disability (U .S. Department of Education, 2006). This number reflects a 2% increase in the enrollment of students with disabilities from the 1999-2000 academic year (U .S. Department of Education, 2000). Actual numbers of college students with disabilities, however, may be even higher due to the challenge of collecting data through self-reported information and the stigma at times attached to having a disability. As the number of individuals with physical, emotional, and cognitive challenges who enroll in higher education increases, college and university officials must examine how to best meet the needs of this growing population. When systems provide holistic support that promote seamless learning in a way that students and their families are able to understand and navigate, individuals with disabilities are more likely to graduate and obtain employment that provides a higher quality of life (N CD, 2003). The government spends large amounts of funding to support individuals with disabilities in society (N CD, 2008); if those resources are intentionally invested in effective ways that offer integrated support services, college graduates with disabilities are more likely to pursue a satisfying career and be able to support themselves. The degree to which institutions are effective in serving students with disabilities as they engage in seamless learning impacts a variety of stakeholders, including tax-paying citizens, students with disabilities and their families, and other students on campus who benefit fi'om interacting with a diverse set of peers who are empowered to be successfiil members of the community. Organizational Partnerships Forming campus partnerships is one way in which student affairs professionals can promote student learning for students (N esheim et al., 2007). Organizational relationships involve the ways in which individual members and sub-units within an organization interact with one another (Morgan, 1997; Scott; 2003); partnerships between units allow gaps to be filled and redundancies between services on campus to be avoided. As a result, students can engage in a more seamless learning experience, rather than being forced to move between offices, services, or other units. When student affairs units develop collaborative relationships with other student or academic affairs units, they can share resources and information, in addition to sharing areas of expertise in order to provide a more coherent experience for students. In other words, as organizational partnerships integrate services that focus on multiple areas of student learning and development, they provide a more seamless experience for students (Kuh, 1996). In a broad sense, collaboration takes place when “a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain” (Wood & Gray, 1991, p. 146). Colleges and universities, in addition to nearly every sector in education and business, are increasing efforts to examine their organizational structure and determine how members work with others to engage in collaboration within the organization (Kezar, Hirsh, & Burack, 2002). Higher education presents a distinct context in which to examine intra-organizational relationships and partnerships due to a wide- ranging set of expectations and calls for accountability from multiple stakeholders, in addition to diverse membership within the organization (ACPA, 1996; ACPA & NASPA, 2004; ACPA et al., 2006). In addition to often functioning as decentralized organizations, in which many units function independently from one another (Morgan, 1997), universities are experiencing an increasing degree of specialization. “Specialization is a natural outgrowth of any organization and discipline, but it has reached such a magnitude in higher education that we are quickly losing sight of the overarching role of developing an educated citizen” (Blimling & Whitt, 1999, p. 11). Collaborative partnerships in student affairs bridge the organizational divide between units on campus to build deeper-level “cross-functional, interdepartmental linkages that combine resources and expertise to address the learning needs of students” (Whitt et al., 2008, p. 236). Student affairs literature that examines organizational relationships often focuses on obstacles and current trends in building collaborative initiatives with faculty and others in the academic affairs arena. Little attention is devoted to examining effective elements of partnership programs that make collaborative efforts successful (Whitt et al.). Scholars and practitioners must develop a better understanding of relationships between student affairs units and campus partners that promote seamless learning. Research Problem Learning should be considered “a comprehensive, holistic, transforrnative activity that integrates academic learning and student development” (ACPA & NASPA, 2004, p. 4). In order to provide a learning environment that takes into account multiple dimensions of a student’s experience, units on campus must work together in ways that provide seamless support in a coherent and meaningful manner (AAHE, ACPA & NASPA, 1998). Organizational units on a decentralized campus function serni-autonomously (Morgan, 1997); without intentional efforts to coordinate services, students are frequently not served in a holistic way. More specifically, support services for students with disabilities are often focused within a single disability support service office, rather than being integrated across student and academic affairs units (Myers, 2008). Educators in higher education must develop a more integrated view of disability support systems for students by “recognizing the interdependent relationships between students with disabilities, natural supports, disability support staff, service providers, federal funding agencies, secondary and postsecondary staff and faculty, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” (N CD, 2003, p. 5). The ADA requires that all institutions of higher education provide a baseline of accommodation for students with disabilities both inside and outside the classroom. The ADA, though, is ambiguous and lacks specific requirements about what accommodations must be provided. How the university and various campus partners interpret the institution’s obligations under the ADA, embedded within institutional goals surrounding student learning, can influence intra-organizational relationships. Although campus units frequently need not interact hand-in-hand, they must all meet compliance regulations while providing student accommodations as outlined by federal law. University counsel and legal services may determine overarching university policy regarding disability, however, the ways in which policies and procedures play out in the individual lives of students ultimately relies on student affairs professionals and other educators. Student affairs professionals, in particular, have a responsibility to move beyond the baseline of ADA compliance and to take a student learning approach (Frank & Wade, 1993). A learning-centered approach is integrated into the historical mission of student affairs and serves as the foundation for the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Student Affairs (Blirnling & Whitt, 1999), one of which includes the forging of educational partnerships. The current study examined how collaborative partnerships were developed and why they were created in the unique context surrounding disability in higher education. Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of the current study was to better understand how organizational units in student affairs work together in ways that support seamless learning for students with disabilities. More specifically, the current study explored points of interface between a student affairs unit that provides disability support services and other organizational units and sub-units on a university campus. The intention of the research was not to determine whether one or more types of relationships were “positive” or “negative.” Rather, this study sought to understand broadly how and why collaborative relationships between a student affairs unit and organizational partners existed in ways that promoted an integrated student learning experience. The following research questions guided the current study: 1. In what ways does a student affairs unit that provides disability services interact with campus partners to promote student learning? 2. What factors influence the interaction between these organizational units? In addition, the following are sub-questions that were embedded within both of the overarching research questions listed above: 0 How does interaction take place? (e. g., Do units work together in formal or informal ways? Are interactions part of ongoing relationships or partnerships?) 0 Why does interaction take place? (e. g., What are espoused or enacted goals? Is action driven from the top-down or bottom-up, neither, or both? What messages are sent to individuals by the institution, campus partners, and students?) 0 When does interaction take place? (e.g., Who initiates action and with what timeline?) Definitions The current study used a broad definition of student learning that involves a holistic approach and focuses on multiple elements of the individual, both inside and outside the classroom (ACPA & NASPA, 2004; AAHE, ACPA & NASPA, 1998). Because “learning is fundamentally about making and maintaining connections” (AAHE, ACPA & NASPA, p. 3), students learn best when they are able to connect and integrate experiences in a meaningfirl way. The definition of disability used in the current study is , that which is put forth by the ADA. Although the ADA Amendments Act broadened the interpretation of what disability means, the wording of the original legislation is used here. The ADA states that an individual with a disability is “a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” (U .S. Department of Justice, 2005, p. 1). Furthermore, the ADA recognizes a disability as a record or history of an impairment that impacts major life activities, including when a person is perceived to have such an impairment. The concept of relationship was used in a similar sense as partnership and collaboration throughout the current study because the various campus members are organizational players who belong within a single institution, but partnership and collaboration were used to imply a more developed and intentional relationship. The term organizational unit was used to refer to any unit or sub-unit in the organizational structure of the university, such as a residence hall, student services office, academic department, or an entire division. In the current study, student aflairs referred to a variety of functional areas that promoted student learning inside and outside the classroom through the delivery of student services. Summary Chapter 1 introduced the current study, which explored the role of organizational partnerships surrounding disability in higher education. Providing comprehensive and integrated disability support services for college students with disabilities promotes student learning by allowing students to make connections between services they receive 10 fi'om different areas of campus. By exploring how one student affairs unit, Buchmiller Hall, engaged in partnerships with other organizational units on campus, the current study furthered knowledge with regard to optimizing the learning environment for all students, particularly those with disabilities. Document Overview Chapter 1 provided an overview of the research topic and questions that examine how organizational relationships promote seamless learning for students with disabilities, in addition to the significance of study in this area. Chapter 2 explores pertinent literature to the current study. Chapter 3 discusses the methods and methodological approach used. Chapter 4 provides background information that sets a context for the following chapters, including an introduction to partnerships in the current study and an introduction to Buchmiller Hall, the student affairs unit that was the focus of this case study. Chapters 5 and 6 present findings structured around the two overarching research questions. Chapter 7 discusses results and implications of the current study for colleges and universities. ll CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Many organizations today are realizing that they must improve the ways in which members work amid a variety of change factors. Particularly in higher education, a number of external pressures are prompting institutions to explore ways in which they can promote collaboration. Tightening fiscal budgets, increased calls for accountability, and a growing diversity of student bodies are leading colleges and universities to examine the ways in which they deliver student services and effectively promote student learning (Kezar, 2006; Parker, Show, & McGuire; 2003; Sharpe & Johnson, 2001). This chapter provides an overview of the literature that sets the context for the current study by introducing collaboration in higher education surrounding student services for students with disabilities. The conceptual framework for the current study draws from two primary bodies of literature: organizational partnerships and disability in higher education. The first section of this chapter provides an overview of the literature that examines collaboration in higher education. The second section provides an overview of the literature that examines disability in higher education. The intersection of these two areas is then explored; it is at this intersection that a gap exists in the literature and further research is needed. The third section of this chapter highlights the limited literature that examines the need for student affairs partnerships with other organizational units in the delivery of services to students with disabilities. The discussion of the three overarching areas provides a context for the current study, which is to understand the ways in which - organizational units form campus partnerships in order to serve students with disabilities on a university campus. 12 Organizational Collaboration and Partnerships Partnership Terminology A number of terms describe organizational interface that exists between and within colleges and universities. A partnership, the most general term for relationships addressed in the current study, refers to a “dynamic interaction and relationship that is influenced by motivating factors” (Watson, 2007, p. 53). The term partnership is often used interchangeably with collaboration (Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2007). Collaboration, however, involves more than typical interaction and implies a coordinated effort that takes place when a group works on a project separately, coming together only at the finish. When individuals connect only near the end of a project, groups are collaborative without engaging in collaboration. Collaboration, rather, is a process that “is integrative, involving the collective cognition of the group” (Amey & Brown, 2004, p. 10). Collaboration is the ongoing process of bringing together resources and expertise in order to develop solutions (Kezar, 2006). Collaborative efforts emphasize “the importance of working together on a common goal in an environment that fosters mutual respect, openness, and trust” (Stein & Short, 2001 , p. 425), in addition to sharing in decision-making and risk-taking processes. Cooperation, in contrast, is characterized as “going along with an established direction” and “short term with limited objectives, shorter time agreements, and less commitment among participants” (Stein & Short, p. 425). In other words, in a cooperative relationship, partners may not necessarily share the same underlying assumptions and values but can still effectively work together. Other relational terms describe specific types of partnerships, such as a strategic alliance, which 13 is considered a fluid and temporary alliance, particularly when two or more institutions wish to retain a distinct identity (Martin & Sarnels, 2002). The Process of Collaboration in Higher Education Models for Collaboration in Higher Education A number of models and typologies for collaboration in higher education have been developed, frequently based on collaboration models used in the context of the private sector. Yet, higher education literature lags behind the corporate sector because “it tends to focus on individual conditions that relate to collaboration rather than on developing models of collaboration. . .it also tends to focus on the micro conditions rather than on macro conditions such as the context” (Kezar, 2006, p. 809). Another distinction in regard to models for collaboration in postsecondary education is that values are inextricably intertwined with collaboration in the academy (Amey & Brown, 2004), which may not be the case in other fields. Three models or typologies for collaboration in areas of higher education are described below. Although these examples do not specifically address collaboration only between student affairs units, elements of the models can be applied to the context of how student affairs professionals build partnerships that promote student learning. Depicting collaborative efforts that involve community colleges, Amey, Eddy, and Ozaki (2007) described a model that can be applied to partnerships in other areas of higher education, such as student affairs. Ozaki, Amey, and Watson (2007) later modified Amey et al.’s model. The modified model addresses the roles of social and organizational capital in collaboration. Social capital is based on relationships, and organization capital includes “resources, power, influence, authority, communication systems, and other 14 aspects of the organization” (Ozaki et al., p. 109). Student affairs partnerships are embedded within a political and often complex organizational structure (Bimbaum, 1991), and as a result the role of capital can play an important role in who receives resources, in what ways, and from whom. Stein and Short (2001) created a typology for collaborative academic-degree programs, which can also be applied to the collaboration in student affairs. The typology describes four types of collaboration that include the following: the builder collaborative, the broker collaborative, the ballerina collaborative, and the baker collaborative. The first of these, the builder collaborative, is developed when one program is built to follow, or build upon, another program such as during the transition from high school to college. The broker collaborative, on the other hand, brings several pieces together from different programs to serve a need while seeking to reach agreement with all sides. The ballerina collaborative connects pre-existing programs together while each one continues to function with a degree of autonomy. Finally, the baker collaborative uses innovation to connect elements of several programs in new ways. The baker collaborative “bends rules, challenges tradition, and looks for new ways to provide service” (p. 431) by creating a new program. As student affairs units seek new ways to provide services to students that promote learning, they may take on one or more of the above collaborative roles. After examining a number of collaboration models used in the corporate sector, Kezar (2005) developed a model for collaboration in institutions of higher education. Kezar explored a number of colleges and universities that had wide-ranging collaborative efforts across campus and delineated three major components of collaboration: building commitment, commitment, and sustaining. Although Kezar’s model does not focus 15 specifically on collaboration only in student affairs, the model’s emphasis on the importance of relationships, learning, and environmental factors is particularly relevant to student affairs units, in which the goal of providing services is often person-focused. Factors that Hinder the Process of Collaboration Literature that examines collaboration in higher education includes much about the challenges and barriers present in the process of developing partnerships (Kezar, 2006). Factors that inhibit effective collaboration in the higher education and student affairs context are discussed below in three major areas that are termed logistical, structural, and motivational barriers. Logistical concerns include tangible resources and surface-level points of difference. Structural barriers, on the other hand, look at contextual factors of the institution or environment. Finally, motivational barriers are those that include philosophical, teamwork-related, and unspoken forces at play when members’ reasons for participating are at conflict. All three types of barriers are closely intertwined and impact one another. Logistical barriers. Logistical barriers include financial concerns, especially when one partner is viewed to be privileged in terms of money, other resources, or power (Bracken, 2007). In complex and stratified organizations, collaborations often exist within a hierarchy based on who has information, in addition to specialization of roles and positions (Magolda, 2005). Structural barriers. A second type of barrier to collaboration in higher education includes structural barriers. In higher education the organizational structure of colleges and universities often inhibits greater collaboration: “Collaborations struggle, at times, to become institutionalized because higher education institutions work in departmental silos 16 and within bureaucratic/ hierarchical administrative structures” (Kezar, 2006, p. 804). In addition to the organization of a college or university, structural barriers can also include policies and reward systems that inhibit collaboration (Stein & Short, 2001). In an effort to foster collaboration, “managerial strategies” (Magolda, 2005, p. 17) may be used to reorganize and build new structures and superficial relationships. Some institutions have attempted to lessen the divide between academic and student affairs by shifting lines within the organizational structure so that student affairs units report to an academic leader such as the provost. These “mergers,” (p. 25) however, are rarely effective (Larnadrid, 1999) because they do not address the differences in cultures between the two units or promote intentional partnerships around shared goals. Motivational and goal-oriented barriers. Finally, motivational and goal-related barriers stem from differences in socialization, core values, and members’ reasons for participation in collaborative efforts. For example, when individuals or groups fail to share a sense of mission or goals (Eddy, 2007) and attempt to collaborate only for the sake of collaboration, efforts become an end and a means (Magolda, 2005). In other words, if all members fail to share a sense of buy-in in order to achieve an end result, the process itself may fail to provide adequate reason to proceed. Factors that Promote the Process of Collaboration The barriers to collaboration described above are useful in considering factors that support collaboration. Factors that promote the process of collaboration are discussed in the following section and include counters to logistical barriers, structural barriers, and motivational and goal-oriented barriers. 17 Counters to logistical barriers. Logistical barriers may be countered through the acquisition of elements such as firnding and other similar base necessities. When partners must seek out and best use resources, they are more likely to be successful in building and sustaining such relationships (Kisker & Hauser, 2007). Furthermore, members who participate in collaboration must have an understanding of the role that each individual or group plays in the partnership and be aware of how language is being used, in addition to being able to communicate clearly with one another (Larnadrid, 1999). Counters to structural barriers. The support of champions can mediate structural barriers. Champions may or may not have positional authority within the organizations involved, but they provide structure and guidance, often strengthening communication between partners (Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2007; Hoffman-Johnson, 2007). Champions may serve as “gatekeepers” (p. 53) because of their access to various kinds of capital (Watson, 2007). An additional role that a champion may play is to promote communication between partners. Although the organizational structure of colleges and universities often presents challenges to crossing departmental, divisional, and institutional boundaries, positive communication builds bridges across these separations in ways that make collaboration possible. “Effective cross-functional dialogue establishes a context in which communication and collaboration become normative and individual assumptions are continually challenged in order for the group to create insights made possible only through collaboration” (Kuh, 1996, p. 140). For example, communication allows each partner to better understand one another. Open exchange promotes positive interaction, not only laterally between partners, but also vertically in terms of various positional roles within an institution. 18 In some instances, open communication allows for the presence of what literature terms boundary-spanners (Scott, 2003). In interdisciplinary collaboration, individuals must be boundary-sparmers with a neutral sense of self and work to achieve a neutral intellectual space (Amey & Brown, 2004). Border-crossers are individuals or groups that are able to move across organizational divides in a way that connects both partners and presents a common ground that allows for more successful partnership, often because they are able to navigate multiple organizational cultures (Philpott & Strange, 2003). Counters to motivational and goal-related barriers. Person-focused factors, such as attitudes, are perceived by individuals working on a campus to play a major role in the success of collaboration (Kezar, 2003). Social and psychological forces, including partners’ perceptions of their roles and ability to be successful, play a role in the success of collaborative efforts on a college campus (Stein & Short, 2001). Partners must understand the role of each member involved and what they will contribute to the partnership (Bracken, 2007; Kisker & Hauser, 2007), in addition to possessing a shared meaning of the relationship (Amey, Eddy & Ozaki, 2007). Furthermore, motivationaland goal-related barriers may be mediated through increased awareness for all members’ goals and motives (Eddy, 2007). Individual goals for participation should be embedded within those of the institution. In particular, in student affairs and academic affairs partnerships, co-curricular initiatives must support the academic goals of the institution _ (Larnadrid, 1999). Collaboration in Higher Education Collaboration literature examines the roles of partnerships and connection- building in a variety of fields and disciplines. For example, the business sector discusses 19 collaboration designed to meet the needs of today’s changing times (Kezar, 2006). In addition, collaboration literature examines partnerships between K-12 and postsecondary education in a variety of contexts, but is primarily descriptive and most often focuses on the viewpoint of the K-12 system, as opposed to that of higher education (Amey, Eddy & Ozaki, 2007). Although knowledge of organizational relationships in other fields and areas of education may be related to collaboration in postsecondary education, research on partnerships that take place within or between colleges and universities must take into account that higher education is a distinct and unique context (Hoffman-Johnson, 2007). A growmg body of research examines inter-organizational collaboration in higher education, including relationships between institutions and external partners. In comparison to literature that discusses collaborative efforts between organizations, less examination focuses on intra-organizational collaboration. Collaboration among units within an institution, however, promotes seamless student learning on a college campus (Kezar, 2006). Such infra-organizational collaboration takes various forms, including learning communities, community service learning, and interdisciplinary faculty collaboration. For example, interdisciplinary faculty collaboration occurs when faculty members come together from different academic areas to work as a team in order to create new knowledge that integrates multiple disciplines (Amey & Brown, 2004). A growing body of literature examines collaboration and other partnerships between student and academic affairs, but research that does so is still in its infancy (Kezar; Whitt et al., 2008). Collaboration in student affairs, in which the focus is promoting student learning inside and outside the classroom, is discussed next. 20 Collaboration in Student Affairs Building campus partnerships is one response to calls for accountability to promote less easily measured outcomes such as student learning. In addition to an emphasis on building partnerships between student affairs units, a growing body of literature calls for increased collaboration between student affairs and faculty or academic affairs. For example, the Student Learning Imperative (ACPA, 1996) stated the need for a re-examination of philosophical tenets in how faculty members, student affairs members, and students work together, and the document describes the need to provide a shared effort to support our increasingly diverse body of students. In addition to The Student Learning Imperative, a number of change effdrts that involve increased collaboration have been initiated by professional associations, as discussed in documents such as Principles of Good Practice (ACPA & NASPA,]997), Powerful Partnerships (AAHE, ACPA, & NASPA, 1998), Greater Expectations (AACU, 2002), Learning Reconsidered (ACPA & NASPA, 2004), and Learning Reconsidered 2 (ACPA et al., 2006). Collaborative efforts between student and academic affairs can provide students with a more seamless learning experience in which they are able to connect learning that takes place inside and outside the classroom. Developing these connections allows partners to share their areas of expertise. “Faculty members are generally more attuned to knowledge acquisition and intellectual development; student affairs professionals have great experience in helping students cultivate certain abilities. . .and cognitive processes” (Banta & Kuh, 1998, p. 42). As educators begin to accept a more holistic approach to 21 teaching, student and academic affairs can both contribute based on their training and experience (ACPA et a1, 2002; Lamadrid, 1999). Although a fi'equent dialogue in higher education is one that describes the need for increased collaboration in student affairs, limited research examines which aspects of student affairs partnerships make them effective (Whitt et al., 2008) or what elements of an environment foster collaboration (Kezar, 2006). Amid calls for collaborative partnerships, research rarely examines whether they are “‘a good idea,’ and in what forms, under what circumstances, in what ways, and for what students” (Whitt et al., p. 248). Magolda (2005) echoed hesitation in saying that “the desire to understand and optimize this relationship has unleashed a flood of scholarly research and a healthy dose of advice, which on the surface sounds good but, I’ve come to believe, when acted on is less satisfying” (p. 16). For example, attempting to merge the cultures of student and academic affairs in a single program can result in further bifirrcation, or divide, of mission and how programs are structured (Philpott & Strange, 2003). As discussed above, a variety of factors hinder or promote collaboration in higher education and student affairs, which is influenced by the context in which partner- building takes place (Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2007 ; Westfall, 1999). One particular context in which partnerships are developed is in the delivery of disability support services. The second part of this chapter provides an overview of disability in higher education. Disability in Higher Education In 2003, approximately 1 1% of college students reported having a disability (US. Department of Education, 2006), and the number is reportedly increasing (Government 22 Accountability Office, 2009). A variety of types of disabilities exist, including psychological, cognitive, sensory, learning, and physical disabilities. In 2006, approximately the same percentages of male and female students reported having a disability, although differences existed along racial and gender lines. For example, men in college were more likely to report having a learning disability, whereas women were more likely to report experiencing a mental illness or other health-related disability (U .S. Department of Education, 2006). The most common type of disability reported by college students in 2008 was a “mental, emotional, or psychiatric condition or depression” (Government Accountability Office, 2009, p. 11), which represented 24 % of students with disabilities. Nineteen percent of students reported having attention deficit disorder, and 15 % reported having a physical disability (Government Accountability Office). Students with disabilities are entering college today at a younger age than in past years. For example, the average age of college students with disabilities in 2008 was 26 years old. ”This represents a substantial change from 2000, when students with disabilities were, on average 30 years old” (Government Accountability Office, 2009, p. 9). In 2008, students with disabilities were also more likely to attend college part-time or at a community college than their peers who did not have disabilities (Government Accountability Office). Although, the number of students with disabilities in higher education is increasing, systems fail to align in ways that provide adequate support for individuals with a disability, and research reveals that college students with disabilities feel a need for additional support services (Troiano, 2003). Of the 9% of students in higher education who reported having a disability in 1999-2000, 22% said they did not receive the services 23 that they needed in order to be successful (US. Department of Education). Ways in which disability support services are, or are not, provided in higher education are shaped by a variety of factors, including the national context surrounding systems of disability support. National Context of Disability Support Services Although federal legislation mandates a certain baseline of accommodation for students with disabilities, extensive variation exists in types of disability support services offered through national agencies and across campuses. The lack of standardization in support systems leads to fluctuation and variation in how and where services are provided, and students must often navigate a complex set of factors between different offices and service providers. As a result, college students with disabilities encounter obstacles to success because basic infrastructure that provides support to meet their individual needs is not in place (N CD, 2003). In recognition of the lack of coordinated services, in 2009, a report was written by the Government Accountability Office that called for the Secretary of Education to “implement a coordinated approach to optimize agency resources and knowledge in providing technical assistance to institutions of higher education in supporting students with disabilities” (Government Accountability Office, 2009, p. 43). In today’s national context of tightening budgets, limited fimding can present obstacles to effectively providing disability support services. Institutions of higher education rarely receive funding for disability support services based on the number of students with disabilities who are enrolled there. As a result, colleges and universities are frequently understaffed with professionals who provide disability support services (N CD, 24 2003). In addition, colleges and universities are frequently more concerned with meeting baseline expectations put forth by federal law than with focusing on individual student needs and learning. Current disability-related legislation plays a salient role in determining in what ways disability services are delivered to college students. Several laws apply to disability in education. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are discussed in the following sections. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on a number of characteristics, it failed to specifically mention disability. Prior to 1990, no major civil rights legislation directly addressed disability in higher education aside from parts of the Rehabilitation Act, which applied to colleges and universities that received federal funding. However, when the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990, it directly addressed discrimination in education. The ADA states that colleges and universities must provide reasonable accommodations, when requested, so that individuals have access to the education and services that are available to their peers without disabilities (Frank & Wade, 1993). The ADA includes five titles that outline the following provisions: employers must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees; public services may not discriminate against individuals with disabilities; public accommodations must provide equal access; phone companies must provide telecommunication relay service for those with hearing impairments; and a number of miscellaneous provisions must also be met (Rubin & Roessler, 2001). Title three, which addresses the accessibility of public 25 accommodations, applies to higher education and has greatly impacted the ways in which colleges and universities provide services to students with disabilities on their campuses. After the ADA was passed, campuses were faced with the need to enact change in their physical environment, in addition to the ways in which some services were delivered, in order to be compliant with federal law. The ADA specifies, however, that accommodations and modifications must be “readily achievable and accomplished without much difficulty or expense (unusually defined in a court of law)” (Peterson & Aguiar, 2004, p. 66). When ratified, the ADA sought to accomplish two major goals: to integrate individuals with disabilities into society, and to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities (Peterson & Aguiar, 2004). In setting out to achieve these two purposes, the ADA continued to use the definition of disability that was provided in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which defines disability as an impairment that interferes with major life activities, having a history of such an impairment, or when a person is perceived to have such an impairment. The wording of the ADA was left intentionally vague, and, as a result, extensive debate surrounds its interpretation. Kuehn (2004) stated, “The definition problem continues to influence professional practice and delays the articulation of a strong, rational, national disability policy” (p. 89). The ADA Amendments of 2008 sought to address the issue of interpretation regarding what is considered a disability under legislation. As of January 1, 2009, “the strict interpretation of impairment has been broadened and now includes a more expansive definition of major life activities requirement, including additional major life activities” (Shaw et al., 2010, p. 143). 26 Disability, however, continues to be interpreted in different ways within various contexts, and, as a result, lack of consistency is an underlying theme surrounding disability in regard to law and public policy. Similar challenges regarding interpretation of the law and consistency in providing disability services exist on individual college campuses. Rehabilitation Act of1973 In addition to the ADA, Section 504 is considered the legislation that most impacts the way in which disability services are delivered in higher education. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides “equal opportunities in federal programs, [and prohibits] discrimination in allowing participation in any program or activity receiving federal funding, based upon disability status of an otherwise qualified candidate” (Peterson & Aguiar, 2004, p. 62). Because most universities receive federal funds in some form, they must comply with Section 504 and provide an equal learning opportunity for all students. A Shift in Role and Responsibilities Federal legislation represents a major shift in both philosophical approach and in the mechanics for how disability support services are delivered to students in college after they graduate fiom high school. The Education for All Handicapped Children ’s Act was ratified in 1975, initiating the requirement for individual education plans (IEPs) for children with disabilities in elementary and secondary school and ensuring that all children with disabilities receive free public education. Today this law is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and remains the primary legislation that determines services for students with disabilities before they enter postsecondary education. 27 Under IDEA, secondary schools carry the responsibility for providing disability support services through a team of individuals and professionals, which creates individual education plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities. Upon entering postsecondary education, however, students no longer benefit from the coordinated support that was provided as part of their IEPs. Instead, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) becomes the primary disability-related legislation that applies to higher education. As a result, when students enter college, they must take on the new role of self-advocate by being aware of their needs and being able to effectively communicate what accommodations they require (Hadley, 2006; Milsom & Hartley, 2005). College students must not only take a more active role in learning about services available to them, but they must also understand what their rights under the law include (Milsom & Hartley). Disability Support Services in Student Aflairs Most college and university campuses have a student affairs office that provides disability support services to students (CAS, 2006). A national study that used data collected by the National Survey of Postsecondary Education Supports for Students with Disabilities (NCSPES), examined institutional characteristics of colleges and universities and the types of disability services they provided. Findings included that large, public institutions often provided more significant support for a wider range of disabilities (Sharpe & Johnson, 2001). Further data collected by the NCSPES revealed that test accommodations are the most commonly reported disability accommodations offered by institutions, whereas scholarships for students with disabilities and study abroad opportunities were the least frequently reported (Stodden, & Whelley, 2001). 28 Although disability services are offered at a college or university, student affairs professionals and faculty who work on campus may not be well-prepared or well- resourced to provide the best services possible to students. For example, the NCD (2003) stated that both faculty and student affairs professionals are often unaware of disability support systems available on their campus. Furthermore, in one study, 34% of campus clinicians who provided learning disability accommodations reported that they had no training on the ADA. Participants had often been trained before the ADA was enacted (Gordon et al., 2002). As a result, many of the participants reported that they were unfamiliar with the specific expectations of the ADA. Literature is limited in regard to learning outcomes of disability services (Sharpe & Johnson, 2001; Stodden & Whelley, 2001) or specific programs for students with disabilities, such as residential living programs. Now, nearly two decades after the passing of the ADA, colleges and universities must “extend services beyond accommodations to include pedagogical responses to learning issues” (Launey, Carter- Davis, & Launey, 2001, p. 10). Student affairs professionals can take a leadership role in presenting a fi'amework that focuses disability services on learning outcomes and that intentionally considers input, mastery, and output (Frank & Wade, 1993). The third part of this chapter discusses how organizational partnerships in student affairs provide support services for students with disabilities. Organizational Partnerships Surrounding Disability Support Services In order to improve the ways in which services are organized and provided to students with disabilities, increased collaboration must take place in ways that involve both student and academic affairs units on campus (Troiano, 2003). Limited empirical 29 research, however, explores how increased coordination can more effectively provide disability services for students. This lack of research constrains institutions’ knowledge of how to provide support services for students with disabilities. The NCD (2003) stated, “The relative paucity of research is evidence of the newness of the field of study, but such gaps in knowledge render the enactment of policy changes leading to continued progress on an appreciable, universal scale difficult” (p. 4). Even though few empirical studies examine the relationships that provide disability support services, a growing body of literature advocates for increased collaboration on campuses in providing support for students with disabilities. Myers (2008) stated, Although the campus community often mistakenly labels students with disabilities as ‘belonging’ to disability services, accommodating students with disabilities is not the sole responsibility of that office. Students with disabilities, like all students, ‘belong’ to everyone on campus, and all on campus are responsible for their learning and development. (p. 4) Myers continued by saying that educators must reframe the way they think of disability on campus, both inside and outside of the classroom. Refi'aming the way in which higher education institutions provide disability services that promote learning requires that student affairs professionals build both intra- and inter-organizational relationships with partners. More prevalent in the literature is discussion surrounding inter-organizational partnerships between an institution and external partners, for example rehabilitation agencies (Dillon, 2007), or employers through school-to-work programs (Burgstahler, 2001). In addition, a growing recognition 30 exists that higher education must develop better communication and coordination with high schools (NCD, 2003) because the transition process from secondary to postsecondary school should be a shared effort that includes the student, parents, high school counselors, and postsecondary support staff (Hadley, 2006). Student affairs counselors and advisors may not be experts on disability, but special educators at the secondary school level have specialized training in working with students with disabilities (Milsom & Hartley, 2005). In addition to experiencing a shift in disability-related legislation as they transition from high school to college, traditional-aged first-year college students encounter the typical developmental change of moving from adolescence to adulthood, often moving farther from home and family and developing a greater sense of self- identity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). When disability support offices partner with other student affairs professionals who have specialized knowledge of traditional college student development theory and the first-year transition process, they are able to share information about resources across campus for all students (Hadley, 2006). The call for additional partnerships emerging in the literature offers examples that highlight successes on various campuses. For example, at St. Louis University, the Universal Instructional Design Community of Practice works with the Center for Teaching Excellence, in addition to the Disability Retention Management Committee, a standing subcommittee of the campus-wide Retention Management Committee. Both are cross-institutional groups that are composed of faculty and student affairs staff members (Myers, 2008). The number of efforts to undertake campus collaboration is growing, and resources are available to support collaborative efforts by connecting research to practice. 31 Programs that connect research to practice include the Disabilities, Opportunities, Intemetworking, and Technology (DO-IT) program at the University of Washington, the Pedagogy and Student Services of Institutional Transformation (PASS IT) project at the University of Minnesota, and the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Education Supports (NCSPES) at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. In addition to baniers in the process of collaboration that were discussed earlier in this chapter, one of the challenges in building partnerships in order to better provide services to college students with disabilities is the level of ambiguity that surrounds the concept of disability. Not only does current legislation define disability in vague terms that allows for extensive flexibility in how accommodations are provided (Frank & Wade, 1993), but also the experience of having a disability is individualized for every person and presents varying needs for each student. As a result, little clarity exists around how to move beyond providing the minimum accommodations of the ADA in order to effectively provide a seamless experience with achievable learning outcomes for students with disabilities. As the NCD (2003) stated, “Part of the problem is the lack of consensus on the definition of ‘successful outcomes.’ (p. 10). Summary This chapter provided an overview of the two major bodies of literature that informed the current study: collaboration and organizational partnerships in higher education, in addition to disability in higher education. Finally, the intersection of these two areas was discussed in order to inform the reader of the limited literature surrounding organizational partnerships that provide disability support services for students. The current study sought to address this gap in the literature in order to contribute to 32 knowledge of how to provide effective support services for college students, particularly those with disabilities. 33 CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of the current study was to explore collaborative efforts between a student affairs unit and campus partners designed to provide services to students with disabilities. In order to learn more about collaborative partnerships, a single, embedded . case study design (Yin, 2003) was used. This chapter discusses the research design, including a qualitative case study approach informed by a constructivist paradigm, in addition to the current study’s research questions, methods, measures to protect participants and ensure trustworthiness, data analysis, and final format for disclosure of findings of the current study. Constructivist Paradigm The current study was informed by a constructivist paradigm, in which there is “assumed a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities) [and] a subjectivist epistemology (knower and respondent co-create understandings)” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a, p. 24). Using a constructivist approach, the current research was based on the recognition “that the reality perceived by people inside and outside the case will be social, cultural, situational, and contextual” (Stake, 2005, p. 452). Constructivist inquiry reflects the presence and interpretation of the researcher, acknowledging and integrating that into the study itself (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b; Patton, 2002). All research is an interpretation of the researcher who is influenced by individual epistemological, ontological, and methodological approaches, which together inform the interpretive paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a). Denzin and Lincoln spoke of the qualitative researcher as someone who uses a variety of methodological and theoretical tools to gather data and has knowledge of multiple paradigms. Paradigms represent 34 “belief systems that attach users to particular worldviews” (Denzin & Lincoln, p. 6), or “[ways] of thinking about and making sense of the complexities of the real world” (Patton, 2002, p. 69). Subjectivist Epistemology Epistemology addresses the relationship between the inquirer and the known in conducting research. The current study used a subjectivist epistemology that allowed for “frequent, continuing, and meaningfirl interactions between the investigator and the respondents or other objects of investigation” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 107). Rather than purporting a dualistic relationship between the researcher and object, a subjectivist epistemology recognizes that the researcher disturbs, shapes, and interacts with what is being studied (Lincoln & Guba). In order to develop relationships with the participants in the current study, I spent time attempting to build connections through dialogue with them. Relativist Ontology “Constructivist philosophy is built on the thesis of ontological relativity, which holds that all tenable statements about existence depend on a worldview, and no worldview is uniquely determined by empirical or sense of data about the world” (Patton, 2002, pp. 96-97). Lincoln and Guba (1985) described four ontological positions that address the nature of reality: objective reality, perceived reality, constructed reality, and created reality. The current study was based upon a constructed reality ontological approach in which there is “an infinite number of constructions that might be made and hence there are multiple realities” (Lincoln & Guba, p. 84). A constructed reality approach may also be referred to as a relativist ontology because multiple elements of the 35 research are relative in the interpretation of both the researcher and the reader. “Each researcher contributes uniquely to the study of a case; each reader derives unique meanings. These and other differences are relative to the purposes of the study, the immediate situation of the case, and the circumstances of the reader” (Stake, 1995, p. 103). In using a relativist ontology, the researcher recognizes and acknowledges multiple, complex constructions that exist simultaneously. Qualitative Methodologi Qualitative research was an appropriate type of inquiry for the current study because qualitative methodology is cognizant of dynamic systems (Patton, 2002) and attempts to understand complex interrelationships (Stake, 2005), such as campus partnerships. Qualitative research seeks to understand better how social experiences take place through relationships and the ways in which meaning is given to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a). In the current study, a qualitative methodological approach was used with the intent of gaining a more in-depth understanding of organizational relationships embedded within a social context on a college campus. Denzin and Lincoln stated that not only the participants, but also the researcher, exist within a human context. Denzin and Lincoln described qualitative research as, Situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. (p. 3) 36 Case Study By definition, a case study examines one or more bounded systems that serve as an example of a broader phenomenon (Meniarn, 1998; Stake, 2005; Yin, 2003). A case study approach is appropriate for use when research questions address the “how” and “why” of a phenomenon and focus on a unit of analysis that the researcher cannot control, similar to an experiment. Case study is particularly useful in examining complex social phenomena (Yin), for example, when the focus of study exists in applied fields such as education (Merriam), as in the current study. A distinctive characteristic of case study is the recognition that a clear boundary does not exist between context and the phenomena of focus. More specifically, a case is embedded in a multi-layer context (Merriam; Yin). Case study “offers insights and illmninates meaning that expands its readers’ experiences” (Merriam, 1998, p. 41), as it examines both the uniqueness and commonality of a situation (Stake, 1995). A result of the personal insight shared by participants and gained by the researcher is a personal contract that is made between the phenomenon being studied and the person studying it (Stake, 2005). Case study involves more than reporting back observations to the reader. Rather, the researcher must be reflective (Stake, 2005) in order to appropriately interpret data. For example, Stake (2005) stated that qualitative case study involves spending time “personally in contact with activities and Operations of the case, reflecting, and revising descriptions and meanings of what is going on” (p. 450). In other words, a human element is often contained in case study research, which provides the researcher an opportunity to reflect in a way that makes sense within the broader context of the case that is being studied. 37 The current study was an instrumental case that allowed the researcher to engage in reflective interpretation and analysis. An instrumental case study includes a specific case that is studied in order'to learn more about a broader phenomenon. In the current study, the broader phenomenon included the partnerships between a student affairs unit and other organizational units who provided services to students with disabilities. In other words, the particular case itself is not of primary interest (Stake, 2005) but is meant to provide a window into the broader concept of institutional partnerships. Current literature recognizes the need for detailed case study that examines campus partnerships embedded within the institutional culture (Kezar, 2003). The purpose of the current study was to shed light on ways to improve the interaction between organizational units on a college campus in order to promote seamless learning for all students, particularly students with disabilities. Research Questions The above methodological and conceptual framework guided the study in which I examine the following research questions: 1. In what ways does a student affairs unit that provides disability services interact with campus partners to promote student learning? 2. What factors influence the interaction between these organizational units? In addition, the following are sub-questions that were embedded within both of the overarching research questions listed above: 0 How does interaction take place? (e. g., Do units work together in formal or informal ways? Are interactions part of ongoing relationships or partnerships?) 38 0 Why does interaction take place? (e.g., What are espoused or enacted goals? Is action driven from the top-down or bottom-up, neither, or both? What messages are sent to individuals by the institution, campus partners, and students?) 0 When does interaction take place? (e.g., Who initiates action and with what timeline?) Unit of Analysis The primary unit of analysis in the current study included the relationships and interactions that existed between a student affairs unit and various campus partners as they provided services to students with disabilities. The current case study examined campus relationships through “an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single entity, phenomenon, or social unit” (Merriam, 1998, p. 34). Within the holistic picture, however, were sub-units of analysis, which included the relationships and experiences of individuals (e. g., among student affairs professionals or between faculty and student affairs professionals). Yin (2003) distinguished between a holistic and embedded case study. A holistic case study considers the case as a global unit, whereas embedded case studies contain subunits of analysis. The current study involved an embedded, single-case design that allowed for exploration of the roles of individuals, in addition to that of departments, units, and, more broadly, the mriversity. The two levels of exploration were necessary because collaboration exists from both an organizational (collective effort) and individual perspective (Amey & Brown, 2004). Because the units of analysis were composed of individuals, data were collected to examine the experiences of participants, which both shaped and were shaped by the relationships between units. Individual perception was not the focus for the study, but it 39 did act as a filter by influencing and framing individuals’ experiences that collectively formed the unit relationship or partnership. In other words, the unit relationship within the organizational context was the foreground (Stake, 1995), or primary focus, of the current study. Individual relationships and experiences informed by participants’ perceptions were part of the background structure of the study and served as sub-units of analysis. Single-Case vs. Multi-Case Selection An important decision in conducting case studies addresses the number of cases to include in the study. Although researchers may seek insight into a particular phenomenon, they must look specifically at one or more individual cases to gain the depth needed to provide an accurate picture of the concept of study with a finite amount of resources (Stake, 2005). Studies that include one case are termed single-case studies; when more than one case is included, studies are referred to as multiple-case studies, collective case studies, multi-case studies, or comparative case studies (Merriam, 1998). The current study used a single-case study approach for several reasons. First, an in-depth analysis of a single case is appropriate in conducting a representative case study. A representative case “[captures] the circumstances and conditions of an everyday or commonplace situation” (Yin, 2003, p. 41), such as building partnerships between various units on a college campus. Yin acknowledged, “The lessons learned from these cases are assumed to be informative about the experiences of the average person or institution” (p. 41). Findings from a qualitative case study can be applied to a broader theory or phenomenon, rather than to all cases that exist. In the current study, insight was gained into one case, but learning generated from the current case can be applied to the 40 phenomenon of institutional partnerships, with the recognition that context is inextricably connected to any relationship. A consideration in designing case studies is that the researcher must negotiate what to study because a specific approach may allow for more in-depth analysis, as opposed to a broader overview when limited time and resources are available (Stake, 2005). Focusing available resources on a single case allowed for greater depth of understanding of the multiple partnerships on one campus that are continually changing and evolving over time. Methods and Data Collection Case study does not require specific methods for data collection. Careful choice of multiple types of data, however, is essential because a case study is determined by “the questions asked and their relationship to the end product” (Merriam, 1998, p. 31). Sources of data cannot be collected and considered independent of one another, and data collection involves iterative and ongoing interpretation. In qualitative research, the data collection instrument is the researcher (Patton, 2002). Formal data collection took place using two primary types of collection, which included interviews and document analysis. Observation, a third type of data collection often used in case study (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2003), was not a primary source of data because it would have provided limited additional opportunity for the researcher to observe the relationship between the student affairs unit and its partners. Many of the most important elements of organizational dynamics do not exist as interpersonal action that can be observed by an outsider because interaction takes place over the phone, through email, and in other ways that are not face-to-face. Furthermore, observation that 41 would have involved private interactions with students with personal needs may have posed a distraction to students, creating an imposition. As a result, in the current study, interviews and document analysis were more appropriate data techniques to provide insight into the complexity of the relationships between a student affairs unit and various campus partners. Interviewing and document analysis methods are described in the following sections. Interviews The first of the primary methods used in the current study, interviews, provides insight into a situation when researchers are unable to observe a phenomenon themselves (Merriam, 1998). A primary focus of qualitative research is to preserve multiple views and voices, and “the interview is the main road to multiple realities” (Stake, 1995, p. 64). Multiple in—depth interviews were conducted in order to gain “deeper-level” information from participants. In-depth interviews are appropriate where, The knowledge sought is often taken for granted and not readily articulated by most members, where the research question involves highly conflicted emotions, [and] where different individuals or groups involved in the same line of activity have complicated, multiple perspectives on some phenomenon. (Johnson, 2002, p. 105) Before I conducted interviews with participants in the current study, I interviewed six residents of Buchmiller Hall in order to understand, from a student viewpoint, the services offered and the type of community present in the hall. These six student interviews helped me to develop a context for the current study, but I did not transcribe and analyze them. In other words, conversations with students helped me to become 42 acquainted with Buchmiller, but data collected were not directly included as part of the current study. First and second interviews were conducted with actual participants who were Buchmiller staff or campus partners in the current study. Because of the complex nature of organizational partnerships on a decentralized campus, in addition to the personal dimension of disability, primary and follow-up in-depth interviews were used in the current study. After second interviews, 1 determined that I had reached saturation and concluded that enough data had been collected. Saturation takes place when new data is no longer being found (Creswell, 2007). First interviews took place during the spring semester and summer of 2009; second interviews followed during the fall semester of 2009. I began interviews with an introduction to the current study, followed by a . protocol for questions (Johnson, 2002) that was informed by pilot conversations with colleagues and staff members who provided disability support services. The current study used open-ended interviews, a common type of interview used in case studies (Yin, 2003). Second interviews were conducted in order to ask more pointed questions, based on themes that had emerged during first-round interviews. During interviews, participants served in the role of “informants” (Yin, p. 90), more so than that of respondents. By offering participants a more active position (Johnson), they were better able to share information that they felt was most pertinent to the relationships being studied (see Appendix B for interview protocol). I first conducted interviews with the three full-time staff members who composed the staff leadership team in Buchmiller Hall. During these initial interviews, I asked 43 Buchmiller staff members who they considered to be campus partners with Buchmiller. The participants from Buchmiller met as a team before I arrived and brainstormed a list of partners. During interviews participants spoke more in-depth about those partners with whom they, as individuals, most often interacted. The partnerships that the Buchmiller staff members discussed included a broad variety of relationships; I chose to interview the individuals with whom Buchmiller staff described as having more sustained interaction. Using the information provided during interviews, I contacted nine individuals in student and academic affairs who the Buchmiller staff members identified as campus partners and conducted interviews with them. Finally, I interviewed two campus leaders in order to gain a broader view of campus organizational dynamics. One individual was the leader of the academic unit to which Buchmiller Hall belonged; the second leader was an upper-level campus administrator who had worked in both student and academic affairs at Midwestern University (MWU). Information regarding selection criteria that was used to determine who was invited to participate in interviews is discussed below. A variety of means were used to disseminate invitations to participate, including email and word of mouth (See Appendix B for the invitation to participate). Interviews took place in-person, at a location where participants expressed they felt comfortable meeting. Interviews were recorded with a digital voice recorder and transcribed. In addition, notes were taken during and immediately after interviews (Johnson, 2002; Patton, 2002). Pseudonyms were used for all participants. 44 Document Analysis A second method of data analysis used in the current study included document analysis, a frequently under-utilized source of data (Merriam, 1998). Document analysis involves studying a variety of written documents that may include an organization’s records, publications, reports, and correspondence (Patton, 2002). When analyzing written material, the researcher must remain cognizant that all documents are created for a specific audience (Yin, 2003), often for a particular purpose. In other words, documents are created through an individual perspective and should not be considered objective sources of information. Documents, however, provide stability that is not present through interviews, in which participants’ perceptions and experiences are constantly Changing (Merriam). Furthermore, documents can provide accurate information regarding names and dates, in addition to reaffinning or contradicting other forms of data (Yin). In the current study, the majority of data was collected from participant responses. Document analysis helped me to “fill in the gaps” and answer questions that I had regarding specific policies, trainings, or processes, while providing a greater depth of information in some of the areas that participants referred to in our conversations. The current study included document analysis of newsletters, policy and protocol documents, web-pages, online white papers, architectural blue prints, and other pieces of written information that were available online and that participants provided to me. I asked participants if I could access records regarding the types of disabilities that current and past Buchmiller residents had, in addition to the specific services provided to students because of their disabilities. Participants told me that they could not provide this 45 specific information, but they did offer numerous other types of documents that I used in analysis. Selection Criteria Two levels of selection, or sampling, criteria were implemented in the current case study. The first level of sampling involved the selection of the case itself. The second level of sampling was used to select the individuals from whom data were collected within the selected case (Merriam, 1998). Stake (2005) asserted that the most important criteria upon which to base selection of cases is the “opportunity to learn” (p. 451), which may be determined by what resources and individuals are most accessible. Case Selection Criteria to select the current case were developed in order to choose a case that provided the greatest opportunity for learning (Stake, 1995) about the broader concept of campus partnerships that were developed in order to serve students with disabilities. The first criterion used'to select the case was that the institution of focus be a large university so that organizational relationships could be examined in a decentralized organizational environment (Morgan, 1997). Scott (2003) discussed a number of studies that found a positive correlation between organizational size and degree of decentralization. At a large university, communication among units is frequently less fluid, due to sheer size and number of resources to be coordinated. As a result of less frequent interaction between units, the amount of time required to develop relationships or commmricate with others on a large campus can serve as an obstacle to collaboration (Bimbaum; 1991; Kezar, 2006). 