.91.. 3..

3.31"...

.30

m

n.

 

3m .22.). ... . a
.5333, . S 5.. I
wmr.=&..:..m.n xdfihwh$$.
mm?» “in?”
.. mush.» .mmwwr:
Sara"

3%”... :
33.3.3.3 Ma
.firfifia
3...: £92
hump! 33......
! INI!HAJ.P_

.o. 8‘. ~ z.‘ 1‘ f

,. hike. J”. 3mm» 33%»..an
gfiafiafivfi
h5g1fi§¥fi¢flai

3

in!!!»
s“ 22.1 .
.31:-

en ..
‘ 3.. it
(3.3.3....3
I l‘ 1,1:

It!
a. 333.2!
4.1.3!)
3 .3. .l .A
. :3. .1

a...
1 it 72.?
5.!POL

 

 

‘3‘»

x.)

\V)

N. I

 

 

LIBRARY
Michi §tate
Unlversuy'

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

IMPLEMENTING INNOVATIVE IDEAS: A MULTISITE CASE
STUDY OF PUTTING LEARNING RECONS/DERED

PhD.

 

INTO PRACTICE

presented by

Eric R. Jessup-Anger

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the
degree in Higher, Adult and Lifelong
Education

 

 

Major Professor’s‘SignaturéJ

May 12, 2009

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

_._ -,.-_-._._._,_._,_._.-,-,-.-,-._.-._,_._.-.-.- 4

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE ‘ DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K.IPrQ/Achres/CIRC/Dateoue Indd

 

IMPLEMENTING INNOVATIVE IDEAS: A MULTISITE CASE STUDY OF
PUTTING LEARNING RECONSIDERED INTO PRACTICE

By

Eric R. Jessup-Anger

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fiJIfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education

2009

ABSTRACT

IMPLEMENTING INNOVATIVE IDEAS: A MULTISITE CASE STUDY OF
PUTTING LEARNING REC ONSIDERED INTO PRACTICE

By

Eric R. Jessup-Anger

Leaders in colleges and universities across the United States are coming under
increasing pressure to enhance the quality of programs and services on their campuses
(Gensheimer, 2009; US. Department of Education, 2006). Although administrators and
faculty have access to a growing body of scholarship to improve institutional quality
(e.g., Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005),
the majority of institutions continue to struggle to pm innovative ideas into practice (Bok,
2006; Duderstadt, 2000). Furthermore, leaders and change agents have limited literature
to consult to enhance their efforts because few studies have examined implementation in
postsecondary organizations. To provide further guidance to administrators, this study
used a multi-site case study approach and a backward mapping analytic strategy to
examine three divisions of student affairs that implemented Learning Reconsidered
(American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators, 2004), a national report calling for a series of innovative policies and
practices. Data were collected via individual and small group interviews using a semi-
structured protocol. A review of available documents was also conducted. The data are
presented in three, in depth case studies. The study concludes with a cross-case analysis
of the implementation process and forwards implications for theory and practice.

Three broad, overarching findings relating to implementation emerged across the

three divisions of student affairs examined in this study. These include: 1) the influence

of the initiation phase and adoption decision on implementation; 2) the multiple,
cascading levels of adoption and implementation, and the shifting roles of senior student
affairs officers and mid-level professionals; and, 3) the importance of technical and
leadership capacity and how resources were employed to bolster professionals’ capacity
to implement. In addition, a river delta metaphor is presented that captures the iterative,
complex, and relatively non-linear process by which irmovative ideas are put into
practice. The metaphor provides a fi'amework for leaders and professionals throughout
the organization to make sense of implementation and their role in the process.

The study concludes with implications for theory and practice. Theoretical
implications include: 1) a changing conceptualization of the role of senior leaders and
mid-level professionals as the implementation process unfolds; 2) how and when levers
are employed is more influential than what levers are used; and, 3) the availability of
sufficient time and space are the most influential levers. Recommendations for practice
include: 1) the process should ideally stem from a period of organizational reflection; 2)
organizational culture should be viewed as a road map, not a barrier; 3) the process
should be inclusive of professionals throughout the organization; 4) change leaders
should embrace their symbolic and behind the scenes role in the effort; 5) because of
their central role in implementation, mid-level professionals must be adequately prepared
to put innovative ideas into practice at the department level; 6) creativity and reasonable
risk-taking should be promoted from the outset; and, 7) the pace and process by which
technical and leadership capacity is bolstered needs ongoing attention from senior leaders

and change agents.

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to Jody and Olivia
who have changed my world in the most wonderful of ways.

iv

. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is with deep gratitude that I thank the numerous individuals that have contributed
to this undertaking. First, there is little doubt that without the guidance, humor, patience,
and commitment of Marilyn Amey this endeavor would have been more difficult, less
fun, and not nearly as well done. Thank you for the time, passion, insights, intellect, and
appreciation of good coffee. I will sorely miss our weekly conversations and your
wisdom. Second, I am so appreciative of the members of my committee -— Doug Estry,
Ann Austin, and Kris Renn for your thoughtful feedback, advice, and wonderful
questions. Third, I cannot imagine having pursued this degree anywhere other than at
Michigan State University. My journey alongside the outstanding faculty and students in
the Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education program has been rich and incredibly
rewarding. It is rare in life to find so many passionate, hard working, talented people in
one place. Fourth, I am indebted to the numerous former teachers and professors from
Mr. Hoffman to Mrs. Risch to Dr. Dan Pekarsky that developed in me a commitment to
learning. I am a product of your good work.

Fifth, there has never been any doubt in my mind that my biggest fans and
supporters in my 20 years of education have been my parents and sister. I cannot possibly
thank you enough for all you have done for me and all you continue to do. The amount of
stuff I have and continue to learn fi'om each of you is unending. Thank you for loving me
on good days and bad and always being interested in what I was interested in. Finally, to
Jody and Olivia who are by far my favorite part each and every day. I am so happy I was
on this journey with the two of you. Olivia —- though you likely will have little memory of

these two years it has been my time reading with you, playing at the park, on walks, and

cuddling that has been the most fim of all. You ground me, amaze me, and inspire me.
You are by far my proudest achievement. Thank you for putting everything into
perspective and bringing so much love and joy to my life. And Jody — my partner,
confidant, best friend, wife, intellectual colleague and so, so much more - We did it! I am
because of you. Thank you for giving so much of yourself to us. It was not easy but we

did it together and I am so, so proud of that.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
Definition of Terms .......................................................................... 4
Significance of the Problem ................................................................. 7
Research Questions ............................................................................ 8
Conceptual Framework .................................................................... 10
Overview of the Dissertation ............................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 14
National Reports in US. Postsecondary Education ..................................... 14
Student Affairs in American Colleges and Universities ............................... 25
A Brief History of Student Affairs .............................................. 26
Contemporary Student Affairs ................................................... 3O
Variations Across Institutional Settings ........................................ 32
Organizational Change in Postsecondary Organizations .............................. 34
Factors that Influence Organizational Change Efforts35
Implementing Change in Student Affairs ....................................... 45
Summary of the Literature .................................................................. 49
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 51
Sampling Strategy .......................................................................... 53
Data Collection ............................................................................. 56
Analytical Strategy ......................................................................... 58
Trustworthiness ............................................................................. 60
Overview of Case Studies ................................................................. 61
CHAPTER 4
EASTERN STATE UNIVERSITY ................................................................ 63
Institutional Overview ...................................................................... 63
Student Affairs at Eastern State University .............................................. 66
Implementing Learning Reconsidered at Eastern State University ................... 7]
Kick Starting Implementation .................................................... 72
Implementation at the Cabinet Level ............................................ 76
Centralized Student Affairs Implementation ................................... 79
Department Level Implementation .............................................. 84
Judicial Affairs — Sitting Back and Waiting ........................... 84
Student Success Center — Full Speed Ahead .......................... 86
Student Recreation Center — Trying to Find Time to Learning. . ...89
Moving Forward at Eastern State University ................................... 94
Summary .................................................................................... 95

vii

CHAPTER 5

PIONEER STATE UNIVERSITY .................................................................. 97
Institutional Overview ...................................................................... 98
Student Affairs at Pioneer State University ............................................ 102
Implementing Learning Reconsidered at Pioneer State University ................. 107

Bringing Learning Reconsidered to Pioneer State University .............. 110
Implementing at the Department Level ....................................... 119

The Student Services Cluster — It Just Fit ............................ 120

The Enrollment Management Cluster — Sharpening the Focus... 127

The Wellness Cluster — Coming on Strong .......................... 130
Implementation After Accreditation ........................................... 133
Summary .................................................................................... 134

CHAPTER 6

HIGH PLAINS UNIVERSITY ................................................................... 137
Institutional Overview ..................................................................... 137
Student Affairs at High Plains University .............................................. 143
Implementing Learning Reconsidered — Bowling Together ......................... 150

Reintroducing Learning Reconsidered at High Plains University ......... 153
Implementing Learning Reconsidered in the Departments ................. 162
Residence Life — Early Adoption Over Coffee ...................... 162

Student Educational Opportunity — It Just Fit ....................... 168

Admissions — Considering Reconsidering ........................... 169

Looking Back and Moving Forward .................................................... 172
Summary .................................................................................... 1 74

CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................................... 176
Findings and Implications ................................................................ 177

Adoption Begets Implementation .............................................. 177
Cascading Adopting and Implementation and Shifting Roles .............. 184
Organizational Capacity Matters ............................................... 191
Technical Capacity ...................................................... 191
Leadership Capacity ..................................................... 197
Capturing Implementation in Metaphor ................................................ 201
hnplementing as River Delta .................................................... 202
Applying the Metaphor to Practice ............................................. 208
Summary of Theoretical Implications ................................................... 210
Stunmary of Recommendations for Practice ........................................... 212
Conclusion ................................................................................. 215

APPENDIX A ....................................................................................... 218

APPENDD( B ...................................................................................... 220

REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 223

viii

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

One of the persistent challenges facing administrators in colleges and universities
is how to effectively lead their organizations in the midst of shifting environmental
conditions and increasing calls for reform (Bok, 2006; Collins, 2005; Diamond, 2002;
Duderstadt, 2000). This is particularly true today when more is being asked of the United
State’s educational system in the midst of the current economic crisis (Gensheimer,
2009). Consequently, complacency is rarely an option for the majority of institutions or
their leaders. On the one hand, administrators and educators have access to a growing
body of knowledge and recommendations to improve institutional quality. Indeed,
scholars have made significant strides in numerous areas including advancing
understanding of factors affecting student persistence (Braxton, 2000; Tinto, 1993),
engagement (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005), and learning (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). On the other hand, putting these recommendations into practice
continues to present significant challenges to academic leaders (Bok; Duderstadt). With
the goal of providing further guidance to administrators seeking to implement innovative
ideas in higher education writ large and student affairs specifically, I examined how three
divisions of student affairs implemented Learning Reconsidered (American College
Personnel Association [ACPA] & National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators [NASPA], 2004), a national report calling for a number of innovative
practices to improve the undergraduate student experience. Included among the
recommendations was a call to focus institutional resources on promoting
transformational student learning by developing and assessing learning outcomes. Kuk

(2004) commented, “By merging concepts and research surrounding student and

community development and learning into a conceptual framework labeled
transformational learning, the report [Learning Reconsidered] raises awareness of the
importance of attending to the whole student and creates a realistic context for
challenging the way higher education operates.

Throughout their history, student affairs administrators sought guidance from
professional organizations and scholar practitioners to shape their collective values,
priorities, and ultimately, their daily practice. Beginning with the release of the Student
Personnel Point of View in 1937 (American Council on Education [ACE]), professional
organizations actively promoted common professional values and encouraged effective
practice to enhance student development. More recently, the Student Learning Imperative
(ACPA, 1994) and Learning Reconsidered (ACPA & NASPA, 2004) encouraged student
affairs professionals to prioritize learning across curricular and co curricular
environments. To accomplish this goal, Learning Reconsidered provided a rationale for a
campus-wide focus on student learning along with a series of recommendations
describing what a division of student affairs should look like and what it should do to
maximize student learning in curricular and co curricular environments.

The immediate response of practitioners to Learning Reconsidered (ACPA &
NASPA, 2004) was documented by the original authors in Learning Reconsidered 2
(ACPA, Association-of College and University Housing Officers — International
[ACUHO-I], Association of College Unions International [ACUI], National Association
of College Advisors [NACA], National Academic Advising Association [NACADA],
NASPA, & National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association [NIRSA],2006) by

highlighting programmatic best practices while providing broad implementation

recommendations. Although numerous successful examples of implementation were
included, few institutions nationwide appeared to systematically adopt the
recommendations even though the document’s call to focus on the promotion of student
learning and collaborative practice is generally embraced throughout the profession
(Blirnling & Whitt, 1999). If student affairs professionals possessed wide agreement on
the importance of promoting student learning and were aware of examples of programs
that seem to accomplish this goal, why were more institutions not systematically
implementing Learning Reconsidered?

This significant challenge of implementing calls for reform is not new. Nestled
within the opening purpose statement of Learning Reconsidered was the recognition of
the significant challenge of implementing calls for reform at the institutional level. The
authors wrote, “We recognize that it has been difficult for many institutions to implement
all of the excellent recommendations made in earlier documents” (p. 3). Even with ample
literature documenting successful practice (e.g., Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, Andrea, Lyons,
Strange, Krehbiel, & Mackay, 1991; Kuh et al., 2005) the systematic application of
commonly accepted values, principles, and best practices such as those espoused in
Learning Reconsidered varies widely among institutions (ACPA & NASPA, 2004). Yet,
Keeling and his colleagues focused their attention on showcasing the end result of
successful initiatives, not on the factors that affected the implementation process at the
institutional level or how organizational actors navigated these factors to implement
Learning Reconsidered.

As discussed by Keeling and his colleagues in Learning Reconsidered (ACPA &

NASPA, 2004), the primary barrier to widespread implementation does not appear to be

convincing professionals of what should be done or how it might look when completed
but rather understanding how to navigate the various factors that affect implementation.
There are myriad possible reasons for limited implementation in student affairs
organizations of documents such as Learning Reconsidered including competing
organizational priorities (Clark & Mason, 2001; Stone & Archer, 1990), incongruent
policies (Ausiello & Wells, 1997), lack of sufficient fiscal or physical resources (Ausiello
& Wells, 1997; Clark & Mason, 2001; Stone & Archer, 1990), student affairs
professionals being ill-equipped for new responsibilities (Ausiello & Wells, 1997; Clark
& Mason, 2001), staff who are resistant to assume new roles (Clark & Mason, 2001;
Stone & Archer, 1990), lack of key leadership in the middle of the organization (Clark &
Mason, 2001; Smith & Rodgers, 2005; Stone & Archer, 1990), and ineffective leadership
from the senior student affairs officer (Ausiello & Wells, 1997; Clark & Mason, 2001;
Smith & Rodgers, 2005). Tomatzky and Fleischer (1990) argue that implementation is
the key challenge in mediating the successful incorporation of the ideas and innovations
forwarded in earlier reform-minded documents. Therefore, what appears to be needed by
practitioners seeking innovation is an increasingly nuanced understanding of the factors
that influence implementation as well as how organizational actors navigate these factors
during the implementation process.
Definition of Terms

It is important to clarify a number of terms and their relationship to one another in
the context of this study. First, an innovation is defined as “an idea, practice, or object
that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 1983, p. 11).

The umbrella innovation under examination in my dissertation is Learning Reconsidered

(ACPA & NASPA, 2004), a recent conceptualization of the role of student affairs in
developing increasingly integrated and effective postsecondary learning environments. At
the time of its release in 2004, Learning Reconsidered presented a “new playbook”
(Fried, 2007, p. 2) for student affairs and higher education and was often viewed as
innovative in many postsecondary institutions because of its fresh ideas and
recommended practices.

Second, loosely borrowing from Rogers (1983), I define adoption as the
organizational decision to select an innovation with the intent of enacting it in some form
and to some degree. One example of adoption would be a division of student affairs’
selection of Learning Reconsidered as a document to guide decision-making in hiring,
redesigning the organization, budgeting, or program planning. Though adoption does not
necessarily mean that an organization immediately enacted Learning Reconsidered, the
decision to adopt symbolizes the intention to do so.

Third, in contrast to adoption, defined as a decision more than a process, I borrow
from Tomatzky and Fleischer (1990) who described implementation as the action
component of how an innovation such as Learning Reconsidered is put into practice.
Consequently, I define implementation as a process that is loosely bounded on the front
end by an organization’s decision to adopt an innovation and on the back end by the
organization’s enactment of the innovation over time and its subsequent refining and
routinizing into policy or practice. In addition, it is likely that how an organization
decided to adopt Learning Reconsidered will influence how the implementation process
unfolded. However, while adoption and implementation are often conceptualized as

discrete components of the innovation diffusion process (Rogers, 1983), in practice there

is rarely a clear delineation of where adoption ends and implementation begins.
Tomatzky and Fleischer (1990) articulated the lack of clear delineation when they wrote,
“The reality of adoption decisions, then, is that they are as amorphous and indistinct as
any other decision. And, in fact, they may not precede all implementation steps” (p. 199).
Therefore, it is possible that in some divisions of student affairs the formal adoption of
Learning Reconsidered might occur after components of the implementation process
already began.

Finally, I define organizational change as a process by which a postsecondary
institution shifts from operating in one manner to operating in a different way (Allen &
Cherrey, 2003; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Keller, 2004; Kezar, 2001 ; Kotter, 1995). The
process may involve a whole institution or a subset. such as a department, an academic
unit, or a division of student affairs. It may include adaptations, incremental or
transformational, to the culture, structure, staffing, mission, values, priorities, budgeting,
practices, or policies of an organization. As discussed earlier, it is assumed that Learning
Reconsidered was likely a departure for many divisions of student affairs from previously
held conceptualizations of their role and way of operating in relation to the broader ,
institution. Because of this potential fundamental shift, divisions of student affairs that
adopted Learning Reconsidered were often engaged in an organizational change process, .
planned or not, in order to enact the various recommendations. Though Kezar (2001) is
careful to note that organizational change theories are broader than models of innovation
diffusion or program implementation, the scholarly literature in higher education and
student affairs rarely articulates a clear distinction between them. In this study I borrow

from the organizational change literature to uncover expected challenges to program

implementation while also recognizing Kezar’s valid point that organizational change is a
broader concept than innovation diffusion or implementation.
Significance of the Problem

The primary issue that I explore in this study concerns the process by which
divisions of student affairs implement innovative policies, programs, and practices such
as those found in Learning Reconsidered. Illuminating this issue will provide change
leaders practical recommendations to guide implementation efforts. A secondary issue
under investigation is the impact of national reports on student affairs practice and policy.
Although national reports such as Learning Reconsidered (ACPA & NASPA, 2004) are
common in postsecondary education (Hutcheson, 2007; Stark & Lattuca, 1997; Thelin,
2004), their impact is less certain (Asera, 2003; Hiatt & Stockton, 2003; Prados, Peterson,
& Lattuca, 2005). Understanding the influence of reform-minded reports within the
context of student affairs, and the process by which organizations implement them, may
provide those charged with their creation, dissemination, and implementation more
nuanced understanding of how to actualize the recommendations at the institutional level.

As demands on postsecondary institutions shift and the role of student affairs
evolves, many divisions may need to adapt their mission, priorities, structure, and
practice if they are to continue to align with the central academic mission of their
institution (ACPA & NASPA, 2004). In their examination of the state of student affairs
Rooney and Shaw (1996) wrote that, “on college and university campuses across the
country, the role of student affairs is constantly changing” (p. 67). If student affairs
organizations hope to implement successfully the recommendations called for by their

national organizations in Learning Reconsidered (2004), leaders and change agents

 

should increase their understanding of how policies and programs are put into place and
the factors that affect their implementation. Collins (1998) found that the use of planned
change strategies by administrators often impacted the degree of success of
organizational change efforts. Creamer and Creamer (1986) agreed when they wrote,
“Studies of organizational development and of planned change are not abundant in
student affairs, yet insight into the interaction of institutional factors is imperative to
ensure successful program implementation” (p. 19). Additionally, Elmore (1980) noted
that the majority of implementation research was descriptively vague and provided few
concrete recommendations to guide practitioner decision-making. Guidance and
empirically derived recommendations are needed if greater numbers of divisions of
student affairs are going to successfully implement innovations such as Learning
Reconsidered while increasing their alignment with the academic mission of their
institution to enhance the quality of student learning.
Research Questions

The general lack of directly relevant research examining the implementation of
innovative programs in student affairs has left administrators with significant blind spots
during an era of shifting priorities. Implementation research can assist practitioners in
understanding how organizations can act as “instruments to be capitalized upon and
modified in the pursuit of policy objectives” (Elmore, 1980, p. 606) rather than viewing
the organization as a barrier to implementation. With this goal in mind I examined three
divisions of student affairs that were in various stages of the implementation of Learning

Reconsidered (ACPA & NASPA, 2004). I engaged in a multi-site case study of the

implementation of Learning Reconsidered using a backward mapping analytic strategy
(Elmore, 1980).

I began the study seeking to uncover, from the perspective of staff responsible for
implementation, what resources, collaborations, knowledge, skills, support or additional
factors impacted their ability to implement programs and policies congruent with the
recommendations of the report. I paid particular attention to factors that organizational
actors were capable of manipulating either directly or indirectly. Second, I explored what
role people in the next highest level of the organization had in supporting the
implementation of the program, while remaining open to uncovering and exploring non-
hierarchical relationships or factors. Tomatzky and Fleischer’s (1990) implementation
fiamework, nested within Rogers’ (1983) broader innovation diffusion fiamework,
loosely guided the investigation. In summary, I focused on the factors that mediated
successful implementation and how individuals at various locations throughout the
organization navigated these factors with the implementation process as the unit of
analysis. The following research questions guided the study:

1. What was the implementation process employed by institutions that adopted
Learning Reconsidered?

2. At institutions that adopted Learning Reconsidered, what factors influenced
the implementation of the recommended policies and practices?

3. What were the roles and responsibilities of actors within and beyond the
division of student affairs in the implementation of Learning Reconsidered?

4. What organizational levers, if any, were employed to influence

implementation?

Conceptual Framework

After reviewing a number of frameworks, I decided to combine Rogers’ (1983)
broader conceptualization of the innovation diffusion process with Tomatzky and
Fleischer’s (1990) more detailed framework of the implementation of innovations in
organizational settings. Nesting Tomatzky and F leischer’s (1990) implementation
framework inside Rogers’ (1983) innovation diffusion framework let me focus on the
implementation of Learning Reconsidered, while recognizing that the implementation
process could not be neatly divorced from the broader diffusion process, in particular, the
adoption decision. Rogers’ (1983) broader framework was an essential addition to the
specificity provided by Tomatzky and Fleischer’s (1990) conceptualization because it
recognized that how and why an adoption decisionwas made likely influenced how the
innovation was enacted throughout the organization. Therefore, though direct
examination of the adoption of Learning Reconsidered was outside the scope of this
study, Rogers’ (1983) initiation phase, including the adoption decision and its associated
processes, were considered in as much as they affected the implementation process. I
begin by briefly reviewing both frameworks and then articulating the way in which I have
nested T omatzky and Fleischer (1990) within Rogers (1983).

Rogers’ (1983) developed a two-phase model, consisting of five stages, which
described the innovation diffusion process in organizations. Rogers (1983)
conceptualized the two phases, initiation and implementation, as divided by an ad0ption
decision. Initiation, the first phase, included “all of the information-gathering,
conceptualizing, and planning for the adoption of an innovation, leading up to the

decision to adopt” (p. 363). The first of two stages in the initiation phase, “agenda

10

setting,” included an organization’s recognizing that a problem existed as well as seeking
innovations within the wider environments to alleviate the perceived problem. The
second stage of the initiation phase, “matching,” involved considering possible
innovations and the likelihood of their success within their specific organizational
context. Matching also involved the planning and design of the best possible fit between
the innovation and the organization to promote its successful implementation. Following
initiation, the organization decided to adopt or reject an innovation. If a decision to adopt
was made, the organization moved from the initiation phase into the implementation
phase.

The implementation phase, the focus of my study, was defined by Rogers (1983)
as “all of the events, actions, and decisions involved in putting an innovation into use” (p.
363). The first of three stages in the implementation phase, “redefining/restructuring,”
included modifying the adopted innovation, as well as altering directly relevant
organizational structures, with the goal of fashioning an innovation-organizational fit that
would increase the likelihood of a successfirl implementation process. During the second
stage of the implementation phase, “clarifying,” the relationshipretween the organization
and the innovation were further elucidated as the innovation was put into regular use.
Rogers’ (1983) final stage, “routinizing,” described the process by which the innovation
was either subsumed under the organization’s identity and subsequently accepted as part
of the normal activities, or abandoned.

Though Rogers’ (1983) conceptual framework provides a usefirl way of
understanding the relationships between the initiation phase, the adoption decision, and

the implementation phase of the innovation diffusion process, his description of the

11

specific factors affecting implementation were overly broad to guide my study. To

alleviate this issue, I decided to nest Tomatzky and Fleischer’s (1990) more specific

organizational implementation framework within Rogers’ broader innovation diffusion

framework. Tomatzky and Fleischer noted seven key sets of activities that needed ample

attention during implementation to encourage the successful enactment of innovations.

These included:
1. Understanding the characteristics of the innovation.
2. Developing measures of the effectiveness of the innovation.
3. Planning and setting the pace of implementation.
4. Redesigning the organization.
5. Modifying human resource policies.
6. Redesigning jobs.
7. Installing and integrating the innovation with the existing system.

These seven components of Tomatzky and Fleischer’s (1990) implementation

framework, nested within Rogers’ (1983) conceptualization of the innovation diffusion

process, guided my exploration of how divisions of student affairs implemented Learning

Reconsidered, including the factors that mediated the process and how organizational

actors navigated these factors.

Overview of the Dissertation

The second chapter of the dissertation sets the context for the study by providing

an examination of the influence of national reports in US postsecondary education,

discusses student affairs divisions as organizations, reviews relevant organizational

change literature and concludes with an analysis of the scholarship on implementation in

12

student affairs. The third chapter is devoted to a discussion of the research design and
methods used in this study. The fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters comprise three
comprehensive case narratives that capture the implementation process within each
individual organization. The final chapter provides a cross-case analysis of the
implementation process and includes a discussion of overarching findings, presents a
metaphor that captures the implementation process, and forwards implications for

research and practice.

13

CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
The purpose of this literature review is multifaceted. First, I will situate the study
in an historical and scholarly context by highlighting what researchers understand to be
the impact of national reports on postsecondary organizations and the possible reasons for
their influence. The scholarship on the impact of national reports paints a muddier picture
of the influence of many of these foundational documents than is commonly believed.
Second, I will discuss the organizational nature of divisions of student affairs, including
their history, structure, and culture. Third, I will provide an overview of the relevant
scholarship on organizational change including the factors reported as particularly
influential in postsecondary change efforts. I will conclude with a review of what is
known about organizational change and implementation within the context of student
affairs organizations specifically.
National Reports in US. Postsecondary Education
One way that individuals, associations, and government bodies seek to influence
U-S - postsecondary institutions is through writing and disseminating national reports.
Alflnough reports are commonplace in higher education (Hutcheson, 2007; Thelin, 2004)
and student affairs (Allen & Garb, 1993; Nuss, 2003), their impact and the contextual and
org<'=|-J:1izational factors that mediate their influence is less understood. As scholars
contimue to examine factors affecting change efforts in postsecondary education, a
gr o"Kring body of literature on the impact of reports is emerging. This section provides a
brief overview of a number of national reports, their impact on policy and practice, and

the factors that mediated their impact.

14

The use of written reports to influence postsecondary education was popularized
following the release of Abraham F lexner’s Medical Education in the United States and
Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1910).
The Flexner Report, as it is more commonly called, was widely credited with

dramatically improving the quality of medical practice in the United States (Asera, 2003;
Hiatt & Stockton, 2003). Today, the “Flexner Strategy” is often evoked in the rhetoric of
reformers when they suggest the use of empirically supported reports with pointed
recommendations will solve the various challenges facing academia (Murray, 2000). In
Short, a “F lexner Strategy” entails convening a group of reformers, gathering evidence,

recommending solutions, and writing a report that provides solutions for a current

problem or crisis.
Although F lexner’s (1910) report continues to be held in high esteem by present-

day reformers, the story behind its impact is less clear. Responding to calls for the use of
a “Flexner Strategy” to reform teacher education, Asera (2003) questioned the

conventional wisdom of the influence of the F lexner Report on medical education at the

time Of its release. She cautioned:
To understand the impact of the Flexner Report,-it is necessary to go back into
history and look behind the simplistic explanation that has come down over time.
There is more to the story than a critical report with a set of recommendations and
a high measure of compliance across the field. (p. 1)

Asera’s historical analysis concluded that the impact of the report was fueled by changes

alrezidy underway during the period of its release coupled with an influx of significant

15

financial resources from philanthropies that funded medical schools’ implementation of
the recommendations.

Regardless of the actual impact of the F lexner Report in reforming medical
education, its symbolic power continues to inspire numerous reformers to focus on
developing and disseminating reports rather than pursuing other avenues to influence
policy and practice. In a testament to their perceived power, the nurhber of reports over
the past 100 years increased substantially as higher education moved to a more central
place in the United States (Stark & Lattuca, 1997; Thelin, 2004). Over the past 20 years
dozens of reports were issued by foundations (e.g., Boyer, 1987, 1990a, 1990b;

Wingspread, 1993), federal agencies and departments (e.g., US. Department of
Education, 1983, 2006), state governments (e.g., Cherry Commission, 2004), accrediting
bodies (e.g., ABET, 1997), and professional associations (e.g., Association of American
Colleges and Universities [AACU], 2002; American Association of Higher Education
MAI-1E], ACPA, & NASPA, 1998; ACPA, 1994; ACPA & NASPA, 2004), each with
the intent of spurring various changes in colleges and universities. Professional
asSOCiations devoted to improving practice in student affairs such as the American
Conege Personnel Association and the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators were common contributors as were groups such as the American Council
on Education, Association of American Colleges and Universities, and the Carnegie
Folltildation. The common thread among these groups was their focus on promoting the

d . . .
eve 10pment of powerful undergraduate learning envrronments to improve student

lealTlirrg.

l6

Postsecondary scholars’ perspectives of the relative impact of these recent reports
on colleges and universities are mixed. Stark and Lattuca (1997) articulated that reports
focused on postsecondary curricular change often had limited utility because of the
decentralized system of higher education in the United States that often fi’ustrated wide-
spread reform efforts. They noted that if reports “stimulate modest discussion before
fading into oblivion” (p. 97) they were often considered successful by their authors. Yet,
in their review of curricular reform during the 1980s, Stark and Lattuca concluded that
internal efforts to affect curricular change were most often ignited by external calls for
reform. Supporting this latter assertion, the authors reported the results of a national
survey by the American Council on Education administered during the 1984—1985 and
1985-1986 academic years. The survey found that faculty governance bodies discussed
reports calling for curricular change at 45% and then 61% of their institutions; at 28%
and 36% of the institutions, the reports prompted changes in academic programs. In sum,
the impact of these reports on curriculum reform was at minimum increased discussion
among faculty governance groups and at most, some influence on the direction of
curricular change.