46 The second criterion for selecting the current case was that the student affairs unit of focus provide disability support services for students, and the third criterion for selecting the case was that the student affairs unit offer a residential option. Residential communities often provide an environment where students can integrate multiple dimensions of learning that take place both inside and outside the classroom (CAS, 2006). Furthermore, living on campus can facilitate access to a variety of opportunities for learning and involvement for students with disabilities (Burgstahler, 2008). Limited literature, however, addresses residential options for students with disabilities, which was addressed in the literature review. Case selection in the current study involved identifying a potential site that fulfilled the intersection of the three criteria. In selecting the proposed case site, I turned to a number of experts in the field, who included faculty members and students affairs professionals across the country. From my conversations with these experts via phone or email, a number of potential sites emerged, which I then researched further from websites and other sources of information. Two institutions met all case selection criteria. Of these two universities, MWU, a research-intensive land grant institution, provided the most appropriate site for the current study and presented a case that optimized the learning opportunity (Stake, 1995). MWU housed a residence hall for students with severe disabilities, Buchmiller Hall. Participant Selection The second level of sampling mentioned above involved selecting individuals to be interviewed as part of the current study. In qualitative research, sampling techniques typically use nonrandom and purposeful sampling (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 2005). Because case study sampling is rarely intended to be extensive enough for the use of 47 random sampling, the use of formal sampling is more common (Stake). Purposeful sampling, a term for formal sampling, is “based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (Merriam, p. 61). Common types of purposeful sampling include typical, unique, maximum variation, and convenience sampling (Merriam). In the current study, purposeful snowball sampling was used in which participants referred the researcher to other participants. Snowball sampling “[provided] a means of accessing vulnerable and more impenetrable social groupings” (Atkinson & Flint, 2001, p. 1) because the researcher did not have an accurate picture of who key partners were at the start of the study. The overall basis of sampling in the current study was the selection of both a site and participants who “could purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem,” (Creswell, 2007, p. 125), which in this study involved collaboration between Buchnriller Hall and campus partners. Participant Safeguards Interviews often involve personal information and experiences. As a result, a qualitative researcher has the responsibility and obligation to protect the individuals who are part of the study, both as individuals and collectives (Johnson, 2002). Guba and Lincoln (1989) described four types of conventional safeguards that should be taken into account when conducting qualitative research using a constructivist or naturalistic paradigm: harm, deception, protection of privacy, and obtaining informed consent (see Appendix C for the consent form). The current study sought to minimize harm by respecting the personal aspect of disclosure, in addition to reaffirming that individuals have their own experiences and perspectives, or constructions. Harm can, include “loss of 48 dignity, the loss of individual agency and autonomy, and the loss of self-esteem” (p. 121). In order to avoid deception, the researcher provided interview participants with a clear explanation regarding how the current study was going to take place and for what purpose. Pseudonyms were used for all participants and the institution where the current study took place in an effort to protect the privacy of those involved. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained and participants were fully informed of their rights in taking part in the current study. In addition, participants received instructions on how to withdraw fi'om participation if they chose to do so at any time. Data were stored separately from participant information and the identities of individuals and the institution were kept confidential through the use of pseudonyms and protection of data. Judging the Quality of Case Study Research A variety of criteria for judging the quality of research designs were included in the current study in order to ensure trustworthiness. Lincoln and Guba (1985) argued that traditional measures of trustworthiness rely on causality and include internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity. They proposed, instead, alternative concepts that should be considered in qualitative research to ensure trustworthiness. These concepts include credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirrnability. Credibility In order to obtain credible findings, two types of triangulation were used in the current study. The first type involved the triangulation of sources while collecting data from a diverse selection of informants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002; Stake, 1995). Data source triangulation is “an effort to see if what we are observing and reporting carries the same meaning when found under different circumstances” (Stake, p. 49 113). Individuals who were interviewed shared different perspectives of the partnerships in which they engaged. The current study brought together multiple individual perspectives to produce a holistic view of the case and to understand inconsistencies that may have emerged from participants’ responses (Patton). Furthermore, the use of multiple interviews allowed for follow-up conversations in which I had the opportunity to ask additional questions and more fully explore emerging themes in order to check the interpretive validity of the study (Johnson, 2002). The second type of triangulation included triangulation of methods through the use of both interviews and document analysis. In the current study, several steps were taken to ensure the credibility of the research. First, rigorous methods were used in which the researcher systematically conducted research and considered alternative explanations (Patton, 2002). Rigorous methods included triangulation, in addition to sharing transcripts or findings with participants to gain their responses through member checks (Patton; Stake, 1995). Another method used to ensure credibility was the inclusion of a peer debriefer, who played “devil’s advocate” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 309). The role of my peer debriefer was to engage as a disinterested peer in extensive discussion surrounding how data were collected and analyzed. Discussion with the peer debriefer allowed me to explore my role in the process of conducting this study, effectively plan the research design, and make meaning of the data, in addition to working through the emotional stress involved in the research (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). 50 T ransferability The current study used a variety of measures to ensure quality through transferability because a constructivist approach seeks to understand better a particular situation within a specific social and temporal context in a way that furthers dialogue (Patton, 2002). As a result, qualitative inquiry emphasizes “extrapolating patterns for possible transferability and adaptation in new settings,” rather than making generalizations (Patton, p. 41). In qualitative research, the researcher “cannot specify the external validity of an inquiry; he or she can provide only the thick description necessary to enable someone interested in making a transfer to reach a conclusion about whether transfer can be contemplated a possibility” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 316). The current study provided extensive description in order to allow the reader to better understand ways in which the current case may shed understanding on similar situations. Reliability In addition to credibility and transferability, another test for judging the quality of research is reliability. Reliability addresses whether findings fiom a study can be replicated (Meniarn, 1998). Discussing reliability, Merriam provided the metaphor of a thermometer, likening a thermometer to studies that examine people’s realities. Although an experience, or individual reality, may be repeated, that experience is not the one “correc ” experience. Merriam stated that research can be similar to a malfunctioning thermometer that may consistently provide an inaccurate temperature reading. Reliability does not look at whether the same results will be gathered in additional cases, but rather addresses whether future findings will be consistent when a similar case study is carried out at a later time. In the current study, tools used to strengthen reliability included using 51 both triangulation and an audit trail (Merriam). Creating an audit trail involves maintaining accurate records and documentation, in addition to conducting the study “as if someone were always looking over your shoulder” (Yin, 2003, p. 38). Confirmability A fourth criterion used for judging trustworthiness is confirrnability, which is similar to the concept of objectivity used in quantitative research. Confirmability looks at characteristics of collected data in order to see whether “findings of an inquiry are determined by the subjects (respondents) and conditions of the inquiry and not by the biases, motivations, interests, or perspectives of the inquirer” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290). In the current study, an inquiry auditor reviewed the audit trail in order to examine the fairness in how both the process and product, or findings, of the research are portrayed. Furthermore, the use of triangulation strengthened the confirmability of the current study (Lincoln & Guba). Triangulation drew perspectives from multiple data sources and participants in way that provided information from various vantage points, ensuring that the interpretation was not biased, or representative of a single view. Authenticity Criteria for judging trustworthiness focus on the methods of the research, as opposed to the outcome. Because naturalistic inquiry and constructivism emphasize negotiation and the product, Guba and Lincoln (1989) proposed a number of authenticity criteria based on a constructivist approach. One of these criteria, fairness, examines the way in which the researcher provides multiple constructions, in addition to the value systems upon which they are built. Constructions may exist in conflict with one another; the researcher has a responsibility to present and explain them. Using rich description to 52 explicate multiple constructions, in addition to member checks, was used to ensure authenticity in the current study. Assumptions As the researcher, I integrated a number of assumptions into the design and implementation of the current study, which should be recognized when considering the quality of the research. One assumption was that some degree of flexibility is involved in the process of providing services to students with disabilities. Flexibility is particularly necessary because the ADA lacks specificity regarding what accommodations must be available and how they are to be provided (Frank & Wade, 1993). No presumption, however, was made at the start of the current research project as to what is the optimal type of service delivery that is most appropriate or effective for a particular institution. Another assumption integrated into the design and implementation of the current study was that universities existed to support student learning and success for all students, including those who have disabilities. As in Learning Reconsidered 2 (ACPA et al., 2006), a critical assumption was that the campus where the current study took place was a learning community. In other words, learning took place through a variety of avenues throughout the campus rather than solely in the classroom. Situated Position of the Researcher The assumptions listed above, in addition to others embedded throughout this study, were influenced by my personal values and beliefs surrounding higher education and the provision of disability support services. “All writing is ‘positioned’ and within a stance. All researchers shape the writing that emerges, and qualitative researchers need to accept this interpretation and be open about it in their writings” (Creswell, 2007, p. 179). 53 In recognition of my own role, as the researcher, in interpreting and conveying participants’ experiences, I must share experiences that shape my view of this study. I worked in Buchmiller Hall for one year, the hall selected as the student affairs unit of focus in the current case study. During the time between when I worked in Buchmiller Hall and when I conducted this study, a new Director of Buchmiller was hired, in addition to a Disability Specialist, which was a newly created position on the leadership team of the hall. As a result, at the time of this study, the majority of the leadership team in Buchmiller was composed of different individuals from my time there, and many changes had been enacted during the interim. Although Buchmiller was different in many ways fi'om what I had known, I was presented with a unique opportunity in the current study because I understood many of the terms that participants used and the policies and systems in place in Buchmiller. At the beginning of each interview, I explained that I had worked in Buchmiller Hall as a student. I believe that I was granted an additional perception of “legitimacy” fiom participants that allowed me to ask more detailed, and sometimes personal, questions about the irmer-workings of relationships with the hall. However, I also was considered an outsider; I had not spent time at MWU for five years, and participants carefully explained information that I did not know or understand because I was no longer a member of the campus community. The distance presented by being an outside observer allowed me to consider multiple perspectives and entertain various interpretations as I asked questions, listened to the voices of participants, and analyzed data. 54 Data Analysis and Written Report In case study analysis, “the interest is in process rather than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation” (Merriam, 1998, p. 19). The way in which analysis takes place as an integrated activity throughout the study as part of an emergent design is a distinguishing characteristic of qualitative research. Analysis of qualitative data can “range fi'om organizing a narrative description of the phenomenon, to constructing categories or themes that cut across the data, to building theorf’ (Merriam, p. 196). The current study used a constant comparative method to compare data to determine how they were similar or different from one another. In using a constant comparative method, the researcher begins “by coding each incident in his [sic] data into as many categories of analysis as possible, as categories emerge or as data emerge that fit an existing category” (Glaser & Straus, 1967, p. 105). During this process, theoretical properties of each category begin to emerge, which the researcher must then examine for conflicts or overlap. Although the constant comparative method was developed by Glaser and Strauss for use in grounded theory, today this method of comparison is used in many areas of qualitative research (Merriam). As data were collected, a data file system in the form of an electronic spreadsheet was created in order to maintain and organize information when it was collected (Stake, 1995). Data were then analyzed, and findings and results fi'om the current study were compiled in written format. An important decision during data analysis and writing addressed the level of anonymity used in the study. In case study research, two levels of anonymity exist: anonymity for the entire case, and anonymity of individuals within the 55 case (Yin). The current study took measures to keep identity confidential at all levels. All possible steps were taken to protect the privacy of all participants. Summary The current study included a single, instrumental case study that employed a qualitative methodological approach in order to explore the relationships between a residence hall for students with disabilities and campus partners. Methods included interviews, in addition to document analysis of websites and other forms of written information. Measures of trustworthiness were taken, including sharing of information back with participants, in an effort to gain an accurate representation of data collected. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative method, and a final document was produced in order to share findings and implications. 56 CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Before findings are discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, this chapter offers contextual information necessary to understand the current case study. In order to provide a basic framework of knowledge regarding Buchmiller and its partnerships, this chapter includes four major sections: first, an overview of Buchmiller Hall is provided; second, participants and their roles on campus are included; third, participants’ definitions of student learning are explained; and fourth, the ways that collaborative efforts allowed participants to promote student learning are explored. Overview of Buchmiller Hall The first section of this chapter provides a brief introduction to Buchmiller Hall. Buchnriller Hall was a residence hall at Midwestern University (MWU) that housed approximately 20 students with severe disabilities. The mission of Buchmiller Hall, a “transitional facility,” was to provide housing to students with disabilities, in addition to services that assisted them in developing skills that would allow them to attain their personal and educational goals, including being able to live independently. Two unique services that Buchmiller Hall provided, which reflected its mission, were support in hiring and training personal assistants (PAS) and development of a Disability Management Plan (DMP). Each of these services is discussed below, followed by an overview of Buchmiller’s distinct place within the organizational structure of MWU. Personal Assistants and Disability Management Plan PAs were staff members hired by individual students to assist them with everyday living needs, such as showering, dressing, eating, and navigating campus. Often Buchmiller PAs were students at MWU who were in education, medical, or other related 57 fields of study. For many Buchmiller residents, college was the first time in their lives when family members and fiiends were unable to provide assistance with basic living activities. As a result, residents had to learn to hire, train, and supervise the PAs they employed. At the start of each semester, Tina, the Associate Director of Buchmiller, compiled a list of individuals in the community who were interested in being hired as a PA and who had completed basic training with firll-time Buchmiller staff members. Buchmiller residents then could select from this group of PAs, in order to hire and employ one or more of them. In addition to providing support in the selection and training process for individual PAs, Buchmiller provided a 24-hour “floater,” who was on-call in the building in order to provide smaller-scale assistance for residents when they were not with a PA. Dining assistants were also hired to work during each meal in Buchmiller; they were staff members who provided assistance to students with tasks such as carrying trays and cutting food. A resource that empowered students in Buchmiller to learn how to recruit, hire, and train their own PAS was their DMP, the second unique service discussed here. Tina, the Associate Director, and Sue, the Disability Specialist in Buchmiller, worked together to develop an individualized plan with each student living in Buchmiller. The plan included personal goals that often focused on developing independent living skills, and identified the steps they needed to work toward in order to achieve their goals. Unique Organizational Structure of Buchmiller Hall Buchmiller Hall was private-certified housing at MWU. Most MWU first-year students were required to live on-campus in either University Housing or in private- certified housing, which was housing that was typically not provided by MWU, but had 58 been approved by the university. Buchmiller played a distinct role in that it was both private-certified housing and a student service unit, which fell within an academic college, the College of Health. The College of Health at MWU encompassed four academic departments, in addition to five other units, including Disability Education Programs (DEP). DEP provided support services to all students with disabilities at MWU and was the overarching department to which Buchmiller belonged. Fulton, the Director of DEP, explained that DEP was built on a scholar-practitioner model. When Buchnriller was built, the organizational structure was intended to be inclusive of both academics and practitioners in a way to ensure research informed practice. At the time of my interviews with participants, Buchmiller was a stand-alone facility. In other words, participants who were Buchmiller staff members oversaw the programmatic elements of Buchmiller that included a more traditional residence life piece, in addition to training PAs and developing DMPs with students. Beyond working with the programmatic pieces, participants fi'om Buchmiller also supervised maintenance and facilities workers. Overview of Participants and Their Roles on Campus Buchmiller Stafl Team Three individuals comprised the senior administrative staff team in Buchmiller Hall. The leader of this team, Pamela, served as the Director of Buchmiller Hall, in addition to her role as Director of Non-Academic Support Services for DEP; Tina was the Associate Director of Buchmiller Hall, and Sue was the Disability Specialist. Parnela’s background included working in group and independent living facilities for individuals with disabilities. She had also been a faculty member at another university in the 59 Midwest. Before coming to Buchmiller Hall, Tina had been a nurse in a variety of health care environments. Sue’s background was in rehabilitation counseling, a type of counseling that focuses on helping individuals with disabilities gain skills and employment. Campus Partners Campus partners identified by Buchmiller participants included nine individuals who covered a breadth of roles at MWU and represented the ranks of academic and student affairs, including various student services. Three individuals either taught in the classroom or worked with teaching labs. Rachelle, a faculty member of industrial design had joint appointments in a number of areas including an interdisciplinary science and technology institute on campus and the academic college for art and design. Heidi was a clinical psychologist who taught as an adjunct professor in both the College of Education and the College of Health. Glenn’s position was within the College of Engineering as the coordinator of teaching labs in the college; be coordinated research requests with faculty, in addition to maintaining laboratory equipment for electrical and computer science courses. In addition to her adjunct teaching position, Heidi also served as the Director of Academic Disability Support Services in DEP. Also in DEP, Debra was the case manager for students who identified that their primary disability was physical. As a result, Debra served as the case manager for all Buchmiller residents. Debra also provided career counseling in DEP for all students who identified as having a disability. Several partners worked within housing and residence life units on campus. Laney was the Assistant Director for Housing and oversaw half of the campus housing and 60 residence life program. “I’m a generalist,” she said. “I’m a residential life generalist who deals with everything that goes on [within one side of campus] ,” which included participating in the planning of the new residence hall that would also house Buchmiller. Directing the housing assignment process, Nellie was the Coordinator for Housing Information and described her role as being part of the “call center” that students contacted with general questions regarding housing. She also helped coordinate the housing assignment process. Madeline, who had previously worked in residence life, was the Assistant Director for Facility Operations and held a variety of roles in Housing, one of which was supervising the residence hall maintenance and cleaning staff. Bruce and Eddie also represented organizational units that provided student services. Eddie was one of 55 law enforcers on campus at MWU and served as a detective and the Crime Prevention Coordinator within the campus safety unit. As the Associate Director for Retail Operations at the student bookstore, Bruce’s role fell under the purview of the student union. He brought a unique perspective to the study because his previous work experience had been at for-profit bookstores on several different college campuses. When asked about the transition to his current position, Bruce described the move as a “refreshing change.” He continued, “It’s really an institutionalized difference here. We are here for the students, and how to best accommodate them, really is what our goal is.” Although his time was very focused on the business operations of the bookstore, Bruce also served on search committees as part of the student union and interacted with various student groups and programs across campus. 61 Campus Leaders As part of my study, I also interviewed two campus leaders. Buchmiller leadership staff referred to Fulton frequently in interviews, particularly because of his position as Director of DEP. Fulton described his role as being “responsible for everything,” which included strategic planning, personnel structuring, and coordinating oversight of fiscal resources in DEP. William was identified by one of the participants who was a campus partner through snowball sampling (Atkinson & Flint, 2001). He was described as being a leader who worked extensively with academic and student affairs at MWU, and as someone who had a high level of awareness regarding broader campus organizational dynamics. As a member of the Provost’s staff, William served as the Assistant Provost for Recruitment and Retention and worked with faculty, staff, and students across academic and student affairs in order to promote retention of underrepresented student populations at MWU. When asked about his interaction with DEP or students with disabilities, however, William said that he had only indirect involvement with both groups. Table 1 Participant Information Buchmiller Hall Pamela Director, Buchmiller Hall for 5 yrs./ Assistant Director of Non-Academic Disability Support Services for 3 yrs. Worked at MWU for 5 yrs. Tina Associate Director, Buchmiller Hall for 12 yrs. (Interim Director for 1 yr.) Worked at MWU for 12 yrs. 62 (Table 1 Continued) Sue Disability Specialist, Buchmiller Hall for 5.5 yrs. (Interim Director for 1 yr-) Worked at MWU for 9.5 yrs. (In addition to 4.5 yrs. as a volunteer) Disabilig Education Programs (DEP) Heidi Debra Assistant Director of Academic Disability Support Services for 10.5 yrs./ Clinical Psychologist for 4 yrs/Adjunct Faculty Member Worked at MWU for 10.5 yrs. Provided academic and counseling services to Buchrrriller residents; Also taught some Buchmiller residents and was internship supervisor Disability Specialist, DEP (Case Manager for Student with Physical Disabilities and DEP Career Services) for 8 yrs. Worked at MWU for 8 yrs. Provided academic and non-acadenric support services to Buchmiller residents; Also provided career guidance services Faculty/Academic Affairs Rachelle Glenn Associate Professor of Industrial Design for 6 yrs. Worked at MWU for 6 yrs. Taught Disability and Relevant Design course; Conducted research that explored the use of design as applied to everyday living activities of Buchmiller residents Coordinator of Research Labs, College of Engineering for 21 yrs. Worked at MWU for 26 yrs. 63 (Table 1 Continued) Worked with Buchmiller on projects to make MWU more accessible to students (e. g., designing remote control elevators, classroom clickers, etc.) Housingzgesidence Life Laney Madeline Nellie Assistant Director, University Housing for 11 yrs. Worked at MWU for 17 yrs. Was part of new building partnership (Project team member) Assistant Director of Facilities Operations, University Housing for 2.5 yrs. (19 yrs. In University Housing) Worked at MWU for 27 yrs. Was part of new building partnerships (Mid-manager team member) Coordinator of Contracts and Assignments, University Housing for 8 yrs. Worked at MWU for approximately 8 yrs. Coordinated housing and assignments for students transitioning fi'om Buchmiller Hall to accessible rooms in University Housing and through the new building partnership Other Student Services Eddie Crime Prevention Coordinator/Member of Campus Police for approximately 22 yrs. Worked at MWU for approximately 22 yrs. Provided crime prevention information and safety assessment for Buchmiller Hall 64 (Table 1 Continued) Bruce Associate Director for Retail Operations, Student Union Bookstore for 3.5 yrs. Worked at MWU for 3.5 yrs. Developed system for Buchmiller residents to purchase textbooks; Conducted presentation on process of purchasing textbooks to new students Campus Leaders Fulton William Director, DEP for 15 yrs. Worked at MWU for 33 yrs. Director of umbrella unit, under which Buchmiller fell Assistant Provost for Recruitment and Retention for 1.5 yrs. Worked at MWU for 13.5 yrs. Oversaw overarching campus recruitment activities on campus Participants’ Definitions of Student Learning In addition to describing their positions on campus, participants also explained what student learning meant to them in their roles and how they saw their work as promoting student learning. The following sections include an overview of themes that emerged fiom participants’ understanding of student learning. Learning appeared to be a shared value that laid a foundation for participants’ building of partnerships. Participants’ definitions of student learning highlighted the following five themes: learning is individualized, learning happens outside the classroom, students are co-learners, learning 65 requires a safe space to fail, and student learning is empowerment. Each of these sub- thernes is described in the following sections. Learning is Individualized When asked to explain their understanding of what student learning meant in the context of their work, participants in both student and academic affairs painted a complex picture of personal growth in a holistic capacity. Several participants described “life lessons” or “life learning” as journeys that students experienced. Sue described an image that Buchmiller staff often used to conceptualize their work with their residents. She said, “Our favorite saying is, ‘We’re in a marathon. It’s not a sprint. It’s a marathon. And some folks take longer getting out of the box than others. But at the end, hopefully, they all make that 26.2 [mile] journey.”’ Sue recognized her role as one of developing ways to meet students at the appropriate level of their development. She said that when she works with students, she often must consider, “How can we try to work on dealing with an issue in a different way? It’s obviously not working this way, so what learning style do we need to adopt?” Sue continued, “Everybody is different with how you finally get that ‘ah-hah.’” Also employing a marathon image of individual growth to describe student learning, Rachelle said, “It’s the journey, and that’s what I try to tell my students. . .The destination is of concern, but it’s really the journey.” Tina shared a similar view of student learning. She said, Students are at so many different stages. You want to bring the rest of them up to the others, but we have to focus on “it’s not the group, it’s the individual.” My father always said that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it 66 drink. . ..So you have to regroup and say, “Okay, this is where we want them. Now how do we make them want to be there?” Heidi, an adjunct faculty member and the DEP Director of Academic Services, further explained the concept of individual growth and skill acquisition by saying that students must be able to use new knowledge and skills in order to achieve positive outcomes. She said, “We focus on where they’re at developmentally when they come in, and try to help them progress or move forward.” A common thread throughout many participants’ responses was a deep respect for students’ learning capacities at MWU. Participants described their belief that student learning was individualized, and that they must meet students “where they were.” Recognition of students’ high achievement abilities seemed to motivate participants to challenge students to learn more. Rachelle explained that she set high expectations for her students because of their ability to meet them. She said, “They’re bright. These students are elite scholars, elite athletes. They’re phenomenal.” Eddie described MWU students as “cream of the crop.” Debra said, “We all know the students who come here are brilliant.” Tina described one of her roles as motivating students and believing in them. She reminded students, “You made it to the MWU. Not many students are able to do that.” Learning Happens Outside the Classroom Although participants represented various organizational units of the university, they shared the belief that learning took place beyond the mastery of curricular knowledge in the classroom. For example, Debra described how learning happened when students learned how to navigate campus transportation systems, or developed a sense of independence away from their families. She shared, “Student learning is about the non- 67 academic stuff even more so than the academic stuff.” Laney, explaining that the mission of University Housing was to support the academic mission of the university, said, “I can’t teach chemistry. . .but I can teach two roommates in conflict how to sit down, reflect on what the other person is saying, take a step back for a moment, and think about different solutions to the problem.” Rachelle shared a similar view regarding how students learned to interact with others, particularly those who were different from themselves. She reflected, “By expanding their empathic horizons through experiences that may be uncomfortable, [students] become better citizens. . ..We have to differentiate the me-I-self, and open them up [to the idea] that they are. . .a member of the wider community.” Eddie explained, “While intellect is a very important aspect of learning, the social aspect of it is being able to understand people, who they are, their needs, and to actually understand the complexities of different cultures.” He described the social piece of learning as important because students must be able “to contribute to society by making wise decisions for the better of this country.” Students Are Co-Learners Several of the participants described learning as a two-way process in which both they and students gained new knowledge or understanding. Bruce, who worked in the student bookstore on campus, shared that he was still learning about student affairs because he had recently transitioned to his current position from working at several university bookstores that were not directly affiliated with their campuses and had more of a for-profit focus than student service focus. When asked how he defined student learning, Bruce said, ”This is some of the area that I’m learning in working for students 68 affairs. There are ‘goals’ and ‘student outcomes’ . . .They all have very clear definitions. I don’t know them—1 have a business background.” Although Bruce explained that he was not well-versed in language to describe student learning, he shared his belief that learning was a two-way avenue and that he continued to learn from the general student workers in the bookstore. As Assistant Provost for Recruitment and Retention, William also acknowledged the dual roles of teacher and learner. He said, When I think about my approach to retention, it’s very much connected to being the learner and being the student, both roles. . .which allow us to accept and affirm our mutual humanity and create knowledge and information together. When asked what student learning meant to her as a faculty member, Rachelle said, “I can tell you what it isn’t. It’s not filling empty vessels. . .where you just come in, as empty, and I decide what I’m going to fill you up with.” Rachelle described her teaching as “learning together,” saying that students “have to be active participants in their own learning experience.” She continued, “That’s not throwing the responsibility at them completely, but it’s saying they have to meet us halfway.” Learning Requires a Safe Space to Fail Participants spoke of the importance of providing a safe space for students where they could test their boundaries and eventually learn to move beyond them. For example, Sue described challenging students in a supportive environment so that they could be successfirl. “We’re giving them skills,” she said. “Are they utilizing the skills to the best of their ability? If they make a mistake, are they living and learning?” Pamela described challenge and support as integral to the learning process. She said, “My work with 69 students is outside the classroom environment. They learn from their life experiences, and they learn from making mistakes—and hopefully learning from those mistakes.” Pamela continued, There is a safety net, initially, so that they can spread their wings a little bit. But I think it’s trial and error. Many of our students in Buchmiller have had limited opportunity to spread their wings. There has almost always been someone there to protect them, to coddle them, to make decisions for them. Rachelle shared how the classroom must be a place where students feel safe. She said, “They have to embrace failure, and do it as soon as possible. Fail early, and don’t be afi'aid.” Student Learning Is Empowerment In viewing students as co-leamers and allowing them to fail in ways that carried few serious consequences, participants described learning as empowering students to take charge of their lives. Fulton said, The central theme of all education is personal empowerment. It’s not what we do for [students]. It’s what we facilitate and allow them to do for themselves— empowering them to do whatever they have the ability and ambition to do, unencumbered by impairment. That, to me, is the student learning. Participants discussed learning as a form of empowerment, which included three major themes: gaining new knowledge, finding a voice, and developing additional skills. Each of these three sub-themes is presented below. First, participants viewed student learning as empowerment by gaining new knowledge. For example, Eddie frequently described student learning as acquiring 70 knowledge that helped students to remain safe on campus. He said, “Well, in regard to safety, basically everybody’s about the same, whether you have a disability or not. Overall, security, 90% of security, is really having knowledge.” Second, participants described student learning as empowerment by students’ finding a sense of voice. For example, Pamela said, “Students are involved in the [graduate resident assistant] screening process. They interview our [resident assistant candidates].” Participating in the interview process allowed students to shape their environment by influencing who worked in Buchmiller. In a Similar sense, Tina said, “We don’t make decisions for the students, we ask them. ‘How do you feel about this? Which way would you like to go?’ And then we take. . .all the different ideas and try to put them out there.” Rachelle also echoed the importance of giving students an active role. “I run a course,” she said, “It’s called Disability and Relevant Design. We bring industrial design students and students with physical disabilities together into the design studio specifically to co-create knowledge, co-create design. They’re seen as collaborators.” Third, student learning was described as empowering students through the development of new skills, which came to light particularly around the process of Buchmiller residents hiring their own personal assistants (PAS), who helped them perform everyday living activities such as showering, dressing, and eating. One aspect of the process of hiring and supervising personal assistants included evaluating their work performance. Pamela referred to an expectation for residents in Buchmiller: “If they want the new list of PAS that have been trained, they better have done evaluations on their staff the semester before. It’s part of being an employer.” 71 Importance of Collaboration in Promoting Student Learning For each participant, student learning took on various shades of meaning, including examples that involved both direct contact with students and more indirect influence through a leadership capacity and ability to shape an environment. In addition to the Shared belief that promoting learning was an important element of their positions, participants expressed a common value of building partnerships with other individuals and units at MWU. Participants described the ways they collaborated with others in order to provide various types of environments or opportunities through which students could learn. For example, Madeline, in University Housing, said, “Student learning, for me, is making the environment conducive for an opportunity.” Referring to the act of building connections with another person, She continued, “I think [learning is] when you make the opportunity to speak or look.” Madeline viewed her role as working with others, including colleagues and the cleaning and maintenance workers she supervised, to not only promote a safe and clean physical learning environment for students, but also one in which the atmosphere was open and caring in a way that fostered interpersonal connections. In a different environment, the teaching labs in the College of Engineering, Glenn described his role of working with the faculty who facilitated in-class learning: “I provide Opportunities for the students to learn. Most of the time we’re not telling the students how to use a specific [approach to their research]. We’re just providing resources so that they use them to learn.” In a way Similar to Madeline, Glenn had limited direct interaction with students, but he provided resources in an environment that promoted learning. 72 As an upper-level administrator, William shared his belief that learning took place in many ways and at various places across the campus. He also emphasized the importance of shaping a campus environment that offered the opportunity for students to connect with others and to build supportive relationships. He said, I have a very open, and probably eclectic, approach to student learning. I happen to believe that you can learn fi'om anybody, anywhere, if you’re willing. So when I think of student learning, I understand that it happens in the traditional ways—in the classroom with learned faculty. . .but I think [students also] learn powerfully from each other, and powerfully from staff. William continued, “I can understand it as a lifelong process, about gaining capacity in your personal life, your social life, your academic life, your professional life.” Overall, participants appeared to share a view that by working with others they could provide an individualized, active learning experience for students in a holistic sense. The next chapter explores themes surrounding what participants described as supports and barriers to collaboration as they sought out ways to promote student learning by building partnerships. Summary Chapter 4 began with an introduction of Buchmiller Hall. An overview of individuals who were interviewed was also included, followed by a description of participants’ roles on campus and the ways they explained what student learning meant to them in their work. Finally, Chapter 4 highlighted participants’ perceptions of the ways that collaboration allowed them to promote student learning at MWU . 73 CHAPTER 5: OVERVIEW OF PARTNERSHIPS WITH BUCHMILLER HALL This chapter explores the first overarching research question that addresses the following: In what ways does a student affairs unit, Buchmiller Hall, interact with campus partners to promote student learning? Interwoven throughout both overarching research questions were the three sub-questions regarding how, why, and when collaboration happens. In order to explore the first overarching question and sub- questions interlaid within it, the first section of this chapter introduces the partnerships in which participants were engaged, including whether partnerships focused on a Specific project or represented ongoing working relationships. The second section of this chapter introduces one Specific partnership, the new building initiative that involved Buchmiller Hall and University Housing. The new building partnership is discussed more in-depth because it was a partnership that became the focus during interviews for many participants. The new building partnership was an example of a collaborative effort that was focused around a specific project, the opening of a new residence hall on campus, but provided the foundation for ongoing and continuous relationships. Types of Partnerships Partnerships that Involved Specific Projects Although some partnerships described by participants spanned several months or years, other relationships were built around a project that addressed a Specific, often time- Specific, issue rather than providing continuous interaction and support. For example, Bruce described his work with Buchmiller staff and students primarily as taking place in the fall when new students ordered books for fall semester courses. When asked how the partnership was initiated, he said, 74 I heard someone tell me that a student worker did not help someone who was in a wheelchair and asked for help. That person said “I can’t leave the counter,” or something along that line. . .So that’s why. I just called to make sure we’re servicing [Buchmiller students]. We’re not the only bookstore on campus, but we are the only one that’s completely ADA compliant. When Bruce contacted Buchmiller to ask how the bookstore could better meet the needs of Buchmiller residents, he and Tina discussed whether it would be most effective to stay open after hours one evening for only Buchmiller residents, so that they would have more space and personal assistance when they purchased their books, or whether there were other options to better serve the students. In the end, they agreed that Buchmiller residents would be able to order their books online, and the bookstore would deliver the books directly to Buchmiller Hall for no additional charge. In addition to ordering books, Bruce also facilitated a short presentation on the process of selecting and purchasing textbooks for new students at Buchmiller when they arrived Shortly before fall semester started. Another example of a bounded partnership also took place during fall orientation. Eddie described how community police officers led presentations on basic safety and security for many groups of faculty and students across campus at the beginning of each year. He said presentations included information regarding the most common crimes on campus and their locations, in addition to what students could do “to prevent being the victim of a theft or a crime on campus.” Eddie worked with Buchmiller Hall and other campus officers to conduct a safety presentation each fall for new students at Buchmiller. 75 When Glenn worked with Buchmiller, the work was often initiated by Sue approaching him with a new concept for technology that promoted independence for Buchmiller residents, addressing a particular issue. Referring to one such request, Glenn said that Sue had asked him to create a technological interface to use in the classrooms. Glenn explained, “It involved clickers that students can use to vote. The students weren’t able to participate because they weren’t able to use the traditional ones.” Glenn partnered with Buchmiller on several specific projects, another of which included designing and building a remote-control elevator to provide more accessible use for individuals with disabilities. At the time of interviews, Glenn, the Buchmiller staff, and the rest of the committee working together on the project were waiting for a patent that would allow them to implement the technology on campus and elsewhere. Partnerships that Involved Ongoing Working Relationships In contrast to relationships that centered on a specific project and were often time- specific, other partnerships that Buchmiller staff identified included ongoing collaborative efforts. Ongoing relationships included work with Disability Education Program (DEP) partners, who fell within the same overarching academic unit and worked as disability service providers on campus. In addition to working together to provide improved support services to students with disabilities, ongoing partnerships also included other long-term interactions that involved contributing toward a common goal. Examples included interdisciplinary research and the implementation of retention efforts. Debra, the DEP case manager for students with physical disabilities, referred to what she described as a partnership with Buchmiller staff. She said, “The biggest thing, in terms of the searnlessness, is having ongoing interaction with students. I think students 76 view me as ‘academic stuff,’ like a letter of accommodation. I’m ‘quick questions’— students think, ‘I’m in and I’m out.’” Debra continued, Sue gets more of a holistic view of the student over at Buchmiller. . ..She’s right there where they live so they might have a more, somewhat relaxed relationship. [Students] may let their guard down in different ways about issues or concerns. [Sue and I] communicate with each other to have a continuity between both of us in terms of supporting students. Heidi, the Director for Academic Services in DEP, said if there were student issues or concerns, “Pamela picks up a phone and calls me, or I call over there.” Heidi went on to describe a weekly staff meeting “where all the supervisors and case managers come together to problem-solve.” Nellie provided another example of an ongoing partnership between Buchmiller and University Housing. She described working with DEP and Buchrrriller to help students identify living Spaces that would accommodate their needs for both physical and non-physical disabilities. In addition to the delivery of student services, research also presented an impetus for ongoing partnerships. Rachelle, a faculty member, described the industrial design course She taught, in which both students with and without disabilities enrolled. She also described her ongoing research that involved applying industrial design to the everyday living environment of Buchmiller Hall. Rachelle said, “There’s a core team. . .we’ve been working now together for two years. It’s been a delight.” Rachelle provided an example of how one collaborative effort with Buchmiller, her design course, served as a launching point to continue collaboration through the research project. 77 William, whose focus was on implementing and coordinating retention efforts across the campus with under-represented students, said that his interaction with Buchmiller took place not as a Specific partnership, but more indirectly, because Buchmiller and DEP staff worked with retention-based programs that he oversaw. He explained, “The purview of the swath of undergraduate retention efforts is much broader than the piece of it I work with.” William did not identify students with disabilities as an under-represented population on campus. The New Building Partnership The remainder of this chapter discusses more in-depth one specific partnership that provided an example of collaboration around a Specific project but was ongoing and not limited to a specific period of time. What I refer to as the new building partnership involved the construction of a new residence hall within the University Housing system at Midwestern University (MWU). Current plans for the new building under construction incorporated the programmatic piece of Buchmiller into the first floor of the University Housing residence hall, which would allow Buchmiller to move from its current facility. The new building partnership was an initiative that yielded years of Shared planning and preparation between Buchmiller Hall and University Housing; this partnership is described in greater detail in order to provide a snapshot of what became the focus of many of the participants’ conversations. The Series An integral piece of the planning process of the new building partnership involved what participants described as "The Series,” which was a time for Pamela and the Buchmiller staff to come together with University Housing staff for a professional 78 development series of sessions. In December of 2008, the University Housing planning committee for the new construction broke into two groups. Pamela joined the planning committee for the new building in late winter of 2009, but the planning committee did not meet December to March because, as Laney said, We decided to get people who were going to be on the project team to go to the staff development series because we would learn so much more than just Sitting around in a room, the 9 to 10 of us, asking the same questions. . ..I thought that when more people were exposed to Pamela and her staff, then they would say, “Oh, ok. Pamela and your staff, would you like to join our team?” The Series involved a group of Buchmiller and University Housing staff who took a forefront role in planning the new building. The first two sessions of The Series took place at Buchmiller and were facilitated by the Buchmiller staff. The first meeting of The Series served as an introduction to Buchnriller so that the group could gain a feel for the current Buchmiller facility and program. The second session addressed the social and developmental needs of students with disabilities. Pamela said that during the second session the group began to understand how residents in University Housing and Buchmiller Hall were Similar in regard to developmental needs, such as feeling entitled and not having effective time management skills. During the third session of The Series, the group broke into four functional areas that included desk services, student leadership, dining, and security, in order to discuss what was essential in each area. Laney said the approach for the third session was, “If we’re going to construct a building that’s going to house the Buchmiller students, but it’s in the University Housing system, what gaps are 79 there? What are we not doing right now to best serve the students?” The fourth session addressed social inclusion around the topic of disability. Laney and Pamela shared that The Series was an introduction to the new building partnership. Laney summarized the questions posed to the group of staff members participating at the end of The Series: “What have you thought about? How can you think creatively? How are we going to staff differently? How are we going to serve students differently?” The notes taken during The Series were given to the project team for the new building, and Laney said that now the project team was “dissecting all that information and trying to make some recommendations” from it. Pamela reflected on the importance of the foundation laid by The Series. She said, “The first part of the semester, it was educating, and now it’s working together with [everyone] because they’re having to make all of the decisions for the entire building.” The Project Team The project team, which received the recommendations generated through The Series, was comprised of a group including staff members from residence life, facilities, marketing, and other areas of University Housing. In addition to the project team, a middle manager group met periodically to implement the everyday systems and programmatic details of the new building. Pamela served a unique role as someone who attended both the project team meetings and the mid-manager meetings. She shared that from her dual role she was able to look at one concept being discussed, “overflow” ADA accessible rooms on the second floor of the new building, from both upper-level and mid- manager perspectives. Because she attended both meetings, Pamela believed she was able to contribute to a more effective decision regarding the use of the overflow rooms. She 8O said, “It would not have happened if I had not been at the mid-management or the upper- level meetings. . .I opened my mouth, and we looked at things prograrnmatically [at the upper-level meeting]. It made sense.” Pamela reflected on the benefit of being a conduit between the two groups, a role that was given to her because she was uniquely positioned for it, particularly because of her roles as Director of Beckwith and Assistant Director of DEP. She also shared the strain of her dual role and how her dual-role meant that she was able to spend less time in her other roles. She shared, “I get tired—I want somebody else to share some of the meeting times, because I like being with studen .” The New Building Process of Collaboration After the Series laid the foundation for the new building partnership, the project team initiated movement on the project. The process of integrating Buchmiller into a new community, however, included the collaboration of many more individuals in a long-term and multi-layered process. Three major components of plans for the new building partnership emerged: negotiation of the physical space; systems and processes for staffing, maintenance, and other areas; and the programmatic identity of both Buchmiller Hall and University Housing. Each of these three planning areas is described in the following sections. Negotiating Physical Space The entire first floor of the new building would be devoted to housing Buchmiller, and included 22 student rooms in the first phase of construction. The first year several of the rooms on that floor would temporarily serve as staff offices for Pamela, Tina, and Sue. A year later, the temporary offices would be converted to additional resident living 81 Space and the offices would be moved into the building next door that was involved in the next phase of construction. In planning space, participants had to consider the upcoming physical transition. They also described the need to re-think pieces of their environments that currently worked for their population but that would need to be adjusted in the new building. For example, Pamela described a need for an accessible elevator for moving between floors in the new building. In the current two-story Buchmiller hall, a student rolled onto a sensor pad in the elevator, prompting the elevator to move to the other floor. She stated, “We know that our elevator here works because people can just roll on it. Just two floors. Our new building has four floors. That system’s not going to wor .” The construction of new Space provided the opportunity for Buchmiller to incorporate additional technology and services into the living environment, about which several participants expressed enthusiasm. Plans included proximity readers, kick plates that would open bathroom doors, showers with a 5-foot-turning radius, and new technology designed to allow residents in wheelchairs to use a lift attached to the ceiling to transfer them from their bed to their bathroom. Madeline shared that prior to the new building, the lift system had not yet been installed in a residential facility in the United States. She said, “We have a new system, which is coming from Germany. . ..lt’s a system where residents can put’themselves in it, and it will swing them around. There’s tracking in their rooms.” In addition, another “state-of-the-art system,” as Sue referred to it, was a system to be installed that would include environmental-control options for temperature in each room. Although details had not yet been confirmed, the environmental control system had the potential to turn lights on and off, provide contact with a staff member on duty, and 82 adjust the temperature of each room through a touch pad or voice activation system. When describing the new technology that would be available to Buchmiller residents, Sue added, “Yeah, it’s going to be totally wild.” Merging Systems In addition to plans for physical Space and environment, other plans for the new building required a negotiation of systems. Because Buchmiller and University Housing had separate systems for staffing, maintenance, finances, safety and other everyday processes, an intentional “merging” of systems was necessary that would allow both partners to operate effectively in the new building. Nellie said in her first interview, “We’re still trying to figure out how it’s going to work. Because it’s Sharing resources. It’s blending staffs.” Madeline emphasized the importance of being intentional in the decision-making surrounding how Buchmiller would integrate with the larger community. She said, “So it is about mainstreaming, but maintaining those special needs that we need to keep special, which means that you have to spend a lot of time reviewing processes so you don’t make assumptions.” Laney described working on what she referred to as “The Buchmiller Agreement,” which she explained had been “the charter for this merger.” She said, “It’s the nuts and bolts of who’s paying for what, and what students are going to pay. Room and board rates, and that kind of thing.” Beyond the foundational “Buchnriller Agreement,” which laid out the large pieces of collaborative efforts, Laney and Pamela also described the “Memo of Understanding.” They spoke of reaching an agreement through the drafting of this document as an ongoing process between representatives of University Housing and Buchmiller Hall. A draft of the “Memo of Understanding” had 83 recently been finished in October of 2009, shortly before the second interviews for the current study were conducted. Pamela explained that the document delineated “the things that Housing is going to offer the students living on the first floor. . .whether it’s laundry service, daily maid service, or what the fee will be for room and board.” When asked about the “Memo of Understanding,” Laney said, “We hit bumps in the road every once in awhile. . .we’re in new territory here. When a housing operation opens a new building, it’s usually just theirs. . ..We’re negotiating with another unit to be a partner. That doesn’t happen a whole lot.” Retaining Programmatic Identity In addition to plans for physical Space and systems in the new building, participants also spoke of being intentional during the planning process to allow Buchmiller to retain its own identity. Participants recognized the importance of allowing Buchmiller to remain a unique program, but at the same time blending it into the broader community of the new building. Laney said, The Buchmiller program is a specialized program, but it’s going to be in our hall surrounded by the community. It’s not its own kingdom. It’s not its own isolated program where we’re renting out space. Buchmiller is going to be part of [the new building]. . .Students are not going to see it as two separate programs. Students are going to say, “I live in. . .[the new building].” Laney explained further, “It’s not a buy-out. . ..We didn’t bring [Buchmiller members] into the hall, take their product, and change it. . .The Buchmiller staff are coming with the program, and they are what makes it personal for each student.” 84 Participants acknowledged that in the process of merging into the larger University Housing building, Buchmiller would lose an element of autonomy; Buchmiller would be sharing a facility, in addition to some systems and processes in a way that was necessary through the incorporation of Buchmiller into a residence hall environment. Participants recognized both positive aspects and challenges, approaching the change as a learning step from which they could grow. In regard to the challenges, Tina reflected, I think this move into Housing is going to be difficult. There are going to be some bridges to cross. If we just look at what is best for the students, I think we’ll be fine. It’s giving up that independence, that autonomy, that we have here and going into their realm. Summary Chapter 5 provided an overview of the partnerships in which participants engaged with Buchmiller Hall, including whether partnerships were centered around a specific project or involved ongoing working relationships. One example of collaboration, the new building partnership between Buchmiller Hall and University Housing, was described more in-depth in order to provide a foundation of understanding for one intensive partnership that involved many of the participants in this study. Elements of the new building partnership included the following: The Series, the project team, and the process of collaboration involved in the partnership, which included negotiating physical space, merging systems, and retaining programmatic identity. 85 CHAPTER 6: FACTORS THAT WERE BARRIERS OR SUPPORTS TO COLLABORATION This chapter explores the second overarching research question with its three interwoven sub-questions, which addresses the following: What factors influence the interaction between organizational units that work together to promote seamless learning? Findings in this chapter introduce themes that emerged regarding factors that were supports or barriers to collaborative efforts with whom participants identified as partners on campus. Because participants articulated different concepts of what “partnership” or “collaboration” meant to them, as described in Chapter 5, the two terms are used interchangeably. The focus of the current study was not to determine what constituted a Specific type of partnership initiative, but rather sought to explore participants’ experiences of building relationships with who they identified as partners. Furthermore, several participants described relationships they engaged in with partners other than Buchmiller staff. Participants’ responses are included in the remaining chapters, whether they directly referred to working with Buchmiller or another unit on campus. The following sections explore themes that emerged from participants’ responses, which were supplemented with document analysis. First, factors that were barriers to working together are presented, followed by factors that were described as promoting partnerships. Factors that Were Barriers to Collaboration Participants Spoke barriers to collaboration, which they experienced in partnerships included in this study, in addition to their efforts in partnerships that had not successfully formed or been sustained. They described five factors they perceived as barriers to building partnerships on campus that included the following: size and 86 decentralization of Midwestern University (MWU), organizational hierarchy on campus, being embedded within multiple systems, understanding the needs of students with disabilities, and “keeping up with the everyday.” Each of these barrier themes is described in the following section. Size and Decentralization The first barrier to collaboration described by participants addressed the size and decentralization of MWU. Size was brought up during interviews in a variety of ways, namely in regard to the immense size and decentralization of MWU, in addition to the size of University Housing as a department. The former, the vastness of the university, was often described as an obstacle to be overcome. “It might be slower to build connections because it’s so large. . .aS opposed to if there were only a hundred faculty on campus, versus, thousands that come and go, and change over time,” said Heidi. William also reflected on the challenge that size presented to collaborating across the university, saying, “We suffer, like most institutions of our size, from our decentralization. We have a lot of wonderful things happening in a lot of places, and we don’t know about them.” William continued, describing how, not only size, but also decentralization, characterized organizational dynamics surrounding collaboration at MWU. He said, I think the institution’s size—and the kind of institutional culture that supports decentralization—is a challenge. It’s a uniqueness that we revel in. It means that we have a lot of strong identities within the colleges and communities. . .But it means that sometimes it’s not as efficient as it could he were there more intentional routes of communication and collaboration. Reflecting the decentralization of MWU, Buchmiller was located on a separate 87 part of campus from both the Disability Education Program (DEP) Building and University Housing residence halls. Referring to the physical and figurative distance between buildings, Tina said, “I think it has kept us fiom being partners, because we’ve been separate. We’re not part of housing. We’re considered private housing under DEP, and. . .it puts a barrier onto us.” Both Tina and Heidi shared that they believed the new I building partnership, in which Buchmiller and University Housing will share physical space, will help to build connections that will allow Buchmiller residents to integrate more fully into the campus community. The Hierarchy The second barrier to collaboration that participants referred to was the hierarchy they perceived to exist within the organizational functioning of MWU. For example, a number of participants referred to a lack of communication among organizational levels in the new building project, which they described as a barrier within the partnership. When asked about challenges in the new building project, one participant responded, We can’t make decisions. . .We still don’t know if [the housekeepers, linen maids, and maintenance worker] are coming with us. . ..We’re not the ones making those decisions. So, we can’t decide what kinds of services [to provide]. . .That is the obstacle of the hierarchy. A disconnect was perceived to exist among different levels within the organizational structure of the university. For example, several “on-the-ground” staff members in both Buchmiller and University Housing expressed fi'ustration with either not being included in decision-making or being expected to implement everyday processes and procedures without being given the parameters within which to do so. As another 88 participant said, “Once you know the framework, then you know how to plan. I just want to know what the framework is.” In reference to the way decisions were being made, one participant said, “You know, this feels like a weird power thing.” Tina provided an example of being excluded from the process of making decisions regarding furniture in the new student rooms for Buchmiller students. “They brought in an ADA Specialist from outside and didn’t ask us. . .We didn’t get closets because they aren’t accessible. So we got chifforobes. . .I mean a closet is more accessible.” Tina explained that She worked with the Buchmiller residents everyday and had a realistic understanding of their needs. By bringing in an outside ADA Specialist, She expressed, the new facilities would meet legislative requirements but the building would not necessarily meet the needs of students living there. Tina continued, “You know, we are in this day-to-day. .. ‘Talk to us.’ The ADA specialist comes in, and he’s just going by standards.” She added, “We’re way above minimum standards.” Embedded within Multiple Systems In addition to existing within the organizational hierarchy, participants also Spoke of how they firnctioned within multiple campus, state, and federal systems in a way that emerged as the third barrier theme to collaboration. Participants described the need to understand how overarching systems worked in order to meet requirements put forth to them, many times to gain approval so they could move forward in concert with others on partnership initiatives. For example, Rachelle relayed how the Institutional Review Board (IRB), which must approve all research at the university, prevented her from moving forward in her research with Buchmiller. The [RB is a federally mandated system put in place on college and university campuses across the country with the espoused purpose 89 of protecting human participants involved in research. Rachelle expressed concern, however, with how long it took to receive IRB approval, which she needed to receive before beginning data collection with Buchmiller residents. She said, “The whole point is that when I’m [at Buchmiller], I’m some use. So what has been—I want to say fly in the ointment, but I don’t want to be negative about the IRB—it’s just taken longer.” Another type of monitoring system on campus hindered the partnership between Glenn and Buchmiller staff members. After the new elevator had been designed, safety systems prevented integration of the newly developed technology into campus buildings. Glenn said, “It’s not a problem with us. It’s not a problem with Buchmiller or the students. It’s a problem with the standards for the elevators, and the guys that maintain the elevators feeling comfortable with the modifications with the elevators.” Elements of working within the current legal framework also presented a barrier. Tina described others’ perceptions of state or federal litigation systems, referring to partners’ fear of liability as an obstacle to building partnerships. During the first interview with Tina, she described plans for engaging in a partnership with another private-certified housing facility at MWU. As part of the partnership, Tina had planned to work with the private-certified housing facility to help it connect students with disabilities to PAS in the area, based on a pilot program Similar to that in Buchmiller. Personal assistants were often students at MWU, who were trained by Buchmiller staff and were hired personally by individuals with disabilities to provide assistance in everyday living activities such as Showering, dressing, and performing other daily routines. During the second interview, however, Tina relayed how the other hall had “backed off” from the partnership due to fear of a liability concern, which the other 90 housing unit perceived could result from working with Buchmiller. Tina said, “Everyone’s afraid of liability.” At other times, overarching systems, such as safety systems or legal framework, did not negatively impact collaborative efforts, but did limit with whom partnerships were initiated. For example, Sue described how she reached out to units who offered other accessible on-campus housing options. Forming connections with them allowed her to provide additional information regarding living spaces to residents who were preparing to transition out of Buchnriller. She explained, however, that the funding system through the state rehabilitation system provided less funding to college students if they moved to an off-campus apartment, compared to what they received if they lived in housing provided by the university. As a result, Sue focused primarily on building partnerships with on-campus housing units where students were most likely to transition, rather than other living options in the community. Understanding the Needs of Students with Disabilities A fourth barrier to collaboration involved the lack of knowledge surrounding the individualized needs of students with disabilities, which became evident in discussion about new dining services. The new dining facility, which was part of University Housing, was being constructed at the same time as the new residence hall, and it became a salient point during conversations that discussed the integration of the Buchmiller and University Housing systems. Dining services were mentioned occasionally during first interviews in the Spring and summer of 2009. Only during second interviews that fall, after construction had made significant progress and systems were more clearly defined, did dining systems emerge as a major point. A difference in expectations between 91 partners reflected varying levels of knowledge about specific daily living needs, such as eating, of students who lived in Buchmiller. Pamela, who had been the primary voice fiom Buchmiller in the dining services conversation, described her role as balancing advocacy with compromise. In addition to managing its own facilities, the current Buchmiller Hall also contained its own dining services, which were contracted out by the university so that a cook came in each day to prepare meals in the kitchen in Buchmiller. With the new building, however, dining services would be combined for all students living in the new residence hall. Pamela described the process of working with University Housing to determine the new dining system. First, physical access had been discussed, including space, table height, and Similar issues. In addition, details such as plans to go “tray-less,” provide flexible straws, and have students swipe their own identification cards were discussed and agreed upon. A major obstacle emerged, however, with the discussion of the role of meal assistants, or staff members who currently worked in Buchmiller. Meal assistants carried trays, cut food, and fed students who lacked fine motor skills or needed assistance eating for other reasons. Although Buchmiller provided meal assistants as part of its dining facility, University Housing staff members expressed their view that having meal assistants presented a liability concern. After an agreement was reached that allowed meal assistants into the eating area, dining services told Pamela that meal assistants would not be allowed to out food, a decision that presented a major obstacle for some students. At one point, Pamela said, someone had suggested to her that students unable to cut their own food should be directed to eat only food that was mashed or pre-cut. In another discussion, a University 92 Housing dining services staff member had suggested that if students were unable to eat without assistance, they could be provided take-out containers and be allowed to take food to their rooms to eat. Pamela said, “That is not the model of operation . We do not want people eating in their rooms. No. No.” Keeping Up with the Everyday The fifth barrier that participants described involved completing everyday tasks and “keeping up with the everyday.” Many participants expressed that they simply did not have enough time to build new partnerships with others on campus because of time committed to routine obligations. Fulton explained that an obvious challenge for disability support services was “the hierarchy of need kind-of-thing.” He said, “If you can’t get through your delivery of services today. . .it’s hard to [build] collaborative partnerships.” Echoing a similar experience in University Housing, Laney said, “Our ' daily work just pulls us away. . .We have had student suicides, active, completed suicides. We have had [weapons]. We’ve had domestic violence. . .Those things pull you away from the dreaming and the collaboration and the partnerships.” Laney continued, “I’ve spent a lot of time this year doing follow-up to incidents rather than being able to have a lot of luxury to have the time to do some advanced, proactive wor .” A number of participants described themselves as feeling “tired” or “old” as a result of the multiple demands they faced. Pamela admitted, “You’re probably getting me at a bad time because it’s December,” and went on to describe an unusual semester in regard to a high number of behavioral concerns and extensive alcohol abuse. One participant said, after describing a negative experience with a particular partnership, “Depending on the day of the week it is, and how old you’re feeling and how old you feel 93 certain days, it really is [interesting]. Right now I’m not feeling really good.” Referring to the commitment of her research and teaching, which she described as a learning partnership, Rachelle said somewhat facetiously, “You know the kids, they age me, but they keep my spirit young. So I’m wrinkled and I’m gray because of that, but my Spirit’s still young.” In addition to facing limitations of resources such as time and energy, participants also described a lack of initiative resulting from the monotony of everyday routine. Sue said, People fall into ruts if they’ve been in their job forever and ever and ever, and they don’t want to put any more effort out. . .So if new opportunities are afforded to them, they may not take the time to look into them, because they say they’re too busy or they just don’t want to put the time and effort into developing something. Speaking to the idea of challenging the everyday status quo, William described a need for “catalysts” to initiate collaboration. He said, “There’s so much going on in each of the different contexts, you get sucked into your routine. . .often times you can’t get your head up above the day-to-day.” Factors that Supported Collaboration In addition to describing barriers that inhibited collaboration, participants also described factors that supported collaboration. The following section examines Six factors that participants discussed as promoting collaboration, which allowed them to share information and create a coherent learning experience for students. Supporting factors included the following: sharing mission and goals, engaging in committee work, using a 94 common language, finding a point person, having a history on campus, and “letting go.” Each of these factors is addressed in the following sections. Shared Mission and Goals The first factor that promoted collaboration was a sense of shared mission and goals, which reflected mission and goals of both organizational units within the university and the university’s overall mission. Ways in which participants described how the mission of their individual units promoted collaboration is presented, followed by a description of how an institution-level mission was articulated as promoting collaborative efforts. Mission and Goals of the Units The first way that shared mission and goals emerged as a support theme for collaboration took place at the divisional or departmental level. Referring to the planning process for the new building, Pamela shared that she often heard Laney and other members fiom University Housing express their goal of promoting student success, regardless of whether or not students were residents of University Housing. Pamela described how partners in University Housing often said, “These are our students, and we should be serving them.” Pamela continued, saying, “That’s huge for me. It’s like here are 20 some odd students. They’re ours.” Other partners also expressed a shared sense of purpose and the necessity of working together in order to achieve learning outcomes. Eddie said, “Everyone has to be on the same page when it comes to public safety. . .We can’t do it alone. You know everybody has to be on board... Everybody plays a big part in making this place run smoothly.” Many times the mission of an individual unit reflected shared goals that laid a 95 foundation for collaboration with other units. The partnership with University Housing in constructing the new building allowed Buchmiller participants to not only further the mission of promoting independence by providing more up-to-date facilities, but also by exposing students to other resources and opportunities, such as being more integrated with their peers. In a sense, the new building partnership allowed participants to re-focus the Buchmiller mission by taking away the current responsibility of facilities and maintenance. In the new building, those roles would be taken by University Housing so that Pamela, Tina, and Sue would be responsible for only the programmatic piece of Buchmiller. Laney voiced that having Buchmiller be part of the new building would also help University Housing to firrther its mission. Laney stated that she believed integrating Buchmiller into the new building would expose University Housing residents to additional diversity in ways that would help them learn about others who were different from themselves. Mission and Goals of the University In addition to shared goals based on the mission of Buchmiller and partners, the mission of MWU as a world-recognized research university and land grant institution promoted collaboration on campus. This section examines research as a support factor that promoted collaboration, in addition to the role of MWU’S identity as a land grant institution that espoused values of access and outreach. Participants referred frequently to MWU ’8 identity as a research-prominent university and its self-stated role of creating and applying knowledge. William Spoke of his belief that teachers and learners must “create knowledge and information together.” He said, “It’s only through that process that. . .we build a context where [students] can be 96 successful and partner with us in the greater mission of the institution.” Fulton described how, because DEP supported MWU’S academic mission with a strong emphasis on research, other units on campus “become partners in some of the research collaborations.” Pamela provided a specific example of how research promoted partnership-building by bringing various units together on campus through a summit on disability research. She said, We can. . .do some things with coordinated efforts within the community—within the university—because we have researchers who have done community health research within our college. By working together, we can have a much bigger impact in terms of programs and services. As a land grant institution, MWU espoused the value of embracing diversity and inclusiveness. Partnerships, which were designed to provide a seamless experience for students, also focused on retention-efforts designed to promote academic success that extended beyond mere physical or financial access to the university. Fulton spoke of a long-standing partnership between DEP and the counseling center on campus, describing the need for additional support for students coming from under-resourced secondary school systems. Referring to students coming from poorer schools, who may have undiagnosed disabilities, he explained, Some of the young people going through [large city] public schools, who were very bright, were able to rely on their strengths in the slow and not-so-deep currents of [large city] public schools. But if they were attracted here and recruited here and enrolled here, some percentage of these students would have 97 survived on their strengths, but with impairments that would have been identified in [well-resourced schools]. Fulton went on to describe how providing additional support for these students fi'om inner-city schools, who may or may not have disabilities, improved overall retention of students. He said, “It’s not just helping us identify and retain students with disabilities, but, also, a broad-spectrum of students who are at risk.” Committees As Formal Opportunities to Connect The second support theme for collaboration involved committee work. Nearly every participant described how committee work with others across the campus allowed them to build connections with other units. “We do a lot of work by committee here, as most institutions do,” William said. “[We can] have a perspective that we would have a richer product if we had more diversity of thought, and that diversity of thought does mean between student affairs and academic affairs.” An important change that had allowed Buchmiller staff to forge additional partnerships during the past several years was the addition of a third full-time Buchmiller staff member. Before that point, only two staff members composed the leadership team in Buchmiller. Having only two people had presented a challenge because the on-call safety system in place required at least one full-time staff member to be in the building during the business day. Having the third team member afforded Buchmiller leadership additional flexibility to be in different places throughout campus. Pamela said, Buchmiller is a great place to live, a great place to work—the best kept secret on campus. . .The only way you can get the word out is by being present, by being on 98 campus committees, and by being out there. With three of uS here, it allows us to do that. Having a formalized time for the committee to meet opened access to partners and promoted collaboration, participants said. One example provided by a number of Buchmiller and DEP staff members was the Disability Access Committee (DAC). Debra Spoke of the formal time as allowing them to “once a week, just to come together, talk about student issues, talk about what else is going on, and what [they] need to be aware of.” Heidi described how DAC meetings promoted regular communication among partners. She said, “It’s a time when everyone is in one place so you can keep up to date on the students and communicate.” Pamela described how, when an issue was brought to DAC, committee members discussed it, saying, “‘How can we deal with this?’ or ‘What are the channels within the university that we have to deal with?’” Sharing A Common Language The third support theme that promoted collaboration was the ability to share a common language, particularly between individuals in similar roles within the complex organizational hierarchy of MWU. Speaking of Pamela, Laney said, “We’re on more of the same level within an organization. . .we were thinking about details, the day-to- day. . .what are [the students’] needs. And so I recognized it, and I think she recognized it, that, ‘Oh you speak my language and I speak yours.”’ Debra mentioned that, in regard to Buchmiller staff, she most often speaks with Sue because she and Sue engage in work with students that focus on Similar learning outcomes. Debra said, “Certainly Tina and Pamela are very accessible as well. But because Sue deals with the disability management planning element. . .we tend to gravitate toward each other, based on the 99 roles that we have with students.” Glenn also spoke of the importance of Speaking a common language, in particular in regard to communicating with others on engineering projects and translating technical engineering terminology. He said, I work with committees all the time. It’s just finding out what needs to be done. Then the biggest thing with the elevator is just translating it from the handicapped language to something we understood, and then communicating with the elevator people from their language to something we understood so we could work between the two groups to come up with a solution. They all speak different terms, and it’s just figuring out what needs to be done. Although Rachelle Spoke of a common language in a more conceptual sense, she shared the underlying message that partners must be able to communicate about shared goals. Rachelle also described navigating language and meaning within the sciences. She said, “I didn’t realize that design was the bridge between the sciences, technology, and engineering—and how people live their lives. So we speak both languages, and we can translate that into tangible outcomes.” Fulton referred to the magnitude of simple word choice and approaching a topic using a perspective understood by someone with a different background. He said, If I call it “research,” and I’m dealing with someone on staff who doesn’t have a terminal degree, it’s a pretty intimidating word. So we talk about “program evaluation.” Making sure what we do has some measurable output that indicates our progress toward what our objective is, and that we actually implement that and measure it, and assess it and modify it based on what we realize in our data. 100 Eddie also spoke of the need to relate to students and partners using language they understood. He said, “You need to communicate with people and talk to them in plain language. Not police terms. . .but language that everyone can understand.” Finding the Point Person Participants identified that it was often easier to speak a common language with someone on a similar level within the organizational structure; being able to identify such a contact person with whom they could connect was a challenge they Shared. The fourth support theme that promoted collaboration involved finding the right point of contact. Pamela said, “It’s kind of what the organizational chart is, and what level you’re on.” She continued, “So part of that, really, is having a sense of. . .how the individual units are organized and being able to find out what’s the appropriate level of contact for that unit at that point.” In order to form successful partnerships, Debra said, I think the first and most important thing is to have a designated contact within a given office, or some kind of initiated relationship, or a familiarity with someone in that office. Secondly, I need to know who to go to in order to address certain issues. Do I go directly to the director, or do we deal with that designated contact person in that office? Over time, people who worked in DEP had developed a knowledge of contacts within particular areas of the university. Heidi gave an example, saying, “If the person I know in the general curriculum isn’t there, I’ll go to Mary and say, ‘Well, who else works here?’ Or someOne will ask me, in Vet Med, who do they need to go to.” Heidi 101 explained, “We all have our own little areas. That’s good because that way you’re not responsible for figuring out the whole system.” After a contact person had been identified, either through an established relationship or a public avenue for obtaining information, persistence was at times necessary. Pamela described how, after sending an email or making a phone call to someone on campus, for example legal counsel, She made a note to follow-up the next week. She said, “I just know that Buchmiller is not, in the great scheme of things. . .not big. We’re just a really tiny fish. But, I still need [the services of the university’s lawyers].” Laney spoke of staff transition during recent years, and said that the changes had made making connections in various areas a challenge. “[MWU is] just so big,” she said. “It’s so big and staff turnover happens so often that you don’t know who the new contact person is. . .We’ve had a lot of turnover at the leadership level in student affairs.” Sharing a similar sentiment, Heidi described how She knew several deans in the graduate school who had served as close contact people there. Heidi said, though, “They had a transition over the past couple of years, and I think we’re still trying to figure out a good go-to person there if students have questions.” So Large—Having A History Helps The fifth support theme for collaboration that participants described involved time spent at MWU. Having a history on campus was one factor that helped participants identify who was an appropriate contact person. Participants described the importance of, over a period of years, developing relationships and trust with others, in addition to building a working knowledge of how various areas of the university frmctioned and 102 interacted. For example, Laney stated that she believed her own experience in the large environment of University Housing varied greatly fi'om Pamela’s, particularly during Pamela’s transition into the much larger system. Laney explained, “I already live in that gigantic empire and know how to navigate it. . .There’s ease of navigation when you’ve been here that long.” Other participants also described how having a history was a benefit because they not only knew how to accomplish tasks, but also knew with whom to connect. In a Similar sense, Heidi said, “MWU is so large.” She continued, “The longer you’re here, the more partnerships or collaboration you have, just because you get connected to more people. So you know more people.” Eddie shared a similar view, reflecting on his tenure in campus safety at MWU. “After being in police work for 22 years here, I’m very knowledgeable. If I don’t know, I know who does know.” Pamela shared that one of the reasons she felt Fulton was able to effectively influence decision- making processes, and enact change on campus, was his longevity. “He’s been around a long time,” she said. “He’s made partnerships. . .and relationships with people.” Letting Go The sixth support theme that promoted collaboration, or at least sustained collaborative efforts, involved participants’ ability to “let go.” Participants described letting go of control when faced with unknowns, or being able to “live with the ambiguity.” Pamela acknowledged that the process of opening the new building would not be completely smooth, but relayed that she believed all the details would eventually fall into place. “There are just a lot of meetings and a lot of details,” she said. “And I just know we’re going to forget something along the way. And we’re just going to have to 103 work it out, and work it through.” Sharing a similar sentiment, Nellie said of the new building. “It’s a fly—by-night operation right now.” She acknowledged, “We’re not sure how it’s all going to work. It will be fine in the end, but right now it’s just that people have their own little thing that they’ve got to worry about.” A number of participants described letting go in the sense of being creative and flexible in order to overcome unexpected hurdles when encountering new situations. For example, Bruce remembered a time when two residents from Buchmiller, who were in wheelchairs, had been on the lower level of the bookstore when the elevator’s mechanical system failed. Bruce recounted, “Both of them said, ‘Well, this isn’t a problem. Do you have three beefy guys? Here, pick these places up on the wheelchair and carry me up the stairs.’” Letting go also involved a release of personal fears and inhibitions, or comfort levels. Rachelle explained how her design research differed from scientific research. She said, “People feel more secure with ‘knowns.’ But when you go to them and say, ‘I’m going to Shadow you for three hours. I have no idea what we’ll find,’ that in itself can be a little bit disconcerting...” Participants also described how some leaders empowered staff to be successful and to have the confidence to push past their own boundaries of familiarity in ways that prompted them to be innovative. For example, Debra spoke about the departmental support she experienced, Specifically in having the autonomy to try new things and build new connections with others on and off campus. Another capacity of letting go included ceding individual control in order to achieve a shared outcome. The need to trust one another was particularly at the forefront of conversations regarding the new building partnership as both units were negotiating 104 systems while moving into a Shared space. Pamela said of Laney, “I say that it comes back to trust. I trust her. I trust her to do what is right by our program because I think she believes in what we do.” Tina described a similar perspective when asked what promoted collaboration in the partnership with the new building. “They are wanting to make it work. . .They’ve been really open to learning. They want to learn. They want to incorporate us. It makes the bridge so much easier.” Summary Chapter 6 described themes that emerged as barriers or supports to collaborative efforts. Five barrier themes to collaboration included the following: size and decentralization of MWU, organizational hierarchy on campus, being embedded within multiple systems, understanding the needs of students with disabilities, and “keeping up with the everyday.” In addition to factors that inhibited partnership-building, six support themes for collaboration included the following: sharing mission and goals, engaging in committee work, using a common language, finding a point person, having a history on campus, and “letting go.” 105 CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS Chapters 5 and 6 provided themes that emerged from the two overarching research questions and three sub-questions, regarding how Buchmiller Hall and its partners collaborated to promote student learning and what influenced those relationships. More specifically, the research questions included the following: 1. In what ways does a student affairs unit that provides disability services, Buchmiller Hall, interact with campus partners to promote student learning? 