Another perspective on the impact of national reports was explored in Rice’s
(2002) analysis of the influence of Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered (1990b) on
expanding the definition of faculty scholarship and research. Rice argued that the report
should be viewed “as a ‘tipping point’ phenomenon — a critical turning point in what is
fundamentally valued in the scholarly work of faculty members” (p. 8). He articulated
that Scholarship Reconsidered was similar to the F lexner Report in that each was

connected to a “key figure” at the height of his influence that collected already accepted

17

intellectual resources and packaged them in a new manner that refocused the
conversation, thereby allowing reform efforts to progress. Though Rice (2002) argued
that Scholarship Reconsidered succeeded in broadening definitions of scholarship, he
also voiced concern that Boyer’s call had the unintended impact of increasing faculty
responsibility without allowing them to let go of earlier expectations. Rice wrote, “An
implicit change strategy - an incremental, add-on approach — has been implemented”
(2002, p. 16).

One reason for the additive response is explained by postsecondary institutions’
loosely-coupled nature (Weick, 1976). Loosely-coupled organizations are more likely to
change through addition rather than by accretion, exchange, or transformation (Eckel &
Kezar, 2003). Therefore, while numerous campuses responded to Scholarship
Reconsidered, few successfully transformed institutional systems such as tenure
processes that dictate faculty roles. When systemic change was achieved, such as in the
case of Western Carolina University, the implementation of Scholarship Reconsidered
was slow and often fractious taking nearly 20 years of stop and start initiatives to achieve
(J aschik, 2007).

In addition to efforts to influence postsecondary education writ large, accrediting
bodies and philanthropic organizations in professional fields such as engineering (Prados,
Peterson, & Lattuca, 2005) and teacher education (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001;
Murray, 2000) commonly aim to shift curricular focus or dictate learning outcomes
through the use of national reports. One example is the effort by ABET (formerly the
Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology) (1997) that began as a response to

concerns raised by the engineering education community, preceded by including key

18

constituent groups in identifying current barriers to improving the quality of engineering
education, and concluded with the collaborative development of recommended
adjustments to the accreditation process in the form of Engineering Criteria 2000
[EC2000]. The new criteria forwarded by EC2000 emphasized program objectives,
learning outcomes, assessment, and continuous improvement, and deemphasized specific
curricular expectations such as course requirements. Following the initial draft of
EC2000, recommendations were shared in workshop format for public comment with the
goal of crafting a new accrediting process that would be supported by multiple
constituencies and implemented successfully. Though the implementation of the new
criteria was not without challenges (e.g., faculty resistance and need for additional
training), Prados’ and his colleagues’ initial scholarly analysis concluded that ECZOOO’s
focus on “learning outcomes, assessment, and continuous improvement rather than
detailed curriculum specifications” (p. 165) was “changing the face of engineering
education” (p. 175).

Prados, Peterson, and Lattuca (2005) documented shifts in educational practices
and the perceived influence of EC2000 on them. In a national survey of program chairs
and tenured faculty they found that faculty credited EC2000 as influencing curricular and
pedagogical changes at much lower rates (28%) than the faculty themselves (80%). These
findings, when considered alongside their analysis of the influence of EC2000, support
Stark and Lattuca’s (1997) earlier conclusion that although changes to curriculum and
pedagogical practice were perceived by faculty to be driven by internal organizational
actors, external reports were often a significant impetus for igniting internal reform

efforts. What remained unexamined in Prados et al.’s (2005) analysis was how EC2000

l9

was implemented in schools of engineering and the mediating organizational and
contextual factors. The authors highlighted the need for an implementation study to
understand how such processes unfold in their call for further research to illuminate the
conditions under which “continuous improvement concepts become part of faculty
culture” (p. 178).

Similar to the larger postsecondary environment, student affairs professionals
heard repeated challenges through national reports to change the focus of their work or
improve the quality of practice over the past 80 years (Allen & Garb, 1993; Nuss, 2003.)
However, unlike higher education writ large or professional preparation programs
specifically, most reports focusing on student affairs were written by associations or
individuals within the profession. The first national report, The Student Personnel Point
of View [SPPV] (1937, 1949), was written by two groups of national leaders convened to
provide a foundational document to guide the emerging profession. The first edition
articulated a common professional philosophy, outlined preferred roles and contributions
of student personnel administrators, and provided direction for the continued
development of the profession. In articulating the emergent philosophy the authors wrote,
“This philosophy imposes upon educational institutions the obligation to consider the
student as a whole... It puts emphasis, in brief, upon the development of the student as a
whole person rather than upon his intellectual training alone” (ACE, p. 18).

Though no known empirical studies analyzed the impact of the Student Personnel
Point of View (1937, 1949) on student affairs practice at the time of its release, Nuss’
(2003) historical review of the development of student affairs noted the SPPV’s

continued influence on the profession today. Nuss (2003) cited three specific examples to

20

illustrate the SPPV’s lasting impact: (1) The reports’ articulation of holistic student
development as central to the work of the profession continues to be a primary guiding
foundation of the profession; (2) The essential role of scholarship on college students
remains a guidepost for professional and organizational behaviors; and (3) The outline
provided in 1937 and subsequently expanded in the 1949 version of the SPPV of key
services, their missions, and goals remains evident in the structure and work of student
affairs organizations today. As Nuss noted, the Student Personnel Point of View
significantly influenced the philosophy, values, priorities of the student affairs profession
today and the structure and organization of student affairs practice on campuses across
the United States. What is less certain is if and how the SPPV influenced national norms
and campus practices at the time of its release, or, if it merely captured the emerging
values and practices of the student affairs profession already widely embraced. Finally, if
the Student Personnel Point of View forwarded a previously unarticulated vision for the
student affairs role in postsecondary institutions, how did institutions implement its
recommendations and what factors influenced their level of success?

The lack of understanding of how early reports were implemented and their direct
impact on student affairs did not deter the professional associations fi'om writing and
disseminating numerous reports with the goal of influencing the development of the
profession and campus-based policy and practice (e. g., Joint Statement on Student
Rights, 1967; Student Development Services in Postsecondary Education and
Freedoms, 1975; Student Development in Tomorrow ’s Higher Education: A Return to the
Academy, 1972). As ACPA and NASPA gained legitimate authority following their

emergence as the leading national student affairs associations, they frequently issued

21

reports to set professional standards, guide practice, and focus efforts on student
development and learning. These and other associations were particularly prolific over
the past two decades with the release of The Student Learning Imperative (ACPA, 1994),
Principles of Good Practice in Student Affairs (ACPA & NASPA, 1996), Good Practice
in Student Aflairs (Blirnling & Whitt, 1999), Learning Reconsidered (ACPA & NASPA,
2004), and Learning Reconsidered 2 (ACPA et al., 2006).
Similar to the minimal attention paid to the impact of early national reports on
student affairs practice, the influence of recent reports and the factors that mediated their
impact has rarely been examined by scholars. One exception was Smith and Rogers’
(2005) ethnomethodological case study of a single institution. This study examined how
The Student Learning Imperative (ACPA, 1994), Principles of Good Practice for Student
Aflaz’rs (ACPA & NASPA, 1996) and Good Practice in Student Aflairs (Blirnling &
Whitt, 1 999) were “understood and utilized as guides to design and implement practice in
a student affairs division” (p. 472). Foremost among their findings was that the
“commitment and leadership of the senior student affairs officer” (p. 476) was the most
Significant factor in the division’s successful incorporation of the documents and their
eSlmllsed perspectives. In addition, they found eight patterns of behavior incorporated by
the senior student affairs officer that shaped and cultivated values and priorities within
and beyond the division. These included: (1) Providing visionary leadership; (2)
Communicating a clear mission focused on the ideas in the guiding documents; (3)
Cl“gating learning oriented institutional traditions; (4) Expecting a divisional shift from a
Student services to a student learning perspective; (5) Hiring staff members who fit the

organizational ethos and approach; (6) Using research, evaluation, and assessment to

22

inform practice and decision-making; (7) Providing sufficient resources to fimd new
programs and staff development; and (8) Encouraging an institutional shift from a
faculty-centered to a student-centered orientation.

A second finding forwarded by Smith and Rogers (2005) was the influence of a
change agent in the middle of the organization to shepherd the implementation of
recommendations on a day-to-day basis. They found that the key to successful
implementation was the presence of a dedicated mid-level administrator with a flexible
job description who operated across organizational boundaries and possessed the

“credentials, competence, and style” (p. 477) to gain the respect and support of faculty,
provide leadership at the divisional and institutional levels, promote professional
deveIOpment among colleagues, and advocate for the initiative.

In addition to their findings concerning the importance of administrative leaders
during the incorporation of recommendations, Smith and Rogers (2005) uncovered
organizational factors that mediated the level of implementation. First, they found that
although each department in this division incorporated the reports’ recommendations into
its Practice, some placed them as the primary focus of work while others incorporated
them as a secondary focus. Four organizational factors were found to influence the level
of implementation: (1) The professional paradigm held by individuals and its congruence
With the recommendations; (2) The nature of the department’s identity; (3) The level of
kmDWIedge possessed by professionals of the theories and research needed to implement
the recommendations; and (4) The level of personal commitment to the
recommendations. In other words, Smith and Rogers determined that the incorporation of

the recommendations was mediated by the nature of the work of the department and the

23

perceived congruence of the recommendations with the values, mission, and priorities of

the individual department and student affairs professional. Finally, Smith and Rogers

concluded that individuals often lacked the preparation or experience to internalize the

recommendations and were therefore, unable to effectively implement the

recommendations even after agreeing to adopt them. This finding is particularly salient

for leaders and change agents seeking to implement a program or policy as it draws

attention to the influence of the different levels of knowledge and skills possessed by

professionals charged with implementing the initiative and the impact of this variation on

the level of success.

In summary, with the significant and continuously increasing volume of “Flexner
Style Reports” calling for reform in US. postsecondary education, a casual observer
might understandably assume that this style of report had been successfirl in earlier eras
in influencing higher education. However, there are mixed conclusions about their impact
on institutional level policy and practice (Asera, 2003; Nuss, 2003; Prados et al., 2005;
Rice, 2002). One significant hurdle facing reform efforts is the challenge highlighted by
the authors of Learning Reconsidered who acknowledged the difficulty of implementing
I “all of the excellent recommendations made in earlier documents” (ACPA & NASPA,
2004, p. 3). The factors cited by scholars as mediating the implementation of these
reports can be lumped into three areas: (1) The wider context into which the reports are
r eleased; (2) The specific institutional context in which they must be implemented; and
(3) The organizational nature of postsecondary institutions.
Today, the global and postsecondary contexts in which student affairs

Organizations operate are rapidly changing (Duderstadt, 2000; Friedman, 2005; Kirp,

24

2003; US. Department of Education, 2006). In response, divisions of student affairs have
been challenged to adapt to meet these shifting expectations by their national
organizations and scholars (ACPA & NASPA, 2004; Love & Estanek, 2000). In the
introduction of Learning Reconsidered, Keeling wrote:
Regardless of our past accomplishments or disappointments we are all, as
colleagues and educators, now accountable to students and society for identifying
and achieving essential student learning outcomes and for making transformative
education possible and accessible for all students. (p. 3)
The national call sounded in Learning Reconsidered responded to pressures felt in the
external environment and manifesting within collegiate environments. However,
postsecondary institutions have long been regarded as some of the most stable institutions
in Western society (Duderstadt; Thelin, 2004) and described as unlikely candidates for
the transformative change advocated in Learning Reconsidered (Eckel & Kezar, 2003).
Therefore, though it appears that the wider context into which Learning Reconsidered
was released in 2004 was primed to drive the implementation of the recommendations
forwarded in the document, the influence of specific institutional contexts and the nature
0f POStsecondary institutions and divisions of student affairs likely have influenced the
depth and breadth of implementation.
Student Aflairs in American Colleges and Universities
In order to understand how divisions of student affairs might implement
innovative ideas and practices such as those forwarded in Learning Reconsidered (ACPA
& NASPA, 2004), it is helpful to be aware of their organizational nature and its influence

on change efforts. In this section, I provide an overview of student affairs as a profession

25

.—

and divisions of student affairs as organizations by focusing on their historical mission,
core values, culture, structure, and functional areas. I then briefly describe their
relationship to the broader postsecondary organizations in which they operate and
conclude by discussing contemporary organizational perspectives on divisions of student
affairs including how they vary across institutional settings.
A Brief History of Student Affairs
Divisions of student affairs — the collection of non-academic professionals,
programs, and services that support student learning, growth, and development in
colleges and universities - are a uniquely American invention (Lloyd-Jones & Smith,
1938; Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006; Nuss, 1998; Rhatigan, 2000; Sandeen, 2001).
Sandeen (2001) described student affairs as follows:
Most colleges and universities in the United States provide support services and
related programs to their students. The institutional component most intimately
involved in the process is usually referred to as student affairs, student services, or
student life, and most institutions are expected by students, parents, and the
general public to provide such programs and services. (p. 181)
The relatively young profession emerged late in the 19th century with the appointment of
LeBarron Russel Briggs in 1891 as Dean of the College at Harvard (F ley, 1977) and the
1892 appointment of Marion Talbot as Dean of Women at the University of Chicago
(Fley, 1978). Promoting holistic student development or learning has remained relatively
conSistent as the espoused mission of student affairs, yet, the increased size and
complexity of modern divisions of student affairs would make them unrecognizable to

the early deans.

26

The birth and development of the student affairs profession was driven in part by
the growth of postsecondary institutions and the resulting need to build administrative
structures and programs that supported a significant influx of students with escalating
needs (Appleton, Moore, & Vinton, 1978; Nuss, 1998; Rhatigan, 2000; Sandeen, 1991).
Rhatigan (2000) summarized:

It is evident that several factors influenced the development of this new field of

work, including the development of land-grant institutions and the rise of public

colleges and universities; expanding enrollments and the accompanying increase
in the heterogeneity of student populations; social, political, and intellectual
ferment in the United States; the rise of coeducation and the increase in number of
women entering educational institutions; the introduction of the elective system in
higher education; and an emphasis on vocationalism as a competitor to the
traditional liberal arts. (p. 5)
As a result of the increasing organizational complexity of colleges and universities,
presidents were stretched in new directions that drew attention away from their historical
role as the moral head of the institution (Rhatigan, 2000). Simultaneously, the rising
influence of the German model of higher education resulted in faculty shifting their focus
towards research and other scholarly endeavors and away from the intensive instruction
0f Shidents (Johnson, 1970; Rudolph, 1962; Thelin, 2004). In response to the changing
r0138 of presidents and the faculty, coupled with a continued commitment to students’
moral and spiritual development (Sandeen, 2001), colleges increasingly appointed early
deans to fill the role of counselor, adviser, teacher, tutor, and disciplinarian (Clement &

Rickard, 1992). Additionally, the arrival of women on many campuses challenged

27

colleges ill-equipped for co-education to seek the expertise of the pioneering deans of
women. Sandeen (1991) wrote, “The main role of the dean of women was not that of
disciplinarian or chaperone but an expert on women’s education in a coeducational
institution” (p. 12). Within its first thirty years, the profession had evolved significantly
filling multiple roles and responsibilities ranging from advocate to administrative
generalist to educational specialist. Today, these early roles remain at the core of many
student affairs professional’s identity and job descriptions.

Responding to the increased scope and complexity of student affairs work in
postsecondary institutions, national leaders released the Student Personnel Point of View
(ACE, 1937, 1949) with the goal of promoting consistent professional values, coherent

organizational structures, and standards for practice across institutions. Numerous
colleges responded by reorganizing their student services and programs to align with its
recommendations (Sandeen, 2001). In addition to having a significant impact on the
services offered, the Student Personnel Point of View also stressed the educational role of
student affairs work and the importance of cooperation with academic departments to
achieve the institutional mission. One of the primary authors of the Student Personnel
Point of View and a colleague wrote:

In our opinion, the student personnel program must take its stand with those who

conceive of the student not only as an intellect, but also as a total organism whose

learnings. .. are importantly conditioned by the way he acts and feels, as well as
by the words he reads and hears and by his logical thought. The student personnel
program must be built on a recognition of the essential interrelation between

thought, feeling, and action. (Lloyd-Jones & Smith, 193 8, p.11)

28

Though early documents such as the Student Personnel Point of View (ACE, 1937; 1949)
focused on the education of the whole student, they parsed out the co curricular student
experience as the domain of student affairs and ceded the curriculum and academic
instruction as the domain of the faculty.

The early focus of student affairs professionals on students’ social and moral
development within the co curricular environment to the detriment of attention to
intellectual development and the academic experience of students is fi'equently criticized
as inadvertently promoting a professional culture that rarely embraces holistic

development in practice as robustly as it does in its rhetoric (Baxter Magolda, 2001;

Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006; Woodward, Love, & Komives, 2000). Another vestige
of this early division of labor is the infrequent collaboration on many campuses between
student affairs professionals, academic administrators, and faculty (Bloland, Stamatokos,
& Rogers, 1996). Kezar (2003) noted the rise of multiple organizational and professional
barriers that challenged collaborative practice including “incorrect perceptions and lack
of knowledge about each other’s jobs, the alienating and confusing jargon of
differentiated professions, increased specialization, and the financial competition between
those two groups” (p. 137). In summary, as divisions of student affairs grew in
Professionalization, specialization, and complexity in the name of enhancing student
ll‘m‘niltig and development, leaders inadvertently created structural and cultural barriers
that limited the success of collaborative enterprises such as those espoused in Learning
Reconsidered that are viewed as essential to increasing student learning in collegiate

contexts (Kuh, 1996; Kuh et al., 1991).

29

Contemporary Student Affairs
Today, student affairs and its associated programs and services exist on every
college campus in the United States (Hirt, 2006; Manning et al., 2006; Sandeen, 1991).
Over the past 100 years the roles and responsibilities once delegated to a single dean have
evolved substantially. Manning described the changes:
Student affairs practice has evolved into complex, sophisticated work, often
involving large staffs, substantial budgets, and thoughts of square feet of facilities
to manage. Part of the challenge student affairs has faced over the years is to
determine its niche, given that practitioners in this field are educators, managers,
public relations specialists, and more. (p. 5)
Although it is too simple to say that student affairs work involves the coordination
of the majority of the non-academic components of postsecondary institutions, it is a
reasonable place to begin. A partial list of common functions that fall within most
divisions of student affairs includes admissions and recruitment, orientation, registration
and records, financial aid, academic advising, student support services, international
student services, student activities and unions, counseling services, career development,
residence life, services for student with disabilities, intercollegiate activities, family
ProgramS and child-care services, student health care, dining and food service, judicial
affairs, community service, leadership development, recreation and fitness programs, and
StuClerit research, assessment, and evaluation (Sandeen, 1996). Though many of the
aforementioned functional areas exist in some form at most institutions, each division is
uni‘hle in how it is organized. Factors that influence organizational design include the

inStitutimial type and size, mission, history, professional background of the staff,

30

available resources, technology, student needs, and the culture of the college or university
in which the division is situated (Creamer; Winston, & Miller, 2001; Hirt; 2006; Manning
et al., 2006; Sandeen, 2001).
Partly because of their vertical orientation (Keeling, Underhile, & Wall, 2007),
contemporary divisions of student affair have been described as resembling traditional
organizations in their structure (F enske, 1990). If one examined an organizational chart of
a contemporary division, it would resemble a pyramid with a wide base. At the top of
most divisions is a senior student affairs officer with the title of vice president, clean, or
tlle equivalent who generally reports to either the senior academic officer or the president
of the institution (Sandeen, 1996). Under the senior student affairs officer are anywhere
from a handful to a dozen or more mid-level administrators responsible for the semi-
autonomous coordination of one or more fimctional areas. Mid-level professionals are
ofien highly educated, well-trained, and. hold the title of director or coordinator. The
1"rlaj ority of positions within divisions of student affairs are found at the bottom of the
organizational chart filled by entry-level professionals such as academic advisors or hall
‘directors who themselves operate in a relatively autonomous manner (Carpenter, 2001).
Though divisions are fi'equently organized using a traditional structure, they vary widely
in their degree of centralization, alignment with institutional missions,

I)I‘o fessionalization, collaboration within and beyond the division, student-centeredness,

alld resource allocation patterns (Hirt, 2006; Manning et al., 2006).

Because of the nature of postsecondary institutions in general and student affairs
111 particular, understanding the organizational structure only provides a limited view of

how an innovation such as Learning Reconsidered was implemented. This is in part

31

because divisions of students affairs operate with ambiguous and conflicting goals, fluid

participation, unclear technology, clients who participate in governance, a highly

educated professional workforce that operates with relative autonomy, and a loosely-

coupled structure (Keeling, Underhile, & Wall, 2007). Therefore, a more accurate
articulation of how they actually operate would be as a professional bureaucracy
(Mintzberg, 1979) or organized anarchy (Cohen & March, 1986).

Variations across Institutional Settings

Student affairs as a profession has achieved wide agreement on its core values,
mission, and role in relation to promoting student learning (ACPA & NASPA, 2004), yet
how divisions of student affairs pursue these ends varies significantly (Kuh et al., 2005;
Manning et al., 2006). Recent scholarship illuminated differences in the organization of

Student affairs (Manning et al., 2006) and variations in the nature of work (Hirt, 2006)

across diverse institutional types.

Hirt (2006) conducted a series of studies to understand the differences in student

afi‘airs work in community colleges, research universities, Jesuit institutions,
comprehensive colleges, liberal arts colleges, Hispanic serving institutions, and
laiStorically Black colleges and universities among others. She collected data through
focus groups, a national survey of student affairs professionals, and a calendar study that
asl<ed professionals to track their professional activity over a defined period of time. Hirt
I3°115t1d significant variance across divisions in different types of institutions including
tlleir organizational nature and the roles, responsibilities, and day-to-day priorities of

Stlldent affairs professionals. Because my study examined the implementation of

32

Learning Reconsidered at a specific institutional-type - comprehensive colleges and
universities - I focus my attention on Hirt’s findings at those institutions.
Hirt (2006) found that because of the mission, culture, and organizational presses
at comprehensive institutions, student affairs professionals in these environments took a
more generalist orientation to their work than those at other institutional types.
Professionals reported working with a racial, ethnic and socio-economically diverse
spectrum of students. They described their institutions matter-of-factly as political,
bureaucratic, and centralized. Hirt hypothesized that these organizational characteristics
resulted in professionals often developing advanced strategic planning skills to
effectively navigate their environment. In addition to change initiatives emanating from
local leaders, because many of the comprehensive institutions were part of larger state
Sit/Stems, systemic change was endemic at these colleges and universities institutions and
Complicated the governance process within any single institutional setting. Though
pro fessionals viewed change as often being quickly enacted in comprehensive
institutions, the outcome of change efforts was rarely viewed as beneficial. In a finding
that appeared inconsistent with the pace of change described by participants, Hirt also
111lcovered that decision-making was viewed as laborious at these institutions and took
8 ignificantly longer than at other types of colleges and universities. The slow pace of
c1ecision-making was seen as leading divisions of student affairs at comprehensive
institutions to be more reactive than proactive. Finally, Hirt found that collaboration with
academic administrators and faculty, though still chilly and tentative, was more frequent

at Comprehensive institutions than other types of colleges and universities in her study.

33

In summary, contemporary divisions of student affairs are vertically oriented
(Keeling et al., 2007; Sandeen, 2001), increasingly complex (Rhatigan, 2000; Sandeen,
2001), and best understood as professional bureaucracies (Mintzberg, 1976) or organized
anarchies (Cohen & March, 1986). The loosely-coupled nature of divisions and the
relative autonomy of the professionals who work within them challenge the utility of a
forward mapping analytic strategy (Ehnore, 1980) as the likelihood of understanding the
richness of the implementation process by starting at the top of the organizational chart
and moving downward is unlikely to accurately capture the change process. Additionally,
though the profession has articulated holistic learning as a Core value and collaboration as
a key component of achieving this ambiguous goal, scholars critique the profession as
focusing substantially less on students’ cognitive development and ceding responsibility
for the academic and intellectual preparation that occurs within the curriculum to the
facnlty (Baxter Magolda; 2001; Manning et al., 2006; Woodward etal., 2000). Therefore,
the assumption that student affairs professionals will embrace Learning Reconsidered
(ACPA & NASPA, 2004) and its focus on holistic learning is uncertain. Finally, the
implementation of Learning Reconsidered within any single division of student affairs is
1il<ely to be mediated by its unique organizational context including its history,
Q0Inmitrnent to collaboration, level of professionalization, training and education of its
8 taff, and myriad other factors.
Organizational Change in Postsecondary Organizations
The literature on organizational change in colleges and universities has grown in
b1‘eadth and depth over the past 30 of years. In this section I review many of the recurring

fa(Btors that scholars and reflective leaders identify as significantly influencing change

34

efforts in postsecondary organizations. Following this overview of the broader literature,
I examine the more limited scholarship on implementing organizational change within
the context of student affairs.
Factors that Influence Organizational Change Eflorts
There is little doubt that leaders and change agents in colleges and universities
face significant challenges that require an increased ability to implement innovative ideas
and lead organizational change efforts. Diamond (2002) noted, “The number one issue
facing higher education today is this: Effectively initiating, implementing, and managing
intentional, meaningful, planned change” (p. 31). The challenge of achieving successful
change in postsecondary organizations is exacerbated by the unique features of colleges
and universities. Kezar (2001) argued that the following organizational characteristics of
P0 stsecondary institutions must be considered when developing a change model for use
in this context:

Interdependent organization
Relatively independent of environment
Unique culture of the academy
Institutional status

Values-driven

Multiple power and authority structures
Loosely coupled system

Organized anarchical decision-making
Professional and administrative roles
Shared governance

Employee commitment and tenure
Goal ambiguity

Image and success

Possibly because change is not a linear process (Bringle & Hatch, 1996; Kezar,
200 1; Vaill, 1996), rarely occurs as planned (Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Kuh, 1996), and is

t1ear-1y always complex (Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Fullan, 2001; Hock, 1999), no single

35

model is likely to capture how change occurs in postsecondary institutions. Because
change is a fluid and a messy endeavor, Fullan advised leaders to avoid a checklist
approach and instead to embrace the complexity of the process. Consequently, Kezar
(2001) encouraged institutional leaders to combine multiple models to guide their efforts,
tailored to the unique institutional needs. Likewise, Bohnan and Deal (1997), Morgan
( l 999), and Scott (2002) encouraged leaders and change agents to use multiple frames or
lenses to understand how the change process unfolds. Still, some theories have been
found to be more applicable than others in making sense of change in postsecondary
organizations. Kezar (2002) argued that although there were many ways to conceptualize
the change process in higher education and student affairs, the most frequently
investigated theories over the last 30 years were cultural, structural and rational theories
because they targeted three core areas — values or beliefs, processes, and structure — that
Were nearly always in need of attention during change efforts unfolding in postsecondary
c(>1'1texts.

Though no single change model will be used to guide this study, a number of
ernergent factors that cut across myriad change models and studies are important to
e)Kamine. The following factors emerged across the literature: the influence of senior
adlninistrative support; organization-wide leadership and championship; commitment to
3:111 inclusive, transparent, and collaborative process; strategic planning; organizational
QI-llture; supporting the process through appropriate professional development and

S"-lfiicient financial resources; and promoting organizational learning.

One of the most consistent findings among scholars studying organizational

cIlange within and beyond higher education is the essential role of supportive leadership

36

in the senior administration (Creamer & Creamer, 1986; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Furst-
Bowe & Bauer, 2007; Hunter, 2006; Keller, 2004; Kezar, 2005; Manning et al.., 2006;
Sandeen, 2001). Senior administrators are individuals in positional leadership roles (e.g.,
presidents, senior academic officers, senior student affairs officers, deans, and directors)
with the ability to direct resources or attention to various change efforts, adjust structures,
and encourage collaborative efforts. In her national survey of the development of
collaborative relationships between academic affairs and student affairs, Kezar (2003)
found that “senior administrative support was by far the most cited strategy for success
with 80% saying it was a very successfirl strategy for creating partnerships” (p. 150). In
their case study of the University of Wisconsin — Stout’s application of the Baldridge
Criteria for Performance, Furst-Bowe and Bauer (2007) concluded that factors
iIlfluencing the change process echoed the wider scholarship in the field in that one of the
fom common components shared by “institutions that have been successful at driving
itltlovation and managing change” (p. 12) was a consistently high level of commitment
and support fiom top leadership throughout the process.
In a broader study, Collins’ rigorous examination of business (2001) and social
Sector organizations (2005) found that those able to achieve greatness were consistently
1 ed by a “Level 5 Leader” who served as an essential building block fueling the ascent of
the organization. Collins defined these leaders as “ambitious first and foremost for the
Cause, the organization, the work — not themselves - and they have the fierce resolve to
do whatever it takes to make good on that ambition. A Level 5 leader displays a
paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will” (2005, p. 32). Although

important, leadership at the top of the administrative structure is rarely enough to ensure

37

successful change. In his widely read book on leading in a culture of change, Fullan
(2001) warned that a charismatic leader was often not a key ingredient to success.
Additionally, Bensimon and Neumann (1993) found that team-based leadership within
upper administration was generally more effective than a single strong leader when
working in complex organizational environments with ambiguous problems. What
appears to be true across the literature is that thoughtful leadership and support within the
upper administration of postsecondary institutions is frequently viewed as beneficial,
even though it may not be enough by itself to ensure success, however it may be defined.
A second frequently cited factor is the essential role of leaders and champions of
the change effort throughout the organization (Bringle & Hatch, 1996; Collins, 2001,
2005; Creamer & Creamer, 1986; Handy, 2002; Keller, 2004; Kezar, 2001; Kotter, 1996;
Oshry, 1995). In their multi-site case study of institutions embarking on transformative
change efforts, Eckel and Kezar (2003) concluded that “transformation occurs when
lfielders at multiple levels work compatibly” (p. 87). Eckel and Kezar (2003) flirther stated
tIII—1t widespread involvement was best achieved by inviting the campus community into
the process, not by assuming participation develops serendipitously. Likewise, Creamer
311d Creamer’s (1986) probability of adoption of change model postulated that champions
SlDrinkled throughout the organization were essential in moving the change process
forward. Similarly, Bringle and Hatch (1996) found that when implementing service
1 eEur-hing initiatives in postsecondary institutions, a small group of committed faculty and
Staif were essential to the program’s adoption and implementation.
A third consistent finding among many scholars is the importance of a

collaborative and inclusive process that takes organizational politics into account and

38

maintains a heightened commitment to open-communication and transparency in
decision-making (Collins, 2005; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Fullan, 2001; Hunter, 2006;
Keller, 2004; Kotter, 1996; Kuh, 1996). Reisser and Roper (1999) argued that student
affairs organizations were more likely to respond to new initiatives when they were
adopted in a collaborative atmosphere rather than by a small group of administrators at
the top of the organization. Kotter (1996) pressed leaders to develop a guiding coalition
and Woodward, Love, and Komives (2000) urged a deep commitment to inclusivity and
civility. Kezar’s (2001) analysis of the literature on organization change led her to
encourage leaders and change agents to develop alliances and coalitions guided by a deep
awareness of the political organizational realities including any preexisting conflicts,
competing motivations, and historical power struggles. Kezar (2001) wrote that
“empowerment approaches can be used to try to ensure~ that changes treat people
equitably” (p. 116). Regardless of the advice or the model, scholars appear to agree that

<”flange initiatives are generally more effective when the process happens with the

illClividuals in the organization rather than happening to them.
A fourth theme is the importance of maintaining an institution-wide commitment

to rigorous strategic planning (Ausiello & Wells, 1997; Collins, 2005; Dooris, Kelley, &
Trainer, 2004; Furst-Bowe & Bauer, 2007; Hunter, 2006; White & Glickman, 2007). In
lilis in-depth case study of Elon University, an institution that transformed from non-
descript to outstanding in reputation and educational quality, Keller (2004) concluded
1ililat a deep institutional commitment to strategic planning was central to Elon’s
h‘a-tlsformational process. Woodward, Love, and Komives (2000) added, “Managers,

esI>ecially student affairs managers, can make things happen by pursuing priorities in a

39

planned way, thinking and acting strategically to implement plans, and making
adjustments based on changing conditions” (p. 69). The important point made by these
scholars was that a commitment to strategic planning can be a poWerful tool to help
organizations listen to their constituencies, encourage the emergence of good ideas,
recognize opportunities, make decisions, and strive towards a share mission. As
Woodward, Love, and Komives (2000) noted, any plan must remain flexible enough to
take into account shifts in external or internal needs and allow for adjustments along the
way. Finally, though strategic planning is often hailed as central to many successful
change efforts, some critics question its actual impact (Birnbaum, 2000) and even its
proponents concede the lack of empirical support of its effectiveness (Dooris, Kelley, &
Trainer, 2004). i

A fifth consistent factor that emerged in the literature is the central role of culture
as a key mediator affecting change efforts within postsecondary organizations (Claar &
Cuyjet, 2000; Fullan, 2001; Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Hunter, 2006; Kezar, 2001; Kuh, 1996;
Reisser & Roper, 1999; Sandeen; 2001). Lick (2002) defined culture as, “From a change
perspective, the culture reflects the interrelationships of shared assumptions, beliefs and
values, and behaviors that are acquired over time by its members” (p. 30). In a chapter on
leading change in the handbook of administrative leadership, Diamond (2002) identified
organizational culture as one of four primary barriers to achieving change in
postsecondary environments. Kotter (1996) agreed, arguing that change efforts could
only be effective if rooted in the current culture of the organization. Similarly, Fullan
believed that leaders must focus attention on reculturing organizations if change is going

to be sustained. Kezar and Eckel provided empirical support for these assertions in their

40

multi-site case study of change efforts within three different postsecondary organizations.
They concluded that if the culture of an organization was ignored when applying a
generic change strategy, the effort was rarely successful. Kezar and Eckel advised leaders
to develop an increasingly nuanced understanding of the culture and significant
subcultures of their institution prior to developing and implementing a change strategy so
that it might be appropriately tailored to the setting.

Locke and Guglielmino (2006) added to the empirical support for the significant
influence of culture in mediating organizational change efforts. They found that in
community college settings, each subculture experienced the change process differently.
As a result, the authors encouraged leaders and change agents to factor into the planning
process how change efforts would be perceived across subcultures. Locke and
Guglielmino’s advice was similar to Kuh’s (1996) recommendation to tailor change
initiatives focused on promoting student learning to the student culture on the specific
campus where the initiative was being implemented. Kuh warned, “Even the most
ambitious, elegantly designed institutional renewal strategy will fall short because
students themselves determine the social contexts in which learning occurs” (p. 141).
What each of these scholars (Diamond, 2002; Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Kuh; Locke &
Guglielmino) reminds leaders is that any change effort that ignores the unique culture and
significant subcultures of an institution when developing and implementing a strategy
will likely experience increased resistance and less success if approach and strategy are
not tailored with the culture in mind.

A sixth factor that emerged in the organizational change literature is the

importance of providing appropriate and sufficient support to those in the organization

41

charged with implementing change initiatives. Two key areas of need shared by faculty
and staff responsible for implementation efforts were access to appropriate training and
professional development opportunities to prepare for their new roles (Diamond, 2002;
Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Keller, 2004; Kezar, 2003; Sandeen, 2001) and having the
appropriate financial and human resources to implement new initiatives (Claar & Cuyj et,
2000; Diamond; Eckel & Kezar; Keller; Sandeen).

Sandeen (2001) believed that leaders and change agents must carefully consider
the professional background, values, knowledge, and abilities of the current staff when
embarking on a change process. Diamond (2002) concurred, stating that change efforts
were often hindered by a knowledge barrier because faculty and administrators frequently
resisted new roles and responsibilities that they felt unprepared to fill. To overcome this
barrier, Diamond recommended leaders focus attention on ramping up professional
development for current staff. This suggestion was shared by Eckel and Kezar (2003)
who found in their multi-site case study that significant attention to providing appropriate
staff development was one of five core strategies used by colleges and universities that
were successfully transfonned.

In addition to preparing individuals in the organization for new roles and
responsibilities, leaders and change agents must rally sufficient financial support for
change initiatives (Ausiello & Wells, 1997; Claar & Cuyjet, 2000; Diamond, 2002; Eckel
& Kezar, 2003; Keller, 2004; Sandeen, 2001). Ausiello and Wells advised that when
implementing new technologies in student affairs, “perhaps one of the most critical
tasks... is the identification of fiscal resources to support new initiatives” (p. 73).

Diamond warned that if financial resources were not available to implement new

42

initiatives, the process was likely to unravel. Keller found that one of the key factors in
Elon’s transformation was its financial acumen through the change process, writing,
“Elon has been both daring and inventive yet prudent and scrupulous. It has leveraged its
limited funds with remarkable skill” (p. 103). Though often overlooked in many change
models, the advice of postsecondary leaders is filled with exhortations of the central role
of providing sufficient financial support whether via incentives to key organizational
actors or ample funding of the initiative itself (Diamond; Sandeen). Indeed, sufficient
financial support has a dual purpose: it provides symbolic support for the initiative and
removes a significant barrier in the implementation process.

The seventh factor discerned from the literature is the importance of promoting
both single- and double-loop learning throughout the organization (Boyce, 2003; Collins,
2001; 2005; Fullan, 2001; Keller, 2004; Kuh, 1996; Kotter, 1996; Senge, 2000). Single-
loop learning is associated with first order or incremental change whereas double-loop
learning is often synonymous with second order or transforrnative change. Single-loop
learning leads to organizations doing what they already do better. Double-loop learning
may lead to organizational transformation, a process that although rare within
postsecondary organizations (Eckek & Kezar, 2003) may be necessary if Learning
Reconsidered is going to be implemented.

Organizational learning is promoted when there is rigorous assessment to guide
decision-making (Furst-Bowe & Bauer, 2007; Keller, 2004), when team-based
leadership approaches are embraced (Bensimon & Neumann, 1994), when senior staff
model learning-focused behaviors and critical reflection (Ausiello & Wells, 1997), when

collaborative decision-making processes are employed (Collins, 2001, 2005; Kotter,

43

1996), when risk-taking is promoted and supported (Kezar, 2001), and when individuals
communicate within and beyond the organization to develop and share new ideas and
best practices (Diamond, 2002; Hunter, 2006). Wheatley (1999) wrote that “the system
needs to learn more about itself’ if change is going to unfold (p. 145). Diamond (2002)
added that organizations must learn fiom others by promoting a “climate that
investigates what others are doing, keeps up with the literature, and before any initiative
begins, makes you aware of what exists elsewhere” (p. 471). Collins (2005) however
warned that educational organizations were frequently impeded by a culture of niceness
that “inhibit(ed) candor about the brutal facts,” thereby discouraging the honest
conversations needed to promote change efforts (p. 32). In general, though
organizational learning will occur in varying ways based on organizational history,
culture, and norms of the setting, scholars agree that leaders should work to increase
learning capacity throughout the organization in support of change and implementation
efforts.

In the preceding review of the literature on organizational change a number of
factors believed to influence the implementation ‘of change initiatives were highlighted:
senior administrative support; organization-wide leadership and championship;
commitment to an inclusive, transparent, and collaborative process; incorporation of
strategic planning; recognition of the unique organizational culture; incorporation of
professional development and providing sufficient financial resources; and promoting
organizational learning. Though far from exhaustive, this list helps focus attention on
certain aspects of the change process without limiting other factors that emerge as salient

in any given context.

44

Implementing Change in Student Aflairs

Although there is a large body of literature on organizational change in
postsecondary organizations writ large (Kezar, 2001), there has historically been
significantly less scholarship examining how change initiatives unfold in divisions of
student affairs (Creamer & Creamer, 1986; Kezar, 2003). Most common within the early
waves of student affairs literature on leadership and change were reflections and war
stories from vice presidents and other leaders that were, with few exceptions (e.g.,
Appleton, Briggs, & Rhatigan, 1978), rarely empirically grounded or supported by
theories of organizational change (Creamer & Creamer, 1986). Additionally, early
scholarship rarely considered how change unfolded fiom perspectives beyond senior
student affairs officers and, consequently, seldom painted a robust picture of the process.

Another early strand of literature introduced and applied change models fiom
management and organizational development to student affairs but often did so without
regard to the unique attributes of student affairs organizations. This literature used
secondary research analysis to introduce planned change to student affairs practitioners
with the goal of increasing organizational effectiveness (Aery & Moore, 1972; Priest,
1980). Even when student affairs administrators incorporated planned change models into
their practice, implementation efforts often stalled or failed. Studies of planned change
shed little light on why implementation efforts were or were not successful, particularly
salient information that future leaders and change agents might find useful.

Although early literature provided ample viewpoints on how change and
implementation efforts were expected to occur, there was still no empirically derived

student affairs change model available to guide practitioner decision-making. To fill this

45

gap Creamer and Creamer (1986) developed the Probability of Adoption Change (PAC)
Model using a small scale national survey of senior student affairs officers who had
recently managed a change effort in their organization. The authors wrote, “The PAC
model was offered first in 1986 as a theoretical paradigm for explaining the likelihood of
successful adoption of planned change efforts in student affairs” (Creamer, Creamer, &
Ford, 1991, p. 31). The scholars tested and revised the model in subsequent studies
applying it to a series of student affairs case studies (Creamer & Creamer, 1988) and then
curriculum-reform efforts that bridged academic and student affairs partnerships
(Creamer & Creamer, 1989; Creamer, Creamer, & Ford, 1991). Their research marked
the first time that empirical studies were used to examine organizational change or policy
implementation efforts in studentgaffairs. Creamer, Creamer, and Ford (1991) concluded
that seven constructs influenced the likelihood of adopting change including the
circumstances under which the change took place, value compatibility, idea
comprehensibility, practicality, “superintendency” of the change, championship,
advantage probability strategies, and the amount of opposition to planned change. One
obvious weakness of this model was its lack of attention to the perspectives of mid- and
entry-level student affairs administrators whose support is crucial to programmatic
implementation. Understanding mid-level professionals’ perspectives of which factors
influenced change efforts is particularly important as most new programs and policies are
ultimately implemented by staff in those positions; as a result of its focus on senior
leaders, Creamer and Creamer’s model has only modest utility.

Following Creamer, Creamer and Ford’s (1991) research on the adoption of

organizational change, the literature returned to practitioners providing recommendations

46

gleaned from personal experience or scholars applying literature borrowed from
neighboring fields to illuminate how change occurred in student affairs. An example of
this was Pope’s (1993) use of organizational development literature to create a change
model to guide divisions of student affairs towards becoming multicultural organizations.
Pope’s application of organizational development literature onto student affairs
organizations remained merely a proposal as she stopped short of testing her theory
empirically. Similarly, Kotter (1995) proposed a philosophical framework for decision-
making during student affairs restructuring but also failed to test her theory empirically.
Like many scholars before her, Kotter examined the change process from the perspective
of those at the top of the organization rather than those responsible for implementing new
policies and programs. These scholars were just two of many over the past two decades
(e.g. Ausiello & Wells, 1997; Sandeen, 2001) who proposed various change strategies
that assumed the implementation of new policies or programs was able to be directed
fi'om the top of the division of student affairs. These perspectives appeared to ignore
Clark’s (1983) finding that organizations such as divisions of student affairs were
generally regarded as loosely coupled and therefore, by their nature, changed and adapted
in a chaotic manner. Clark’s (1983) conceptualization of postsecondary organizations as
loosely-coupled supports the use of research methods that capture and explain the factors
that impact the implementation process from the perspectives of individuals responsible
for their actualization, not just those responsible for their bureaucratic adoption.

Over the past ten years, scholars in student affairs began to consider the role of
meaning making among participants during periods of organizational change. Ward and

Warner (1996) were two of the earliest scholars to posit that change within student affairs

47

organizations was a cognitive and affective process. They used an informal case analysis
and a review of the broader change literature to propose that change often failed because
of “fear” in student affairs organizations. Ward and Warner (1996) stated that change was
often initiated from the top with too little concern for how the process was perceived by
those at all levels of the organization. They argued successful organizational change
required leaders and change agents to focus on supporting individual change, managing
meaning making, communicating transparently and consistently throughout the process,
breaking down artificial organizational barriers, and empowering organizational actors to
participate in the change process. Ward and Wamer’s (1996) overarching message was
that leaders must focus their energies on managing the fear that often permeated student
affairs organizations when change initiatives were introduced. Their conclusions have
been supported by recent scholars who noted the importance of managing meaning
making (Manning, 2001) and assessing and negotiating collective organizational attitude
(Dalton & Gardner, 2002) during periods of planned change.

Since the mid-1990s a flurry of scholarship emerged seeking to illuminate how
divisions of student affairs implement change (Allen & Cherrey, 2003; Doyle, 2004;
Hunter, 2006; Keeling et al., 2007; Kezar, 2003; Kuh, 1996; Smith & Rogers, 2005;
Woodward et al., 2000). Among the most influential of the models was K ’s “guiding
principles for creating seamless learning environments” (p. 136) released in support of
The Student Learning Imperative (ACPA, 1994). Kuh’s six key change principles were
based on the unique organizational nature of divisions of student affairs: (1) Generate

enthusiasm for institutional renewal; (2) create a common vision for learning; (3) develop

48

a common language; (4) foster collaboration and cross-firnctional dialogue; (5) examine
the influence of student cultures on student learning; and (6) focus on systemic change.

Though Kuh (1996) did not test his principles empirically, Kezar (2003)
examined them along with two additional models, planned change and restructuring, in a
national survey exploring the utility of using three different change models during
periods of increased collaboration between academic and student affairs. Kezar’s (2003)
study was a significant step forward in the methodological quality of research on
organizational change in student affairs. She found that institutions combining elements
of multiple change models experienced more success than institutions that used any
single model. Additionally, Kezar (2003) found that “senior administrative support was
viewed as the number one strategy for creating change” (p. 153), and that promoting
cross-institutional dialogue, generating enthusiasm, creating a common vision, and
providing ample staff development were important factors in the successfully
implementing collaborative partnerships among student affairs staff and faculty.
Although her conclusions indicated that senior administrative support was essential,
respondents in her study also stated the importance of engaging staff at all levels of the
organization in the process while providing them the necessary preparation to implement
the change.

Summary of the Literature

This literature review served several purposes. I began by situating the study in a
historical and scholarly context by highlighting what researchers understand to be the
impact of national reports on postsecondary organizations and the possible reasons for

their influence. The scholarship was inconclusive on the extent of the impact of national

49

reports on colleges and universities in inducing organizational change. Second, I
provided an overview of the organizational nature of divisions of student affairs, drawing
attention to the unique history, culture, and characteristics of student affairs organizations
including significant variations in structure and the nature of their work across
institutional contexts. Third, I discussed a number of factors that emerged in the broader
change literature as influencing organizational change efforts. A particularly important
conclusion emerging from this review was that scholars are in general agreement that
change is a complex endeavor that rarely unfolds as planned. Consequently, the use of
multiple models by leaders and change agents was almost universally encouraged. I
concluded my review of the literature with a discussion of the limited scholarship
examining organizational change and implementation within the specific context of

student affairs.

50

CHAPTER THREE
Methodology

In this study I used a multi-site case study approach (Creswell, 2007; Merriam,
1988; Patton, 1990, 2002; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003) and employed a backward mapping
analytic technique (Ehnore, 1980, 1982) to explore how three divisions of student affairs
that adopted Learning Reconsidered (ACPA & NASPA, 2004) implemented its
recommendations. The following research questions guided my study:

1. What was the implementation process employed by institutions that adopted
Learning Reconsidered?

2. At institutions that adopted Learning Reconsidered, what factors influenced
the implementation of the recommended policies and practices?

3. What were the roles and responsibilities of actors within and beyond the
division of student affairs in the implementation of Learning Reconsidered?

4. What organizational levers, if any, were employed to influence
implementation?

A qualitative, multi-site case study methodology was the appropriate approach for
numerous reasons (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 1988; Patton, 1990; 2002; Stake, 1995; Yin,
2003). First, case study methodology is typically used to study the implementation
process in organizational settings because it is the primary approach that allows for the
simultaneous examination of the role of structures, culture, organization-wide processes,
history, and myriad other conditions (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 1988). Second, Merriam
(1988) argued that case study methodology was particularly appropriate when a

“bounded system can be identified as the focus of the investigation” (p. 9). In this study,

51

the bounded system was the implementation process of Learning Reconsidered by three
divisions of student affairs following its adoption. Third, Yin (2003) wrote that “case
studies are the preferred strategy when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed, when
the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus in on a contemporary
phenomenon” (p. l). Yin’s (2003) description aptly describes this study, specifically my
focus on exploring how Learning Reconsidered was implemented in divisions of student
affairs and how and why the implementation process unfolded as it did.

Though implementation and change studies in higher education and student
affairs ofien employ case study design, they differ from my study because they frequently
used a forward mapping analytical approach (Bringle & Hatch, 1996; Creamer &
Creamer, 1986, 1988, 1989; Gallant & Drinan, 2006). Most studies also contained the
embedded assumption that organizations were a barrier rather than an instrument to be
“capitalized upon or modified” during the implementation process (Elmore, 1980, 1982).
Possibly because of this assumption, researchers almost universally examined the
implementation process through the lens of those at the top of the organization rather than
mid- and entry-level staff who were likely responsible for implementing the programs
and policies after their adoption (Creamer, Creamer, & Ford, 1991). Ehnore (1980, 1982)
referred to this type of analytic strategy, the most common among implementation
researchers, as forward mapping. Elmore (1980) argued that forward mapping had a
number of significant limitations, including its “implicit and unquestioned assumption
that policymakers control the organizational, political, and technological processes that
affect implementation” (p. 603). These assumptions are particularly troublesome for

postsecondary scholars because colleges and universities are only moderately hierarchical

52

(Kezar, 2001; Kuh, 2000) and often loosely-coupled (Clark, 1983). Because of these
organizational characteristics, leaders rarely have enough centralized power to ensure
adopted policies and practices will be implemented throughout the organization (Creamer
& Creamer, 1986). In essence, the use of backward mapping as an analytic technique
disavows the inappropriate assumption that senior student affairs officers control the
implementation process and instead assumes that those at the top of the organization must
view their role as selective interveners in a “dispersed and decentralized process”
(Elmore, 1980, p. 605). With the goal of providing administrators, leaders, and change
agents with increasingly nuanced insight and practical recommendations that account for
the unique organizational nature of postsecondary institutions, I employed a backward
mapping analytical strategy (Ehnore, 1980, 1982) to present a ground-view vantage point
of how Learning Reconsidered was implemented and the factors, actors, and levers that
influenced the process across three divisions of student affairs.
Sampling Strategy

There are approximately 4,000 postsecondary institutions in the United States
(Chronicle of Higher Education, 2008). Each one of these colleges and universities
employ student affairs professionals that provide services and support to undergraduate
and graduate students (Creamer, Winston, & Miller, 2001; Hirt, 2006; Manning et al.,
2006; Sandeen, 2001). Although organizational arrangements vary (Manning etal.,
2006), institutions generally have a senior student affairs officer responsible for the
coordination of programs and services with the title of vice president, dean of students, or
the equivalent, mid-level professionals in director level roles, and entry-level

professionals (Sandeen, 2001).

53

To select divisions of student affairs that adopted Learning Reconsidered fi'om
this diverse pool of institutions, I used a hybrid of snowball and criterion sampling (Miles
& Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990). Miles and Huberman defined snowball sampling as a
process that “identifies cases of interest from people who know people who know what
cases are information rich” (p. 28) and criterion sampling as a technique that ensures that
each case matches a specific criteria. In this study, the primary criterion for inclusion was
that each division of student affairs must have adopted and implemented Learning
Reconsidered (ACPA & NASPA, 2004). The secondary criterion for inclusion in the
study was that each of the three divisions of student affairs selected had to be in a mid-
sized postsecondary institution such as a research intensive or comprehensive college or
university. Scholars have noted significant variation in the structure, culture, and services
offered in divisions of student affairs across diverse institutional types (Hirt, 2006;
Manning, et al., 2006).

By limiting my sample to divisions of student affairs located in institutions of
similar size and type, I minimized the likelihood of including vastly dissimilar
organizational environments that would further complicate cross-case analysis of the
implementation process (Patton, 1990). Second, based upon an initial review of the
adopting divisions of student affairs highlighted in Learning Reconsidered 2 (ACPA et
al., 2006), those embedded within mid-sized institutions appeared more likely to adopt
Learning Reconsidered than divisions within other institutional types such as small
colleges, which by their nature have historically employed many of the key ideas and
recommendations forwarded in the document (Hirt, 2006; Schuman, 2005; Westfall,

2006).

54

My sample selection was eased in part because of the inclusion of a number of
information rich cases in Learning Reconsidered 2 (ACPA et al., 2006) and on the
Learning Reconsidered website (ACPA, ACUHO-I, ACUI, NACA, NACADA, NASPA,
& NIRSA, 2007), both of which documented divisions of student affairs that adopted and
implemented Learning Reconsidered between 2004 and 2008. I added to the initial list by
including divisions that attended the Learning Reconsidered Institute, a workshop
sponsored by ACPA and NASPA in June 2007 to support institutions with
implementation efforts and also by contacting the authors of Learning Reconsidered and
members of the governing boards of ACPA and NASPA to solicit their recommendations
of additional information rich cases.

In summary,I began by developing a list of possible sites for this study by
reviewing the divisions of student affairs documented in Learning Reconsidered 2 and
the Learning Reconsidered website as having put the document into practice.
Additionally, I issued a call for recommendations via email from the board members of
ACPA and NASPA, the authors of Learning Reconsidered, and numerous senior student
affairs officers. This sampling process resulted in a list of eleven divisions of student
affairs that met the appropriate criteria. I then contacted the senior student affairs officer
at each of the eleven institutions to confirm that their division had adopted and
implemented Learning Reconsidered (ACPA & NASPA, 2004). Once confirmed, I spoke
via phone with each to share an overview of the study and asked if they were willing to
serve as a site for data collection. F our divisions of student affairs agreed to participate in

the study, one of which was used to pilot the interview protocol. Descriptions of each of

55

the three divisions of student affairs and the geographically diverse comprehensive or
research intensive universities in which they are nested are detailed in Chapter Four.
Data Collection

This study used individual and small group interviews and document analysis to
develop a backwards map of the implementation process (Ehnore, 1980, 1982). The use
of a variety of data collection methods (i.e., interviews, review of documents, and
analysis of online materials) provided multiple avenues through which I was able to
examine the informal interactions, relationships, and factors embedded within the
organizational hierarchy that affected the implementation process (Merriam, 1988;
Patton, 1990, 2002).

Individual and small group interviews were used to collect data as well as
determine what additional information was needed to complete the study and who should
be interviewed to obtain it. My initial contact at each institution was the senior student
affairs officer who provided me a list of key individuals responsible for implementing
Learning Reconsidered. Once I received the initial list I then contacted each of the
individuals, provided an overview of the study, set a time to interview them, and asked
whom else they would recommend that I interview within or beyond the division of
student affairs. As a result, I interviewed entry-level, mid-level, and senior student affairs
professionals on each campus as well as faculty and academic administrators with insight
into the implementation process. Including individuals at all levels of the student affairs
division was consistent with backward mapping (Elmore, 1980, 1982), which holds the
assumption that “it is not the policy or policymaker that solves the problem, but someone

with immediate proximity” (Elmore, 1980, p. 612). Serni-structured small group and

56

individual interviews were conducted in settings considered private, safe, and
comfortable by the participants in order to increase their likelihood of sharing honest
perceptions and feelings of what factors influenced successful implementation. I
maintained detailed field notes during the interviews, noting in particular participants’
perceptions of factors they felt were responsible for the successful implementation.
Additionally, each interview was recorded and transcribed to allow for future analysis
except in the case of those participants who requested not to be recorded. Each interview
began with an explanation of the goal of the research project to provide the interviewee a
context for the questions.

In summary, in order to gain multiple perspectives of the implementation process,
I conducted 50 individual and small group interviews with 85 individuals interviews from
within and beyond each of the three different divisions of student affairs using a semi-
structured interview protocol. I began by interviewing student affairs professionals noted
by the senior student affairs officer as directly responsible for the implementation of
Learning Reconsidered. Initial interviews led to additional interviews (Elmore, 1980,
1982; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002) until saturation and sufficiency were
achieved (Seidman, 1991) and a robust understanding of the implementation process was
gained. Seidman described saturation as “sufficient numbers to reflect the range of
participants and sites that make up the population so that others outside the sample might
have a chance to connect to the experience of those in it” (p. 45) and saturation as “the
point in the study at which the interviewer begins to hear the same information reported.
He or she is no longer learning anything new” (p. 45). As such, once I was no longer

gaining new insights and begin to consistently hear repetitive information I ceased

57

interviewing additional participants. The interview transcriptions totaled over 600 pages
of data.

In addition to collecting interview data, I reviewed available documents such as
emails, planning notes, meeting minutes, strategic plans, websites, and the working notes
of individuals responsible for implementing Learning Reconsidered. These documents
provided additional insight into the institutions, student affairs divisions, factors that
influenced implementation, how these factors were navigated, and which actors within
and beyond the division of student affairs were influential during the implementation
process. Such insights were used to adjust interview questions and determine which
additional individuals should be interviewed. In addition, by collecting and analyzing
various documents I was able to triangulate data to test for inconsistencies in my
emerging understanding of the implementation process (Patton, 2002).

Analytical Strategy

Consistent with qualitative inquiry (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 1988; Patton, 2002)
and a backward mapping analytical strategy (Elmore, 1980, 1982), data analysis was
ongoing throughout the study, uncovering additional key individuals and units that
influenced implementation and guiding my data collection. Though analysis began at the
outset of the data collection process and was ongoing, a secondary level of analysis
consistent with case study methodology (Merriam, 1988; Patton, 2002) began after data
collection was completed. Interviews were analyzed and compared within each
organizational setting to determine which factors and actors were particularly influential

throughout the implementation process (Merriam, 1990; Miles & Huberman, 1994;

58

Patton, 2002). Additionally, organizational documents were used to triangulate the data
(Merriam, 1990; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Following the assemblage of the raw case data, I constructed individual case
records, a map of the implementation process, and a case narrative of the implementation
process of Learning Reconsidered for each division of student affairs (Creswell, 2007;
Miles & Huberman, 1994). Patton (2002) noted that the quality of analysis in a case study
rests upon carefully and systematically “organizing the data by specific cases for in-depth
study and comparison” (p. 447). Following the development of each case narrative, one
participant with a broad perspective of the implementation effort was asked to read and
provide feedback on the case. Additionally, a peer debriefer reviewed numerous
interview transcripts from each institution and the associated case narrative and then
discussed the case with me to challenge assumptions and ensure accuracy. Cases were
revised where appropriate when inconsistencies between the case and the perspective of
the participant or peer debriefer occurred. Once individual case narratives were
completed, reviewed, and revised, I engaged in an inductive analytical process beginning
by open-coding each case. I then moved into pattem-coding to sift through, combine,
reduce and interpret the data to uncover patterns or regularities (Patton, 2002; Merriam,
1988; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Finally, I compared emergent patterns and regularities
of the implementation process across cases (Merriam, 1988). Finally, a case analysis
meeting guided by the research questions was conducted with the peer debriefer to
evaluate the cross-case analysis and consider alternative perspectives (Miles &

Huberman, 1994).

59

T rustworthiness

Trustworthiness (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002) in this study was established at
the levels of data collection, analysis, and interpretation. During data collection I
systematically documented all individual interviews using a digital recorder, maintained
detailed field notes, and then transcribed the interviews verbatim for analysis. Interviews
with participants within and beyond the division of student affairs were conducted until
saturation and sufficiency were achieved (Seidman, 1991). In addition, documents were
systematically reviewed and analyzed. Triangulation (Patton, 2002; Stake, 1995), a
measure of quality in qualitative research, was achieved by comparing multiple sources
of data including the use of various formal and informal documents and interviews with
individuals throughout the division of student affairs and the wider institution.

To ensure trustworthiness at the level of analysis I incorporated a peer debriefer
(Merriam, 1990; Patton, 2002) to provide an additional perspective to make sense of how
the implementation process unfolded and encourage alternative explanations beyond
merely those I saw. Additionally, following the development of each case description,
participants were asked to review and comment upon their perceptions of the accuracy of
the facts described in each case (Patton). At the level of interpretation I employed the
peer debriefer (Merriam; Patton) to review and critique the interpretations of the case
descriptions.

Finally, because the researcher is the primary instrument in qualitative scholarship
(Arminio & Hultgren, 2002; Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002), it is important to discuss the
experience, perspective and training that I brought to the study (Creswell; Patton). I have

worked in a number of diverse postsecondary institutions in regions throughout the

60

United States, primarily as a student affairs professional, for the past ten years. My
education and training has been in educational policy, college student personnel, and
higher education administration. I took coursework on and engaged in a few small to
mid—scale qualitative research projects over the past four years including a case study of
organizational change in a postsecondary setting prior to beginning this study. I believe
strongly that divisions of student affairs should focus their attention and resources on
developing policies and practices that promote holistic student learning that are
connected to the mission of the institution in which the divisions are nested. Finally, I
played no role in the development or dissemination of Learning Reconsidered and did not
conduct this study at a college or university in which I was enrolled as a student or
employed in any capacity.
Overview of the Case Studies

In chapters four, five and six I present a case narrative for each of the three
divisions of student affairs examined in this study: Eastern State University, Pioneer State
University, and High Plains University. Although the cases were selected. to fit similar
criteria (i.e., nested in a research intensive university or comprehensive college and noted
as having implemented Learning Reconsidered), each organization varied significantly in
how they put Learning Reconsidered into practice. Consequently, the cases are presented
separately and intact to capture the unique implementation process that unfolded at each
institution. The case narratives include an overview of the institutional setting, a portrait
of the division of student affairs, and a description of the implementation of Learning
Reconsidered that incorporates the perspectives of myriad individuals within and beyond

the division of student affairs. In the final chapter I provide an analysis across the three

61

cases and then discuss overarching findings that emerged, the relationship of the findings
to current literature, and implications that stem from the findings. I conclude the final
chapter by presenting a metaphor that captures the implementation process and discuss

implications for practice and research.

62

CHAPTER FOUR
Eastern State University

Learning Reconsidered was first introduced at Eastern State University [ESU] in
the midst of several ongoing initiatives to transform the institution, key staff departures,
changes to the organizational structure of a young division of student affairs, and under
new Vice Presidential leadership. The dedicated, “technically competent,” and
moderately professionalized student affairs staff greeted its arrival with a mix of
excitement, resentment, interest, and a high degree of uncertainty about its utility in their
daily work. Among the three institutions examined in this study, Eastern State University
was the most recent adopter and their short tirneline meant that the initial iteration of the
implementation process was closer to the beginning than to the end. Although the
outcome of the process remains unclear, what is known is that nine months after its initial
wide-scale introduction and subsequent adoption, the implementation of Learning
Reconsidered continues to unfold throughout the institution and division in myriad ways
and along multiple tracks. This case study begins with an overview of Eastern State
University, moves to a description of the relatively young division of student affairs, and
then describes the three tracks — cabinet-level, centralized student affairs, and
department-level — via which Learning Reconsidered was being implemented.