2. What factors influence the interaction between these organizational units? The three research sub-questions embedded within the major research questions included the following: (1) “How does interaction take place?” (2), “Why does interaction take place?” and (3), “When does interaction take place?” Because these sub- questions cut across both research questions, the text of Chapter 7 is organized around the three sub-questions and provides discussion surrounding themes discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. Following discussion, this chapter concludes with implications and limitations of the current study. Because the current study uses a constructivist approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a; Stake, 2005), participants were asked to use their own interpretation of campus partnerships in order to reflect their individual experiences. As a result, the relationships described in the findings section and discussed below cover a broad spectrum of interactions, ranging from what some authors define as shorter-terrn cooperation (Hillebrand & Biemans, 2003; Stein & Short, 2001) to more coordinated, in-depth collaboration (Amey & Brown, 2004). I explain in this chapter how the partnerships that 106 participants described were influenced in distinct ways by the unique context of supporting students with disabilities. How Does Interaction Take Place? The first sub-question embedded within the two overarching research questions addressed how collaboration took place. Through their responses, fi'om which themes emerged in Chapters 5 and 6, participants described partnership-building as navigating various types of boundaries, which were uniquely Shaped by the context of disability. First, in order to understand how participants engaged in navigational efforts, the concept of existing boundaries that they encountered is discussed. Second, the ways in which participants described navigation of these boundaries is explored. Types of Boundaries The current study sought to address the research questions regarding how staff in Buchmiller Hall interacted with campus partners to promote seamless learning for students with disabilities. “Seamless,” as a concept, “suggests that what was once believed to be separate, distinct parts. . .are now of one piece bound together so as to appear whole or continuous” (Kuh, 1996, p. 136). Inherent in the idea of searnlessness is a smoothing, or navigating, of boundaries within an organization in order to produce a sense of continuity. Organizations can be viewed as “social structures created by individuals to support the collaborative pursuit of Specified goals” (Scott, 2003, p. 11), and when structures are constructed, various types of boundaries are naturally created. The boundaries described in the current study represented what were inherently distinct areas as a result of a collective of individuals or units, or actors (Scott, 2003), coming together in a complex and decentralized organization. In other words, the 107 boundaries discussed by participants were not always barriers. Rather, “organizational structure, rules, regulations, and procedures are viewed as rational instruments intended to aid task performance” (Morgan, 1997, p. 175). Participants spoke of the ways in which they utilized factors that promoted collaboration in order to counter the factors that were barriers to collaboration, which were described as support and barrier themes in Chapter 6, while navigating a variety of boundaries. Current literature often discusses the boundary between academic and student affairs as a dichotomy that inhibits partnership-building (ACPA, 1996; ACPA et al., 2006; Kuh, 1996; Lamadrid, 1999; Magolda, 2005; Philpott & Strange, 2003). Participants in the current study were asked about their perception of the relationship between the two historically distinct areas of academia; only one participant, however, described a divide between academic and student affairs as a barrier in a general sense. In response to the question regarding his view of the organizational relationship at Midwestern University (MWU), William said, “The bifurcation between academic affairs and student affairs is artificial. I’ve had the great opportunity of working on both sides of the house for many years, and we share the same students.” AS a result, this study does not support research that suggested differences in culture and role expectations between student and academic affairs resulted in “irreconcilable conflicts” (Philpott & Strange, 2003, p. 91). In addition to the organizational boundary between academic and student affairs, literature highlights a number of types of organizational boundaries, for example, those defined by membership, interaction, activity, and cultural-cognitive boundaries (Scott, 2003). In the current study, participants described three major types of boundaries that 108 were shaped by support and barrier themes described in the last chapter: organizational position, personal identity, and physical space. The following section discusses these three types of boundaries, along with their distinct characteristics regarding partnerships designed to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Boundaries of Posi tion The first type of boundary included positional boundaries around individuals’ formalized roles within the organizational framework (Scott, 2003); positional boundaries represented lines in the organizational chart at MWU, as highlighted by the theme of hierarchy described in Chapter 6. In each of their particular positions, participants played a Specific role in performing tasks and functions on campus, which allowed them to develop an area of expertise. Building campus partnerships allowed participants to bridge organizational divides and to build “cross-fimctional, interdepartmental linkages that combine resources and expertise to address the learning needs of students” (Whitt etal., 2008, p. 236). Participants reached out to others in different positions on campus (e.g., Rachelle, a faculty member, connecting with Buchmiller staff members) in order to build connections and partnerships with them because they believed in the importance of providing an effective learning experience for students that was not confined within the boundaries of a classroom (ACPA et al., 2006). Furthermore, the action of building bridges allowed participants to connect students to services or information that participants were unable to provide through the resources of their position alone. Boundaries of position played a salient role because Buchmiller staff members were often viewed as the “experts” in regard to providing disability support services. Campus 109 partners perceived that Buchmiller staff members could provide the knowledge and tools that partners lacked for meeting the needs of students with disabilities. In some instances, connection-building involved knowing the name of a contact or point person in another unit; knowmg the name of someone with whom to connect was a support theme for collaboration. Heidi described the way in which members of her office developed roles akin to that of an ambassador, in addition to their positional role. An ambassador role was one in which a member was known to have a certain connection to, or knowledge of, a specific organizational area of campus. Members served as the “go to” person in the office, who others approached if they needed to build on the connection already established with the other unit through the ambassador role. At other times, reaching out beyond one’s position involved a more sustained action of boundary management (Morgan, 1997), or boundary-spanning (Scott, 2003). Many participants described boundary-crossing in “side-to-side,” or lateral, connections. Responses highlighted side-to-side relationships, pointing to the importance of connecting with someone in a similar position within the organization. Pamela also described her role as an “up-and-down,” or vertical, boundary-crosser through her dual- role as member of both the mid-manager team and the project team in the new building partnership. Boundaries of Personal Identity Because organizational structures “are personal in the most profound sense” (Morgan, 1997, p. 245), boundaries did not exist only in formalized positional roles, as discussed above. The second type of boundary that participants described included informal areas of separation involving an element of their roles less quantifiable than job 110 descriptions: personal identity. In this discussion, it is important to consider that “organizations represent extensions of ourselves” (Scott, 2003, p. 7). Informal boundaries Sturounding the identities of participants as individuals overlapped with their formal roles as professionals, demonstrating that job descriptions are necessarily supplemented with characteristics individuals bring to their positions. Simultaneously, the positions and roles of the participants were shaped by participants’ beliefs (Kezar, 2001), or values, which are described later in this chapter. I propose that participants in the current study blurred boundaries of personal identity in a unique way because the partnerships in which they engaged focused on meeting the needs of students with disabilities. Being a person with a disability is a deeply—rooted identity, and because of this, participants were forced to re-exarnine the ways they incorporated access and advocacy around disability into their professional roles. The ways they blurred boundaries were based on their own personal experiences as an individual with a disability, relationships with people who had a disability, or general knowledge of disabilities. Participants described how building partnerships on campus promoted an integration of multiple self-identities not only for themselves, but also for students. Participants engaged in partnerships in ways that aligned with how they defined student learning as empowerment, as discussed in Chapter 4. Intertwined through their conversations was their work in challenging students with disabilities to move beyond their comfort zones in ways that allowed students to embrace identities of being both a person with a disability and a college student. Illustrating her approach to promote student learning, Rachelle Spoke of herself as both teacher and researcher. She described blurring the boundaries between the two roles, lll allowing her to navigate what could have been considered separate spheres of her formalized position and help students learn in a more holistic sense. She said, “My research and my teaching are as one. They’re inseparable.” Rachelle spoke of how She internalized both roles into her life with passion because she believed both were essential to student learning. For Rachelle, being a teacher and researcher of industrial design was her identity as an individual. Her identity went beyond personality and acquired knowledge, representing her fundamental “epistemological, ontological, and/or methodological view” (Creamer, 2003, p. 463). In a similar way, other participants blurred boundaries not only between “jo ” and career as an extension of self, but also between multiple elements of self. Pamela provided another example of blurring the boundary between multiple identity roles within a formalized organizational position. In drawing on her personal belief system in her role as advocate, Pamela was able to inform colleagues of ways that mediated the difference in perception and expectations in the new building partnership, resulting in compromise. Pamela did not need to bridge bifirrcated roles of individual and professional, but by navigating the natural boundary between the two areas, she strengthened her role as a professional who was an advocate and an ally. Pamela Spoke of her background as a faculty member at another institution, in addition to her work in community living centers. She not only described how her past experiences flavored her current leadership style of meeting staff members “where they are at,” but She also Spoke about how she had integrated her personal values of advocating for people with disabilities into her current professional role. She was a hall director, and, on a more 112 personal level, She was also an ally for students with disabilities in a manner that extended beyond what could be defined in a job description. Boundaries of Physical Space The third type of boundary described by participants addressed a separation of physical space that required navigation, a boundary which came to light particularly in regard to the theme of size and decentralization described in the previous chapter. “Two useful indicators of Si gnificant boundaries are an organization’s spatial barriers and their guardians (i.e., fences, walls, doors, guards, receptionists” (Scott, 2003, p. 188). In partnerships designed to provide disability services, space takes on a particularly salient role. One of the most visible and discussed issues regarding disability on college campuses addresses physical access; Space becomes not only a logistical issue, but also a legal one. In addition, sharing space, which is referred to below in regard to committee work, becomes an important issue because disability support offices are often housed in separate units, rather than being integrated throughout a campus (Myers, 2008). In regard to Buchmiller and the Disability Education Program (DEP) partners, one I boundary was the space between the Buchmiller and DEP buildings, which may have been exacerbated by the lack of parking space at Buchmiller Hall, which, as a result, inhibited travel to Buchmiller for DEP partners. Current literature notes how geographic distance between collaborators influences ways they work together, stating, “In the face of. . .distances, physical and psychological, the challenge of collaboration often [takes] its toll in exacting from participants excesses of time and energy” (Philpott & Strange, 2003, p. 88). In addition, areas of the university were not only distanced through the decentralization of the organizational structure, but also literally, in regard to geographic 113 distance on campus. As described in Chapter 6, Buchmiller’s role as a program housed within a stand-alone facility could be viewed as a representation of its role as a non- traditional residence hall. Simultaneously, although Buchmiller was a program in DEP and the College of Health, it stood separate fiom their buildings as well. In other words, Buchmiller’s current independent location represented multiple formal organizational identities. The geographic expanse of the MWU campus presented a boundary to be naVigated. Committees served as both formal and informal means of navigation by presenting a planned venue in which to interact with one another. Such venues then provided a platform on which to build. In other words, when individuals from different units and departments were brought together, often to share physical space in which to engage in dialogue or work together, they reported an opportunity in which to build further connections that could extend beyond the current area of focus for that committee. On a campus as large as MWU, meeting individuals from various areas of campus was the first step in building partnerships, as Debra said. Meeting others could take place in more formalized roles by crossing boundaries of prescribed job descriptions, or more personally and informally by building relationships along lines of common interests, personal values, or Shared experiences. In short, committee meetings were often formal times to connect, albeit sometimes with an informal feel, and could serve as a platform for building either the organizational or human aspects of navigation, which are discussed next. 114 Navigation of Boundaries The previous section discussed three types of boundaries that participants encountered when engaging in partnerships. Ways in which participants chose to navigate boundaries were influenced by their particular context, including the barrier or support themes for collaboration present to them. Within the concept of navigation, two sub- themes emerged: the structural component of navigation and the human component of navigation. Each of these sub-themes is discussed below. Navigation: The Structural Component The majority of participants in the current study at some point referred to the organizational hierarchy inherent within a large university system. The distinction regarding whether they perceived the hierarchical structure as a support or barrier to collaborative efforts was founded on their ability to navigate the system in which they functioned. Participants came from different areas of the university and represented various levels within their units. As a result, a variety of factors influenced their view of what they perceived as their ability, or inability, to access and Share information or engage in new initiatives. I refer to the first theme of navigation in the current study as the structural component of navigation, which draws on Scott’s (2003) description of the formal social structure of organizations, in addition to Ozaki, Amey, and Watson’s (2007) discussion of organizational capital of leadership. The formal structure of organizations involves “the social positions and the relationships. . .[that] have been explicitly Specified and are defined independently of the personal characteristics” (Scott, p. 20). Organizational capital recognizes the formal structure, but broadens the concept and says it “may be tied to formal position, or it may be a function of other less tangible 115 aspects of the organization” (Ozaki, Amey, & Watson, p. 109). Furthermore, Kezar’s (2003) framework that addresses collaboration between academic and student affairs was developed using research questions, which in part, were based on structural theories of change. Participants in the current study described using the structural component of navigation in a variety of ways. Pamela’s role as a lateral boundary-Spanner (Scott, 2003) was limited as she navigated across organizational boundaries. She described the need to defer situations to Fulton, her supervisor, who had access to particular boundary-spanning roles. In regard to the organizational component of navigation, Fulton’s position of authority within the organizational chart canied a certain degree of power and authority with it (Scott). As a result, he was able not only to enact certain change because of his position, but also because he was allowed access to a different authority group. Fulton reported to the Dean of the College of Health, who was an academic leader on campus with access to additional capital because of his formal position. Participants who expressed a sense of not being heard or involved in important decisions were often the “on-the-ground” people. In the example of the new building partnership, several staff members in both Buchmiller and University Housing, whose work intersected with the everyday lives of students, described the experience of being denied a voice in decisions for which they had detailed knowledge of what would be most effective. One participant said, referring to upper-level administrators, “People kind of got caught up in the awe of the building. The brick. What the rooms look like. . ..Very excited about that part—so that they’ve forgotten how we’re going to deal with [the everyday systems of the new hall].” 116 Within the new building partnership, three levels of decision-makers emerged, based on formalized roles and reporting lines: the “on-the-ground” staff members, the mid-level decision-makers, and the upper-level decision-makers. The new building initiative involved multi-layered, complex decisions, and a disconnect was perceived that some participants expressed as disempowering. For example, upper-level decision- makers were responsible for the major budgetary decisions, which then trickled down, impacting what structures “on-the- ground” staff members were expected to implement. Time played a part in furthering the sense of disconnect, presenting a pressure for those implementing the everyday decisions against deadlines when they felt that they lacked the necessary “fiamewor ,” or parameters, from individuals with roles of higher positional authority. In more complex partnerships, such as the new building partnership, upper-level players made decisions regarding budget framework, and then others were required to create a hiring and training schedule for staff by a certain date so that the new building would be ready to operate by opening in fall of 201 0. Navigation: The Human Component 1 call the second theme regarding the navigation of boundaries in the current study the human component of navigation. The human component of navigation again draws on the work of Scott (2003) and Ozaki, Amey, and Watson (2007), here examining navigation across boundaries based on concepts of informal structure and social capital. Scott described informal structure as existing when “it iS impossible to distinguish between the characteristics of the positions and the prescribed relations and the characteristics and personal relations of the participants” (Scott, p. 20). Ozaki, Amey, and Watson explained social capital of leadership as building on informal resources such as 117 social networks and reputation. They described social capital as affecting “partnerships of reciprocity, trust-worthiness, location, and time sensitivity” (p. 108). Paramount to both Scott’s use of informal structure and Ozaki, Amey, and Watson’s social capital is the aspect of building personal relationships that transcend boundaries, which Whitt et al., (2008) described as a principle of good practice for partnership programs, and which participants in the current study described as essential in navigation of the boundaries they faced. Kezar’s (2003) fi'amework for understanding collaboration between student and academic affairs used research questions that were in part based on cultural theories of change that are related to what I term the human component of navigation. 1 use the term human component to describe the more personal elements of interaction that involve emotion, individual connection, and deeper-level values of each person. In the current case study, those personal elements surrounded learning and disability. Such personal elements cannot be viewed on an organizational chart. In a Similar sense, Morgan described how coalitions and alliances, types of connection within organizations, are often “highly informal and to a degree invisible” (Morgan, 1997, p. 186). Morgan argued that alliances are built on the premise of being mutually beneficial. In contrast to his description of alliances, participants in the current study more often spoke of partnering in ways that allowed them to build on shared values and interests. In one way, informal and personal connections provided an alternative entry point in forging partnerships, as opposed to further developing already existing partnerships by navigating organizational structures in place. In a second way, navigating the organizational structure in place began with identifying the correct contact person within the appropriate level of the organization and then navigating the personal element of 118 relationships. Both types of the human component of navigation allowed participants to connect with colleagues beyond a formal organizational role in a more informal manner based on human emotion and personal connection. In other words, the first way of navigating the human component of interaction involved the initiation of the partnership; the latter way addressed developing the partnership and sustaining it. The two aspects of navigating the human component of an organization are discussed below. The first aspect of navigating the human component of navigation involved initiating partnerships based on a personal relationship or personal connection. For example, Sue shared that she had known Glenn outside of a work context through Boy Scouts. Because they had established an informal connection, they knew each other in a non-work capacity that eventually prompted a professional partnership between Buchmiller and the College of Engineering. Another example involved how Rachelle reached out to DEP and Buchmiller, based on her personal values of inclusiveness, which were inlaid within her research on emphatic design that centered on designing inclusive environments. Furthermore, within a human component of navigation, Fulton had developed a history on campus; gathering knowledge and building relationships over time was described as a support theme in Chapter 6. Fulton’s history was rooted within the knowledge associated with a historical overview of MWU and years of being personally involved in campus happenings. Participants described the personal and professional relationships he had developed over time and how they provided social capital (Ozaki, Amey & Watson, 2007). The second aspect of the human component of navigation furthered a partnership after connection had already been made based on organizational roles. Participants in 119 both academic and student affairs described positive interactions with others that just “made it easy” because, after initiating a connection, partners were willing to share information, resources, or time. Furthermore, they often were enthusiastic in doing so. Personal relationships did not prompt the initiation of the partnership, but rather worked to further and sustain it. Laney Spoke of the business outcomes of what She referred to as the merger of the new building, stating that the word “business” should be put in quotes. She said, “But those aren’t things I think about. I kind of think about, ‘Oh, this is a good relationship we’ve got going on here.”’ In other words, Laney acknowledged that the more structural and logistical aspects of the new building project provided an infiastructure for the partnership, but she viewed her role as building the partnership through the human aspect of navigating the natural separation of Buchmiller and University Housing that currently existed. The current study supports research that found that student affairs professionals perceived what Kezar (2003) termed cultural approaches to collaboration, such as attitudes and personalities, as being highly effective. Embedded within the human component of navigation was the need to trust one another, particularly as both units in the new building partnership were engaged in the negotiations involved with moving into a shared Space. Ozaki, Amey, and Watson (2007) discussed the importance of building trust as formal relationships moved toward social relationships. Pamela said of Laney, “I trust her. I trust her to do what is right by our program because I think that She believes in what we do.” Tina implied a similar sense of emotion when asked what factors have promoted collaboration in the partnership with the new building. “They are wanting to make it work. . .And they’ve been really open to learning, they want to learn, they want to incorporate us, and it’s just, it makes the bridge 120 so much easier.” In a slightly different sense, Rachelle spoke of the importance of being genuine when collaborating with others in research in order to establish trust. She said, I think people need. . .to see that you’re sincere, and that you’re authentic. . .If we see Buchmiller participants as collaborators, I think that’s a totally different approach... shamelessly embracing subjectivity is part of this. In addition to presenting the two pathways of partnership-building discussed above, navigation of the human component of relationships could also eliminate pathways to collaboration. One participant acknowledged, laughing, “There are certainly people on campus I don ’t collaborate with because they’re difficult.” If a potential partner appeared unwilling to cooperate, pathways at times were closed as a result of negative personal dynamics. Laney went on to say that, although she did not often encounter such situations, when a difference in personalities or personal expectations prevented working together, her students faced a detriment because they received less information or fewer services. The following section discusses the reasons why participants engaged, or failed to engage, in partnerships. Why Does Interaction Take Place? A second sub-question embedded within the two overarching research questions addressed why partnership efforts took place. In regard to change, organizations can “become focused on the what or how of change and forget to consider the why” (Kezar, 2001). As important as considering how and in what ways collaboration existed, is developing an understanding of why participants engaged in collaborative efforts. Two major themes emerged in regard to why participants engaged in partnerships: (1) reasons surrounding individuals’ and leaders’ values, and (2) the importance of having the 121 necessary tools to act on values in order to navigate boundaries. Reasons and tools for engaging in partnerships are discussed next. Reasons Surrounding Participants ’ and Leaders ’ Values A distinct characteristic of models of collaboration in higher education, as opposed to other sectors, is that values are often imbued within partnerships (Amey & Brown, 2004). Although participants rarely articulated that a certain belief was an important value in their life, their responses illustrated values embedded within their multiple roles in the organization and as individuals. During second interviews, participants and I more often engaged in less formal dialogue with one another; participants often referred to their personal roles as students, mothers, fathers, and individuals with a disability. Developing a conversational relationship was an important intention of using a subjectivist epistemology, which allowed “continuing, and meaningful interaction between the investigator and the respondents” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 107). Through more informal conversation, in addition to their responses as a whole, values emerged as an underlying theme that served as a foundation upon which participants based decisions and actions, including ways to engage in collaboration with others. The component of organizations that includes values, norms, and role expectations is known as the normative structure (Scott, 2003). Within the normative structure, values are described as “the criteria employed in selecting the goals of behavior” (Scott, p. 18). Values that were prompting forces for initiating action in partnership efforts with Buchmiller were not always tied to the specific beliefs of promoting independent living or advocacy around disability. A number of participants did speak of the need to increase 122 accessibility or provide support services for students with disabilities. More important for participants involved in the cmrent study, however, appeared to be the underlying value of providing student services in effective ways that promoted student learning and success. The goal of promoting student learning supports the findings of Nesheim et al. (2007), who demonstrated that student learning was a major outcome fi'om student and academic affairs collaborative partnership programs. The broader value of “helping” students in meaningful ways was applied by participants in a variety of situations and contexts, and was often couched with other values such as openness to new ideas, willingness to enact change, empowerment of individuals, and constructing inclusive environments for all students. As evidenced by their responses in Chapter 5, participants viewed learning in line with Learning Reconsidered: A Campus-wide focus on the Student Experience, which stated that learning is “a comprehensive, holistic, transformative activity that integrates academic learning and student development” (ACPA & NASPA, 2004, p. 4). Participants’ more expansive values around learning were then applied to the specific context of working with Buchmiller, thus resulting in the support of learning specifically for students with disabilities. At times, the process of partnering with others involved a sense of compromise based on each partner’s values, for example in regard to the timeline and level of involvement of the current contextual factors. Because “no decision. . .can optimize all values” (Bimbaum, 1991, p. 61), participants faced choices regarding the avenues to pursue that they felt were most important at that point. A number of participants expressed that they had limited interaction with students with disabilities prior to their work with Buchmiller. As a result, some participants had 123 little knowledge surrounding needs of students with various types of disabilities. Goals that participants Spoke of took Shape in more general outcomes, such as providing particular resources to students or helping them to take steps to ensure their own safety— which were applications of student learning described in Chapter 5 and were present in the support theme of mission in Chapter 6. I argue that underlying values that prompted partnership-building did not need to be specific to access and inclusion in regard to disability. However, the presence of what I term “disability champion” was often necessary to build connections and cultivate a common language and values with partners who were open to learning the ways to meet most effectively the individualized needs of students with disabilities. A champion can be a formal or informal leader who is an advocate for a particular issue (Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2007); a disability champion advocates specifically for partnerships designed to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Furthermore, a disability champion articulates clear values of inclusion, building on the role of disability ally (Evans, Assadi, & Herriott, 2005) contextualized within the action of collaboration, while building on support themes of collaboration, as described in Chapter 6. Communicating values around the process of collaboration iS an integral piece of Kezar’s (2005) first stage of collaboration, building commitment. Kezar noted that “what made the story created through the values. . .work is that [individuals]. . .provided additional validity since peers were supporting the notion being distributed through the networ ” (p. 847). In other words, values should not be communicated in a top-down manner only. Values, instead, needed to be infused into a peer network, which, in the current study, could be led by a disability champion. The following sections focus on the themes of 124 individuals’ values and leaders’ values that impacted why participants chose to engage in partnerships. Participants ’ Values The first theme of values included personal beliefs of individual participants. As discussed earlier, an overarching value was to provide a more comprehensive and coherent delivery of services to students in ways that promoted student learning. In addition to promoting student learning, participants also spoke of furthering their own learning for themselves as professionals and individuals. For example, Rachelle described her research with students with disabilities, saying, “It’s making me rethink my material landscape. And that’s the reward.” In a similar sense, Laney said, “I feel more knowledgeable myself. . .I’ve learned so much about people with disabilities and their needs.” Another personal value that participants described was that of specifically promoting an inclusive and supportive environment for students on campus. For example, Madeline’s bachelor degree was in social work. “I’ve told people I’ve just been a social worker of the world. I just happen to practice in a different area,” she said, referring to her desire to help people, here more specifically individuals with a disability. Furthermore, several participants Shared that they had a connection to disability, which may have prompted them to initiate or engage in partnerships to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Some participants shared that either they or a person close to them had a disability, and, as a result, they had personal experience in advocating for individuals with a disability. 