Institutional Overview

Eastern State University opened it doors in the 19205 as a state normal college.
Although the university has maintained its commitment to preparing future educators, the
original institutional mission and the range of academic programs available have

expanded significantly over the past 90 years. Current students can pursue degrees in 57

63

undergraduate majors including well-regarded programs in engineering, business,
education, and communication or as an advanced student in the growing graduate school.
At the start of the 2008 academic year the campus served nearly 10,000 students from
throughout the state and region. Today the typical admitted ESU undergraduate has
higher test scores and high school grade point average than earlier cohorts, is between the
ages of 18 and 22, is likely to live in a residence hall during their first year, and is
increasingly involved with campus life.

Eastern State University is a campus in the midst of significant transition. In
addition to expanded academic programs and changing student demographics ESU has
experienced a significant turnover among the faculty with 55% new to the institution over
the past ten years. Along with an evolving faculty the administration has undergone a
significant shift from being primarily “indigenous administrators” to being populated by
mid- and upper-level administrators who possess significant experience outside the
institution. Included in this shift away from home grown administrators are the vice
presidents that populate the President’s leadership team. The cabinet has completely
turned over in the past two and a half years, is filled entirely by external hires, and
maintains a stated commitment to implementing a change agenda. The Vice President for
Student Affairs described her cabinet-level colleagues’ attraction to ESU in the following
manner:

The President likes to quote the book Good to Great. How do we get from good

to great? That is what we came here to do. We didn’t come in here just to be

good, to take it to the next level. Or else, some of us wouldn’t have come.

Actually, I think most of us wouldn’t have come.

64

The numerous ongoing initiatives at ESU are fueled by a lOO-million dollar gift
received fifteen years earlier to transform the institution fiom a regional teachers’ college
to a comprehensive university. As the Special Assistant to the President and former
Interim Provost noted:

I think in my early years we reacted to change and change didn’t come all that

often. But it seemed as soon as we got that gift of 100-million change is just an

everyday thing here. And we try not to be as much reactive as proactive and take
advantage of opportunities that we see that could come in the future and trying to
be very responsive to meet the current needs of students.

During an early September morning in 2008, a visitor walking across the compact
campus of Eastern State University would quicklynotice the dramatic changes underway
to the physical plant as recently poured sidewalks dry and final touches are put on
landscaping surrounding a new science building and renovated library. Just as Eastern
State University is sprucing up its campus with new buildings and landscaping, the
surrounding town is undergoing a transformation of its own. On the southern edge of
campus, three city blocks that were previously occupied by single family homes and
apartments are in the midst of being demolished to make way for a new hotel, bookstore,
upscale condos, student apartments, a coffee shop, and other retail outlets. The downtown
renewal project is expected to create a college town feel that will cater to the needs of the
increasingly residential student population. As one member of the campus connnunity
commented about the flurry of building on and around campus, “We drove to work one
way one day and a different way the next day because of the construction. So everything

is changing and that makes it an exciting place to be.”

65

Although located just twenty minutes outside of a major metropolitan area on the
east coast, the campus and small town in which it is located are described by many as
feeling more rural than suburban with many faculty and staff increasingly drawn to living
near campus and maintaining friendships outside of work. Campus has long been a place
where folks enjoy working, particularly throughout the functional areas that now
comprise the division of student affairs. Many on campus, old-timers and new-timers
alike, share a sense of excitement about many of the initiatives they see underway and the
opportunities they present for the institution and its future. On the other hand, many also
feel uneasy about the current changes at the institution and share a common concern that
Eastern State University is adrift without a firm sense of its mission and future direction,
and might be in danger of “losing its soul” as it continues to transition fiom a teachers
college to a comprehensive research university.

Student Aflairs at Eastern State University

The Division of Student Affairs at ESU has existed in its current form for less
than 8 years. Prompted by a critical report from an accreditation team, the current
President, then new to his position, reorganized the institution with the goal of enhancing
the quality of student services and consequently, the Division of Student Affairs was
formed. The Assistant to the President recounted: ’

After a visit by a regional accreditor, some of the comments were that the student

affairs side was getting shortchanged. Within that division [Academic and Student

Affairs] most of the attention was on academic affairs and student affairs was

kind of like a stepchild - budgetary as well as staff as well as programs. And so a

decision was made to develop a distinct division of student affairs, fully staffed

66

with all of the programs needed to provide the appropriate support for a university

that was moving forward. So it [the Division of Academic and Student Affairs]

broke off into two separate divisions.

The initial organizational structure of the division seven years earlier included a
collection of offices, departments, and services that were previously clustered in multiple
divisions. The initial functional areas included housing, career and academic planning,
student activities, service learning and volunteer programs, campus recreation, the health
and counseling centers, and judicial affairs as well as admissions, financial aid, the
registrar and oversight of the athletics program. The first vice president had a background
in enrollment management and felt significant pressure to increase the quantity and
quality of incoming students; he subsequently focused much of his attention on student
recruitment and devoted less time to providing hands-on leadership to the rest of the
division.

According to many on campus, one outcome of the inaugural vice president’s
focus on growing and enhancing the quality of theESU student population was that the
collection of departments that were moved into the Division of Student Affairs continued
to function as distinct units with new reporting lines but unchanged expectations for how
they operated in relationship to one another. Today, student affairs administrators portray
their colleagues as hardworking and deeply dedicated to the students and the institution at
which they work. Yet, the campus as a whole is also universally described as a place in
which collaboration is infrequent, individuals are often protective of their functional
areas, offices and individuals work in silos with minimal interaction, and new programs

are rare. Although pockets of professional excellence exist throughout the division many

67

shared that a culture of mediocrity pervades the campus. In describing the current culture
of the division and its relationship to the wider campus, the Assistant Vice President of
Student Affairs and Director of the Campus Recreation Center and Student Union shared:
The division operates in a 1970s kind of siloed model. So, the culture has been,
we really are all doing our own thing. We are doing it really well,.but we are
doing our own thing. And I think that the academic side doesn’t, hasn’t known
much about what student affairs does. I mean, we are faculty driven at this
institution. And again, I think part of it is because student affairs is a relatively
new concept, not even 10 years old.
Others noted that the influence of unions throughout the student affairs division was at
the core of why many entry- and mid-level administrators focused almost solely on their
own tasks while often eschewing opportunities to collaborate and support innovative
programs that might necessitate taking on additional work.

With the departure of the first vice president of student affairs in 2005 the Provost
assumed responsibility for admissions, financial aid, and the registrar. Following a year-
long national search, during which time the long-serving Dean of Students served as the
interim vice president, Dr. Charlotte Pippen was selected as the second Vice President of
Student Affairs at Eastern State University. She arrived in August of 2007 with a long
history of leadership in varied institutional settings. Pippen noted, “I like the diversity of
higher education and for me part of the challenge is to see can I practice my craft at
different institutional types.” Pippen was not alone in being new to ESU. She began her
tenure at ESU alongside a cohort of other cabinet members she described as the “we are

the change is hard but change is here, the ‘don’t stop thinking about tomorrow’ crew.”

68

As Pippen took stock of her new environment she quickly recognized an
opportunity existed at ESU for her to fill a leadership vacuum in the area of developing
student learning outcomes at the institution. She recalled:

I found, I learned this from a couple of colleagues, that the accrediting agency in

this region — Middle States — has not gotten quite as aggressive about student

learning outcomes or program reviews as on the West Coast or in the South.

Because there were things that we were required to do on the West Coast that

maybe we will be required to do this time in Middle States. So I saw that

opportunity to practice [my] craft in another environment. Cause, you know, it is

a virtual wasteland. At least on one level, intellectually, people said, you know,

this sounds good, we need to be doing something. You know, when you hit the

ground though you need, things need to change. And people, some people are not
as ready for change as they might say they are.

Although Pippen recognized early the leadership vacuum that existed and the
need for implementing learning outcomes, her time and attention during her first year
were consumed by student crises or attending to areas of “benign neglect” in student
affairs such as the pervasive student culture of alcohol use and abuse. Additionally,
during her first semester, Pippen concluded that the student affairs division lacked the
type of leadership she believed was needed to implement Learning Reconsidered. Pippen
shared:

I have a technically competent team. But I don’t have the vision. I don’t have

people for the most part, I don’t have people with vision and breadth. So, when I

was looking [for a new Associate Vice President], I took time to figure out what I

69

was going to do to bring someone in. A lot of opportunities fell into my lap —

people left, created a slot, moved a slot over someplace else.

The opportunities created by the departure of a few key staff allowed Pippen to
make a series of changes in the organization. These included adjusting the position titles
of several individuals, shifting the managerial responsibilities of some staff, and hiring
two new Associate Vice Presidents. As a result, by the end of her first year Pippen had a
team in place that she believed could lead the division forward. However, the multiple
changes in the division, in particular the departure of the long-serving Dean of Students
who had been the Interim Vice President, left some in the division distrustful of Pippen
and many unsure of the direction of student affairs and their role in the process. The
Director of the Student Success Center described the current psychological state of the
staff in the division:

It has changed a lot in the last year and it is very different than it was the year

before... it is difficult to answer because things are still in flux. We don’t really

know where we are yet... there is so much change going on you don’t know what
is going to happen the next day, which makes it an exciting place to work. The
way it was a year ago and before that it was an absolutely positive place to work.

It is firn, it is exciting, it is very secure. People are happy and content, but people

are not as happy with the change. It scares people. It’s different now, not that

that’s bad.

By the conclusion of Charlotte Pippen’s first semester at ESU the student affairs
staff held mixed feelings about the direction of the organization. Emotions ranged from

excitement about the possibilities that lay ahead to worry about the direction of the

70

division to wide-spread frustration about the lack of communication from the Vice
President. It was into this milieu that Learning Reconsidered was introduced.
Implementing Learning Reconsidered at Eastern State University

The adoption and implementation of Learning Reconsidered was spurred at
Eastern State University by the hiring of Dr. Charlotte Pippen as the second Vice
President of Student Affairs in August 2007. Pippen maintained longstanding
involvement with national student affairs organizations including an awareness of recent
national reports such as Learning Reconsidered. In addition, she believed that all
postsecondary institutions needed to increase their focus on student learning outcomes
and assessment — key recommendations embedded within Learning Reconsidered. She
believed that her role at ESU was to “practice her craft” by bringing the division up to
speed and moving them into the future. Beyond her commitment to the tenants of
Learning Reconsidered, she was also driven by her past experiences at colleges in the
South and West that had been pushed by accrediting bodies to increase their focus on
developing and assessing student learning outcomes. Even though the regional
accrediting body of her current institution had yet to focus its attention on promoting
learning outcomes and assessment, Pippen felt that it was better to get “ahead of the
curve” than be in the position of responding to a critical accreditation report.

At Eastern State University the implementation process unfolded along three
simultaneous and sometimes overlapping tracks. Each of the three tracks shared a
common starting point in the NASPA Institute, a division-wide professional development
conference that occurred in January of 2008. The first implementation track included the

Vice President’s efforts to increase awareness of and appreciation for learning outcomes

71

among the cabinet and President. The second track was along a centralized route that cut
across the Division of Student Affairs and focused on introducing the concepts in
Learning Reconsidered (i.e., learning outcomes and assessment), promoting their
adoption, ramping up the knowledge and skills among the staff to successfully implement
learning outcomes, and fueling implementation across the division. The department-level
process, the third implementation track, was closely connected to the centralized track but
unfolded in a generally decentralized manner and was mediated by the directors and other
key mid-level administrators who acted as guides in each department. The final section of
this case will begin with an overview of the NASPA Institute and then review how
implementation unfolded along each of the three tracks beginning with the cabinet-level,
moving to the centralized track, and concluding with the department-level process.
Kick Starting Implementation

Learning Reconsidered first received significant attention at Eastern State
University during a division-wide student affairs professional development program six
months after Dr. Pippen arrived on campus. The NASPA Institute, an intensive five-day
on-campus program initially developed for community colleges, was brought by the Vice
President to ESU in response to staff feedback requesting more professional
development. The institute covered a wide range of topics including the history of student
affairs, legal issues, crisis management, the changing nature of college students, and
diversity. Cutting across many of the sessions was an implicit argument for the adoption
of learning outcomes as a guiding principle in student affairs. Near the end of the institute

a hill session was devoted to introducing student learning outcomes using Learning

72

Reconsidered as the basis of the presentation. Charlotte Pippen shared why she employed
a centralized professional development program to introduce Learning Reconsidered:
So, rather than me standing up there and doing it, we brought in a team of
professionals as part of a larger student development initiative so they could see
the larger context of the history of higher education. And my intent in doing it that
way it was to create an understanding that it was for everybody.
Although the student affairs staff was surveyed about their preferences for professional
development topics, little was shared with them about any specific goals or outcomes for
the institute beyond the dates and an expectation for their attendance.

Unlike previous professional development initiatives at Eastern State University,
Pippen made a conscious decision to invite the entire student affairs staff to attend. She
believed that Learning Reconsidered was for everybody and reasoned:

I looked at it as an opportunity to give meaning to our work we do beyond the

individual doing the work... To give kind of a framework for them to understand

why we do what we do and why it is important. What the student gets out of it.
As a result of the open invitation 150 of the 200 student affairs employees attended the
NASPA Institute including custodial, physical plant, administrative support, graduate
assistants, and the professional staff. Many of the director-level staff, in particular the
Assistant to the Vice President, applauded the inclusion of support staff and believed that
their involvement was symbolic of the growing importance of learning outcomes at ESU.
Other directors however, were less enthusiastic and believed that frontline staff members
were ill-equipped to engage in the institute because they lacked an understanding of how

the information related to their work. Additionally, the loss of a full week at the precipice

73

of a busy semester resulted in heightened anxiety among participants at all levels of the
organization.

The sense of being overwhelmed during the NASPA Institute was not only
because of the timing of the event. Though previously exposed to Learning Reconsidered
during national conferences and through a series of meetings with his supervisor, an
entry-level professional from the Campus Recreation Center noted:

I think this part, with NASPA, was the most overwhehning for me because they

gave us so much information that we even commented afterwards that those

people that never had the introduction to it must feel worse. So this was definitely,
this was overwhelming, completely overwhelming. It’s like, ugh, we have to do

this now on top of run this building? 1
A second professional in the student union concurred and articulated his emotional state
in his pictorial representation of the implementation process of a desk piled high with
projects and paperwork. He described it the following way:

This is a desk... the first thing you do when you sit down at a desk when it is nice

and neat and clean is you get a good feeling when you sit down at the desk. Ok,

I’m going to have a good day. Everything is nice. I’ve got a calendar here and you

really can’t see a calendar right now because when I’m sitting down at this desk

of Learning Reconsidered at this point I feel overwhelmed because I see
everything has basically been thrown on my desk. It’s like this is Learning

Reconsidered, there is really no implementation you just kind of came in one day,

maybe after a long vacation, and there is all this stuff piled around your desk and

it is all this Learning Reconsidered stuff. Ok, if I have to sit here and make sense

74

of all this stuff. Reorganize it the way I’m going to understand it and I don’t even

have a clue what half of it is.

In sum, although participation in the NASPA Institute energized some
professionals in the division about the possibilities of putting student learning outcomes
into practice, many others felt overwhelmed by the idea of making sense of and
implementing Learning Reconsidered while balancing their ongoing job responsibilities.
Complicating matters was that a small but influential group of mid-level professional
staff resented the process by which Learning Reconsidered was introduced to the
division. The Assistant Dean of Students and Director of Judicial Affairs noted that he
felt that “it got shoved down our throats... [that] this is something we are lacking and this
is What the rest of the field is doing so we need to do it.”

In addition to staff from the division of student affairs, Pippen also invited key
academic affairs staff and faculty from across campus to attend the NASPA Institute. The
Assistant to the President recalled:

When she started the educational process for her division from the beginning she

included members outside the division. . .she invited pe0ple working on learning

outcomes assessment in academic affairs, she invited the people working on the

Middle States review team, the regional accrediting body. She invited members of

the administration in academic affairs to participate so we were learning at the

same time as members of her division were hearing the way things look at other
institutions and the way things could look here. And so it automatically built that

camaraderie from the beginning. And in all of her initiatives she reached across

75

the border to make sure she has gotten perspective from stakeholders across

campus, not just within her division.

At the conclusion of the institute one of the presenters recommended setting the
goal of implementing 1-2 learning outcomes in each department. No other expectations
beyond those recommended by the presenter concerning implementation were explicitly
shared by the Vice President at that time. Following the conclusion of the institute in
early January, Pippen focused the majority of her attention on championing Learning
Reconsidered along the upper-level track among the cabinet and President.
Implementation at the Cabinet-Level

As noted earlier, the members of the Presidential cabinet at the time of the
introduction of Learning Reconsidered were committed to continuing the evolution of
ESU from a regional teachers college to a comprehensive research university. From her
cabinet position Charlotte Pippen recognized the opportunity for student affairs to
influence the evolution and subsequent enactment of the institutional vision.
Additionally, she believed that student learning outcomes were the key connection
between student affairs and the broader institution, and recognized that she needed to
attend to simultaneously leading implementation efforts at the cabinet-level as well as
within the student affairs division. Pippen shared:

It’s a relatively new division, to begin to show, I think a common place, the best

way to have a linkage is through student learning outcomes. Because it is

important, because then you can develop a common language. A set of common

places where you are trying to get students to go, you are just using a different

76

vehicle for getting them there...I just think the student learning outcomes really,

that is the core, that is ‘the it’ that draws the academy together.

With the goal of drawing student and academic affairs together at ESU, Pippen
worked to set a tone of collaboration by building relationships with her academic
colleagues. She reflected:

Actually, I spent early on, some people actually thought I spent more time with

my academic colleagues, but it was about when you come in as a vice president

you gotta set a tone that this is important because otherwise it’s the same-old,
same-old.
Pippen believed that how she spent her time during the initial months in her position held
significant symbolic importance. She also understood that if she was not setting the
expectation that collaboration was expected through her actions, then it was unlikely that
others in the division would move away from siloization and embrace more collaborative
approaches to their work.

In addition to role modeling collaborative behavior for those in student affairs,
Charlotte Pippen’s position on the cabinet and her decision to focus time and energy on
building relationships with the President and her cabinet-level colleagues resulted in her
gaining respect and eventually a leadership role beyond student affairs. The Assistant to
the President shared:

By virtue of having a seat at the cabinet level she has been able to get buy-in from

central administration for the whole concept of the education of the whole student

- social and personal development as well as academic development. And so we

are getting leadership from top-down and bottom-up. And I think that while the

77

bottom-up stuff was probably already brewing, once it becomes one of the

President’s strategic directions it is a whole lot easier getting everyone else on

board. And I think Charlotte being in the seat in the conference room helped that

happen.

Because of her proximity to the strategic decision-making process and ability to
build relationships, trust, and respect with her colleagues on the cabinet, Pippen Was able
to promote the inclusion of holistic student learning and development and the role of
student affairs in the number one point in the draft strategic plan. One way that she was
able to achieve this result was by how she brought ideas to the cabinet. The Assistant to
the President recalled:

I don’t think she met any resistance but she came in and she didn’t just come in

with, “I have a kernel of a thought.” She came in with specific ideas, specific

strategies, specific solutions and what always gets the cabinets attention - ways to
allocate within her given resources.
Pippen’s ability to clearly articulate a plan and implementation strategy using existing
financial resources was essential during a period of difficult economic times when
resources were relatively tight.

In summary, Pippen’s decision to focus significant time on championing the key
tenets of Learning Reconsidered among the President and cabinet resulted in winning
their support, achieving a focus on holistic student learning and development in the
strategic plan, and eventually securing additional financial and human resources to
bolster implementation efforts in student affairs. However, although Pippen was quite

successful in garnering support for the implementation of key recommendations in

78

Learning Reconsidered across the upper-levels of the administration, a continuing
criticism from within her own division was her lack of attention to gaining the support
and buy-in from the “academic side” for implementation efforts.
Centralized Student Affairs Implementation

Simultaneous to her efforts during her first year at ESU to secure support for the
implementation of Learning Reconsidered within the cabinet, Pippen also guided the
implementation process along a centralized track within the division of student affairs.
Pippen fueled implementation along this track by (1) telling her leadership team directly
that learning outcomes were important and should be implemented across the division,
(2) providing professional development experiences for the staff to introduce them to
Learning Reconsidered and enhance their ability to implement, (3) hiring two new
Associate Vice Presidents and shifting a number of director’s responsibilities to support
the effort, (4) placing the implementation of Learning Reconsidered and learning
outcomes as a top goal of the division, and (5) adjusting the year-end staff evaluations to
include an assessment of individual implementation efforts.

The Assistant Vice President and Director of the Health Center .voiced the
importance of Pippen playing a lead role within student affairs implementation efforts:

The central role in all of this was our VP. It would never have happened without

her. And this is not the kind of place where a lot of stuff gets done if someone

thinks of it that is not in a top-down [position] and that isn’t necessarily a good

thing.

Implementation along this track began with Pippen’s unilateral decision to use the

NASPA Institute as a lever to introduce Learning Reconsidered and continued with her

79

hiring the Keeling Consulting Group to facilitate a one and a half day workshop over the
summer. The intent of the workshop was to provide technical training to support the
development of department-level learning outcomes and assessment measures. In contrast
to her decision to invite everyone in student affairs to attend the institute, very little else
that occurred along the central implementation track was inclusive. This was particularly
true of decision-making and planning related to implementation efforts. For example,
rather than discussing the merits of adopting Learning Reconsidered or how to introduce
it division-wide, the director-level staff was informed by Pippen how the process would
unfold. The Assistant Dean of Students and Director of Judicial Affairs shared:
I guess... that people that were part of a decision-making process maybe aren’t
any more, and that’s certainly caused some problems for those staff. . .I think what
has been problematic for some of the folks here is that maybe not everyone is
involved to the extent that they were before in kind of steering or goal setting.
One consequence of the lack of staff involvement in decision-making or planning
for implementation was increased frustration among otherwise supportive staff. The
Assistant Vice President and Director of the Campus Recreation Center and Student
Union noted:
That [lack of attention to planning] is the only thing that is frustrating. We are not
taking the time to plan for a lot of this. There has been no discussion, reflection,
how do you bring it back to your departments. Who are going to be your
departmental representatives that are doing to work with the new Associate Vice
President as she comes in in October. If I had to make any criticism as I read and

reread Learning Reconsidered, it is that planning hasn’t occurred, the planning for

80

change. And it’s not just with Learning Reconsidered. So, it’s a little bit of a
shotgun approach. And that doesn’t help with staff that aren’t used to assessment
and evaluation as a common theme. I think every chapter in Learning
Reconsidered 2 talks about planning. You are in for the long-term, you gotta bring
people on board, you gotta dedicate resources, you gotta make sure people
understand terminology. None of that was done as a division. We didn’t even set
division goals. There are no division learning outcomes.

Beyond a heightened level of frustration, a second result of the lack of inclusion in

decision-making and planning was a decreasing level of trust for Pippen within student

affairs.

A second lever used by Pippen to fuel implementation was program reviews. In
addition to the Keeling Group providing focused professional development for the
division, Pippen hired them during the spring semester to review three under-resourced
programs: Housing and Residence Life; the Health Center; and the Counseling Center.
Although program reviews were not previously done at ESU, the Vice President believed
their incorporation could benefit these departments by (1) drawing attention to the impact
of their current resource allocation on their services, and (2) providing expert advice on
how to enhance the quality of their programs and services by incorporating learning
outcomes. The response within student affairs to the introduction of program reviews was
mixed. In sharp contrast to the Director of the Health Ceriter who believed her bump in
funding was a result of the review, housing staff felt professionally undermined and
disrespected because they first heard about their impending review in a large, public

meeting without any prior discussion. The Assistant Director of Residence Life shared,

81

“Yeah, we found out in an open forum in front of other offices. It was very
inappropriate.” In spite of the mixed reviews of staff in regards to how they occurred,
Pippen shared, “I think that after some difficulty in the spring, the program review system
is proving to yield the desired results.” However, although changes stemming from the
review process were underway by the early fall, an undercurrent of distrust and animosity
towards the Vice President continued to grow in the division.

A third lever Pippen employed was hiring two new Associate Vice Presidents
capable of providing the leadership she believed was necessary to implement Learning
Reconsidered. Pippen shared:

I need some people who are, I didn’t say this publicly, I needed some ‘Mini-Mes’.

I wanted pe0ple that had both breadth and depth. What we had here was depth.

We didn’t have breadth. So I deliberately went out to look for people that lived in

different regions, you know, who had experience in other places... My two new

Associate Vice Presidents are an asset because I no longer have to feel like a lone

wolf crying out in the wilderness. There were times in the spring, in the fall you

are still getting to know people, you get into spring and it gets to be awfully
lonely. Basically I recognized I needed some help to be able to try to move this
along and that help was not going to come internally cause I needed it at the
highest levels of student affairs.
In addition to hiring two new Associate Vice Presidents, Pippen adjusted the titles and
responsibilities of a number of continuing director-level staff whom she believed could
support her efforts. She commented, “There are some people that actually get it and the

people I’m promoting, in addition to the one’s I’ve brought in, are the ones that get it.”

82

As Pippen’s hectic first year at ESU unfolded, her attention was consistently
drawn away from implementing Learning Reconsidered and towards other priorities and
emergent crises. Pippen disclosed:

And then, well, not much happened after that [the NASPA Institute]. We went

into program reviews. And then in the summer we brought the Keeling Group in

with a smaller group of staff to work specifically on Learning Reconsidered 2 -
the assessment piece. It has been pretty quiet since then which is why these are all
disconnected activities.

A number of staff concurred that the ongoing implementation process felt
disjointed and voiced concern over what they perceived was a lack of attention to how
the division was, or was not, working across their silos to implement Learning
Reconsidered at the divisional level. Others added that the Vice President had not
articulated clear expectations to guide department-level implementation efforts.
Additionally, a number of directors shared that Learning Reconsidered was rarely, if
ever, discussed in student affairs leadership team meetings.

In the middle of the summer Pippen employed two final levers, staff evaluations
and goal setting, to refocus the attention of staff on Learning Reconsidered. In each
instance, the Vice President acted without consulting her leadership team or providing
her directors advance warning of upcoming changes. Her leadership style and decision-
making process were a significant departure from previous norms in the organization. For
many directors, the change from being involved in the decision-making process to
learning about significant changes via mass emails resulted in frustration, anxiety, and

discomfort in their positions. By the beginning of the fall semester, many departments

83

remained in a holding pattern as they waited for the arrival of the Associate Vice
President for Engagement whom they believed was hired to lead the ongoing
implementation effort. The next section of the case will examine how the implementation
of Learning Reconsidered unfolded within three different departments at Eastern State
University.

Department-Level Implementation

Similar to the first two implementation tracks discussed, department-level
implementation stemmed directly fi'om the NASPA Institute. Even without the Vice
President articulating clear expectations or endorsing a specific implementation plan
following the institute, multiple student affairs units engaged in efforts to put Learning
Reconsidered into practice. The department-level. implementation process varied widely
across units and in each case was largely guided by the director of the unit. In addition,
department-level implementation often unfolded in a relatively decentralized, isolated
manner with minimal connection to division-wide efforts. How department-level
implementation unfolded will be examined in the following representative units: Judicial
Affairs, the Student Success Center, and the Recreation Center.

Judicial Aflairs — Sitting back and waiting. The Office of Judicial Affairs at
Eastern State University consists of one student affairs professional with the title of
Assistant Dean of Students and Director of Judicial Affairs and a part-time graduate
assistant. The primary responsibilities of the department include developing and
reviewing policies affecting student life, working with components of the Greek system,
and administering the student conduct process. The director brought with him ten years of

experience in student affairs when he stepped into his current position five years ago. He

84

stated that he generally agrees with the ideas and recommendations embedded within
Learning Reconsidered and shared that he had “tried to meld them” with what he believes
is central to the role of judicial affairs — to promote student learning. Even though the
director believed Learning Reconsidered was congruent with his own professional
values, he struggled with how it had been introduced, believing Learning Reconsidered
was “shoved down our throats” resulting in a number of his colleagues feeling “very
small” because of the process. He was also unconvinced that the current drive to
implement learning outcomes would remain a long-term commitment at ESU. He shared,
“I still always have concerns about actually committing to a direction whereas many
times I think that it’s just that we’re playing student affairs, not really committing to
something.”

Within his own department, the director had yet to develop or implement learning
outcomes nine months after their introduction. He shared:

I’m coming from the perspective of basically a one person office is a little more

difficult perhaps for me to do something than maybe for a larger office that, with

a handful of staff that might be able to dedicate more time to projects and one of

them being starting to create learning outcomes.

In addition to having limited time to develop learning outcomes, he was unwilling
to commit his limited resources until he had a clear understanding of the expectations and
the direction for the division. He explained:

I just don’t think that everybody kind of knows what is going on with regard to

Learning Reconsidered. I think it’s really just, we are looking for more guidance

about these things, you know, what are they supposed to look like... I have never

85

had conversations with colleagues about what this was all going to do for us. We

have kind of fallen short of that. .. So we have had trainings and I think different

offices are doing things to a different degree but I think we just haven’t seen the
big picture yet. And so I know there is a lot of hope and expectations with the new

Associate Vice President. That she is going to pull it together for us.

Even though the director was hesitant to implement learning outcomes, he
remained hopeful about their future utility at ESU and articulated that the training and
other levers employed by the Vice President were helpful in moving the division, and his
department, forward. He shared, “We are certainly committing some resources to
learning outcomes, which is certainly a good thing rather than always trying to do more
with less.”

Student Success Center — Full speed ahead. The Student Success Center at
Eastern State University is comprised of a director, assistant director, three professional
staff members, and two administrative support staff. The unit’s primary functional areas
are disability resources, veteran affairs, and the campus tutoring services. Similar to
many of their colleagues across campus, the staff is being asked to do more with
relatively stable resources. Both the director and assistant director arrived at ESU after
working in the non-profit sector where each worked extensively with grant-funded
programs. The director explained:

When you come from a different world than higher ed you bring so many other

skills and knowledge and when you are using like, I have worked for profit and

non-profit, and you are using other people’s money you better be assessing and

you better be able to prove why you are doing it again.

86

Although the NASPA Institute marked the director and assistant director’s first
introduction to Learning Reconsidered, they believed right away that it “made sense... it
absolutely fit, it just felt like it was different wording [from what we already do].”

In contrast to the minimal time allocated to implementing Learning Reconsidered in
Judicial Affairs, the staff in the Student Success Center worked diligently to develop
learning outcomes and assessment measures immediately after the NASPA Institute. Two
factors set the stage for their early implementation efforts. The first factor was the
presence of a culture of collaboration in the department. The director shared:

They [other directors] weren’t getting the buy in. I think our department was better

because we already work as a team and we already do each other’s jobs... and we

don’t have a problem with it. Other departments because of the unions, we have two
unions and management in here, and we have not had any issues come up like other
departments do with union stuff and all of that. We just work as a team. And we

might ask them to do things but we are doing their job too when they need it. So I

think our staff had better buy-in.

The second factor was an understanding among the staff that once the director committed
to an endeavor, it remained a priority until accomplished. Therefore, the director joked, it
was easier to work towards implementation than to listen to her talk daily about the
department needing to implement learning outcomes.

Although the culture of the department and the nature of the director provided a
foundation, the implementation process in the Student Success Center was enhanced by
thoughtful planning led jointly by the director and assistant director and inclusive of the

entire staff. In addition, the department benefited from the responsive leadership of the

87

director and assistant director who paid attention to the emerging needs of individual staff
and responded to meet those needs as the process unfolded. The assistant director
reflected, “I met with the different staff regarding, we knew that some staff, some of the
secretaries... they were intimidated by this. We helped them work through objectives and
all that.”

Within a week of the NASPA Institute, the entire department met in the cafeteria
to follow up on how they should move forward. At this meeting each individual, from the
administrative support. staff to the director, was given the charge to develop learning
outcomes for their primary area of responsibility. In addition, the group spent time
brainstorming learning outcomes and assessment measures in order to “get into the
practice of it.” Following the meeting, the directorand assistant director worked one-on-
one with individuals in the department. The director recalled:

We met as a group and then individually. You [the Assistant Director] with some

of them and then we came up with our learning outcomes. And then we talked

about how you are going to assess them. And part of it, for us it was really easy. I

think with the secretaries it was next easiest because we gave them a lot of

support. And they would say, ‘I’m too stupid to do this.’ And I would say, ‘No,

you are not. Look at the work you do here.’ So it really turned, I think, into a

positive thing. It build their self-esteem. .. the professional staff was a little more

resistant. And I’m not sure why. Actually, I know why, because to them it was ob
great it is another thing to do... so they are resistant because they are like, ‘How

am I going to do more work? And if I come up with these learning outcomes and I

88

have to assess them how am I going to assess them? Who is going to do it?’ And

so I think that is the resistance.

Following the institute, the implementation effort remained a central topic during
staff meetings and in conversations between the senior leadership and the administrative
and professional staff. As challenges arose, appropriate responses were brainstormed by
the director and assistant director to move the department forward. For example,
additional one-on-one coaching was incorporated to help individual staff make sense of
Learning Reconsidered and its utility in their daily work. As a result of their collective
effort, within three weeks they developed learning outcomes and assessment measures for
their core programs that were then emailed to the Vice President for her feedback; the
email did not receive a response. Undeterred, the ”staff spent the remainder of the
academic year and the proceeding summer adjusting their outcomes and programs;
during their annual August retreat, they discussed Learning Reconsidered and how it
might continue to influence their work as a unit. In reflecting on the ability of the Student
Success Center to implement learning outcomes the director shared, “For us it could work
because it makes sense, but for the follow through and for the whole division to do that it
can’t happen without trust.”

Student Recreation Center — Trying to find time to learn. The Recreation Center at
Eastern State University was built 17 years earlier and since that time has developed a
reputation among its professional and student staff as being a great place to work. Patti
Sola, an assistant director, shared, “I would say from since I first started I always felt like
the rec center was our own little oasis.” Having grown over the past two decades, the unit

is currently staffed by four professionals, an administrative assistant, and numerous

89

graduate and undergraduate students. The fast-paced work environment became even
more hectic in December 2007 with the retirement of the long-serving administrative
assistant, an assistant director away on maternity leave, and the departure of the director.
The Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs, and then interim director, recalled, “As a
staff we were really trying to maintain, get through from January to April with open
positions in a lot of my areas.”

Unlike many of their colleagues at ESU, the staff in the Recreation Center had
previous exposure to Learning Reconsidered before the NASPA Institute. Sean Segawa,
an assistant director, shared:

We all heard about it at a national conference. But then, before our current Vice

President was hired, our boss now, she had ameeting with all of her professional

staff and she was the first to really introduce it to us... our supervisor explained it to

us that this isn’t just a flash in the pan... you need to learn it and implement it. If
you don’t then you are behind the curve what other, what all universities should be
doing.
The Assistant Vice President explained her reasoning for spending time discussing
Learning Reconsidered early on with her staff:
I did that a year ago, before Charlotte came on while we had an interim vice
president. So in that interim I kind of started setting up the environment, that the
environment was going to change... I typed up a three page review of it... a cheat
sheet for my staff... I just started introducing it... and then in January we had the
NASPA Institute where we had five days of intensive topics on student affairs...

so, that was really our message, that it is coming our way.

90

In addition to reading the document, the director had her staff review related
articles, participate in an audio conference, benchmark themselves against other
institutions, and begin to evaluate the unit’s strengths, weaknesses, mission, and vision as
well as consider what they really wanted students to learn. During these early
conversations about Learning Reconsidered the staff started to understand its utility but
remained overwhelmed by the information and the amount of time it would take to
implement. Sean recalled: .

I guess in some way we could see that it made sense. We realize that students are

learning things that can apply to their lifelong learning as far as for their jobs and

things. But to write down what we plan on for them to learn and actually follow
through on that and telling them while you are going through this and how this
applies to your life versus we already assumed they were getting those lifelong
skills.

Although they had previous exposure to Learning Reconsidered when it was
introduced to the entire division at the NASPA Institute in January of 2008, each of the
professionals in campus recreation shared that the experience was “definitely
overwhelming.” In the months immediately following the institute, they focused on
maintaining services and programs and limited their implementation efforts to ongoing
monthly conversations. Patti reasoned, “Part of that was because our [then] director left
in December so we all had to take on more responsibilities so we really didn’t have the
time.”

As the academic year came to a close and the staff shifted their attention to the

busy summer camp season, the Assistant Vice President and now Director of the

91

Recreation Center continued to use staff meetings to focus their attention on Learning
Reconsidered. In addition, she frequently assigned the staff “homework” (e. g.,

developing outcomes, summarizing resources) and used their time together to share ideas

to move the implementation process forward. In late July the staff convened alongside

others in the division for the workshop by the Keeling Group to develop learning
outcomes and assessment measures. The staff commented that they appreciated the
hands-on approach that combined concrete examples, opportunities to develop outcomes,
and feedback fi'om the consultants. Patti described her state-of-mind following the

workshop:

It’s to the point that I don’t think it is overwhelming anymore, I feel like its more

manageable. And the time is still a little bit of an issue but it is nowhere like I felt

in the beginning. And it’s almost like after the third time finally it’s sinking in. I

know what needs to be done. I feel more comfortable reading the material. I know

what I’m reading.

By the beginning of September the Assistant Vice President, and now permanent
Director of the Campus Recreation Center, was balancing pressure to move forward
<111i ckly with her belief that to implement Learning Reconsidered effectively campus
recreation staff needed to devote ample time to the process. She shared:

I don’t care about my evaluation on the two [learning outcomes]... I want to make

sure that we have looked at our own mission statement, that we’ve sat down and

looked at all of our own areas and developed our own goals. And so, I’m backing

up with my staff because I noticed I was buying into the shotgun approach and I

think everyone is feeling that way... and I think you will hear that I think my staff

92

feels the same way. If they don’t understand the concepts fully and they just went
out to a day workshop where we scribbled notes and got handouts but they didn’t
really understand then it really is just a check, check. We do that. Yup, we do
learning outcomes... I just, I’m not going to respond that way... we haven’t done
the most important part. Where are the other six chapters? You know, one chapter
is on learning outcomes and all the others are on planning for, setting up the staff,
making sure they are ready for so that is kind of where we are right now.
With the goal of giving her staff the space and time to implement Learning
Reconsidered, the Assistant Vice President sent an email to the professional staff sharing
her concerns about the process thus far and outlining a plan to move them forward. Patti,
the Assistant Director of the Recreation Center, read a portion of the email, infusing some
of her own reactions:
My thoughts thus far. Adequate planning has not yet occurred - so she goes back
to things we need to do - review university mission, divisional mission, creation
of strategies, objectives, and goals. Address critical questions and take a look at
everything we do. Rethink everything and learn to do the student learning
outcomes and establish two of them.
Patti and Sean each shared that the email relieved a great deal of pressure they were
feeling to just get the learning outcomes in place. Patti reflected:
I think our supervisor has been the most helpful because I think if we were just
going to these meetings without her we would just think that the Vice President
just wants us to come up with two learning outcomes, quick, let’s get it done.

Let’s do a quick search. What can we borrow from another school and that’s it.

93

And she has made us really think about it and what we are doing and what it is

that we want our student to learn.

In thinking about how his perspective on Learning Reconsidered shifted over the past
year, Sean mused:
It grows on you. At first it was just kinda like here, we are doing this, you have to
do this. But the purpose is the betterment of the division but also our department
so we can make sure that what we are planning and doing has a purpose.
Although staffing challenges slowed the implementation process, by mid-
September the campus recreation staff was reviewing their mission, vision, programs, and
services in relation to Learning Reconsidered while beginning to develop learning
outcomes. After focusing significant early attention on building a common understanding
of Learning Reconsidered and discussing how its implementation might affect their
ongoing work in campus recreation they were now moving forward at their own pace and

led by the Assistant Vice President and Director of the Campus Recreation Center.

Moving Forward at Eastern State University

Nine months after the introduction of Learning Reconsidered at Eastern State
University many professionals continue to struggle to make sense of the document’s
recommendations in relation to their ongoing work within their departments. Others
remain uncertain of the vision and expectations of the vice president related to division-
Wide efforts or how department-level implementation connects to the bigger picture.
Although some remain excited about the possibilities that lay ahead for student affairs at

ESU, the majority have adopted a wait-and-see approach as they await the arrival of the

94

new Associate Vice President charged with leading implementation. The Associate
Director of Housing captured the uncertainty prevalent throughout the division:
She’ll [the new Associate Vice President] be doing, I and a lot of people are
assuming, a lot of the assessment piece that will kind of consistent for all of the
areas to use. I think that’s honestly where I, speaking for myself, am still looking
for direction. That is what is stopping-up the division at least fiom my perspective
and the different people that I talk with is that we are still kind of waiting even for
the expectations of the VP to be clearly shared with the group maybe on a regular
basis and for a direction of where this is all going.
Summary
Learning Reconsidered was introduced to the division of student affairs at Eastern
State University during the NASPA Institute, a five-day, on-campus professional
development experience. Charlotte Pippen, the recently appointed Vice President of
Student Affairs, intended to use the Institute to kick start implementation by providing
tlle staff an understanding of the importance of Learning Reconsidered by placing it in
the broader history and context of postsecondary education in the United States. The
reslaonse of the staff to the institute was mixed. Although many were excited by the new
fOCIrs on learning outcomes and assessment, others were overwhelmed by the prospect of
beimg stretched even fiirther and some felt Learning Reconsidered was being “shoved
dOWn their throats” by the new vice president. Following the conclusion of the institute,

implementation occurred along three different tracks — the cabinet level, centralized

Stlldent affairs, and department-level.

95

As the process unfolded, Pippen spent the majority of her time framing the utility
of the document to her colleagues on the cabinet and less time communicating with her
staff in the student affairs division. The lack of ongoing communication or clear
expectations from the Vice President left department-level directors unsure how to
proceed. Another outcome of the lack of discussion about the effort was a growing
distrust of Pippen and increased frustration among the previously engaged department-
level directors. Pippen’s lack of attention to the implementation effort within the division

(outside of the NASPA Institute and a visit by the Keeling Group) was particularly
frustrating to her staff when she employed levers to nudge implementation forward such
as an unexpected and retroactive change to staff evaluation. Consequently, the staff
increasingly felt that implementation was being forced on them with little time provided
for planning centrally or within departments. In short, many student affairs professionals
felt that change was happening to them, not with them.
Even with the lack of clear expectations or ongoing communication by Pippen, a number
of departments in which Learning Reconsidered made good sense moved forward
quickly to develop outcomes and assessment plans. These departments were frequently
led by professionals with previous experience writing and assessing learning outcomes.
011 the other hand, in units where the recommendations in Learning Reconsidered were

less of an obvious fit, the implementation effort was slow to move forward.

96

CHAPTER FIVE
Pioneer State University
The implementation of Learning Reconsidered in the Division of Student Affairs
at Pioneer State University [PSU] unfolded over the past five years following its
introduction by the long-serving Dean of Students and Vice President of Student Affairs.
Although the primary impetus for implementing Learning Reconsidered varied among
the “homegrown” student affairs professionals at PSU, the key shared driver was a
critical accreditation report that resulted in a renewed institution-wide focus on the
assessment of student learning — a core recommendation of Learning Reconsidered.
Other influential factors included: 1) the presence of a Dean of Students who was eager
to document the impact of student learning in the division; 2) the leadership of the Vice
President and multiple mid-level directors; 3) the decentralized implementation process;
4) the unique institutional culture; 5) the availability of in-house experts to support the
efi‘ofl; and 6) student affairs staff attendance at national and regional conferences.

In the five years since the introduction of Learning Reconsidered on campus,
mmtiple departments at Pioneer State have received national recognition for their
ongoing implementation efforts. On the other hand, many student affairs professionals at
PSI} believe the implementation effort has resulted in only modest success. This case
Study begins with a description of Pioneer State University, moves to an overview of the
division of student affairs, and concludes with a synopsis of the generally decentralized

in'lplementation process of Learning Reconsidered at PSU, including how it unfolded in

multiple departments within the division.

97

Institutional Overview
Pioneer State University was founded in the last quarter of the 19th century to
serve as the flagship institution of a largely rural and relatively “isolated” Midwestern
state. Today, the town in which the university is located has grown to a bustling city of
50,000 described by the Assistant Dean of Students as “a small town” in which
relationships are important and trust is essential. The campus physical plant is a mix of
well-manicured lawns, a meandering creek, and many well-maintained, new, or recently
renovated buildings. Among the recent additions to campus are a state-of-the-art wellness
center, a spiritual center, hockey arena, and suite-style residence hall as well as a
renovated student union building and main library. Students, faculty, and staff are quietly
proud of the university and their collective accomplishments, and are quick to welcome
guests to campus to share with them their love of PSU.

The university currently enrolls 10,000 undergraduate students each year who
pursue degrees in 193 fields of study. Pioneer State has particularly well-regarded
Programs in elementary education, psychology, communication, and nursing and is
internationally renowned for its outstanding aerospace program that attracts students from
around the United States and the world. The undergraduate population is split equally
between in-state students from the numerous rural towns that dot the sparsely populated

State and out-of-state students from the suburbs of the closest metropolitan area located
300 miles to the southeast. In addition to its undergraduate degree offerings, the
university annually enrolls a combined 2,000 advanced students pursuing degrees in its

graduate school, school of law, and medical school.

98

The Pioneer State University website notes that the institution has a “strong
tradition of academic excellence and service to learners,” and remains “proud of the
quality of its academic programs and the success of its more than 70,000 alumni.” In
addition to its continuing commitment to providing an outstanding educational
experience for its students, the two most recent presidents focused significant attention
and resources on enhancing the quality of research across campus. The Assistant Provost
for Assessment summarized:

I would say that PSU is an institution that has a long history of being very
learning focused, and teaching and learning has been fairly highly valued. And we
have been in the last ten years undergoing a transition to being a more
purposefully research-orientated campus... It’s a pressure at every institution.

And it’s one that in the last several years has been particularly strongly felt here...

We are trying to have our cake and eat it too as an institution with no more

resources. And what that means is that there’s just this constant effort to do more

on the backs of the people who are already here.

Beyond fulfilling its teaching and research missions, Pioneer State is also the
Primary intellectual, cultural, and social hub for the region. Throughout the year the
carnpus hosts numerous lectures, continuing education opportunities, theatre productions,
festivals, and intercollegiate athletic events. The university’s athletic teams are a point of
Pride for the entire state and evidence of the town’s pride in the university is on display in

the myriad campus symbols that decorate the restaurants, shops, and public spaces

throughout the community.

99

For a variety of reasons, including the campus being a “friendly place to work”
and the university being an “employer of choice” in the region, faculty and staff
fi'equently discussed their appreciation of the high quality work-life at the university. The
Director of the Student Union commented, “The staff that are working here love working
here, and, I, and I am saying that in the broadest sense of the staff.” Another
administrator shared that there is “the sense that we are all family. That we are all Pioneer

State University.” Possibly as a result of the high quality of work-life, many participants
noted that faculty and staff longevity was the norm throughout the institution. The
Associate Dean of Students, an alumna herself, shared,

There are different levels of being inside and everything is relationship based and
there is kind of an unwritten expectation that if you come here that longevity
means that you spend 30 years here because that is what many of our senior
leaders have chosen to do.

The relational nature of campus is further enhanced by the moderate size of the

institution. The Coordinator of Greek Life reflected:

For me, in terms of the culture, is again, it’s the size of this institution. Twelve-
thousand students is really a great number and I think what makes it great is
there’s the ability for strong relationships to develop across areas... on this
campus I could give you the direct phone number of anybody in probably any
department that'I could specifically refer a student to.

The Assistant Dean of Students, a staff member relatively new to the university,

concurred with the Coordinator of Greek Life’s assessment and added:

100

I think the thing that becomes evident very quickly is how important relationships
are... and the level of integrity that is expected within that relationship that you
are going to have is, I think like a lot of folks in the west, there is an assumption
that I can trust you until you prove I can’t trust you and once you lost that it is
really difficult to get back.

The impact of staff longevity and the relational nature of the organization were
noted as having both positive and negative ramifications on the adoption and
implementation of new ideas such as Learning Reconsidered. The Associate Dean of

Students reflected:

I think that [longevity] brings along its own culture in that we replicate what we

know and sometimes knowing new things is rather problematic. People don’t

necessarily want that.
The Director of Multicultural Affairs, a staff member who considers himselfan outsider
even after 10 years at the university, added:

Well, it is obviously a learning experience when you come into a culture where

most of the people are homegrown. They are fiom this state, they know the

Pioneer State way, they use the term “Midwestern Nice” a lot and that could be

good or that could be bad. It could mean that they are not thinking out of the box.

That they are not willing to open up and think outside the box.

In contrast to the perspective that longevity inhibited the introduction of new
ideas, the Associate and Assistant Deans each also shared that it frequently contributed to
new ideas being successfully put into practice. They theorized that new programs were

able to be successfully developed because one by-product of faculty and staff working

101

together over many years was the development of high-quality, highly collaborative
relationships at PSU. Evidence cited to support this perspective included the existence of
flourishing curricular and co curricular programs such as the highly innovative aerospace
program, a model crisis response team, and a cutting-edge wellness initiative.
Student A flairs at Pioneer State University
The Division of Student Affairs at Pioneer State University has along history of
contributing to the quality of the student experience through its myriad support services
and co curricular programming. The comprehensive and relatively large organization
includes traditional student affairs fimctions as well as the university’s continuing
education and outreach programs. The division is organized into four relatively
autonomous clusters — Student Services, Enrollrnent Management, Wellness, and
Continuing Education. The departments that populate each cluster report to an Assistant
or Associate Vice President described by the Vice President as each “marching to the
beat of their own drummer.” Kathy Svenson, the Associate Vice President for Student
Services and Dean of Students, oversees numerous areas including the Dean of Students
Office, Student Union, Women’s Center, and Multicultural Student Services. Dr. Janice
Goida, the Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management, provides leadership to
Admissions, Financial Aid, the Learning Center, and Career Services. Dr. Shana
Albright, the Assistant Vice President for Wellness, leads the Wellness Center and
recently assumed responsibility for the Student Health Center. The Continuing Education

cluster, which is comprised of continuing and distance educatiOn programs, was not

examined as part of this study.

102

The division is led by Dr. Steven Van Galder, the long-serving and highly
respected Vice President of Student Affairs and the former Dean of Continuing
Education. Van Galder arrived at PSU in the mid-19705 after serving as a high school
principal. He has garnered a reputation among academic administrators, faculty, and
student affairs staff as a strong communicator and outstanding leader who takes time to
bIJiId relationships with individuals at all levels of the organization. Van Galder believes

that “organizations are never about things. Organizations are always about people.” He
continued, “One of the secrets of effective leadership is to know your people very
well. . .particularly those that work most closely with you. They are individuals.” His
enactment of these values led to his hiring four assistant and associate vice presidents
with diverse personalities and leadership styles that he provides with ample autonomy to

operate in their own unique way. Van Galder shared:

I get these four together. It’s interesting to see them interact, because they are four
very different people. And yet they like each other. They respect each other. They
support each other. Wouldn’t even dream of not being supportive of each other,
but they kid each other because of the approaches that each takes is different.

The majority of student affairs professionals at Pioneer State are “local,
homegrown talent” that often pursue, if ever, a graduate degree only after they have
secured a position in the division. Gwen F omley, a current faculty member in the higher
e<iucEltion program and former vice president of student affairs, described the staff:

I have very high regard for many of the professionals in student affairs at PSU. I

think it is an interesting organization because it is a major university. However,

because of geography, they have a very difficult time recruiting and retaining

103

highly qualified professionals... you don’t, by virtue of educational background

in the leadership team of student affairs, you do not have academically

credentialed student affairs professionals. . .I think people are doing the best they

know how to do.

The student affairs division is filled with long-serving, dedicated professionals
who are committed to students and their success. The widely-shared ethos of the

organization was summarized by the Coordinator of Greek Life: “I think it is a culture
that really is all about the students. It’s about helping them to the extent that we can.” The
centrality of students in the minds of many student affairs staff is symbolized by a plaque
found in nearly every office across campus commemorating a former vice president’s
mantra, “But is it right for students?”

Despite student-centeredness being a core organizational value, it has not
consistently resulted in the implementation of innovative programs or practices across the
divi sion. Gwen Fomley explained:

This organization, in my mind, feels like it’s in the late 803, early 905. There’s not

a service orientation... 1 don’t see the kinds of things that I did in the 903 as an

administrator and the kinds of questions I had to be asked and had to ask myself

in the 903 and early 2000. .. We need to think. We need to reirnagine what we’re
doing. I don’t think this organization has.
One eXplanation cited for this is that the division and the majority of the professionals
that DOPulate it have maintained only a modest degree of involvement with regional and
natiol15511 student affairs organizations. As a result, PSU has remained relatively isolated

from a number of national trends.

104

As discussed in the overview of the broader institution, staff longevity in student
affairs was noted as contributing to a tension between the implementation of new ideas
and maintaining things “as they have always been done.” The Assistant Dean of Students
remarked bluntly of his first impression of how PSU operated:

The thing that struck me in my first several weeks here is how many fucking rules

there are in this place. And it has to be said that way for me... I was overwhelmed

with how rule-bound the culture is.
The Assistant Dean shared that part of his frustration was due to the unwritten nature of
the rules that frequently guided decision-making across the organization and the strict
adherence many of his colleagues had to them. One reason for the rule-bound nature of
student affairs professionals at PSU was articulated by the Coordinator of Greek Life,
“I ’m a suck up and I live in a culture of suck ups. So I think that people want to make the
people above us happy. We want to impress them. We’re that — you’ll hear the phrase —
Mi dwestem Nice.”

A consequence of the rule-bound culture in the division was noted by Vice
President Van Galder who stated that one of his primary roles in leading any change
effort in student affairs at PSU was to grant permission to the staff to try something new.
He Stated that without permission being granted from the top of the organization, it was

unlikely that any change effort would be successfirl.

Among the myriad unwritten rules at Pioneer State was a historical delineation
b'E’t‘Ween the roles of student affairs professionals and faculty. The Assistant Dean of
Student explained, “There is this distinction between the work we do and the work they

see themselves doing and it is competing... in terms of being a student affairs person here

105

the work is valued but the work is not academic.” The Assistant Provost for Assessment

articulated the faculty perspective on student affairs matter-of-factly:
I think that in general, faculty are kind of oblivious to student affairs people...
and student affairs has very little reason to draw itself to their attention... But a
lot of the student affairs side of things would be pretty much invisible or not
salient to faculty. They wouldn’t think about it.

Vice President Van Galder added that in his experience, even when student affairs

professionals were content experts on a topic, they were rarely viewed that way by their

faculty colleagues.
Over the last few years, however, the Assistant Provost noted a shift in the profile

and role of student affairs among the university leadership and faculty slowly occurring:
It’s my perception that that has actually decreased in recent years that, in fact,
student affairs has perhaps raised their profile and been more purposefully
involved with faculty and in things that interest faculty. I think the work has come
from their side, but it’s my perception that they have — they are a little more
integrated into things that might nest on the academic side of campus. .. I think
that came from their side of the house... I do know for example that student
affairs people sit on the assessment committee... and they are — I mean, they are
just totally viewed as peers... And I think about the Essential Studies, or General
Education Task Force that put together the new general education program. There
was a purposeful effort to make sure that we had student affairs people
represented there and they were very thoroughly integrated... of course, lines are

there... But the fact the lines don’t seem to be noticed or thought about by people

106

in general suggest to me that they are more integrated than they would have been

some time ago.

The Dean of Students shared another reason for the recent shift in the value for
and perception of the student affairs professionals among faculty and academic
administrators. She believed that it was the division’s ability to effectively respond to a
series of high-profile tragedies on campus that increased the value of student affairs
among many of her academic colleagues on the Dean’s Council. As a result of student
afl‘airs’ collective ability to effectively navigate these high profile incidents, the Dean of
Students in particular and the division in general were gaining respect among the
President, Council of Deans, and the broader university community for their competence
and professionalism.

In summary, the Division of Student Affairs at Pioneer was in the midst of
gaining increased respect among its academic colleagues while simultaneously
integrating slowly into the academic side of the institution. One result of these two
changes was that a number of key student affairs professionals were active members of
the recently reinstituted University Assessment Committee developed in response to the
critical accreditation report. The shifting relationship between student and academic
afl‘airs was positioning the division to actively participate in the institutional response to

the accreditation report’s call for PSU to ramp up its assessment of student learning. It
was into this milieu that Learning Reconsidered was introduced and implemented.
Implementing Learning Reconsidered at Pioneer State University
The implementation of Learning Reconsidered at Pioneer State began after its

introduction by the Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students during the

107

2 003-2004 academic year. Though their individual motivations for introducing it
differed, each recognized the utility of the document’s recommendations in improving
Practice across the division. The Vice President’s initial introduction of Learning
Reconsidered to the director-level leadership team was well-received. As implementation
progressed, Vice Present Van Galder adopted a decentralized process in which each
as sociate vice president was asked to provide leadership for their cluster and
departmental directors were charged with selecting which recommendations they put into
practice and how they would do so.

While many variables influenced the implementation process, one particularly key
factor was the timing of the effort in relation to Pioneer State’s renewed focus on
assessing student learning that resulted from a critical accreditation report. The
Coordinator of Greek Life, who also served as a doctoral intern supporting the
implementation process, reflected:

I think for us it really was, you know, kind of those two roads converged in a
woods or something like that. PSU had its visit by the Higher Learning
Commission... I’m gonna be off in my years but they did converge... . basically
we were told as an institution we needed to do better in the area of assessment of
student learning. And while I think primarily the Higher Learning Commission’s
criticism came of more the academic side of the institution, our Dean of Students
serves on the Council of Deans so she certainly hears those messages when
they’re reported... She realized that we were doing learning outside of the
classroom as well, that this wasn’t just about the learning in the classroom .

because the students were learning in our programs.

108

One result of the convergence of the heightened level of accreditation-fueled

anxiety permeating Pioneer State and the timing of the introduction of Learning

Reconsidered was that the student affairs directors were looking for something to put into

place to support the institutional response to the report. The Coordinator of Greek Life

continued:

And so I think the Higher Learning Commission being here and saying we need to
do more, Learning Reconsidered just came out at the right time and it was the
piece Dean Svenson could bring back because it talked about student learning and
assessment in a practical manner and in a student affairs or student services type
of presentation. It was an easy read. . .. And again, that middle chart I think just
was this aha moment for people and it allowed them to realize, “Oh yeah, this is
how my program fits in there”. .. It was just this, by coincidence, we were at a
point where the Higher Learning Commission then challenged us on student
assessment and Learning Reconsidered was just this really practical tool that
could be applied to what we were trying to find out and it provided a common

language and I think that was really important.

The Greek Life Coordinator’s perspective on the importance of the timing of the

introduction of Learning Reconsidered was shared by many of the student affairs staff at

PSU. The general sentiment was that because Learning Reconsidered provided a

common language and easily understood framework to guide department-level

assessment of student learning and was introduced at a time when staff were looking for a

way to contribute to the institution-wide response to the accreditation report, it was

quickly embraced.

109

The implementation effort that unfolded at the departmental level was fueled by
anxiety related to the accreditation report and the drive to contribute to the broader
institutional effort to assess student learning. The final two sections of this case study
include: 1) an overview of the efforts of the Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean
of Students to introduce Learning Reconsidered and promote its implementation; and 2) a
description of the implementation process within the division of student affairs across
multiple, representative departments within three of the four clusters in the division.
Bringing Learning Reconsidered to Pioneer State University

Learning Reconsidered arrived at Pioneer State via the US Postal Service. Vice
President Van Galder shared his initial reaction upon receiving and reviewing the
document:

I got a mailing from NASPA, and the publication came in the mail. It caught my

attention... because I remembered a book by Ernest Boyer... called Scholarship

Reconsidered. . . When I saw that title, I thought, if this is asking us to think about

learning in a — in a different way that could be energizing and exciting simply

because it is different — like moving your furniture around your living room. I

mean, there’s some energy that comes from just having something different. But

what I was hoping was that the publication was not only going to help us think
through a different paradigm, but that it was going to be grounded in some
research and would provide more than just kind of a new model.
Within the same time period, the Dean of Students learned of Learning Reconsidered
while attending a program session at a national student affairs conference. Dean Svenson

recalled:

110

When it [Learning Reconsidered] first came out. .. I said, “Oh, this is something
that could be helpful because there is always the quality improvement piece and
there’s the why should we fund this activity anyway.” So there’s the quality piece
but there is also the accountability piece. And being their leader I knew that that
would work and I liked what I read in Learning Reconsidered.
In the weeks following their introduction to the document, Dean Svenson and
Vice President Van Galder agreed to share Learning Reconsidered with directors
throughout the division of student affairs as well as with academic colleagues. Van
Galder commented on the initial wide-scale introduction to the division:
We purchased enough books so that it could be fairly widely distributed around
the division. Then I — I have a Council - Student Affairs and Continuing
Education which is made up of my four associate and assistant vice presidents and
all of their direct reports; so it ends up being about 23 people. . . that’s where we
began to talk about Learning Reconsidered and how does it have an impact on us.
Many of the home-grown student affairs directors’ comfort with and response to
the initially foreign ideas embedded in Learning Reconsidered were closely connected to
their educational and professional background. The Union Director recalled how he relied
on his experience in the military as a trainer to make sense of the document:
Learning Reconsidered came out. It was shared throughout our division... I read
it, and it was very clear to me... it makes sense. I realize, “Gee, I’ve been doing
this for years.” ...So it made sense, so it wasn’t really where I had to do a lot of

understanding. It was just a piece of cake.

lll

During these early conversations, the majority of members of the Vice President’s
Council quickly recognized the potential utility of implementing the core
recommendations in Learning Reconsidered. A common reaction was captured by the
Assistant Vice President of Wellness:

Dr. Van Galder brought that publication back from NASPA. So. the Learning

Reconsidered and then Learning Reconsidered 2 came forward, and as you know

the myriad different partners signed on to that... including NIRSA [National

Intramural- Recreational Sports Association] and others were saying, “Boy this

makes some sense.” We’re able to look at things like cognitive complexity. We’re

able to look at some of the things that we know we value and now we’re going to
try and say how that fits... because this is 'so — you know for years in student
affairs, my understanding is we’ve been saying real learning happens outside the
classroom; you know internships, coops. Real learning happens there. But real
learning happens in social settings. Real learning happens in extracurricular
activities. We’ve been saying that, and we’ve been saying that we contribute to

the whole academic experience, but now we’re being asked to prove it. And I

think that’s ok.