125 Leaders ' Values The second theme surrounding values that emerged involved the values of leaders. Participants described ways in which leaders embraced values through role modeling and the dissemination of both formal and informal messages. Individuals described by participants in the current study as leaders tended to be people of higher positional status than themselves within the organizational structure, whether on campus or within a divisional unit. Leaders, as defined by formal position, often have “important sources of power through which they can encourage, reward, or punish those who follow their lead” (Morgan, 1997, p. 137). Participants described how dimensions of leadership set the context for serving students, whether that promoted a willingness to innovate in ways that removes boundaries, or perpetuated and solidified boundaries. Certain leaders’ values led to a sense of restriction or inhibition around working with others, putting participants in a “survival” mentality with regard to their everyday work. In the current study, however, participants generally viewed the infusion of leaders’ values in a positive light. Through a variety of both implicit and explicit messages, leaders communicated their values and set expectations around them. Values communicated by leaders in the current study addressed a range of tenets including student learning, inclusiveness, approach to decision-making, empowering staff and students, and transparent communication, among others. When values were clearly articulated, they often expressed overt goals (Bimbaum, 1991). For example, Tina and Debra both referred to the Chancellor’s goals to make the MWU campus more inclusive. Another example of enacting explicit goals was Bruce’s description of his supervisor prompting him to 126 contact Buchmiller due to concern that the bookstore staff was not adequately meeting needs of all customers, particularly those with disabilities. At other times, values were more subtly infused into the grain of the environment, setting a tone of expectation for what work should happen and the manner in which it should move forward. More subtle values often relayed overt goals (Bimbaum, 1991). For example, Pamela referred to the benefit of having a Director of DEP with a PhD. Research was not verbalized as a daily goal for DEP staff members, but the concept of using data to inform best practice infused many participants’ responses. During my interview with Fulton, the Director of DEP, he provided numerous examples of how he believed conducting research was essential to being a state-of-the-art disability service unit that promoted student learning and success. Although participants in this study did not describe experiences in which explicit or overt goals clashed with one other, literature cites the tension that can exist when espoused values, or those articulated, vary from values enacted, or those related to action that takes place (Philpott & Strange, 2003). The values that participants described as prompting partnership action reflected elements of their definitions for student learning. In addition to describing the influential role of leaders’ values, participants also spoke of their own values in regard to leading others. Participants promoted learning for individuals they supervised; as leaders, they emboldened staff members to have confidence to move beyond boundaries of familiarity in ways similar to how participants challenged students to do so in a safe environment. Having the Necessary Tools The above sections described both participants’ and leaders’ values that, in part, served as reasons why participants engaged in partnership efforts. The second theme, 127 regarding why partnerships took place, addressed access to the appropriate resources. Beyond having the desire to act upon personal or professional beliefs, participants described a need to feel that they had the necessary tools to be successful in partnership efforts (Stein & Short, 2001). In other words, participants described existing boundaries and the avenues through which they were able to navigate those boundaries in regard to the first sub-question of how partnerships existed. In regard to the second sub-question of why they were able to navigate boundaries, participants not only described values that prompted why partnering took place, but they also described an infrastructure of support that enabled them to navigate boundaries and counter barriers to collaboration described in Chapter 6. In order to build upon the momentum provided by factors that promoted collaboration, it was necessary for participants to feel empowered to effectively navigate the boundaries in order to achieve their goals in partnership efforts. Navigation of boundaries took place in a variety of ways. The different types of navigation may have reflected how partnerships bridged rigid organizational boundaries to deliver a more personalized learning experience to students, particularly students with disabilities who had specialized needs. As a result, no prescribed route of partnership-building was possible. Rather, participants described implementing a combination of strategies that made use of three necessary tools. When participants did not have access to the following tools, the partnership was not necessarily terminated, but participants expressed a different level of engagement in the efforts, which may have influenced the overall effectiveness of the partnership. Determining “success” of a particular partnership, however, fell beyond the scope of this study. Developing a sense of ownership within a 128 higher education context is different from doing so in a corporate environment because individuals “need to be convinced of the importance of the commitment” (Kezar, 2005, p. 846) Necessary Tools: Taking a Seat at the Decision-Making Table Ways that participants described having the tools to either initiate a partnership, or participate firlly in it, are discussed next. Themes emerged around three necessary tools that include the following: taking a seat at the decision-making table, having clear communication, and knowing their circle of influence. Decision-making, the first dimension of having the necessary tools to engage in partnerships, took a variety of forms from verbal interaction to a general sense of keeping participants “in the know.” Being aware of decisions made and participating in decision- making processes was an important piece of navigating organizational boundaries because “organizations are information systems. They are communication systems. And they are decision-making systems” (Morgan, 1997, p. 78). Participants reported that when transparent communication regarding decisions was in place, they felt valued and prepared to perform their work well, for example, through engaging with others in partnerships. When clear communication regarding decision-making processes did not exist, however, participants felt isolated and encumbered without the ability to move forward with various initiatives. Participants reported being cognizant of the salient presence of the organizational complexity of the institution in which they worked. The complexity they described was not only that of “side-to-side” decentralization, but also “up-and-down” hierarchy (Bimbaum, 1991). In the current study, participants most often spoke of whether or not 129 they were included in decisions within the hierarchy of their own units. Taking part in decision-making across lateral organizational boundaries happened most often among boundary-spanners (Scott, 2003), for example when Pamela and Laney made decisions in the mid-manager meetings. Woven throughout participants’ responses was a recognition of the importance of being able to cope with uncertainty (Morgan, 1997) during the decision-making process as partnerships took shape, often without clear-cut guidelines or directions to follow. Necessary Tools: Using Clear Communication The second dimension of having necessary tools to navigate boundaries addressed being able to communicate clearly with one another throughout partnership efforts (Larnadrid, 1999). Although cross-fimctional dialogue and clear communication may have been an important tool that influenced underlying perceptions and means of interaction (Kuh, 1996), in the current study communication was more often viewed as a practical everyday necessity. Participants discussed how communication was essential for a variety of reasons, in particular because it allowed partners to identify goals and intentions for partnership efforts, including expectations for one another (Bracken, 2007; Kisker & Hauser, 2007). Furthermore, Sharing a common language allowed participants to understand each other’S messages, develop connections based on similar experiences, and convey value to others. In addition to being important across lateral organizational boundaries, clear communication was also important in sharing information within the vertical organizational hierarchy. One example of the ways in which participants attempted to communicate clearly role expectations across boundaries was brought forth in discussion around the 130 “Memorandum of Understanding.” Pamela explained what she referred to as “The Memo,” in which Buchmiller and University Housing staff created a document together in which they agreed which services would be provided to students from each partner. Pamela said, “It’s really trying to figure out who’s going to be responsible for what things.” Having a formalized avenue through which to engage in open communication was particularly important in the new building partnership because it represented a ballerina collaborative effort, a term coined by Stein and Short (2001) to describe a partnership in which separate programs continue to focus autonomously but within an inter-connected framework. Although Buchmiller and University Housing were engaging in a partnership in which they would share space and some systems, Buchmiller would still continue to be a separate DEP program from University Housing, within the College of Health. Participants described, embedded within the need for clear communication, the importance of sharing a common language. Although literature describes how language can be divisive during efforts of collaboration, for example during the process of selecting a shared name (Philpott & Strange, 2003), participants in the current study referred to finding a common language as an effective strategy during collaboration, as described as a support theme in Chapter 6. Participants referred to the concept literally in regard to semantics and the avoidance of esoteric language unfamiliar to one or more partners. Their ability to use a common language contrasted with other studies in which individuals fiom student and academic affairs “spoke very different dialects of the same language” (Philpott & Strange, p. 90). 131 Participants also described Sharing a common language as a way of connecting with someone who held a position similar to themselves in the organizational structure of MWU. Sharing a common language allowed partners to share experiences with one another, reinforcing the human component of navigating boundaries. Furthermore, sharing a common language meant expressing the value of something in terms understood by others. Fulton explained how research allowed DEP to demonstrate the effectiveness of partnerships to upper-level administrators. Research data provided a common language in the form of numbers and statistics, which were both understood and valued by campus leaders, thus providing DEP additional leverage or capital because the department was perceived to be providing an effective service. Having a common language to communicate effectiveness was particularly important during a time of fiscal constraint when budget cuts were being implemented across the mriversity. In addition to Sharing a common language across lateral organizational boundaries, participants also spoke of sharing knowledge and information through the organizational hierarchy. Who had access to information (Magolda, 2005) influenced the ways in which participants felt included or excluded at the decision-making table, as discussed earlier. Important to the theme of necessary tools is recognition of the multiple levels within an organization and understanding that participants at times perceived their roles in making decisions differently, based on communication from various levels of leadership. When others controlled the ways in which boundaries were navigated, individuals monitoring the boundaries could perform a buffering function (Morgan, 1997), limiting communication across the boundary. In the example of the new building partnership, the “on-the-groun ” staff expressed frustration at not being included in the 132 decision-making processes that appeared to take place at the upper-most levels of leadership within their units. However, in Buchmiller, Tina and Sue described Pamela, their immediate supervisor, as a conduit of information that kept them informed and included them in decision-making. Both Pamela and Laney Spoke of the recognition of their responsibilities as mid-level managers whose roles were to work with others at their level in order to come to decisions and then to take the decisions to the “on-the-ground” people for feedback and implementation. Necessary Tools: Knowing Their Circle of Influence The third dimension in having necessary tools included the ways in which participants expressed knowing their circles of influence, or their understanding of the ways they were able to most effectively partner with others. When asked to explain what a campus partnership meant to them, participants provided a wide expanse of definitions ranging from mere interaction in which one unit benefited more than the other, to deeper- level reciprocal relationships in which both partners Shared a common goal. Similar to the diverse range of understandings surrounding partnership—building, participants described a spectrum of interaction in regard to the partnerships they describw actually participating in; different types of partnerships were more effective in various contexts to serve different purposes. When using a lens to view MWU as a rational, or bureaucratic organization, the way that participants understood who reported to them in the organizational structure could be viewed as “spans of control” (Morgan, 1997, p. 20). Some partnerships changed between the participants’ first and second interviews, while other partnerships remained static dming that time. Participants recognized the complexity of the boundaries they described, in addition to the realistic limitations of 133 navigational tools. Participants expressed that they, at times, engaged in smaller-scale partnerships that were not as involved as more comprehensive collaboration of “using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues” centered around a problem domain (Wood & Gray, 1991 , 146). Acknowledging their sphere of influence was limited, participants re-focused efforts as was necessary in order to achieve particular goals; re-focusing efforts was another reason why participants were able to navigate boundaries and engage in partnerships. During second interviews when participants described the progression of partnerships, a number of participants referred to supports and barriers to collaboration, as described in Chapter 6. Based on whether they perceived themselves to be “moving forwar ” or not, participants adjusted their approach to engaging in partnerships. First interviews took place in late spring and summer of 2009, and second interviews were conducted late in the fall semester of 2009. During second interviews, participants described responding to widespread HlNl sickness on campus, facing budget cuts, and having spent a great amount of time responding to student conduct concerns. Although participants did not report being less engaged in partnerships, many expressed less focus on them, perhaps because of the need to balance time, energy, and resources with other issues at that point in the academic year. In other words, participants faced choices regarding where to direct energies and how to direct their influence at different points of time. When Does Interaction Take Place? A third sub-question woven throughout the two overarching research questions addressed when collaboration or partnerships took place. Participants described how 134 multiple influences contributed to what Rachelle called “an incredible moment.” She said, “So it’s kind of an incredible moment where all these people come together—and I don’t think it could have happened any other time,” refening to the confluence of contextual factors, including the right alignment of people, resources (Morgan, 1997) and values. Participants described a number of contextual factors that could lead to different outcomes depending on current circumstances at a particular time, including whether participants had access to navigational tools, as described in the previous section. For example, the status of widespread budget constraints was identified by participants as both promoting and inhibiting collaboration, Similar to that noted in the literature regarding collaborative efforts of colleges. of technology (Eddy, 2007) and four-year universities with community colleges (Hoffman-Johnson, 2007). Although fears over fimding could legitimately be viewed as discouraging collaboration because of diminished resources, participants could shift focus to the benefits of reducing redundancy or the duplication of services provided through two separate units. When participants felt they were able to actively contribute to decisions being made regarding the budget, they felt empowered to think in new and innovative terms, rather than restricted by the cutbacks. The “when” of partnerships was determined by the process of building buy-in. Developing a sense of momentum of progressing beyond what Sue referred to as “falling into a rut” ensured that individuals could move beyond the “survival mode” of just keeping up with everyday tasks or routines. Smaller scale partnerships in the current study involved only two or three partners, and, as a result, the need to build a sense of 135 buy-in was less extensive than in larger-scale initiatives, such as the new building partnership. Promoting a sense of ownership for all individuals included in a partnership involved generating a sense of excitement around what could be possible as a result of collaborative efforts. Madeline described enthusiasm surrounding the new building partnership saying, ”There’s just an excitement about it.” In a similar sense, others shared a sense of enthusiasm in creating something new. Rachelle said, “There are no guidebooks. So we’re making a lot of this up.” Laney said Simply, “I mean we’re just dreaming stuff up.” Obstacles were encountered when a proper sense of buy-in failed to deve10p with all individuals involved in the partnership, particularly throughout organizational levels. Being left out at the decision-making table led participants to describe feelings of “being handed” a decision and a mandate for action, rather than being empowered to participate in “reaching out” to others. Even if contextual factors came together on one level that promoted collaboration, those same factors did not necessarily align within other organizational levels if all participants did not have access to navigational tools at a particular time. As a result, partnerships may have gone forth, but with differing levels of involvement and sense of ownership among various positions and roles. Implications and Limitations of the Current Study The next sections include recommendations based on findings and the above discussion of this case study. Although Buchmiller Hall provides a single example of a student affairs unit that engaged in partnership efforts, this case study brings to light many issues that apply broadly to higher education. From this case, practitioners and scholars can learn about organizational dynamics that exist in higher education, and more 136 specifically, student affairs. For example, this study illustrates the presence of organizational hierarchy and the obstacles associated with the perception of a more rigid adherence to formalized roles and positions; how the context of disability uniquely flavors partnership endeavors; that technical knowledge of disability is not necessary in order to engage in partnerships that support students with disabilities, the importance of the emotional piece of the human component of navigation; and that negotiating shared spaced involves a process that requires intentionality, planning, and time. In addition to the partnerships included in the current study, the current organizational structure and mission of Buchnriller provides questions for future consideration. Providing a stand-alone building facility, such as Buchmiller, where students with disabilities are separated, in a sense, from the rest of campus, garners words of both praise and criticism. This study illustrates the ways that Buchmiller staff provided an individual focus and sense of care in supporting and challenging residents. They were the staff members with the technical expertise of specific disabilities and resources for how to meet the physical, social, and psychological needs of residents living in Buchmiller Hall. In addition to the specialized knowledge of Buchmiller staff, the current facility provided a place where residents could “let their hair down,” as Tina said. For many of the Buchmiller residents, living in Buchmiller was one of the few times in their lives when they had the opportunity to live in a community of individuals who also had disabilities and shared certain experiences similar to their own. Although some individuals extol the value of an independent model such as this, criticism can also exist based on the belief that the commrmity of Buchmiller Hall should be integrated into the 137 MWU campus in more visible ways, such as is being done with the new building partnership. In a similar sense, multicultural housing and other identity-specific communities provide the support of a peer network with others who may share similar experiences. I believe that communities such as Buchmiller and other identity-based living spaces must be viewed in the context of many factors surrounding them. For example, Buchmiller was a stand-alone facility but had a constant flow of MWU students throughout the day because many of the personal assistants (PAS) were MWU students. In other words, the separation of a building itself did not relegate a sense of separation that inferred segregation. However, efforts are needed on the part of staff and students in any identity- based community to build intentional connections with other areas of campus to prevent feelings of isolation. The context of whether or not active social connections, both work- based, such as through the provision of PA services in Buchmiller Hall, and more social, such as fiiendShip-based, is as important as the geographical placement of a building. The social element of Buchmiller Hall, in concert with the visible and concrete location of the building, parallel the human and structural components of navigation discussed earlier in this chapter. Both pieces are important. Future practice and research should continue to consider the important elements of context and how processes and systems are actually carried out in the midst of current contextual factors, in addition to what those processes and systems say on paper. Next I present implications for practice, followed by implications for research. In addition, I offer a brief discussion of the limitations of this study that should be considered in light of the implications discussed. 138 Implications for Practice 1 provide four implications for practice based on findings and discussion from the current study; implications for practice are structured around major themes that emerged fi'om the three research sub-questions discussed above. First, departmental and divisional units should create additional opportunities for partners to meet one another in formal and informal ways. Second, institutions Should provide systemic mechanisms that recognize collaborative efforts. Third, pathways for clear communication must exist within and between organizational units while promoting seamless learning. Finally, individuals and units Should seek out platforms that allow them to build on individual areas of expertise, particularly in regard to supporting the needs of students with disabilities. Pathways for People to Meet in Formal and Informal Ways The first implication for practice involves themes that emerged surrounding types of boundaries and ways to navigate those boundaries in response to the sub-question of how partners collaborated. Departmental and divisional units must develop physical opportunities for individuals to meet one another and engage both formally and informally through a variety of events. Kezar (2005) recommended that campuses include more “mechanisms for people to interact,” (p. 857) such as communal dining areas or retreats. Such pathways for meeting others, however, should offer the opportunity to communicate values, for example, by recognizing accomplishments, engaging in partnership-building efforts, and supporting students with disabilities. Creating new rituals for meeting one another, such as divisional welcome receptions or end-of-the-year award ceremonies, colleges and universities can embed informal connection-building opportunities into the formal structure of their organization (Morgan, 1997). William 139 spoke of how committees must be “nimble,” referring to how short-term work groups with a greater degree of flexibility were sometimes more effective than longer-lasting and more formalized standing committees. Institutions must recognize that the creation of additional inter-unit committees is not the sole answer to building pathways that cut across organizational boundaries. Rather, colleges and universities must be creative in how they design meeting times to include both formal and informal activities for work and celebration. Several participants spoke of the importance of having a physical venue in which to bring people together in order to communicate their values and explain their work on campus. The Series in the new building partnership provided an example in which this took place successfully during several discussion sessions that brought Buchmiller and University Housing staff together. Such opportunities appeared to be infrequent, however. Institutions should intentionally create additional pathways in which interaction can take place, allowing individuals and units to build capital in regard to both the human and structural components of navigation. When events take place that allow individuals to interact informally, various means to meet across organizational boundaries can help people to identify “point people” with whom they are able to connect. In addition, such events could help individuals learn about available resources that exist on campus, and for what purpose they may wish to collaborate in order to use resources. Relationships can be fostered that promote working together in ways that support integration of student learning and disability services into the “fabric of the campus” (Myers, 2008, p. 4) as individuals learn to effectively navigate boundaries of position, identity, and Space. 140 F ormalized Recognition of Collaborative Efforts The second implication for practice addresses the theme of implicit and explicit values, which emerged in response to the sub-question of why partnerships existed. This case study presents data that suggest faculty, staff, and administrators at colleges and universities should create systematic mechanisms to encourage, recognize, and land collaborative efforts in order to construct a campus culture that explicitly values partnerships. Mechanisms that promote collaboration must be integrated into systems of reward and recognition, such as the tenure system for faculty members (Stein & Short, 2001). Faculty members Should be encouraged to conduct interdisciplinary research, particularly with other individuals on their own campus as they seek to understand ways to promote learning, both inside and outside the classroom. In the current study, Rachelle had already achieved tenure status and described the importance of belonging to the institute for interdisciplinary research on campus. She spoke of institutional support for engaging in interdisciplinary research. In academia in general, it is not uncommon for faculty members to face separate expectations within the distinct spheres of teaching, research, and service (Altbach, 2005). However, when institutions articulate support for faculty members to navigate boundaries in effective ways among the three areas, faculty members may feel more encouraged to collaborate with others. Recognition systems, which are structured differently for staff members than for the professoriate, are often more heavily embedded within performance evaluations or promotion. Motivation to engage in partnerships for staff members could include small institutional “grants” to support partnership efforts and research on collaboration. Campus or division-wide awards could acknowledge individuals and units engaged in 141 partnership efforts, particularly within the context of disability in ways that not only express value for partnership-building, but increase awareness of disability issues. Participants in the current study spoke of encouragement they received fi'om specific leaders to pursue partnerships; if support were to be integrated in tangible ways across the campus, additional individuals might be prompted to explore collaborative initiatives. Institutions benefit from the fiscal savings that result from fewer redundant and ineffective efforts. Thus, institutions should view the construction of recognition systems for collaboration as a worthy investment that promotes a culture of collaboration rather than a system where partnering is considered a time or money add-on. “[Culture] must be understood as an active, living phenomenon through which people jointly create and recreate the worlds in which they live” (Morgan, 1997, p. 141). By formalizing means that affirm and promote collaboration, institutions can shape organizational culture so that working together is a shared expectation of the environment, rather than one built on select participants’ or leaders’ values, such as those discussed earlier in this chapter. Clear Pathways of Communication The third implication for practice also addresses themes that emerged from the sub-question regarding why partnerships existed in the current case study. More specifically, within the theme of having access to necessary tools, three sub-themes emerged, one of which was clear communication; this implication addresses the need for institutions to put pathways in place to ensure clear communication throughout the organization. The first implication for practice recommended that institutions create physical venues through which individuals can meet, allowing them to navigate organizational boundaries. The current implication, however, addresses the systems and 142 pathways through which a variety of types of communication can happen, including non- physical means. Institutions must find pathways for information to be shared laterally throughout the organization. Dissemination of information across organizational boundaries is not only necessary in order to build connections and to learn who may become a disability champion, but also to build ownership and support from different areas of the organization. Institutions must provide a common language that articulates values shared by both individuals and leaders around promoting seamless learning for students with disabilities. Clear communication around a shared value is one way in which to bridge what has been described as a dichotomy between academic and student affairs. AS William said, “We Share the same students.” In addition to providing opportunities for people to spend time together, institutions must ensure that individuals with power and positional authority share information with those at other levels of the organization. Whether through top-down bureaucratic dissemination of knowledge, or a more diffuse, flattened model of organizational functioning, individuals must receive clear and accurate information regarding expectations for their own work from persons with higher organizational authority. Those supervised must also have avenues to respond and provide information, for example through feedback loops (Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2007) or stabilizing and correcting loops (Bimbaum, 1991). On-the-ground people who are at the “front lines” of student services, whether disability support services, residence life, or other areas of student affairs, have a specialized knowledge regarding student needs. Because student affairs professionals who work with students everyday have expertise regarding student 143 development, it is important that they are included in decisions (Frank & Wade, 1993) made at a variety of levels within the institution. A two-way sharing of information allows additional expertise to be used in effective ways. Building on Areas of Expertise The fourth implication for practice responds to the third research sub-question regarding when partnerships took place. Earlier in this chapter, discussion addressed the need for an appropriate alignment of people, values, and resources. Inherent in having the right combination is the availability of knowledge and expertise during the “incredible moment.” The final implication for practice of the current study addresses how partners must find ways to work together that allow them to bring their areas of expertise together in new and creative ways. Current literature cites the importance of bridging fragmented academic environments and areas of specialization (Blirnling & Whitt, 1999). An implication of the current study is that bridge-building must allow disability champions to engage with partners who lack the expertise or technical knowledge around the provision of disability services, but who offer other strengths as they work to promote student learning. The current study demonstrates that all members of a campus community have a responsibility to construct learning environments that are more supportive for students with disabilities. However, not every individual on campus may be well-versed regarding disability-related legislation, or have technical expertise regarding accessible software or other specific accommodations. The fourth implication addresses the need for members of a community to connect in ways that allow them to build on their own area of specialization, whether it be faculty members’ content knowledge, student affairs 144 professionals’ knowledge of students’ developmental needs, or facilities staffs knowledge of physical space requirements. Participants in the current study articulated clearly their recognition that they each had skills or knowledge to bring to their partnership. However, as they shared areas of expertise through partnerships, it was important that they retain unique areas of specialization. For example, Laney reflected on the need for Buchmiller to retain its identity as a specialized program. She emphasized the expertise of Pamela, Tina, and Sue in providing an ethic of individualized support and care for their residents. In other words, throughout the process of navigating boundaries, the identities of individual units must be respected because various units each have their own mission and area of specialization, in addition to their own culture (Philpott & Strange, 2003). The Student Learning Imperative (ACPA, 1996) stated that faculty members, student affairs members, and students must work together in new ways to promote learning. Processes must be created to develop synergy that combines all partners’ strengths, yet allows partners to retain the activities and functions they perform best. In order to share areas of expertise and Specialization, a common language is necessary; partners need not articulate the same message but must share common values while working toward a goal. In the process of drawing on individual and unit strengths and areas of expertise, scholars and practitioners must take caution in regard to who is defined as an “expert” and for what purpose. In the current study, individuals were referred to as ADA experts, but they were not experts in how the ADA could be best applied to meet the everyday needs of students living in the new building. An important facet of participants’ views of student learning was empowerment. Students should be 145 considered experts in regard to their individual needs as they are empowered to be “managers of their own learning processes and goals” (ACPA & NASPA, 2004, p. 11). Implications for Research In addition to the implications for practice discussed above, this study also raises questions for further research that offer theoretical and practical value. For example, the importance of Sharing a common language and values emerged as themes in how partnerships were developed and sustained. Further research should examine the process of how Shared language and values are discovered, nurtured, and strengthened, particularly during early efforts in fostering relationships. Additional questions for future research include the following: How does the process of building partnerships take place with the “on-the- ground” members of the organization, compared to with upper-level leadership? Does relationship-building happen more often in formal ways, such as in committee meetings, or informally, such as over a cup of coffee or a Boy Scout meeting? What are the ways that the process of collaboration can be facilitated across multiple levels of an organization? Furthermore, what are the essential elements for successful partnerships? In Chapter 6, this study provided factors that participants described as barriers or supports to collaboration, but what are the necessary components that must be present for a partnership to take place? Where does variability exist, particularly in environments that include different contextual factors, such as those discussed as contributing to an “incredible moment”? For example, to what extent must values be Shared? Can a partnership continue to exist in meaningful ways if disparate values are present? 