Although the majority of directors responded positively to the introduction of
Learning Reconsidered, a small cadre of student affairs professionals reacted with less
enthusiasm. One reason for their reluctance was a perception that the document lacked
relevance to their work. The Assistant Provost for Assessment shared a recent
conversation, “I remember a meeting with someone from student affairs here at PSU last

spring that clearly saw this as, you know, like a poor fit being imposed upon them for no

112

clear reason.” The Vice President of Student Affairs believed that this perception was a
result of the lack of time he and the associate vice presidents allocated to working
directly with staff members that struggled to initially grasp the ideas in Learning
Reconsidered. He stated:

There were some who understood how valuable it could be, and there were others

who didn’t get it. I think those who didn’t get it, we need to take — those of us in —

on the vice presidential and associate vice president level have to take some
responsibility for that. Again, people don’t resist change, they resist being
changed. . .But I don’t think we were as successful as I wanted us to be at almost
on a one-to-one [level].

By the end of the first few months of implementation many directors in the
division were on board. In reflecting on the division’s efforts to put Learning
Reconsidered into practice, Vice President Van Galder explained that he believed that
three key things laid the groundwork for the organization to move forward. He recalled:

One is that messages were clearly sent that this is something we want you to think

about, and in that sense I suppose we listed it as a priority. But it, it was seen by

the leadership, the council as something that merited their attention. Secondly, the
thing that I’ve talked about since is that people were then given permission. They
were given permission to not approach Learning Reconsidered from the same
way and applying it the same way, or even taking the same nuggets, to use the
Union Director’s terminology. So a combination of priority and permission. And

then, you know I think to some degree, recognition, not in the sense of

113

motivation, but recognition in the sense that collectively people could see ‘some

results.

In the five years since the initial introduction of Learning Reconsidered, a series
of actions were taken by the Vice President, Dean of Students and others to move the
implementation effort forward. These included: 1) prioritizing its implementation for
staff throughout the division; 2) granting directors permission to choose their own
approach to putting the document into practice; and 3) recognizing the effort and
outcomes of the implementation process throughout the organization.

With the goal of sending a message to the members of his Council that
implementing Learning Reconsidered was a priority, Van Galder kept it as a frequent
agenda item at council meetings. The Director of the Learning Center stated, “It was
presented to us and laid out. And not just once but a couple of times.” Over time, the
conversations at the council meetings morphed from discussing how Learning
Reconsidered might be implemented at Pioneer State to how different departments were
putting the ideas into action. The Director of the Union shared:

I even remember making a presentation to the council early on... As I think about

it, I think several of the departments made presentations as time went on, on how

we were using Learning Reconsidered. And it was mostly around assessment.

In addition to keeping Learning Reconsidered on the agenda at the council
meetings, Van Galder gave significant attention to providing the education and training
needed by individuals in the division to move forward on their implementation efforts.
Among the support mechanisms developed were a “Dean’s Seminar” that operated

similarly to a book club, the funding of “several people over time to go to assessment

114

conferences,” a series of training sessions by in-house experts, contracting an educational
leadership faculty member and appointing a doctoral intern to work with individual
directors on their efforts, and availability of the Assistant Provost for Assessment as an
informal consultant. The Assistant Provost described how she helped student affairs staff
move forward and why she believed she was effective:
Those kinds of things are all one-on—one conversations... with a specific person
who’s directing an office or one service or another who contact me and says, I
have this question. Or, how do I do this? Or, can I ask you a question? Or
something like that. And I mean, one-on-one when you can sit down together and
brainstorm about a particular challenge that somebody’s had... I’m not
constrained by knowing anything about what they are doing. So, I mean, I can
start from zero, except my knowledge of assessment, I can ask them questions.
It’s just a fun conversation. And they’ve been really amenable to those
conversations... And what makes that for me with both faculty and student affairs
people is the fact that they are coming to me voluntarily... But the thing of it is,
anytime you’re having this conversation where they have a problem, they can’t
figure out how to do something, they know that they’re being ask to do
something. And I’m not the hammer. I’m the tool, you know? I’m helping.
One lever used to prioritize Learning Reconsidered across the division was the
additional requirement that each department submit an assessment plan articulating
ongoing efforts to document student learning. After three years this stand-alone

assessment plan was integrated into each department’s annual report that is shared

115

campus-wide with feedback given by the University Assessment Committee. The
Coordinator of Greek Life noted:

I think it [the implementation of Learning Reconsidered] really probably, where

the tire meets the road, it’s a part of our annual report... so there’s the whole

section on assessment. Well, we’ve got to have something there and it can’t just
be satisfaction. Our university assessment committee evaluates our assessment
just like they do the academic units and they’re gonna look, are we providing
opportunities for students to learn.

Another lever cited by Vice President Van Galder that enabled implementation
was that individual directors were given permission to take risks as they chose how to put
Learning Reconsidered into practice. Van Galder stated:

I have never seen any kind of paradigm shift of any significance take place within

an organization without permission being granted. And change or paradigm shifts

always carry with it a degree of risk, and that’s where permission comes in. If I

don’t have the permission, and I don’t mean in the sense of I wrote a memo, and

you said approved on it. Permission comes in a variety of ways, yet it — it may
simply be a word of encouragement that’s given, or someone comes in and says,

“I’d like to try something new.” And you give that sense that you’ve almost been

liberated to - to try something. That, that permission ends up being terribly,

terribly important. I think that those who took Learning Reconsidered and applied
it in whatever way... did so in an environment where they felt they had

permission to do so.

116

An additional lever shared by Van Galder was the importance of recognizing the
good work that staff members were engaged in throughout the division. Recognition
came in multiple ways including the vice president asking early adopters to share their
implementation stories at council meetings as well as providing forums for others to
develop workshops to further encourage and support their colleagues’ efforts. The Dean
of Students was cited as particularly effective in “sharing the success stories” in various
forums as the process unfolded. Finally, a number of directors were encouraged to submit
the results of their efforts to their professional organizations. As a result, many
departments were included as examples of good practice in Learning Reconsidered 2 and
on the Learning Reconsidered website.

In contrast to the generally positive reception Learning Reconsidered received
within the division of student affairs, the document was generally ignored after its
introduction by colleagues in academic affairs. The Dean of Students recalled:

So I gave copies. .. [to the] Provost saying, “We would like you to visit with us

about where the collaborative pieces are”... so the Acting Provost, she never did.

And she is a friend of mine, but she never did find the time to see this as a

priority. So there was never a conversation but I said, “I don’t care, we are going

ahead because he and she that write their own future will have a future.”
Not to be deterred, Dean Svenson introduced Learning Reconsidered to other members of
the newly reconstituted University Assessment Committee on which she served.
Although this failed to result in her academic colleagues collaborating on student affairs’
implementation efforts, it eventually lead to the division’s work to document student

learning being included in the institutional response to the accreditation report. Division-

117

wide awareness of this inclusion, and the recognition that resulted, were cited by a
number of directors as firrther fueling implementation efforts within their individual
departments.

In addition to the aforementioned factors affecting implementation, numerous
student affairs professionals were influenced by their professional development and
continuing education experiences outside of the division. In the midst of implementation
a number of staff members attended a regional NASPA conference where they heard a
keynote address from one of the authors of Learning Reconsidered. The Director of the
Union recalled:

Susan Komives was one of the keynote speakers, and listening to her keynote, all

of a sudden the things that she was saying had matched very closely with a lot of

the things that I had been thinking about to this point because I had walked into
this role with a lot of work to do with the staff. And so it kind of sparked the idea
after listening to her about the relationships between the staff and the students on
the employment side.

Finally, a number of mid- and entry-level professionals were completing masters-
level coursework in educational leadership and as a result were taking a course taught by
Gwen F omley that exposed them to a number of resources - including Learning
Reconsidered — that supported their implementation efforts. In fact, many early adopting
mid- and entry-level administrators in the division shared that it was as a result of their
experience in this course that they developed their commitment to, understanding of, and

ability to implement Learning Reconsidered.

118

Implementing at the Department Level

Following the introduction of Learning Reconsidered by the Vice President and
Dean of Students and the Council’s collective decision to embrace it as a guiding
document, putting the various recommendations into practice was charged to the clusters
under the leadership of the four associate vice presidents. The Assistant Vice President
for Wellness recalled:

This charge was then delivered by — from Vice President Van Galder’s level. He

has four AVPs, and they take it back to their unit saying, “Ok guys, you know,

belly up. This is what we need and this is when we need it by.”

Although how each associate vice president led the effort differed, all of them
provided some degree of autonomy to the directors in their cluster to choose how
implementation would occur at the department level. In the three clusters examined —
Student Services, Enrolhnent Management, and Wellness - the process unfolded at
varying paces and in different ways. The Coordinator of Greek Life, because of her role
as doctoral intern, was responsible for documenting implementation efforts across the
division. She shared her perspective on how and why the pace of implementation varied
across clusters:

1 think the student services area was probably the quickest to come on and I think

that is because it is the fairly traditional student services... I think in the

enrollment management area it may be a little bit not as quick to come on. I don’t
think they are as engaged with NASPA as a unit type of thing. .. I think for them
it’s a little bit more difficult — as it would be for me - to decipher the student

learning that results fiom financial aid or from the admissions process... I think

119

for our TRIO Programs [as part of the Enrollment Management], again,

applicable, but they have various other reporting methods and requirements per

federal grants and stuff like that, so I think those units, a little bit slower... I think
our Wellness Center embraced it... Wellness came on like gangbusters when they
finally just got the facility built. So again, a little bit later, but that was only
because it had to come later. They had to get that facility operational.

In addition to the variable pace of implementation across clusters, the process by
which each unfolded also differed. The final section of this case provides an overview of
the implementation process within a number of representative departments in each of the
clusters across the student affairs division.

The student services cluster — It just fit. At the time of the introduction of
Learning Reconsidered, the student services cluster at Pioneer State University consisted
of many of the “traditional” student affairs departments including the Dean of Students
Office, Student Union, Greek Life, Multicultural Affairs, and the Women’s Center. The
cluster was led by Associate Vice PreSident and Dean of Students Kathy Svenson who,
after 35 years of service at PSU, was widely considered the primary voice of student
affairs on campus. Because of her dual roles as division-wide change agent and leader of
the student services cluster, many tactics she employed at the division level were also
used to promote implementation by directors in her cluster. Throughout the process Dean
Svenson articulated that she was guided by two core beliefs. First, she believed that
although each director was managing multiple priorities, they were all “people of good
will trying to be good team members about moving ahead on assessment.” Second,

Svenson believed that if she mandated the implementation of Learning Reconsidered, it

120

was unlikely the effort would succeed. She shared, “If they don’t see it in their own best
interest it will never happen.”

Upon receiving the charge fi'om the Vice President, Dean Svenson quickly
commenced with repeated, cluster-wide conversations in staff meetings and later at a
retreat. She recalled:

We went through it [Learning Reconsidered] in terms of just brainstorming what

they [individual departments] might apply beCause we are talking it is a brand

new idea. It’s a brand new book. Have people assess their stuff. Well, we have

gotten lots of, “Oh, everyone is happy with me” kind of thing. So, we had the

mantra of moving from satisfaction to student learning outcomes as the direction.
In the midst of these discussions, Svenson recognized that her director staff varied
significantly in their ability to develop learning outcomes and assessment plans. She
reflected, “What I needed to figure out was that not everyone knows how to write
learning outcomes or does research. It is not stuff that they have done. . .. So my job really
was to have them find their way.” This early recognition led Svenson to create the Dean’s
Seminar, hire a faculty consultant, and fund student services staff to attend assessment
conferences to support their efforts.

From the outset of the implementation process in the student services cluster,
Dean Svenson granted significant autonomy to her directors. This freedom led some to
move forward immediately while others stalled and grew fi'ustrated by the lack of
concrete and common expectations. Svenson reflected, “What the directors wanted was
why should they do something if so-and-so wasn’t doing it the same way. Well, they

don’t have the same goal.” Though she found some of the director’s initial responses

121

perplexing, Svenson said it was her patience and commitment to refiain from dictating

how to implement that led to the process flourishing. She reflected, “You know, people
were just kind of irritable but I wasn’t ordering it being done. But, just instinct told me

that people will only go where they want to go.”

One early ad0pter in the student services cluster was Dr. William Stone, the
Director of the Multicultural Center. Stone shared that after his initial introduction to
Learning Reconsidered at the council meetings, he took the document back to his office,
closed the door, reviewed it, recognized its utility, and quickly incorporated ideas related
to holistic student learning and the assessment of learning outcomes into a preexisting,
peer-based student retention program. Stone shared that because the Multicultural Center
consists of a single full-time professional, one administrative assistant, and three graduate
assistants, he was solely responsible for the task of conceptualizing how to put Learning
Reconsidered into practice. He stated:

What we [directors across the division] did is we looked at Learning

Reconsidered as a concept, because that is all it is — a concept, guidelines if that is

what you want to call it. We looked at that and we made those connections to

what we do and we just reconsidered what we do and how it would fit with this
theory or guidelines or concept... So I kind of put it into my mentoring program
and made it fit, made my mentoring program fit some of their theories and ideals
and guides that came out of Learning Reconsidered.

Reflecting on the factors that supported his implementation efforts, Stone credited
his doctoral studies and dissertation work in providing him much of the foundational

knowledge and skill he needed to move forward. He shared a significant level of

122

fi'ustration that although the university administration stated that it embraced the
program; they lagged in providing additional financial support to allow its fiirther growth.
Due to the lack of additional resources, Stone stated that he has had to rely on his
entrepreneurial initiative to secure funding through various state and federal grants and
Pioneer State University’s Student Government Association.

A second early adopting department in the student services cluster was the
Student Union. Union Director James McCann arrived at Pioneer State after a career as a
trainer in the US Air Force. His experience as a life-long trainer and educator resulted in
his immediate commitment to improving the morale, productivity, and retention of
student employees in the Union. After a significant building renovation in 2004, McCann
found himself searching for a way to “write a new chapter” for the building and therefore,
decided to conduct a survey of the student staff to ascertain what they thought of their
experience working in the Union. The results of the informal survey led McCann to
recognize that an opportunity existed to develop a program that would fiirther enhance
the quality of the student employee experience by increasing their awareness of what they
were learning. He stated:

Okay so the issue about being intentional, there really wasn’t any intentionality

taking place. Students were learning. I did the survey again the next year, the

same thing asking them questions. Are you learning? Yes they are. But the staff
really wasn’t doing anything special.

Within the same time period that McCann began to develop and pilot an initiative
to intentionally promote student learning, Learning Reconsidered was being introduced

in the student affairs division at Pioneer State. Soon after, his drive was further fueled by

123

attending a session at a regional conference that advanced his understanding of how the
document could be put into practice. This series of convergences led McCann to ask
himself and his staff three questions that continue to guide implementation efforts in the
Student Union - What are students learning? How do you know? And how are we using
the results to improve?

In order focus his attention on promoting learning among student employees,
McCann turned over the task of putting the document into practice in the student services
side of the Union to the Greek Life and Student Organizations staff. He shared:

On the student development side of the house, they were implementing

assessment strategies and leaming outcomes with the constituent of students that

they worked with in the Greek community, student organizations; the students

that were external to the university. From my perspective, they were, I

empowered them to completely do whatever they felt like they needed to be

successful.
With attention focused on improving the quality of the student employee experience,
McCann began to develop the program. He shared, “On the auxiliary side of the house,
I’ll just say I led the charge for the learning outcome and assessment strategies.” He
continued with a smile on his face, “Well, I guess I would say sometimes it’s my way or
the highway. Okay, I do — I have a little trouble with having to get buy in and getting buy
in.” Although McCann moved forward with implementation in a generally unilateral
fashion, he remained cognizant of how he might harness the culture and norms already in
place at the Union. As an example, McCann’s recognition that students and their

supervisors fiequently developed close relationships led to him focusing on providing

124

training to supervisors on how to “coach” the students in ways that increase their
learning.

McCann took a series of actions with the goal of enhancing learning among
student employees. First, he develop learning outcomes for the student employees by
reviewing Pioneer State University’s mission statement, outcomes of the general
education curriculum, Learning Reconsidered, and a list developed by the National
Association of College Employees of the top ten characteristics that employers look for
in college graduates. Second, he conducted a workshop for student employee supervisors
to introduce the basic concept of the initiative, explain the importance of their role in
promoting student learning, and ramp-up their ability to and comfort with serving as a
“coach” by providing consistent, quality feedback to students.

The third action McCann took was adjusting full-time employee job descriptions
to align with the increased focus of supervisors on promoting student learning. He shared
his memory of the reasoning behind this change:

There is nothing in their job descriptions that says you will — how will you

interact with students on the job. How will you use feedback skills to help them

learn beyond the practical aspect of the job? So when were hiring people we’re
hiring them based on their ability to do a job, and that why the auxiliary service
person is task oriented and not really pay attention to help the student learn,
because they haVe a job to do... So maybe we look at job descriptions, and maybe
we start putting in there, in the job description, that we’re looking for people with

outstanding communication skills, or interpersonal skills... There better be

125

something in her job description or his job description that tells - that we better be

hiring somebody who can help student learn in the workplace.

McCann’s fourth action was his decision to require all full-time staff to
“interview” a student to find out what they learned while working in the Union. McCann
hoped that the interviews would spur the staff to begin having consistent conversations
with students about what they were learning and result in students’ increased reflection.

Although McCann took a number of actions, he refiained fiom using Learning
Reconsidered and its philosophical foundations to train the staff. He also avoided asking
them to write reports or document the impact of the implementation effort. McCann
commented:

All 1 want staff to do is go through the day with the students, and if you see the

opportunity where they’ve done something where you can give them some good

positive feedback, give them the good feedback. Make them feel valued and
appreciated, and one of the ways we help them feel valued is when they see
they’ve learned something. I’ll worry about writing the reports, and I think it also
goes back to when I was talking about the buy-in and the reaction — the initial
reaction is because people are afraid. These are, these are staff members that may
not normally or typically write reports or put assessment plans together. I’ll take
care of that.

McCann also recognized that some of the staff has remained uncomfortable with the

change in their roles resulting from the implementation of Learning Reconsidered. He

shared:

126

So my job now is to, is to continue everyday, and you don’t just give them a
workshop and even put them out there and leave them be. You know it’s
everyday, how are — how am 1 setting the example and working individually now
with each staff member on their strengths and their skills.

Finally, although McCann moved quickly to put Learning Reconsidered into
practice, some of his staff wished that they had been more involved with the process from
the outset. The Coordinator of Greek Life reflected:

I think for the people at the coordinator level who might have been really

interested and found this fascinating, I think we were the second tier of the

involvement and that was one of my things... This one really started with the
directors and I think in a lot of the units, that’s the people who did it. And some of
our units are very small... I mean it’s by nature, but like in our unit, it was

Director McCann who did it and tried to communicate it to the rest of us where I

wish I would have been able to be at the table to be involved in that conversation

with the directors.

The Enrollment Management Cluster - Sharpening the focus. The Enrollment
Management Cluster at Pioneer State University includes Admissions, Financial Aid, the
Learning Center, TRIO Programs, and the Career Center. The cluster is led by Dr. Janice
Goida, a homegrown administrator who ascended to her position after serving as the
long-time Director of Financial Aid. Goida, like the Dean of Students, served as a
member of the accreditation self-study team and as a result was well aware of the need
for PSU to ramp up their efforts to assess student learning. Even prior to being introduced

to Learning Reconsidered, Goida’s drive to contribute to the institution’s focus on

127

student learning led her to push the directors in her cluster to view students utilizing their
services as learners rather than as customers.

Goida’s initial introduction to Learning Reconsidered occurred at a Council
meeting when it was presented by the Dean of Students and Vice President of Student
Affairs. She shared her initial response to the document, “Conceptually it works, it works
very well. Structurally it is much too formal and rigid and theoretical for practical
application.” Regardless of her personal feelings regarding its utility, Goida brought it to
her directors for their consideration after receiving the charge to implement it at the
Council meeting. She recalled:

When it was presented to us at council it was also presented with the expectation

that we each draft and implement assessment plans. And so as part of that I looked

- the way we talked about it in the Enrollment Management unit, we talked about it

in a number of management meetings where it was just the directors. When we do

events or we do any of our activities or when we do our work, what things have
students learned? How do we know? And what are we going to do about it? So
each of the areas for whom I have responsibility were asked to develop assessment
plans, and have.

The general ideas embedded in Learning Reconsidered (i.e., the focus on holistic
student learning, the importance of learning in co curricular settings) were almost
immediately embraced by the directors. One reason cited for this was that many directors
were already embracing the culture shift of viewing students as learners. The Director of

the Learning Center shared:

128

I would say that Learning Reconsidered wasn’t this aha moment. It maybe just
brought everything together a bit more. Again, in a more concrete way in terms of it
being written down in a publication or in a document... it’s given credibility [to the
focus on student learning]... sharpened it. Brought it to the foreground more, but it
wasn’t a massive change, it was just more focused, intentional — words to describe
it.

F olloWing its introduction, the cluster-level implementation effort consisted of a
few conversations among the directors and Goida setting the expectation that each
department submit an assessment plan. Once this expectation was set, Goida allowed
each director to work autonomously and continued to focus her attention on promoting
the shifi in the culture to viewing students as learners. She articulated her role in the
implementation process in the following manner:

I see things more administratively or more, that you have to have... If we are going

to change a culture here or if we are going to bring something of importance it has

to come somewhat officially, politically. So I see the political nature of most
everything because that is where I sit and live and work. And without that it falls
apart no matter now great the idea is. And so 1 function with much more of an
expanded political role and it has to come from somewhere with someone’s name
on it to start and be able to speak about it officially.
In looking back at the implementation effort within her cluster, the Director of the
Learning Center commented:
You know, I don’t think we struggled with implementation because we have always

understood students as learners. It just put a report, or a shape to it, so I don’t recall

129

it as being a big deal. And I don’t think we acted like Learning Reconsidered was

the greatest new invention... it just shaped it. And as Dr. Goida indicated, it wasn’t

something that she necessarily had to mandate to us because it was all just natural,
you just needed a frame to report.

The Wellness Cluster — Coming on strong. When Learning Reconsidered was
introduced at Pioneer State University, the Wellness Cluster was a single department - the
Wellness Center. Just a few years prior, the Wellness Center consisted of a newly hired
director, a former closet in the campus field house that was being. used as an office, and a
small room filled with outdated exercise equipment. In her first few years in the director
position Dr. Shana Albright, a physical therapist by training, relied upon her background
as a small business owner to build relationships across campus, develop a business plan,
hire a staff, win fiinding from the student government to open a new building, and
oversee its construction. Although these competing priorities initially slowed the
Wellness Center’s implementation of Learning Reconsidered, in the 12 months since the
new building opened significant progress was made to put the document into practice.
Today the Wellness Center is described as a fast-paced environment with over 100
student and full-time employees that are “like a crazy family.”

Albright, like many of her colleagues on the Vice President’s Council, was
initially introduced to Learning Reconsidered by the Dean of Students and Vice
President. Once she was charged with putting it into practice, she purchased copies for
each of her senior staff, required that they read it, had them present on various chapters,
and began staff-wide discussions about its applicability to their work. The Assistant

Director of the Wellness Center for Strategic Planning recalled her reaction:

130

When Learning Reconsidered came out, Shana made us all read it... And I read

the book and was completely confused ‘cause I had never really heard of stuff like

this. I wasn’t immersed in the higher ed world. I just happened to work at a

university was kind of my mentality at that point. And so I really didn’t

understand it. I read it and didn’t get it... Outside of Shana bringing in the book
and having some discussions about it, I never really heard much about Learning

Reconsidered. So it was really more about the accreditation visit and the need for

assessment across the university.

Following these early conversations, the director charged a staff member who was
enrolled in the educational leadership masters program the task of moving the
implementation effort forward. Albright recalled:

At first blush... it was like, “Well this is not a big deal,” and then as she got into

theory and the construct of what it really is, it was like, “Oh my gosh, I’m so

blown away, I don’t even know where to start.” And so it was like, “Okay breathe
deep. Let’s work with your [faculty] advisor. Let’s take a look at what’s possible
for us to take on.” Because her personality is a large personality, so it was like,

“Well we’ll assess everything, everything we’re doing all over.” We said, “Wait,

wait, wait, and wait. Let’s take a bite that we can actually get our mouth around

and might be able to chew.”
This conversation resulted in a decision to focus their efforts on developing learning
outcomes and assessment measures to document the impact of a single initiative - the

Wellness Center’s student employee program. The Assistant Director shared:

131

I know they spun their wheels on it for awhile and then they came up with ...a list

and maybe some questions I think that we had implemented into a survey.

In the midst of the initial implementation effort, the staff member assigned to lead
the process graduated and left the department. Dr. Abright reassigned responsibility for
implementation to the Assistant Director. Although she shared that she “really didn’t get
it [Learning Reconsidered],” the Assistant Director felt significant pressure to quickly
begin assessing what students were learning in order to contribute to the institutional
response to the accreditation report. Regardless of her lack of understanding, she worked
with colleagues in the Wellness Center to assess nearly all of their programs and sought
out professional development opportunities to further develop her knowledge and skills
related to assessment. She shared that it was not until after attending an assessment
conference sponsored by NASPA with the Coordinator for Greek Life - a year into the
process - that she began to understand the “big picture.” At the conference, she also
recognized the lack of collaboration existing across departments at PSU in their efforts to
assess student learning. She stated:

The Greek Life Coordinator and I talked a lot about assessment within the

division while we were there; and since then the two of us plus a few others have

worked on or are starting to work on assessment for the division and starting to
develop a plan for how that can — how we can all work together.
The combined efforts of the Assistant Director, Coordinator of Greek Life, and Director
of the Learning Center to focus on division-wide assessment efforts, rather than the
ongoing implementation occurring in a decentralized manner at the department level, was

the first that had occurred since the introduction of Learning Reconsidered.

132

Implementation after Accreditation
In the four months after the follow-up visit by the regional accrediting group,
there remained mixed feelings about ongoing efforts to implement Learning
Reconsidered and the assessment of student learning at Pioneer State University. The
Assistant Director of the Wellness Center shared:
I have heard very little about assessment since the visit outside of the Wellness
Center or this group within the student affairs division that’s focusing on
assessment and things like that, but I mean generally, you just don’t hear much
and there’s not as big of a push for assessment anymore.
On the other hand, the Coordinator of Greek Life believed that the culture at Pioneer
State, at least within student affairs, was shifting towards embracing student learning
outcomes and their assessment -— though maybe not completely. She stated:
We are assessment focused. You know, I just think of the conversations we’re
having now. It is —- we can’t wait until two years before the Higher Learning
Commission returns or whatever, we need to make this a part of our culture or
continue to make it. It’s not about - it’s a part of our culture, so we can’t lose that.
We’re having the conversations about what to do next... And I think we’re trying
to get better at it. I think that the most important thing that we knew we needed to
try something. You had to start, I think again, like I said, we tried to do everything
and now we are realizing that we can be a little more focused, that maybe we pick
a program or we pick a student experience and we try to better and more fully
understand it and get a deeper knowledge of what the students are learning

outside the classroom. It’s the closing the loop aspect. I don’t know that we’ve

133

done it. I think we have... I don’t think —— I think across the board, student affairs
across the country, it’s hard to let go of thing that maybe the students are not
learning from... But it’s that closing the loop and allowing data to be what
informs our practice and not just about personal feelings, love of a program,
anecdotal evidence, that type of things. But I don’t know. I think we add, add, add
but I don’t know that we can let go, but it’s using the data to close the loop.
Once the pressure and anxiety of the accreditation visit was removed as the
primary driver of implementation, a small but growing push was emerging to reexamine
the status of the effort. The Assistant Vice President for Wellness, a supporter of the
process but cynical of it actual impact on practice at PSU, remained hopefiil that a recent
conversation with her colleagues would lead to further efforts. She commented:
So we had a deadline, and then had to file these reports, and then they [the
accreditation team] came, and everybody got the, “Yeah they could talk to you.”
You know, “Be prepared, you know what’s going on?” But now we’ve gone past
that and I brought it back up, and said, “I don’t think we did it” ...and there’s a
few of us that are asking questions.
Although questions were being posed by senior leadership to push implementation
forward and an informal group of professionals had begun to meet to discuss division-
wide efforts, the status of the effort to put Learning Reconsidered into practice post-
accreditation remains unclear to many at Pioneer State.
Summary
The introduction of Learning Reconsidered occurred at Pioneer State University

in the midst of the campus responding to a negative accreditation report that “dinged”

134

them for a lack of attention to the assessment of student learning. In short, the long-
serving Vice President and the Dean of Students each believed that the division’s
implementation of Learning Reconsidered could simultaneously improve practice,
position the division to lead the institutional effort to assess student learning, and shore
up support for programs and services. F rom the perspective of many professional staff in
student affairs, the adoption of the document was viewed as an appropriate and timely
response to the accreditation report’s call to focus increased attention on the assessment
of student learning.

Following the relatively inclusive adoption of Learning Reconsidered by the Vice
President’s council, the effort to put the recommendations into practice unfolded in a
highly decentralized manner within the clusters and departments of the division. Initial
reactions among the “homegrown” and moderately professionalized student affairs staff
varied from significant excitement accompanied by a flurry of activity to modest support
with little immediate focus on implementation. The response of mid-level professionals
was frequently connected to their educational and professional background as well as
their perception of the relevance and utility of the recommendations to their unit.

In the four years following the initial introduction of Learning Reconsidered, a
number of departments at PSU received national recognition for their efforts. Vice
President Van Galder believed that it was the good work of the senior-level staff in
working individually with department-level directors that moved the process forward.
Additional factors included accreditation being a common driver that maintained the
focus on the professional staff, the consistent and persistent communication of its

importance from key leaders, the granting of autonomy at the cluster and department-

135

level to implement in a manner that made good sense within individual units, the
availability of expert support and professional development, senior leadership giving
permission to try new things and take reasonable risks, the Dean of Students and others
recognizing and celebrating the effort and success of those putting Learning
Reconsidered into practice across the division. In the months following the accreditation
visit, the immediacy to implement Learning Reconsidered had waned. This abrupt shift
led a number of staff to question the long-term commitment in student affairs to focus on

learning outcomes and assessment.

136

CHAPTER 6
High Plains University

Learning Reconsidered was introduced to the Division of Student Affairs at High
Plains University [HPU] on two separate occasions. The first attempt to put Learning
Reconsidered into practice occurred near the end of the tumultuous tenure of an outgoing
Vice President of Student Affairs and was short-lived. The second push to implement
occurred a few years later and was prompted by a reintroduction of the document by Dr.
Kacy Burton, the popular and well-respected Executive Director of Housing, Dining, and
the Student Union. The ongoing hnplementation effort unfolded in the midst of HPU
gearing up for accreditation and dovetailed with the division’s reexamination of their
organizational mission, vision, and values. Upon the second introduction, Learning
Reconsidered was generally well—received by the directors and associate directors across
the division who viewed it as a useful tool that could serve as a springboard for their
development of learning outcomes. This case study will begin with an overview of the
institution, continue with portrait of the student affairs division, and conclude with a
discussion of the division-wide and department specific implementation efforts to put
Learning Reconsidered into practice at High Plains University.

Institutional Overview

High Plains University welcomed its initial cohort of 42 students to campus in the
fall of 1884 when it opened its doors as the first college in the state. The university,
located in the mountain west, has grown significantly since its founding and now
educates nearly 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students in 86 bachelors, 66 masters,

and’26 doctoral degree programs and its law and pharmacy schools. Well-established

137

programs in business, life sciences, natural resources, engineering, and an emerging focus
in alternative energies are particularly popular among students.

The undergraduate population, many of whom are the first in their family to
attend a college or university, is comprised primarily of students from the ranches and
small communities that dot the landscape across the high plains and mountains of the
state and its immediate neighbors. The students are described by the faculty and staff as
hard working, respectful of authority, relatively well-behaved, and appreciative of the
opportunities available to them. Students share that they are attracted to HPU because the
campus is located in a pleasant college town of 27,000 with access to “the great
outdoors” and the university’s reputation of providing a quality education with personal
attention by friendly faculty and staff. Once students arrive on campus many quickly
become involved in the 150 active student organizations, myriad athletic and cultural
events, and institutional governance. The university website describes the institution in
the following manner:

High Plains University stands at the forefront in the exploration of emerging

technologies and concepts, giving our students the types of hands-on involvement

and one-on-one attention rarely found at other colleges and universities. And we
also continue to be recognized nationally as one of the best values in higher
education.

Over the past number of years the campus underwent a significant facelift and
remains abuzz with activity as older buildings are renovated and new buildings are
constructed following an infusion of monies fiom the state and federal government.

Included among the ongoing building projects are a renovated business school, an

138

updated residential dining facility, a facelift for the student union, a new health sciences
center, renovated research and classroom buildings, and a planned state-of-the-art
performing arts center. In spite of all the building, the campus maintains a friendly, small
school feel and walking across it, passersby notice numerous interactions between
students, faculty, and staff along tree-lined sidewalks or in the main quad known as “the
pasture.”

Today, over 120 years after opening its doors, High Plains University remains the
only four-year college in the state. As a result, the institution is frequently challenged to
meet the expectation that it be “all things to all people” as it strives to fulfill multiple
missions as a land grant college, research university, and access provider. Another
outcome of being a “system of one” is that the culture and norms of the university are
closely linked to the people and culture of the region. The Assistant Director of
Residence Life described the connected cultures:

It [HPU] is a unique place and I realize that more and more as I started my

doctoral program [at a neighboring institution]... as I’m explaining HPU, people

are in awe. That we only have half a million people in the state, that we are the
only state four-year institution, you know, all those pieces. So I think to really
understand HPU you’ve got to understand the state. So I talk a lot about the
egalitarianism of the state, the live-and-let-live philosophy of the state, and the
whole pull yourself up by your bootstraps. You know, people here are fantastic
about helping but you generally need to ask. They are not going to come to you so
to speak. And you know, I always say they are so friendly and kind but a student

of mine from a neighboring state said to me once, “It’s not that people from the

139

state are friendly, it’s that they are lonely.” And I think sometimes that might be

part of it, too. You really have to be at peace with kind of being on your own and

that rugged individualism comes through here. I think that all plays into the
university.

Although individualism is valued, another component of the institutional culture
noted by faculty, staff, and students is the highly relational nature of the campus
community. The Associate Director of the Union shared his perspective on how to
succeed as an administrator on campus:

You definitely have to build relationships. This is a very small state, we only have
half a million people in the entire state and so, if you are at, if you are in a
management position, it is very likely that you know multiple people around the
state including the trustees and all that. So it is a little bit like social inbreeding in
terms of networking and that kind of stuff.
The highly relational campus culture is further amplified by the informal interactions that
are common among faculty and administrators living in a small, friendly western town
over a long period of time. One mid-level academic affairs administrator stated:

Yeah, I have lived next door to the Associate Provost for 17 years and he has

always been Wally. I know he is Dr. Anderson but he is just Wally. I have known

Michael [the President] since our boys were in kindergarten together and he is just

Michael.

These informal and longstanding relationships were noted as leading to a great deal of

respect and trust existing among faculty and staff for one another.

140

In addition to their value of and personal respect for many of their colleagues on
campus, the faculty and staff almost universally communicated a deep commitment to the
institution and its advancement. For much of its first 100 years High Plains University
was content to be a good school and focused on serving the needs of the state. However,
under the leadership of its immediate past and current presidents, HPU began to believe
that it could be an outstanding university and started implementing a planning process to
achieve such a reputation. The Assistant Provost shared:

When my role in central administration began, and that also marks the time

which, in my mind, that the university began, what I believe to be, a fairly steep

upward climb as an institution of increased stature, as a higher education
institution. That — that came about because of a president, because of a planning
process that the president helped us learn how to do. It began — and it’s now
driven by institutional level plans.

Although the top-down implementation of the initial strategic planning process
was widely challenged by faculty and staff as being pushed on them and generally non-
inclusive, it resulted in a number of significant accomplishments and a noticeable shift in
the culture of the institution to appreciate strategic planning. The Assistant Provost
remarked:

One of the observations I made... was I think the best thing that came out of

Academic Plan 1 [the initial strategic plan], of all the items that we accomplished,

was that we as an institution began to realize that you can benefit from strong

planning. It started to develop credibility for the institution with our legislators —

the state’s leadership, and it’s still paying off today. .. So as I describe us now, as

141

we go into this Creation of the Future series, or Academic Plan 3, which we think

will now be called University Plan 3... the planning processes have come

together. So we’re all trying to figure out how we do this together with academics
still being the reason for being - but more as peers. We, as academics, we need the
resources of administration, of facilities, of space, of buildings. We need support
services for our students and our staff and counseling and all of those issues...

That’s how I describe the university, as it’s driven by planning. It sets priorities

by planning now.

Concurrent with the rise of strategic planning at High Plains University has been
an increased focus on program reviews and institutional assessment, particularly at the
college and department level within academic affairs. While the academic programs were
developing learning outcomes and measures to assess them in response to a push from the
regional accrediting group, student affairs departments were focusing their attention on
the assessment of student satisfaction with their programs and services.

'As various stakeholders at High Plains University embraced increasingly higher
aspirations for the institution, the drive to push forward varied among administrators and
faculty. The Associate Director of the Union captured the ongoing push-pull that
continues to exist between the “old way of doing things” and the new way:

People here, I feel, are very dedicated to improving. But, a lot of people will say,

“Well, this is the way it has always been done.” And there is a little bit of that

mentality but we also have a lot of forward thinkers and progressive thinkers. And

so, you do kind of do battle... the progressive thinkers do a little bit of battle with

142

the “this is the way it has always been done” group, the “let’s not change

anything” folks.

. Student Affairs at High Plains University

The moderately sized, relatively complex, and increasingly professionalized
Division of Student Affairs at High Plains University is populated by well-educated,
highly committed, and pragmatic professionals who enjoy the place they work. The
mission of the division was outlined in a campus publication:

The Division of Student Affairs is committed to the learning, success, wellness,

and overall development of our students so that they may become informed and

contributing citizens of their communities. Focusing on Students - First! Is the

motto of the Division. We are focused on the success of HPU students as: (1)

individuals prepared for continuous learning and attainment of professional goals;

(2) members of a diverse, scholarly, and respectful community; and, (3) citizens,

leaders, and productive members of our global society.

The degree to which staff members across the division believe in this mission is
demonstrated by the large number who display the motto “Students-First!” on plaques in
their offices and talk fluently of how the mission guides their work. A residence life staff
member shared her perception of the organization after three years on campus:

I really think that we live the mission and the vision. And it comes out in

everything we do, which I think is very unique. Coming fi'om a larger school,

there are more people that interact here. But I think there is something about the

HPU way of being set up, they really want students to succeed. And that is at the

core of everything that we do and everyone bonds around that mission. And it

143

really works. And people really love it here... Thereis just this deep love for

HPU and that helps drive everything that we do.

Another reason cited by a number of student affairs professionals that they
enjoyed working at HPU was the support they feel to take risks and implement new ideas,
even if their initial attempts were not immediately successful. The Assistant Director of
Residence Life stated:

My experience with things that haven’t worked or haven’t gone flawlessly has

been absolute support from the administration. Never once have I heard, “Well,

we didn’t think that was going to work but we thought we would let you try it,”
those types of things. And we get support for those things that we thought needed
to happen. Do we need to pour more money into this? Do we need to discontinue
doing it? How do we revise it? Does it need to be a partnership? Just a variety of
different things; the support is absolutely there to keep pushing through.

The division is organized into three clusters — Wellness, Enrollment Management,
and Housing, Dining, and the Student Union. Each cluster is coordinated by an executive
director or associate vice president who reports directly to the vice president. The
Wellness Cluster is led by Jesse Fox, the Dean of Students, and consists of Campus
Recreation, Student Health Services, Counseling Center, and the Dean of Students
Office. The Enrollment Management Cluster consists of Admissions, Financial Aid,
Student Educational Opportunity [SEO], Registrar, and the Center for Advising and
Career Services. The final cluster is composed of Housing, Dining and the Student Union
and led by Dr. Kacy Burton. Burton arrived at HPU after spending much of her early

career at her alma mater in the east. She is appreciated by her staff for her expertise,

144

support, and commitment to students and is respected campus-wide for her work ethic,
drive, awareness of national best practices, and colleagueship.

The student affairs division is led by Dr. Katrina Ameson, the former Vice
President of Enrollment Management at High Plains University. The Assistant Director
of Residence Life described Ameson by stating, “You know, she is, wow, just a mover
and a shaker, that is all there is to it. And just a person that is looking out for the
students.” Ameson’s leadership style was captured by the Dean of Students:

Our Vice President is very collaborative... she’s not top-down. She doesn’t say,

“You gotta do this.” She says, “Well, whatever works.” She’s very positive, and

she is also quick to recognize when she’s not in an area that she is comfortable

with. She allows other people to have their skill sets, so it’s a very, for lack of a

better way of saying it, very collaborative.

Since Arneson assumed the vice presidency, many entry- and mid-level student
affairs professionals remarkedthat they felt increasingly trusted, valued, and capable of
contributing to the future direction of the organization. A veteran residence life
professional shared:

She really values what we have to say, where we live, what we do and she does

not have a residence life background but she considers us the subject experts in

what we do. And, she listens to us. It is kind of remarkable to be listened to and
remembered at the level we are at and really get to contribute to where we are
headed and the things we are going to do.

Although the student affairs division has a proud history of contributing to the

quality of the student experience at High Plains University, its record of collaboration

145

with academic administrators and connection to the academic mission has fluctuated over
time. The shift of the division to being an organization intent on collaborating with
academic administrators and faculty to directly support the academic mission — and
student learning - began approximately 35 years ago with the hiring of Bill Gullickson as
the then Dean of Students and senior student affairs officer. Vice President Ameson
reflected:
I think the evolution began, our former student affairs VP, Bill, you know, started
here in the mid-19703. He reported to the Provost at that time and then ultimately
evolved into the VP of Student Affairs. Before that time there wasn’t as close a
relationship, but he had a faculty appointment so he saw the connections.
Gullickson recognized that in order to enhance the division’s relationship to the
academic mission, it was essential to create opportunities for student affairs staff and
administrators from the academic side of the house to come together to discuss issues
affecting students. Kacy Burton reflected:
Yeah, we had a rich history of joint academic/student affairs collaboration... the
article that the Assistant to the Vice President authored with Bill in the 19808
about a major initiative [that is now the Associate Deans and Student Affairs
Directors Group]. At the time it was a committee. At the time it was the deans and
student affairs directors but it eventually became associate deans and it is going
through its own growing pains and changing pains now. But it was a profound ‘
committee to bring directors and deans to talk through joint issues 20 years ago.
During Gullickson’s tenure the commitment to collaboration permeated student

and academic affairs and resulted in numerous successful joint initiatives. However, at

146

the same time cross-divisional cooperation was increasing, collaboration remained sparse
between departments within student affairs. During this period the unwritten agreement
among directors was “you do your thing, I’ll do mine” and as a result, the division
operated in a relatively “siloed” manner with significant competition among departments
for limited resources.

Following Gullickson’s retirement the division was briefly led by Sally Pringle, a
vice president described as “having her own agenda” who tried unsuccessfirlly to
implement a number of “outside ideas.” Although perceived as quite bright, Pringle was
also noted as being less gifted at building collaborative relationships than her
predecessor. Her leadership of the division resulted in increased decentralization, further
competition among directors, decreased collaboration, and waning credibility for student
affairs in the eyes of the upper administration and faculty. The current Director of the
Freshman Interest Groups noted, “I think we went from a very strong leader to one that
disseminated a lot and wasn’t very successful, truthfully, back to a pretty strong leader in
Katrina. I think she is a very cohesive person.”

Serving as the Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management during this
rocky period, and being deeply committed to collaboration, Katrina Ameson recognized
the importance of repairing the strained relationships when she stepped into the vice
presidency. Ameson stated:

So much of what we do is relationship driven on our campus. There are so many

good relationships... We’ve gotta work together... You know, Kacy and I want to

have good relationships and we don’t want to have them deteriorate and the long

term support for everything we do hinges on how willing we are to work with

147

other people. You know, and be good players. And follow through and do our

part.

Vice President Ameson’s relational leadership style and commitment to
collaboration resulted in higher morale within student affairs and increased respect
among key allies in academic affairs. The Assistant Provost commented, “My attitude has
been cemented by the fact that the more I work with student affairs professionals, and
realized that they are professionals, the easier it is to work with them.” The culture of
collaboration at the vice president and assistant provost level continues to spread
throughout the institution. The Director of the Freshman Interest Groups shared:

I think that it [culture of collaboration] is very top-down from my perspective, I

think it has to come from the top . . . I think there are people at the VP level that

got along, had a common goal, and worked together and you know that culture
just does spread down. And once it starts to spread down you know and it gets
into your soul as a line-level person, it is really hard to pull that back out again so

I think there is a lot of relationships that were built with the director of housing

and the coordinator of living learning communities that were in residence life, you

know, once you get to know those people and work with those people, those
relationships are established and they stay.

In addition to the revived culture of collaboration, former Vice President
Gullickson’s early commitment to connect student affairs to the academic mission of the
institution resulted in student learning remaining a priority for many in the division. Ted
Dewey, the Director of Residence Life, recognized this commitment when he arrived on

campus approximately eight years earlier:

148

When I got here what I noticed was there was a cadre of individuals across the
division that were talking this way [about student learning]. And they were
talking a little bit more sophisticated than we had been as my former institution.
The kinds of questions they were approaching was, “How can we actually tie the
curriculum itself to the residential experience?”. .. They had administrators, not
just in student affairs but in academic affairs, who were having this conversation.
They had each found each other and were talking. Clearly, Dr. Burton was one of
the leading parties in that cadre of individuals.
The ongoing conversations between Kacy Burton and others in student affairs and
a number of faculty colleagues and academic administrators led to several successfirl
joint learning-centered initiatives including the development of residential learning
communities beginning in 1998 and the creation of the Student Success Center in 2003.
Each of these initiatives was an outgrowth of a team of faculty and administrators coming
together to improve the undergraduate student experience at HPU. Executive Director
Burton reflected, “There were certainly some growing pains with that... part of how these
initiatives were was getting people to the table, talking about the issues, collaborating,
disagreeing, coming up with a game plan.” Burton described how one of these efforts
unfolded: .
A bunch of us went to Evergreen College for the Learning Communities Institute.
I’m trying to remember what that was — we had a team of five. And then we threw
together the learning community initiative, sort of started focusing on those

efforts. We had a site team visit with folks. All of this was kind of rolling then

academic affairs shifted gears a little bitmoving towards assessment of student

149

learning in the classroom so Wally’s [the Assistant Provost] focus shifted and it, it

wasn’t like we walked away. We did some things. We had a couple things going.

And they were focused on assessment at the department level in academic affairs

and then in residence life we were getting into renovations and we couldn’t

guarantee growth. So anyhow, we had a ton of momentum and a lot of people at
the table and good things happened and we kind of maintained I guess but then
the focus shifted a little bit.

It was soon after the shift within academic affairs towards the development and
assessment of student learning outcomes at the department level, driven by a push from
the regional accrediting group, that Learning Reconsidered was initially introduced at
High Plains State University. The remainder of this case study provides an overview of
top-down process by which key recommendations in Learning Reconsidered were
implemented in the student affairs division.

Implementing Learning Reconsidered at High Plains University

Learning Reconsidered was introduced on two separate occasions in the Division
of Student Affairs at High Plains University. The initial push to use it as a guiding
document was made soon after its publication in 2004. Sally Pringle, the Vice President
who preceded Katrina Ameson, was among a group of student affairs professionals fiom
HPU at a conference when it was released by the professional associations. Kacy Burton,
another attendee, recalled, “I know that when it came out, they launched it at either
ACPA or NASPA. I remember going to a session and we got a free copy.” Soon after
Pringle returned fi'om the conference, and near the end of her tenure as vice president, she

shared copies of Learning Reconsidered with a couple of her colleagues in academic

150

affairs who recall that they “skimmed” it. She also purchased copies for a number of her
senior professional staff in the student affairs division; few remember it being a focus of
conversations. Katrina Ameson, the current Vice President of Student Affairs, reflected
on why she believed the initial introduction failed to gain traction:
Well, we were transitioning VPs right about the time it came out. We were almost
trying to reestablish credibility for student affairs right during that time frame. We
had a VP after Bill Gullickson who had all the great ideas, no question. She
[Pringle] was extremely bright but she probably wasn’t as successful as she could
have been here and with Learning Reconsidered. More over personal dynamics...
but it wasn’t that she didn’t have all the great ideas. But, so when Learning
Reconsidered came out we weren’t in the p0sition to say, “Come on everybody.
Come, let’s talk about this. Let’s bring in some authors and let’s you know.”
As a result of the timing and circumstances surrounding the initial introduction, any
efforts to implement the document and its recommendations were limited to grass roots
efforts by a handful of individuals that remained localized within individual departments.
Among the early adopting student affairs professionals at High Plains University
who began to consider how they might use the document to guide their practice were
Kacy Burton, Ted Dewey, Katrina Ameson, Jesse Fox, and the Registrar. Jesse Fox
recalled his reaction to reading Learning Reconsidered the first time:
It felt like it was, I was singing its song or it was singing my song or we were
singing in harmony. It was like learning is what we do, and hands on and have
people experience that learning is really how things change... It was synchronistic

because when I read Learning Reconsidered it was like, “Duh. Of course this is

151

what you do. This is how you do it. I mean, you - learning is a process, and you

have to, start where people are and you help them move along you respect their

right to wherever they are, but then you bring them along.” So I. .. I just heard
them putting to word, putting to paper, saw them putting to paper what a lot of us
have been doing for a long time in health promotion, in counseling, in just
practitioner oriented learning. So I just thought it was home, like, “Good, I’m glad
somebody wrote a book,” but it was like a lot of us had been singing in harmony
for some time.

Katrina Ameson added that beyond the core ideas in Learning Reconsidered (e.g.,
calls for collaboration between academic and student affairs, increased focus on student
learning, and the call to develop and assess learning outcomes) resonating on a personal
level with numerous student affairs professionals at High Plains University, the document
also aligned with the division’s ongoing focus of promoting holistic student learning via
increased collaboration with their colleagues in academic affairs. Ameson commented:

Learning Reconsidered sort of captured what we were trying to accomplish
anyway. So it was nice to see the theoretical pieces to validate us... but, it wasn’t as
if there was an epiphany... I mean all of our efforts - tying into the faculty, tying
into how we can work better with our collaborative partners on the academic side to
pull off things. How we work with students and how we can make that richer. But I
definitely wouldn’t say that Learning Reconsidered was some kind of catalyst.
Although little was done to drive the implementation of Learning Reconsidered
division-wide following its initial introduction, a number of staff members began

discussing how the document might inform their practice, services, and programs. The .

152

remainder of this case study provides a portrait of the implementation process that
unfolded division-wide and within various departments in student affairs at High Plains
University following the documents reintroduction.
Reintroducing Learning Reconsidered — Bowling Together

The second effort to introduce Learning Reconsidered division-wide occurred as
two significant events were unfolding at High Plains University. First, the division of
student affairs was struggling through the process of redefining itself after the rocky
tenure of then former Vice President Sally Pringle. Second, HPU was gearing up for its
re-accreditation and increasingly focused on assessment, in particular trying to document
student learning. Although the student affairs division had long been committed to
assessment, it had not initially followed the lead of the academic side of the house in
defining learning outcomes and developing measures to assess the impact of their
programs and services on student learning. This began to shift in the wake of a visit from
the regional accrediting group in preparation for their upcoming visit when one of the
accreditors commented that each person working at HPU should be prepared to answer
the question, “So, how do you contribute to student learning at High Plains University?”
For a number of professionals in student affairs, this was a call-to-action to think
seriously about their impact on student learning.

In the midst of these events, the senior leadership of the division held a retreat
I during the fall of 2006 to take stock of who they were as an organization and where they
were headed in the future. It was near the end of this retreat that Learning Reconsidered
was reintroduced by Kacy Burton as a tool to help them begin to collectively think about

how to move forward in promoting student learning and creating and measuring learning

153

outcomes. From the very beginning of the effort, Vice President Ameson took on the role
of champion and supporter but stepped aside to allow Kacy Burton and others to lead the
conversations. Ameson reflected, “When there are certain topics some people have a
better voice on it - like learning outcomes. Kacy is the better voice to lead discussions...
Kacy articulates it so much better than I do.” Burton and the Registrar pieced together
their shared memories of retreat:
I’m trying to remember how the whole learning outcome thing unfolded from the
very, very beginning. I mean, I think we had talked a little bit about student
learning in the division, but it was still really kind of out there, and then the first
time we really tried to tackle some things was that retreat when we went bowling.
When we were down in a conference room and we asked the basic question,
“What do we want our students to leave here with?” And that’s kind of what, that
was kind of the first pass at putting some things down. And right before that we
had gone to work on our mission statement and our goals... We had revamped
our, everything. And so I think there was a — we focused on mission, vision,
goals, and then we led right into, into learning. Learning as though it’s like,
“Okay, here are our goals. Here’s our vision and our mission. How do we
accomplish that?” And so it really nicely dovetailed into that... we had a lot of
new leadership at the table too ‘cause we had — I mean we had a ton of new
directors... So yeah, we had had a lot of transition about, starting about two years
ago maybe, and so that was all part of the, “Okay, let’s regroup. Let’s figure out

where we are. Let’s figure out where we need to start focusing.” And then we

154

brought these learning concepts to the table. That’s when we handed out Learning

Reconsidered too.

Near the end of the retreat, a sheet was sent around the room and each director
and associate director in attendance was asked to sign up if they wished to receive a copy
of Learning Reconsidered that they could use as a reference; nearly everyone did.
Although Learning Reconsidered was shared as a resource with the senior leadership of
the division, and many of the directors then provided copies for the mid— and entry-level
staff in their departments, little specific attention was paid to the philosophical or
theoretical components of the document. The Associate Director of the Union noted:

You know, in my experience, I don’t think we have said, “Based on Learning

Reconsidered we are doing x, y, and z.” I think that we have just been doing it but

not talking about a theoretical base as to why we are doing what we are doing.

One reason shared for the lack of focus on the theoretical and philosophical
components of the document was that the student affairs division at High Plains
University was filled with “a pragmatic bunch of professionals” who were committed to
improving their contribution to student learning and its assessment but not necessarily to
Learning Reconsidered itself. In addition, after watching the previous Vice President’s
attempts to implement new programs at HPU, Burton and Ameson understood that the
culture of the division often resisted the introduction of outside ideas. Burton shared:

I think our culture here, a big part of our culture, is the, I mean, we do things our

own way on this campus. It is the High Plains experience. And I think, you know,

somebody goes to a conference and gets an idea and comes back and says, “I just

learned how to do this and I think I’ll try it.” It would completely hit the wall.

155

Another value that guided Burton and Ameson’s leadership during the
implementation effort was their commitment to allowing directors the space and freedom
to take risks when developing and implementing learning outcomes. Burton commented:

I think that learning outcomes is a great example. It is one of those things — first

of all there is not a magical - this is what is must be. It is so nebulous and it is so

tailored to our campus. So, to launch something like that that is nebulous, some of
the directors are black and white oriented whereas others appreciate the ambiguity
and I think those that have tended to jump on earlier are more those that can
appreciate the ambiguity and can apply it... Again, there is no right or wrong
way. . .. It is ok to screw up. We aren’t going to tell you to screw up but try things,
take risks and you know if we get to a place where we look at our learning
outcomes and wonder what in the world we were thinking that is ok. We’ll back it
up and try again. So, I think that safe space on campus is really important too.

In the weeks following the initial retreat during which learning outcomes and
Learning Reconsidered were reintroduced, the directors and associate directors met on
multiple occasions to begin answering the question originally posed, “What do we want
our students to leave here with?” During these meetings the directors generated a list of
approximately 20 outcomes that were then handed off to a smaller group of self-selected
staff members coordinated by Kacy Burton. This group was charged with paring the
larger list down to a more manageable set of outcomes. The Registrar, a member of the
smaller work group, provided a synopsis of the process:

There was a vision. It was kind of out there, not very tangible. Then there was a

menu where we listed all the different outcomes. Then there was the group that

156

boiled it all down to the ones that we were going to use. Then we planned a road

map of how we were going to get there.

In an effort to bolster their implementation effort, three members of the small
work group attended a NASPA assessment conference. While there, they developed an
increasingly complex and concrete understanding of how to write assessable learning
outcomes. One of the attendees reflected, “So we spent, I mean it was arduous, but we
spent time - it was in St. Louis just cranking on trying to define what these were.”
Following their return from the conference the smaller group completed their work and
shared the draft outcomes with the firll director’s council who adjusted and approved the
final set of eight learning outcomes. Once adopted, the director’s council defined each
learning outcome, unveiled them to the remainder of the student affairs division, and set
the expectation that each department think about how they contributed to these outcomes
and their assessment. The Assistant to the Vice President stated:

So in a sense it was top-down in that it came from the directors’ council level. We

provided some detail as to what kind of activities we thought would support each

of them — the learning outcomes... And we got into recognizing and celebrating
our differences and similarities. We gave some examples of events, programming,
things of that type so that units didn’t have to go in blind but could start to think,

“Maybe I don’t do that quite like the counseling center does but I do something

else that could support that particular outcome.”

The reaction varied significantly among the directors in the division to the
increased push to focus on learning outcomes and assessment. The Dean of Students

summarized:

157

One reaction was, “Ah, there’s another one of those things that they’re coming

fiom the outside with, and we don’t need that. We’re ok here,” which is kind of a

defensive response. Another reaction is, my reaction was more, “Well, gosh.

Looks like we’re doing what we need to be doing.” Some people were put off by

the assessment of learning outcomes perspective. “Oh no, we got a test

tomorrow.” There were lots of different responses too. I think it depends on how
people felt like it was, if they thought it was forced upon them. But I didn’t ever

feel that way. I always felt like it was, “Here’s a document that talks about a

process that I think we’ve been doing, and we can always do better.” And learning

outcomes are another way to do that and defining goals, and defining the target is
always a good idea so you can know when you missed the target or you hit the
target.

Once the outcomes were adopted and the directors were charged with department-
level implementation, a few steps were taken to push the effort forward. First, Burton
recommended and Ameson ultimately decided to adjust the annual report to include a
section asking each director to identify which learning outcomes their department would
work on in the upcoming year and to then follow-up in future reports with their progress
in the previous year. A number of directors shared that this prompted them to begin
discussions among their staff related to learning outcomes more quickly than would have
otherwise been the case. At this point in the implementation process Burton recalled that
the group was unsure of what to do next. She reflected:

When we had finalized the outcomes... and all the directors agreed on the

definitions and everything we kind of laid it out there. We... incorporated it in our

158

planning documents, our annual reporting documents... And so, there was a sense
that even though we had done this there was-still this, “Oh my gosh, now what?”
kind of thing going on. And then the Registrar came into one of the staff
meetings, I think it was either late summer or in the fall possibly, just with talking
about some of the things that she had been working on with this retreat and
mapping things out. You know, when you look at your registrar’s office, and
again service function versus a programmatic function, and they’ve come up with
all these creative ideas in terms of how you can try to get your arms around some
of this stuff. I mean it was definitely — I think it was a big moment within the
division because I think it made it very tangible for people, and it made it, “Oh
my gosh, if the registrar’s offrce can do this and I’m doing programs maybe I
should be able to assess the outcome of those programs or at least identify what
we’re trying to accomplish with them.” So it was a big deal, it was a really big
deal and it was early.

As the implementation effort evolved beyond developing division-wide outcomes,

the small work group continued to meet to provide support and guidance to their

colleagues. Unsure of what was needed by the staff, they administered a survey to the

directors and associate directors asking what resources and support they needed to be

successful in their department-level implementation efforts. The information gleaned

from the survey led to a series of additional mechanisms being put in place to further the

implementation process. Support mechanisms included ongoing division-wide

conversations at the director’s council that focused on fostering mutual support rather

than competition or shaming, the availability of workshops from education faculty on

159

survey construction, consulting with the Student Affairs Assessment Committee,

contracting Student Voice to provide survey software and consultation, offers by senior

leadership to facilitate brainstorming sessions within departments, and developing a

rubric to help each department ascertain where they were in the implementation process

and how they might move forward. Burton described how the rubric came about:

The directors applied them [learning outcomes] to their annual reports. Some
directors did, and they came up with measurements. Some directors didn’t even
mention them. And so, we put a little rubric together. .. so if you were here [early
implementation]... and we gave an example. It is just acknowledging that taking
time is ok. It is ok to take time. Because we all want to get it done. And you don’t
have to do it this year. You can start small, see how it goes.

The Director of the Recreation Center reflected on his reaction to the ongoing

implementation process and the continued push within the division to move the effort

along:

I think instead of just putting it — put it on your plate and saying, “Here’s
Learning Reconsidered, go out and find your way,” they’ve kind of done — she
[Burton] has championed and... she’s guided us and maybe at times she’s pushed
us to let’s get this. And it’s been a good process that way to have someone who
really buys into it, really.

Finally, although Vice President Ameson stepped aside from leading the push to

implement learning outcomes, she signaled her ongoing commitment to the effort by

including it as a consistent agenda item at division-wide meetings as well as by providing

ample resources to support implementation. Ameson also continued to cultivate

160

collaboration rather than competition among the staff. Consequently, she created the
space in the meetings and retreats for the directors to celebrate their successes and coach
one another as they navigated the challenges they faced. The Director of Admissions
shared:

There’s rarely a directors meeting that goes by without us talking about this in

some way, not large, you know, no reinventing it every time, but I mean we really

do now constantly talk about learning outcomes. It’s part of our annual reports
now. We address how we’re in fact addressing learning outcomes or — so that’s
been good.

The Coordinator of Alcohol Education Initiatives and the Dean of Students jointly
reflected on the difference between the first and second attempts to put Learning
Reconsidered into practice:

I think the previous vice president, whether she was or not — I won’t get into if it’s

true and what’s not true — was seen as furthering her own personal agenda, and

people pushed back on that. Whereas now people are saying, people are doing this
because they want to do it, and it’s the right thing to do, and it works. So it’s not
agenda driven anymore. It’s because it’s a good idea, and this works. I think
people have reframed it, reframed learning objectives, learning outcomes, data-
based decision making in such a way that people are going, “Oh.” But it’s the ’
same thing; it’s just how it’s provided to people. Yeah, I think that it’s been
presented in a really positive way, not necessarily as far as, “Well, this is
something more that you have to do,” as opposed to we’re just enhancing what

we’re already doing a little bit, but it’s not a whole new — we don’t have to totally

161

change everything we’re doing. It’s just looking at what we’re already doing and

then saying, “Okay, are there some things... some certain points where we can

measure at to help us improve?” And so I think it’s been communicated really

well in that sense, and that’s probably why there’s been some pretty good buy-in

at the staff level that I’ve seen.
Implementing Learning Reconsidered in the Departments

In addition to the implementation effort that unfolded among directors and
associate directors resulting in the creation of learning outcomes for the student affairs
division, the key recommendations in Learning Reconsidered were also put into practice
within a number of student affairs departments at High Plains University. The timing and
process of how department-level implementation unfolded varied significantly. In some
units implementation occurred simultaneous to the division-wide effort, in others the
division-wide effort served as an impetus for implementation within the individual
department, and in still others little effort was made to put Learning Reconsidered into
practice. Additionally, while some departments irsed the document as a tool to develop
learning outcomes, others focused solely on the recommendations and never shared
Learning Reconsidered widely with mid- and entry-level staff. This section of the case
study will examine the implementation process within three representative departments:
Residence Life, Admissions, and Student Educational Opportunity.