146 In addition to posing the above questions, I provide three implications of the current study for research. Implications for practice were structured around the three research sub-questions; implications for future research, however, cut across the findings and discussion of the current case study. First, institutions should collect more in-depth and longitudinal data regarding the effectiveness and learning outcomes of disability support services. Second, additional research should be conducted to examine the role of leadership in regard to building partnerships on and off campus in the context of supporting students with disabilities. Third, future studies that examine partnerships to support students with disabilities should be conducted at colleges or universities with a variety of types of institutional environments. Learning Outcomes for Disability Support Services The first implication for research is that institutions should conduct additional exploration surrounding how disability support services influence student learning. Research that explores learning outcomes for students with disabilities should be longitudinal in nature in order to demonstrate gains that students experience in various areas of their lives before and after graduation from college. In the current study, Fulton said, “How do you collaborate? Well, if you have data, you have power.” He Shared how data provided a common language that was valued by upper-level administrators, allowing DEP and Buchmiller to demonstrate the effectiveness of their larger-scale initiatives. Fulton’s comments reinforced existing literature that decries the lack of data regarding how disability support service offices promote student learning and success (Launey, Carter-Davis, & Launey, 2001; Sharpe & Johnson, 2001; Stodden & Whelley, 2001). The National Council on Disability (NCD, 2003) described how the lack of 147 research around effectiveness of disability support services creates an obstacle to enacting policy change to better serve individuals with disabilities. The current study focused on the experiences of faculty and staff members at MWU who engaged in partnerships. Further research, however, is necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of partnerships that support learning for students with disabilities. Future research should also include students’ perceptions of the services they receive and whether these services meet their needs in effective ways. Leadership in Building Partnerships to Support Students with Disabilities The second implication for research is that future study should seek to understand the role of leaders and how their actions influence partnerships that promote learning for students with disabilities. The current study highlighted the influential roles of several leaders, in particular those in formal positions, such as the Director of Buchmiller Hall and the Director of DEP. Additional exploration is needed regarding the roles of individuals who serve as both formal and informal leaders, in particular those who are boundary-spanners (Scott, 2003) who navigate a variety of types of boundaries. Additional research should be conducted to understand the implications of values and actions of leaders who are disability champions, particularly on campuses with various types of disability support service organizational models. For example, the roles of formal and informal leaders may be different if a disability support office falls under the umbrella of student affairs or within an academic unit, such as at MWU. Furthermore, future study Should examine motivational factors for disability champions and other leaders who serve as allies and advocates. An additional area for future study in regard to leadership addresses how to find an effective balance between “grass roots” efforts 148 through informal leaders and top-down measures through formal and higher-level positional leadership in the process of enacting change within the unique context of disability on college campuses. Kezar (2003) found that leadership was important in varied institutional environments for different reasons; elements of leadership in the context of disability must also be considered in light of different institutional factors. Future Studies in Additional Types of Institutional Environments The third implication for research addresses the need for additional exploration of the research questions that guided this study in other types of institutional environments. This study focused on partnerships that promoted learning for students with disabilities at a large, decentralized and research-intensive institution, which was a specific environment that was chosen with intentionality because it offered distinct characteristics and organizational dynamics (Scott, 2003). MWU supported a large and well-resourced disability support services office, in addition to a residence hall for students with severe disabilities. The extensiveness of disability support services in this case study was in line with current research that states large, public institutions are often able to provide a wider range of disability support services than smaller institutional counterparts (Sharpe & Johnson, 2001). Future research should examine ways that collaboration takes place to promote learning for students with disabilities at small and mid-sized institutions, in addition to private or liberal arts colleges and universities, which may have different missions. Types of institutions may vary in regard to availability of resources, number of students with disabilities, range of the disabilities that students have, and organizational dynamics, such as ways that communication occurs and how decisions are made. 149 Limitations In light of findings and discussion from the current study, I offer several recommendations for practice and future research. The implications described above, however, should be viewed with respect to the limitations of the current study. For example, in the current study, partners from other areas of the university were selected based upon whom the Buchnriller staff team identified as partners. Because participants from Buchmiller were encouraged to define campus partners in the sense they felt most appropriate, it was likely that Buchmiller participants identified partners who held values and working styles similar to their own. Furthermore, the scope of the current study focused on currently existing partnerships, and only on rare occasions did participants refer to proposed collaborative efforts that failed or that they perceived as unsuccessful. Also important to consider is that this case did not examine certain areas, such as services provided to all students with disabilities at MWU. This study included a single, case study at one institution, which focused on partnership efforts with Buchmiller Hall at MWU. In addition, in the current study the student voice played only a limited role because I chose not to transcribe and analyze my interviews with students. Student responses, however, provided a re-introduction for me to Buchmiller Hall and the services that Buchmiller currently providal. The design of the current study determined who I interviewed and the type of the data I collected. Future research must recognize design considerations and how choices made on the part of the researcher will influence the study. I chose to conduct interviews primarily with Buchmiller staff members and the individuals they identified as partners. I did not interview every individual who Buchmiller staff members identified, but instead, 150 I interviewed partners who engaged in sustained interaction over a period of time. For example, Buchmiller staff members spoke of their relationship with a staff member at one of the intramural athletic facilities on campus. I did not interview this individual as a partner because the relationship between her and Buchmiller staff focused on occasional tours of the intra-mural facilities rather than a relationship that was built and continued over a period of time, whether a shorter or longer duration. Additional studies may utilize other research designs, such as first interviewing upper-level leaders at an institution and asking them to identify where they consider collaboration to be taking place on campus. The new building partnership in this study was a unique historical event, and few campuses are likely to experience the negotiation process of integrating an entire residence hall for students with disabilities into the first floor of a new building in University Housing. MWU had a history of being on the forefront of providing disability- related services, and the DEP department was well-resourced to the extent that caseworkers were able to focus on specific types of disabilities, such as physical, psychological, or other types of disabilities. Buchmiller Hall itself was a unique place; a very limited number of residential facilities in the country offer the types of services that Buchmiller provided. This case study includes only a snapshot in time. Although I reached saturation (Creswell, 2007) with second interviews, the new building partnership was a complex and time-intensive initiative. As a result, participants’ experiences were unlikely to remain static as construction is carried out to completion and the new hall iS opened in the fall of 2010. Other partnerships with Buchmiller Hall in this case study are also likely to evolve as events happen and changes take place on the MWU campus. 151 Summary Chapter 7 provided a discussion surrounding the themes that emerged in the current case study from participant responses and analysis of documents. Discussion was structured around the three research sub—questions, which addressed how, why, and when partnerships took place. More specifically, participants described how they navigated boundaries of position, personal identity, and space using both a hmnan and a structural component of navigation. Participants described why interaction happened as being prompted by values, in addition to participants having access to appropriate tools that allowed them to act on those values. Finally, participants spoke about when partnerships took place, describing the importance of building on “the incredible moment.” The incredible moment happened when the right people, resources, and context aligned with one another. Following discussion of themes that emerged fiom exploration of the three research sub-questions, implications for practice and research were provided, in addition to limitations of the current study. Document Conclusion The current study included a Single, instrumental case study (Stake, 2005) that employed a qualitative research framework (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a; Patton, 2002; Stake). Two overarching research questions structured the examination of collaborative initiatives between staff members at Buchmiller Hall, a residence hall for students with severe disabilities at Midwestern University (MWU), and campus partners. In addition to exploring collaboration, this study also examined factors that influenced interaction among units involved in the partnerships. 152 Chapter 1 provided an overview of the research topic and questions that examined how organizational relationships promoted seamless learning for students with disabilities at MWU, in addition to the significance of this study. Chapter 2 explored pertinent literature that informed the study. Chapter 3 discussed the methods and methodological approach used, in addition to the process for selecting the site for this case study. Chapter 4 provided background information necessary to understand the structure of Buchmiller Hall, in addition to an overview of the participants in the study. Chapter 5 provided an overview of the breadth of partnerships in which participants engaged. Chapter 5 also provided findings that were structured around the first overarching research question, which addressed ways the partnership efforts took place. Chapter 6 presented themes that emerged from the second overarching research question, which addressed factors that influenced partnerships. More Specifically, Chapter 6 provided factors that were baniers or supports to partnerships in the current study. Finally, Chapter 7 discussed the findings presented in the previous two chapters, in addition to implications of the current study for student affairs units and their institutions. This study illustrates that a broad range of relationships and partnerships exist on a college campus, particularly within student affairs. Not one type of partnership effort is most appropriate for all situations, but rather a partnership is determined by how individuals navigate a variety of types of boundaries using supports and barriers to collaboration. Values, including those around student learning, lay a foundation for this process of navigation, and tools allow individuals who are part of a collective to act upon those values in order to form connections with others on campus. Relationships that are developed to provide services to students with disabilities need not be rooted in technical 153 expertise surrounding specific disabilities. Instead, individuals must have a desire to help students and be able to connect with someone who does have access to knowledge regarding appropriate accommodations and specific needs of students with disabilities. Traditional organizational boundaries, such as ones inherent within the complex hierarchy and decentralization at a large university, must be balanced with those that include a more personal element of relationship-building and recognition that expertise lies in many voices, including “on-the-ground” staff members and students. 154 Appendix A - Interview Protocol Introduction: The researcher will greet the participant and introduce herself. After asking if the participant is comfortable, the researcher will share personal background information as an icebreaker (doctoral student working on dissertation, at Michigan State University, etc.). Purpose: The researcher will then explain that the purpose of the current study is to learn more about collaborative relationships between a student affairs unit and campus partners that promote integrated learning opportunities for college students with disabilities. Procedures: The researcher will also explain that open-ended questions and/or prompts will be asked in individual interviews. Interviews will last approximately one hour, depending on how much information the participant wishes to Share. Conversations will be recorded on an audio-recording device and transcribed. After data is collected, names will be removed and data will be analyzed and included as part of the researcher’s dissertation. Information will be shared back with participants. Consent: Participants will be encouraged to share only information with which they are comfortable sharing. In addition, participants will be reminded that their privacy will be protected through the use of pseudonyms and that they may choose to disengage at any point. At this point, participants will be asked to provide a pseudonym for themselves. If they choose not to provide one, the researcher will select one to use. Dialogue: Preliminary interview questions (research instrument) are below. For student campus partners who worlgn student affairs unit of focus SAU : What is the purpose or mission of SAU? What is your role in SAU? Who are campus partners with SAU? How would you describe that partnership? 0 How does interaction take place? (e. g., In formal or informal ways? AS part of ongoing relationships or partnerships?) 0 Why does interaction take place? (e. g., What are espoused or enacted goals? Is action driven from the top-down or bottom-up, neither, or both? What messages are sent to individuals by the institution, departmental or office unit, and students? 0 When does interaction take place? (e. g., Who initiates action and with what timeline? What sources of motivation are present?) What are factors that promote or inhibit interaction with campus partners? What are the benefits or rewards of your interaction with various campus partners? For campus partners: 0 What organizational unit do you work in? What is the purpose or mission of the unit? What is your role in the unit? 155 o How would you describe your partnership with SAU? o How does interaction take place? (e.g., In formal or informal ways? As part of ongoing relationships or partnerships?) 0 Why does interaction take place? (e. g., What are espoused or enacted goals? Is action driven from the top-down or bottom-up, neither, or both? What messages are sent to individuals by the institution, departmental or office unit, and students? 0 When does interaction take place? (e. g., Who initiates action and with what timeline? What sources of motivation are present?) 0 What are factors that promote or inhibit interaction with SAU? o What are the benefits or rewards of your interaction with SAU? For students with disabilities who receive services from student affairs unit of focus: 0 What are you studying? What is your year in school? 0 What services does SAU provide to students? What role does SAU play in your life as a college student? How does SAU help you to use resources or services across campus? How does SAU support you in your classes? What have you learned from going to/living in/etc. SAU? Conclusion: The researcher will ask participants if they have any questions and thank them for their participation. 156 Appendix B- Invitation to Participate Hello, My name is Katie Stolz, and I am a doctoral student in the Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education (HALE) program at Michigan State University. For my dissertation study under the direction of Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski, I am conducting a research project in order to learn more about collaborative partnerships that promote seamless learning for students with disabilities. In order to do, this I hope to interview student affairs professionals and faculty members, when appropriate, who are identified as campus partners with [the student affairs unit of focus] in the current study. I also hope to interview student affairs professionals and other staff members who work in [the student affairs unit of focus], in addition to students who receive services from [the student affairs unit of focus]. During each interview, I will ask participants several open-ended questions about their role in campus partnerships included in the current study, in addition to asking questions to learn more about the campus partnerships themselves. After audio-taping our conversation, I will remove names and personal identification information to protect participants’ privacy and analyze data through a constant comparative method as I look for themes that emerge fi'om the data Only objective third- party individuals who agree to keep information confidential will see responses during the encoding process. Individuals who view data will have no direct identification information and will not see participants’ names. In addition, several other measures will be taken to ensure that privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Although every attempt will be made to keep identification information private, some distinguishing characteristics shared by participants may reflect their identity. If you are a student who receives services from [the student affairs unit of focus], a student affairs professional or staff member who works at [the students affairs unit of focus], or are a students affairs professional or staff member who is a campus partner with [the student affairs unit of focus] and are interested in participating in an interview that will last approximately one hour, please e-mail me by [date] at kstolz@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Katie Stolz kstolz@msu.edu 157 Appendix C- Consent Form Collaborative Partnerships That Promote Seamless Learning for Students with Disabilities Consent Letter Dear Participant: This is an invitation to participate in an interview that is part of a study exploring collaborative partnerships that promote seamless learning for students with disabilities. Your participation will contribute to the knowledge surrounding how campus partners work together and will allow student affairs professionals to better understand how to best support all students, especially students with disabilities. This study entitled Collaborative Partnerships that Promote Seamless Learning for Students with Disabilities is conducted by Katie Stolz, under the supervision of Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski. Each interview will last approximately one hour, depending on how long your responses are. Your participation is completely voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all, or to answer some questions and not others. Any direct identification information, including your name, will be removed from data when responses are analyzed. Only objective third-party individuals, who agree to keep information confidential, will see your responses during the encoding process. They will have no direct identification information and will not see your name. After your responses have been analyzed for like themes, they will be compiled into a paper for as part of a dissertation research study. Due to the personal nature of disability, individuals may be concerned about experiencing social marginalization or discrimination in other ways if their responses were disclosed. However, because information will be coded and kept confidential, this study poses little to no risk to participants. Participants may feel unnecessary pressure to participate in this study because of political pressure to engage in certain organizational relationships, either as students or campus partners. As a result, the voluntary and confidential nature of participation will be thoroughly stressed. Participants will benefit from engaging in the process of self-reflection and developing a voice for their experiences while contributing to the literature that explores campus partnerships that support students with disabilities. A final copy of this study will not include your name or identifiable information. Although every attempt will be made to keep your identification private, some distinguishing responses that you share and other comments may reflect your identity. Your responses or decision whether or not to participate in this study will have no penalty of any kind and will not affect your status as a student or staff member. At any point, you may decide to withdraw as a participant from this study. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski, Assistant Professor in Educational Administration, 426 Erickson Hall, Michigan State 158 University, by phone at (517) 355-6617, or email at mwawrzyn@msu.edu. If you have any additional questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish — Judy McMillan, Director, Human Research Protection Programs on Research Involving Human Subjects, by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email address: irb@msu.edu, or postal mail: 202 OldS Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. Thank you for participating! I agree to participate in this study. In addition, by signing below I agree to allow my responses to be audio taped for research purposes of this study. Signature Date Name (Printed) 159 REFERENCES Altbach, P. G. (2005). Harsh realties: The professoriate faces a new century. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 287-314). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. American Association of Higher Education, American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. Washington, DC: Author. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations. Washington, DC: Author. American College Personnel Association. (1996). The student learning imperative: Implications for student aflairs. Alexandria, VA: Author. American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1997). Principles of good practice. Washington, DC: Author. American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: Author. American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers - International, Association of College Unions International, National Association of College Advisors, National Academic Advising Association, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, & National Intrarnural-Recreation Sports Association. (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: A practical guide to implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: Author. Amey, M. J. & Brown, D. F. (2004). Breaking out of the box: Interdisciplinary collaboration and faculty work. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Amey, M. J ., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for partnership and collaboration in higher education: A model. In M. J. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations across educational sectors. (New Directions for Community Colleges No. 139, pp. 5-14). San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33. Retrieved Feburary 11, 2009, from http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU33.htrnl Banta, T. W. & Kuh, G. D. (1998). A missing link in assessment: Collaboration between 160 academic and student affairs professionals, Change, 30(2), 40—46. Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Franciso: Jossey—Bass Publishers. Blimling, G. S. & Whitt, E. J. (1999). Identifying the principles that guide student affairs practice. In G. S. Blimling & E. J. Whitt (Eds.), Good practice in student aflairs (pp. 1-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Bracken, S. J. (Fall 2007). The importance of language, context, and communication as components of successful partnership. In M. J. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations across educational sectors. (New Directions for Community Colleges No. 139, pp. 41-47). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burgstahler, S. (2001). A collaborative model to promote career success for students with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16 (3/4), 209-215. Burgstahler, S. (2008). Equal access: Universal design of housing and residential life. Retrieved on February 3, 2009, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/PDF/equal_access_hrl.pdf Chickering, A. w. & Reisser, L (1993). Education and identity (2“l ed.). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass Inc. Creamer, E. G. (2003). Exploring the link between inquiry paradigm and the process of collaboration. The Review of Higher Education, 26(4), 447-465. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (21nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). (2006). CAS professional standards for higher education (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2005a). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzen & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2005b). Preface. In N. K. Denzen & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. xi-xix). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Dillon, M. R. (2007). Creating supports for college students with asperger syndrome through collaboration. College Student Journal, 41(2), 499-504. Eddy, P. L. (2007). Alliances among community colleges: Odd bedfellows or lasting 161 partners? In M. J. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations across educational sectors. (New Directions for Community Colleges No. 139, pp. 59-68). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Evans, N.J., Assadi, J .L., & Herriott, T.K. (2005). Encouraging the development of disability allies. Developing Social Justice Allies. (New Directions for Student Services No. 110, pp. 67-79). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Frank, K. & Wade, P. (1993). Disabled student services in postsecondary education: Who’s responsible for what? Journal of College Student Development, 34, 26-30. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., Murphy, K, & Dempsey, K. (2002). ADA-based accommodations in higher education: A survey of clinicians about documentation requirements and diagnostic standards. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 357-363. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Higher education and disability: Education needs a coordinated approach to improve its assistance to schools in supporting students (GAO-lO-33). Washington DC: Author. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hadley, W. M. (2006). L.D. students’ access to higher education: Self-advocacy and support. Journal of Developmental Education, 3 0(2), 10-16. Hillebrand, B., & Biemans, WC. (2003). The relationship between internal and external cooperation: Literature review and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 56, pp. 735-743. Hoffman-Johnson, G. (2007). Seamless transition in the twenty-first century: Partnering to survive and thrive. In M. J. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations across educational sectors. (New Directions for Community Colleges No. 139, pp. 17-27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 103-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kuehn, M. D. (2004). Policy and law. In T. F. Riggar, & D. R. Maki (Eds.), Handbook of rehabilitation counseling (pp. 88-107). New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc. 162 Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21” century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERI C Higher Education Report Volume 28(4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kezar, A. (2003). Achieving student success: Strategies for creating partnerships between academic and student affairs. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 1-22. Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: An exploration into the developmental process. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 83 1-860. Kezar, A. (2006). Redesigning for collaboration in learning initiatives: An examination of four highly collaborative campuses. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 804- 838. Kezar, A., Hirsh, D. J. & Burack, C. (2002) Editors’ notes. In A. Kezar, D. J. Hirsch, & C. Burack (Eds.), Understanding the role of academic and student aflairs collaboration in creating a successful learning environment. (New Directions for Higher Education No. 116, pp. 1-8). Berkley, CA: Jossey—Bass. Kisker, C. B. & Hauser, P. (Fall 2007). Partnering to move students into college and community-oriented careers: The administration of Justice Department at East Los Angeles College. In M. J. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations across educational sectors. (New Directions for Community Colleges No. 139, pp. 29-39). San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 3 7(2), 135-148. Lamadrid, L. (1999). Putting Descartes before the horse: Opportunities for advancing the student affairs link with academic affairs. College Student Aflairs Journal, 19(1), 24-34. Launey, K. B., Carter-Davis; Launey, K. B. (2001, April). An alternative college service model: From learning disability to learning potential. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, Inc. Magolda, P. M. (2005). Proceed with caution: Uncommon wisdom about academic and student affairs partnership. About Campus, 9(6),]6-21. Martin, J. & Sarnels, J. E. (2002, May 17) We were wrong: Try partnerships, not 163 mergers. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved February 5, 2009, fi'om http://chronicle.com Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco J ossey-Bass Publishers. Midwestern University. (2007). Celebration of success: The Buchmiller experience— memories of the past and present. [Brochure]. Location: Author. Milsom, A. & Hartley, M.T. (2005). Assisting students with learning disabilities transitioning to college: What school counselors should know. Professional School Counseling, 8(5), 436-441. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Myers, K. (2008). Using Learning Reconsidered to reinvent disability education. About Campus, 13(2), 2-9. National Council on Disability (2003, September). People with disabilities and postsecondary education (Position Paper). Washington, DC: Lex Frieden. National Council on Disability (2008, August). The state of 21 st century financial incentives for Americans with disabilities (Report). Washington DC: John R. Vaughn. Nesheim, B. E., Guentzel, M. J., Kellogg, A. H., McDonald, W. M., Wells, C. A., & Whitt, E. J. (2007). Outcomes for students of student affairs—academic partnership programs. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 435-454. Ozaki, C.C., Amey, M.M. & Watson, J .8. (Fall 2007). Strategies for the future. In M. J. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations across educational sectors. (New Directions for Community Colleges No. 139, pp. 105-113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Parker, D. R. Shaw, S. F. & McGuire, J. M. (2003). Program evaluation for postsecondary disability services. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(1), 2- 1 0. Patton, MO. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Peterson, D. B. & Aguiar, L. J. (2004). History and systems: United States. In T. F. Riggar & R. D. Maki, D.R.. (Eds.) Handbook of rehabilitation counseling (pp. 50- 75). New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc. Philpott, J. L. & Strange, C. (2003). “On the road to Cambridge”: A case study of faculty 164 and student affairs in collaboration, Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 77-95. Rubin, S. E. & Roessler, R. T. (2001). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (5‘h ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc. Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sharpe, M. N. & Johnson, D. R. (2001). A 20/20 analysis of postsecondary support characteristics. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 169-177. Shaw, S. F ., Keenan, W. R., Madaus, J .W., Banerjee, M. (2010). Disability documentation, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, and the summary of performance: How are they linked? Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 142-150. Stake, RE. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzen & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Stein, R. B. & Short, P. M. (2001). Collaboration in delivering higher education programs: Barriers and challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 24(4), 417- 435. Stodden, R. A., Whelley, T., Chang, C., & Harding, T. (2001). Current status of educational support provision to students with disabilities in postsecondary education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 189-198. Troiano, P. F. (2003). College students and learning disability: Elements of self-style. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 404-419. US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). 1999— 2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (N PSAS). Retrieved on September 9, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/charts/chart34.asp?popup=true US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). The condition of education 2003, NCES 2003-067, Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/pdf/34_2003.pdf US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Profile 165 of Undergraduates in US. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 2003—04, NCES 2006-184), Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on September 9, 2008 from http:l/nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60. US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Fast facts question: What proportion of students enrolled in postsecondary education have a disability? Retrieved on February 11, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60 US. Department of Justice (2005). A Guide to Disability Rights Laws. Retrieved on February 4, 2009 from http://www.ada.gov/cguide.pdf Watson, J. S. (Fall 2007). Stepping outside the big box high school: A partnership influenced by goals, capital, and decision making. In M. J. Amey (Ed.), Collaborations across educational sectors. (New Directions for Community Colleges No. 139, pp. 49-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Westfall, S. B. (1999). Partnerships to connect in- and out-of-class experiences. New Directions for Student Services, 87, 51-61. Whitt, E. J ., Nesheim, B. E., Guentzel, M. J ., Kellogg, A. H., McDonald, W. M., & Wells, C. A. (2008). “Principles of good practice” for academic and student affairs partnership programs. Journal of College Student Development, 49(3), 23 5-249. Wood, D. J & Gray, B. G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications, Inc. 166 M'illillllijfllllt[illiljillgllflllljifllllES