Residence Life — Early adoption over coflee. The Department of Residence Life at

High Plains University is nested within a cluster that includes Housing, Dining, and the
Student Union. The department is led by Ted Dewey, a professional long-committed to

promoting best practices related to student learning in residential settings. The well-

162

educated and highly professionalized residence life staff includes an assistant director,
four coordinators, graduate hall directors, and paraprofessional staff. The staff has
garnered a reputation for supporting the academic mission of HPU including
collaborating with faculty and academic affairs colleagues to create a number of living
learning communities. Additionally, the department of residence life has a long history of
using surveys to assess student satisfaction with their programs and services.

The implementation of Learning Reconsidered in residence life occurred
simultaneous to the division-wide process that unfolded following the document’s
reintroduction. Kacy Burton and Ted Dewey, two of the early adopters of Learning
Reconsidered, introduced the document to their staff soon after it was released in 2004.
As Dewey considered how to put the document into practice, he recognized that although
he was capable of writing an implementation plan, it would ultimately be the front-line
staff that determined the success of the effort. Dewey shared, “For me, it was not about a
specific plan for implementing learning outcomes... the people that I had to convince
was the live-in sta .” One of the initial challenges Dewey and Burton faced was shifting
the mindset of the area coordinators away from focusing solely on promoting student
development in the residence halls and towards focusing on student learning. Burton
shared that being patient and having repeated conversations to coach her mid— and entry-
level staff to expand their focus was essential to laying the groundwork for
implementation. She commented:

There was still a perception that is dominant. I saw it with our area coordinators
and their perception of the role of student affairs with student development and

student learning. Are we here to support student learning or are we here to support

163

student development? A kind of divisiveness a little bit. Just. .. it is just having

conversations again and again and development is part of it as well.

During the 2005-2006 academic year, Dewey began asking the coordinators to
examine how they could incorporate Learning Reconsidered into their work. Dewey
shared how the implementation effort began:

Now, could I have sat d0wn, drawn out the whole master plan, and presented it to

them? Absolutely I could have. No, I deliberately chose not to do that. Instead, I

wanted them to come up with how to do it. So that meant I had to get them to talk

in that way. Well you know we bought everybody copies of Learning

Reconsidered. We bought them all copies of Learning Reconsidered 2. I think we

bought ‘em all copies of last one that came‘out. .. We bought ‘em copies of all of

them. Here, read this and let’s talk. How many conversations? I lost count. Broad,
general conversations, one-on-one conversations, staff meeting conversations.

And I think it probably took me a year to make them all understand that this was

not gonna go away. That we were gonna do this. That this was how we were

gonna think about this in the future. And to let them know that we can do this, this
is not impossible; you don’t already have to have your PhD. You know, we can
do this. This is doable. And it doesn’t have to be perfect the first time and we
don’t have to publish our stuff the first time out or whatever. We can take baby
steps and it’ll be okay and what do you think? What do you think is the best way
for all of you to do this? And each of those conversations very gradually and

' slowly got more sophisticated.

164

The coordinators recall these conversations pushing them to incorporate learning
outcomes while also providing the space they needed to question everything they were
doing in the residence halls. A coordinator reflected:

What I remember was several meetings where we continued to say, “How do we

make learning outcomes an integral part of everything we do?” And that

continues, I mean, two years later it still stays on the agenda, “How are we using
learning outcomes? How are we assessing what we do? How is this woven into
the thread of everything we do, not just a box we check?” So, it was basically Ted
handing us the books and telling us we needed to read them and be familiar with

the whole concept and to start incorporating into everything we did.

The Assistant Director of Residence Life added:

I think all of us in residence life have gotten on board. It has taken awhile but

people have finally realized that it is not going away. You are going to get this or

you are going to move along because this is a value of our department.

By the summer of 2007 the coordinators were pushing forward with developing
learning outcomes for residence life and began convening for a series of meetings to
discuss how to move forward with implementation. A coordinator shared their process:

It started with a light bulb going off when we realized that we are not doing what

we should be doing. There was some meetings and some thinking and some

planning with some coffee involved and some writing and lots of, “Mmm, how
the hell should we do this?”. . .so we just sat down and started brainstorming what
we thought was important and the things for students to experience living in the

residence halls. .. And so, at one point, I shared my experience at a previous

165

institution where we had a programming model that had five components to it and

we kind of talked about each of those and that kind of encompassed what we want

to do, but we don’t want to do it the exact way.

During these summer-long conversations, the four coordinators brought in ideas
they gathered from attending conference presentations or gleaned fi'om examining
initiatives underway in residence life departments at other colleges and universities that
had previously incorporated learning outcomes. By the end of the summer the
coordinators had developed and defined five learning outcomes, a plan to introduce them
to graduate and paraprofessional staff during fall training, and began to consider how to
measure their effectiveness. Just as the coordinators were finalizing the outcomes they
developed for residence life, the division-wide outcomes were shared with them. The
Assistant Director of Residence Life, then a coordinator, commented on her reaction:

We did our process before we heard about the division outcomes. And when the

division outcomes came out we realized that we were there, we were doing what

they wanted us to do so we didn’t have to tweak it which is nice... I think
everybody was really and almost thankful to have some kind of guidance if that

makes sense. Again, I think everybody was kind of working on their own and I

think it has been through Learning Reconsidered and the outcomes of student

affairs and all those pieces that we have finally felt like there is some congruence.

The initial year of implementation in residence life was particularly challenging
for the paraprofessional staff. In response to these challenges, the coordinators spent the
next summer redesigning various components of the residence life program to firrther

align them with the focus on student learning including changes to how paraprofessional

166

staff were hired, trained, and evaluated, the type of professional development provided to
graduate and paraprofessional staff, the format and focus of the weekly reports, and the
committee structure within the department. The Assistant Director of Residence Life
reflected:

We thought a lot about the merits about how do we set this up for the RAs.

Because how they understand and why do they care about learning outcomes

because, in truth, they are short-timers and you know, you’ve got to make it of

value to them and you’ve got to make them feel like that this is making my job
better. This is making my relationship with students better.

In reflecting on the implementation of learning outcomes the coordinators noted a
number of factors that supported their implementation effort. The first factor was that the
implementation of learning outcomes was encouraged within the division from the vice
president down to the director of residence life. One coordinator shared:

We were encouraged at every level to examine what we were doing and make

sure it was what we really thought was the right thing to do and if you don’t get

that encouragement, no matter how many coffeehouse discussions you have
nothing will change. We were told, “Tell us what we need to be doing and we’ll
look it over with you and if we think it is a good direction to go you’ve got our
backing,” and that was actually true.

Other factors the coordinators cited as supporting their implementation efforts
were financial support to attend conferences where they were able to gather resources,
Ted Dewey providing them the time and space to develop outcomes that they believed in

and a plan to implement them, the trust and respect they had for each other as

167

collaborators, and working in a culture in residence life and student affairs in which
assessment was a growing expectation. When the coordinators struggled with how to
measure the effectiveness of their efforts, their adrrritted “biggest sticking point,” they
asked for and received additional support in the form of Student Voice, a consulting
company specializing in facilitating student affairs professionals’ assessment of student
learning.

By the beginning of the 2008-2009 academic year, the residence life staff was on
the cusp of their second year of the full-scale implementation of learning outcomes. With
residence life charging ahead on their implementation efforts, they were being used as a
model by other departments in the student affairs division of how to put learning
outcomes into practice.

Student Educational Opportunity — It just fit. Student Educational Opportunity
[SEO] at High Plains University comprises a number of programs and initiatives focused
on promoting student access to the institution and nurturing student success once they
arrive. Key functions of the unit include Disability Resources, Upward Bound, McNair,
and GEAR-Up. The office is led by Nancy Lander, a highly collaborative professional
who possesses significant experience working with grant-funded programs that require a
commitment to setting specific programmatic outcomes and an ability to assess success.
In addition to Nancy, the department is staffed by an associate director and a number of
professionals with variable educational backgrounds and experiences. Nancy described
the organizational structure as “totally flat, we all just sort of make decisions together on

most things —- everyone’s lateral.”

168

The implementation of learning outcomes in SEO began after the division-wide
outcomes were completed. The Associate Director shared, “It began with the division
developing learning outcomes together and then we started working within our
department to decide how we were going to contribute to the outcomes.” Lander added:

Well, it was really pushed from the top. And we all knew accreditation was there

so that kept our attention and Kacy really just kept asking us to really think about

how we know what we think we know and wouldn’t it be cool to get a better idea
of what the impact was.

From the outset of their conversations about incorporating division-wide learning
outcomes into the work of SEO, Lander shared that she “felt really little resistance
because we are used to collecting data and doing Outcomes because of the soft-money
thing.” Because of the comfort many professionals in the department already had with
measuring the impact of their programs, little time was needed to “sell” learning
outcomes or the importance of implementation to the staff. The Assistant Director shared,
“We were already really doing a lot of this so it just fit with all that, so once we had time
to do it, it was fine.” Reflecting on factors that supported the implementation process in
SEO, Lander shared that the availability of the Student Affairs Assessment Committee to
help construct surveys allowed the staff to put some assessment strategies in place
quickly and then having time with the firll staff to work as a group to discuss how to
move forward and make collective decisions was particularly important.

Admissions — Considering reconsidering. The Office of Admissions at High
Plains University is nested in the Enrollment Management Cluster and is composed of a

director, two associate directors, multiple assistant directors, and numerous admissions

169

counselors and support staff. The primary responsibilities of the unit include student
recruitment, outreach to the community colleges and high schools in the state, overseeing
the admissions process, and coordinating summer orientation and registration. The
admissions office is led by John Hiatt, a High Plains alumnus with no formal educational
preparation in student affairs or higher education. Hiatt described himself as a “team
player” and a “nuts and bolts kind of guy.” Hiatt reflected on his introduction to Learning
Reconsidered:

I don’t remember how it was pitched necessarily, but I do recall when we first

started talking about it and I recall that the Vice President handed out the

Learning Reconsidered books and so forth and I remember pulling out the CAS

[Council for the Advancement of Standards] standards and those sorts of things

and said, “Okay, well what does that mean for us over here?”

Hiatt shared that once the division-wide outcomes were finalized, an
“assignment” was given to the directors in student affairs that they begin to think about
how the outcomes “might fit into” their individual offices. In the case of the admissions
office, this resulted in the director spending time on his own thinking about how to put
learning outcomes into practice. Although supportive of the overall effort, Hiatt noted
that implementing learning outcomes had been difficult:

I think... it’s the Enrollment Management Cluster that isn’t quite there... And I

don’t know, you know, just some of the learning outcomes are just, I think,

tougher to grasp in the real process oriented services... the. learning outcomes
piece is real abstract... so it’s harder. That’s not how my mind works so it’s

harder for me to talk about what we do with my associate directors in those

170

terms... it’s a little easier when it comes to orientation because that’s, you know,

that’s the transition piece... And I’ll be honest, I’m still kind of struggling with it.

I get it, but I don’t — I haven’t trained my mind to think, “Okay, how does this

process teach a student to evaluate his or her own purpose or personal

responsibility.”

Although the admissions office lagged in their efforts to incorporate learning
outcomes into their programs, Hiatt shared that they used the division-wide outcomes to
guide, to some degree, a recent decision-making process related to the role of parents in
the summer orientation and registration process. Hiatt stated:

Now, whether or not we did this because we said, “Oh, we’re going to address

learning outcomes and here’s how we’re going do it,” or if it was, “We want to do

this and oh yeah, that’s supported by.” It’s probably the latter, but in orientation,
we — traditionally parents have been able to go to student advising appointments
with the student and we — I think we all felt in our heart that that’s not good
because that’s not how it’s gonna happen in the future and we know students need

to learn it and understand it and we know that parents need to let go... We did a

little bit of research with other schools to make sure that we’re not totally off our

rocker... But, you know, so we did then say, “Hey, you know, we’re trying to
teach personal responsibility. We’re trying to help parents let go and so this
makes a lot of sense. We’re just doing it.” So that’s one area I guess, for me at
least, that I know, you know a learning outcome was really thought about in

making our decisions.

171

Looking Back and Moving Forward
By the close of the summer of 2008, the student affairs staff at High Plains
University had made significant progress takingmany of the key recommendations of
Learning Reconsidered and putting them into practice as evidenced by the institution
being highlighted on the Learning Reconsidered website. In addition to the division-wide
development of learning outcomes, multiple departments were striving to connect their
work to these outcomes and adjust their programs and services accordingly. Two other
ongoing initiatives stemming from the implementation of Learning Reconsidered were
the emerging division-wide focus on the assessment of student learning and further
invigoration of collaborative, learning-centered initiatives between academic and student
affairs.
With the implementation of Learning Reconsidered well underway, Kacy Burton
reflected on the process:
You lcnow, I think on the national scene there was a lot of this going on in terms
of the dialogue within student affairs, within housing... I think those of us who
are going out to meetings and things are seeing this evolving. It really was just
bringing some of that back to the table for the conversations here. Katrina’s been
very supportive. I think — she’s been supportive since the day she stepped on
campus, not just in the VP role, you know, what are these outcomes and how do
we contribute to that? So I think it was just the jelling of lots of different factors. I
don’t think there was any one thing that pushed or ramrodded it. Just the culture’s

evolving, and we jumped on board.

172

The Assistant to the Vice President concurred in large part with Burton and added his
perspective on how the implementation effort unfolded:

I’m not aware of a very conscientious effort to introduce Learning Reconsidered

to this campus. I think more of what has happened is a result of people going to

conferences and individually becoming aware of Learning Reconsidered
specifically and similar processes and bring those back to campus and
implementing them without actually hanging the title Learning Reconsidered on
them... So it has trickled down throughout the various professionals within
student affairs. Our implementation has been more understated, maybe not
directly intended to implement Learning Reconsidered but certainly recognizing
the positive aspects of that concept and responding in that way to it.

For mid-level professionals in student affairs, the top-down push to focus on
student learning and implement learning outcomes shifted how they think about their job.
The Associate Director of the Union stated, “In the last few years we now really think
about trying things that impact student learning and student development.” The Assistant
Director of Residence Life added her perspective on how Learning Reconsidered
contributed to the ongoing shift in the culture among student affairs professionals:

I think it is a guide for us. To be able to say read that and say, “Look at what

everyone else is going, how can we do better ” So I think it is just that resource

that we can go back to and you know it kind of firmed up what we were doing.

We were assessing a little bit, we had some thoughts about assessment. You know

what, we need to be a player in this, we need to be there and there is no reason

173

why we can’t be. Let’s read the book, let’s get integrated. So I think it has been a

springboard for us.

Summary

Learning Reconsidered was introduced at High Plains University on two separate
occasions. Upon its initial introduction, it was perceived as a personal project of an
unpopular senior leader and made relatively little headway. The second introduction
occurred as the institution geared up for its upcoming accreditation and in the midst of
the student affairs division taking-stock of its collective values, mission, and goals.
Consequently, the document’s recommendations to promote holistic student development
through collaboration with academic affairs and an increased focus on learning outcomes
and their assessment dovetailed with emergent geals of the division. In short, Learning
Reconsidered was widely viewed as making good sense to the majority of student affairs
professionals at HPU at the time of its adoption.

Following the inclusive adoption of Learning Reconsidered by senior and mid-
level professionals at a retreat, a small group of professionals convened to work on
developing outcomes for the full division. Simultaneously, a number of departments
moved forward putting various recommendations into practice. Throughout the effort,
senior leaders provided the time and space for staff to engage in the implementation
process while also promoting a culture of responsible risk-taking that encouraged
creativity within individual units. As implementation proceeded, little focus was placed
on implementing Learning Reconsidered itself, but rather on using the document as a tool
to improve practice throughout the organization. On the one hand, the lack of focus on

implementing specific recommendations led some to believe little attention was given to

174

putting the document into practice. On the other hand, by focusing on the core
recommendations rather than the document itself, professionals in the division were able
to adapt the document to improve practice in ways that made sense for their unit.

As the process unfolded, implementation remained a priority for the Vice
President and was consistently discussed within staff meetings and during retreats.
Furthermore, communication was promoted across the division to allow staff to share
what was challenging their efforts and encourage them to provide recommendations for
allocating resources to support the process. Finally, several outstanding mid-level
professionals guided department-level efforts by providing thoughtful leadership while
refi'aining fi'om doing the work themselves. The result was that a number of entry-level
professionals in many early adopting departments, Residence Life in particular, led

implementation in the division.

175

CHAPTER 7
Discussion and Implications
In this concluding chapter I provide an analysis across the three cases of the
implementation of Learning Reconsidered, discuss findings that emerged from cross-case
analysis, connect the findings to the current scholarship on organizational change and
implementation, integrate recommendations for practice and future research throughout
and conclude with an overarching metaphor that captures the implementation process.
Although my research questions guided data collection and analysis, they did not limit
my gaze or the findings. As a result, I discuss findings that relate directly to the research
questions but also include additional interesting findings that emerged across the cases.
The following research questions were introduced at the outset of the study:
1. What was the implementation process employed by institutions that adopted
Learning Reconsidered?
2. At institutions that adopted Learning Reconsidered, what factors influenced
' the implementation of the recommended policies and practices?
3. What were the roles and responsibilities of actors within and beyond the
division of student affairs in the implementation of Learning Reconsidered?
4. What organizational levers, if any, were employed to influence
implementation?
Because backward mapping was the analytic technique used in this study, it was
essential to incorporate into the analysis a ground-view perspective that captured how
implementation unfolded across the three student affairs divisions (Elmore, 1980; 1982).

This was achieved by analyzing the interconnected components of the implementation

176

effort from the perspective of individuals with diverse vantage points and at various
levels of each division. The use of backward mapping as an analytic technique disavows
the inappropriate assumption often made by scholars who use forward mapping that
leaders, formal or informal, can control implementation. Instead, backward mapping
operates under the assumption that leaders must view their role as selective interveners in
a “dispersed and decentralized process” (Elmore, 1980, p. 605).

Although Learning Reconsidered was introduced at or near the top of each
student affairs division in thisstudy, it is only one of many conceivable ways in which an
innovative idea might be introduced (ACPA et al., 2006). In the next section I discuss a
number of findings that surfaced across the divisions at Eastern State University, Pioneer
State University, and High Plains University.

Findings and Implications

Three broad, overarching findings relating to implementation emerged across the
three divisions of student affairs examined in this study. These included: 1) the influence
of the initiation phase and adoption decision on implementation; 2) the multiple,
cascading levels of adoption and implementation, and the roles of senior student affairs
officers and mid-level professionals; and, 3) the importance of technical and leadership
capacity and how resources were employed to bolster profesSional’s capacity to
implement. Following each finding, I discuss implications that stem from it for research
and practice.

Adoption Begets Implementation
One of the overarching findings of the study was the interconnectedness of the

various components of the implementation of Learning Reconsidered. Although I

177

intended to focus my attention primarily on the implementation phase (Rogers, 1983), it
was quickly apparent that the adoption decision and the initiation process that preceded it
had significant impact on how implementation unfolded in each of the three cases. To
illustrate the influenceof the initiation phase and adoption decision on implementation I
will contrast the processes against one another.

Learning Reconsidered was introduced at Eastern State University during the
NASPA Institute, a large-scale professional development program brought to campus by
Vice President Charlotte Pippen. Near the end of the five-day event, one of the presenters
essentially spurred the document’s adoption at ESU when she recommended that each
department develop two learning outcomes and a plan to assess them for the upcoming
academic year. Pippen simply concurred with this expectation and asked each department
to move forward putting Learning Reconsidered into practice.

Although Pippen shared that she intended to use the NASPA Institute to articulate
the need for learning outcomes in relation to the broader history and trends in higher
education, she did not position it in relation to the local context or how and why putting
Learning Reconsidered into practice made good sense for student affairs professionals at
ESU. If significant discussion ever occurred among the division leadership or the staff as
a whole as to how or why Learning Reconsidered or learning outcomes had utility in the
context of ESU, this went unstated during interviews with participants. In contrast,
Pippen spent significant time articulating the document’s utility for ESU with her
colleagues on the President’s Cabinet.

Pippen’s inattention to laying the groundwork for the adoption decision or

articulating the utility of Learning Reconsidered had ramifications throughout the

178

implementation process. The lack of initial planning or agenda setting was clearly
frustrating for the Director of the Student Center who was otherwise supportive. For
others like the Director of Judicial Affairs, the lack of time taken to examine how
Learning Reconsidered supported his department’s mission and goals led him to
passively resist implementation as he waited for someone to clearly articulate the big
picture of how and why it made sense to invest his limited time and energy into the effort.
In short, Pippen appeared to assume that if implementing Learning Reconsidered made
sense elsewhere, it must also make sense for the division of student affairs at ESU. For
some it did; for many others, it did not.

The decision to adopt Learning Reconsidered at Pioneer State was largely fueled by
anxiety resulting from the critical accreditation report calling for increased assessment of
student learning. The initiation process that led to the adoption decision was reminiscent
of the defensive response a hive of bees might have to being kicked. In this metaphor the
hive is Pioneer State, the bees are the division of student affairs and the kick, the
accreditation report. Although the degree of pandemonium was less than the metaphor
conjures up, many staff felt considerable urgency to act quickly to contribute to the
assessment of student learning. From the perspective of the Coordinator of Greek Life,
Learning Reconsidered was released at just the right time for the student affairs division
to adopt it as a solution to an emerging problem. Unlike at Eastern State University where
deciding to adopt Learning Reconsidered was disconnected from any division-wide
reflection, agenda setting, or planning, the impetus for adoption at PSU was an external
call for increased assessment of student learning. After the problem was identified in the

accreditation report, Learning Reconsidered was framed by the Dean of Students as a

179

solution, which led to its quick adoption. Many participants shared that once the
accreditation site visit prompting the adoption decision occurred the push to implement
quickly dissipated.

The initial introduction of Learning Reconsidered at High Plains University
resembled that which unfolded at ESU in that the then Vice President of Student Affairs
shared it with her staff without initiating a period of reflection or framing its utility in
their specific context. Consequently, a number of individuals viewed Learning
Reconsidered as part of an unpopular vice president’s personal agenda and responded
with little interest. In contrast, the second introduction occurred while division directors
and associate directors collectively took stock of their mission, values, and goals. As the
group reflected on where they wanted to go and how they might get there, Kacy Burton
reintroduced Learning Reconsidered to her colleagues as a possible tool that might
support their renewed focus on student learning. Introducing Learning Reconsidered in
this manner allowed it to be refrarned from a pet project to something that made sense.
The end result was that the document was perceived as an innovative idea that could help
the division and individual departments achieve their goals and meet rising accreditation
expectations.

One result of the adoption decision at HPU flowing from a period of
organizational reflection, unencumbered by the anxiety of a negative accreditation report,
was that it was widely perceived as initiated by Burton but ultimately chosen by the
group. The document was not generally viewed as something forced on staff or
“ramrodded” by division leadership. Three factors influenced this outcome. First,

following the previous vice president’s departure, time was taken during a series of

180

retreats and meetings for staff to engage in reflection and agenda setting. This led to the
staff developing a consensus of who they wanted to be, where they wanted to go, and
how to get there. Second, when Burton reintroduced Learning Reconsidered, it was
framed not as a panacea, but as a tool that might be used to help reach the goals they
collectively set. Third, the ultimate decision to adopt Learning Reconsidered was not
forced by the current vice president. Instead, the document was slowly incorporated into
initiatives throughout the division that the directors and associate directors already valued
and were committed to achieving. While the Assistant to the Vice President perceived the
implementation effort as relatively unintentional, it led to an apparent greater degree of
commitment among the individual departments. Although slower than Burton desired,
implementation was quite likely more deeply rooted than the effort at ESU or PSU
because adoption happened with the staff, not to them.

In sum, how Learning Reconsidered was introduced and adopted in each division
varied significantly and had considerable impact on implementation. For example, the
lack of attention to laying the groundwork or collectively examining the document’s
utility at Eastern State University led to adoption being widely perceived as something
forced upon professionals in the division. For the Student Success Center staff who
viewed Learning Reconsidered as a good fit because of their comfort with learning
outcomes and assessment, adoption made sense and implementation was “relatively
easy.” However, in departments where the recommendations less obviously fit, the
implementation effort was hampered by the lack of attention to framing the utility of

Learning Reconsidered in the local context.

181

In contrast, the decision to put Learning Reconsidered into practice at Pioneer State
and High Plains was viewed by the majority of staff as a collective and inclusive process,
even though it was initially introduced and championed by a senior leader in each
division. One result of the comparatively inclusive adoption decision at PSU and HPU
was that more upper- and mid-level professionals at those institutions felt greater
ownership and commitment to putting the recommendations embedded in Learning
Reconsidered into practice than was the case at ESU. This finding resonates with multiple
scholars who articulated the importance of inclusivity and collaboration during change
initiatives (Collins, 2001; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Kezar, 2001; Kotter, 1996; Kuh, 1994;
Reisser & Roper, 1999; Ward & Warner, 1996). Incorporating an inclusive planning
process that focused on exploring the utility of Learning Reconsidered early in the effort
was particularly important for organizations, departments, and individuals for whom the
document’s recommendations were out of the norm.

Implications for practice and research stem from these findings. For professionals
charged with implementing change, the common advice shared by scholars is to begin by
generating enthusiasm for the initiative (Kezar, 2003; Kuh, 1994). Enthusiasm among the
staff in this study appeared to be important, but how it was generated might have been
even more so. The data indicate that implementation was more likely to be successful
when it emerged from a period of collective organizational reflection about mission,
purpose and goals and how they might be achieved. Collins (2001, 2005) referred to this
as facing the brutal facts whereas others label it organizational learning (Ausiello &
Wells, 1997; Senge, 2000; Wheatley, 1999). Data across the three cases support the

argument Collins (2005) asserted that educational organizations fiequently avoid difficult

182

and frank conversations. The result of avoidance is an inability to take-stock of the
organization and its environment or move forward with collective purpose. Therefore,
leaders interested in focusing the attention of their staff on implementation should role
model reflective practice while creating opportunities for the organization to collectively
consider its purpose and how to enact it in the future. Beginning there, rather than with
the introduction of a new best practice or innovative idea, is likely to enhance the degree
of commitment to implementation throughout the organization in the long term.

To promote organizational reflection, purpose setting and implementation, change
leaders in student affairs can borrow from Sanford’s (1967) advice to educators on how
to encourage student development. This begins by leaders conceptualizing their
organization as a developmental being. They then must focus on supplying the
appropriate balance of challenge and support while being cognizant of organizational
readiness to adopt and implement an innovative idea. Heifetz (1994) provided one
possible road map for change agents when he encouraged leaders to get on the balcony to
observe what was unfolding and how they might rise above to see the bigger picture of
implementation while remaining engaged in the ongoing effort.

There are also implications for research that result from these findings. First,
because Learning Reconsidered was introduced at or near the top of the hierarchy within
each of these student affairs divisions, it remains to be seen how implementation would
have differed had it been introduced at other levels of the organization. Therefore,
research examining how the implementation of innovative ideas that emerge from various
locations in student affairs divisions is needed. Second, because I examined three

organizations relatively early on in their efforts to put Learning Reconsidered into

183

practice, I am left to merely speculate about the long-term impact of the implementation
effort on policy and practice in each university. Studies of organizations further along in
their efforts is recommended in order to understand the longer-terrn influence of how the
adoption decision was made on implementation. A third area of scholarship needed is an
examination of the influence of institutional accreditation on policy and practice in
divisions of student affairs. In each case, accreditation was noted as being connected to
some degree to the push to implement but the extent of its influence at ESU and HPU
beyond an awareness of the senior leadership was uncertain.
Cascading Adoption and Implementation and Shifting Roles

Another finding that surfaced across each of the cases was that the implementation
of Learning Reconsidered occurred in a generally decentralized manner following its
centralized introduction. At Eastern State, for example, although the process had a
common starting point with the NASPA Institute, implementation in the division was
limited to the development of department-level learning outcomes. Likewise, at Pioneer
State, the adoption of Learning Reconsidered by the vice president’s council led to the
three Assistant and Associate Vice Presidents being charged with cluster-level
implementation with little to no focus on a division-wide effort. Additionally, once
Learning Reconsidered reached the clusters, it was quickly fanned out to directors to
implement within individual departments. Even at High Plains University, which focused
initially on developing division-wide learning outcomes, the majority of time and
attention was directed toward putting Learning Reconsidered into practice within
individual departments. The cascading implementation process -— from division, to

cluster, to department - makes sense given that divisions of student affairs are often

184

loosely-coupled (Kuh, 2003; Weick, 1976), operate as professional bureaucracies
(Keeling, Underhile, & Wall, 2007; Mintzberg, 1979), and consequently units frequently
operate in a decentralized manner with significant autonomy.

One result of the cascading implementation process was that adoption and
implementation did not occur once, but repeatedly as they spread out through the
organization. Consequently, there was not a single, common implementation process that
unfolded within any of the three institutions. Instead, myriad processes simultaneously
occurred that were rooted in the broader institutional and divisional culture, and
influenced by the local culture and context in each individual department. A result of the
manner in which adoption and implementation occurred was that the roles and
responsibilities of actors shifted as the process unfolded. In short, although Learning
Reconsidered was introduced and initially adopted at the top of the organization, the
work of putting it into practice was delegated from senior staff to mid-level professionals
and frequently was charged to entry-level staff. I next describe the shifting roles of the
senior student affairs officers during implementation and then discuss the central role of
mid-level professionals as the process unfolded.

As previously noted, the primary champion of the implementation effort in each
case was at or near the top of each division. From the outset of the process, Pippen at
Eastern State, Svenson at Pioneer State, and Burton at High Plains were highly influential
in the introduction and subsequent adoption of Learning Reconsidered. Leading up to
adoption and throughout implementation, professionals looked to the champion and the
senior student affairs officer for the degree of support the initiative was going to receive.

Initial cues were taken from the vice president’s level of commitment as indicated by the

185

persistence and intensity of their rhetoric, the ongoing presence of their formal and
informal communication, and the amount of resources they marshaled to support
implementation.

When formal and informal conversations were ongoing, as was the case division-
wide at PSU and HPU, staff shared that they quickly realized the issue was not going
away. This recognition led mid-level staff to focus time and attention on putting Learning
Reconsidered into practice within their departments. In contrast, at ESU, even though
significant resources were devoted to kick start implementation, the lack of ongoing
conversations in staff meetings or clear communication from Vice President Pippen led to
persistent uncertainty among busy professionals as to the amount of time and attention
they should devote to the effort. Furthermore, when Pippen adjusted the annual reports
and individual evaluations to fire] implementation, the result was increased fi'ustration
and fear among the staff that the rules and expectations had changed but that they found
out only after the fact. The implication for change leaders is that consistency and
persistence of formal and informal communication related to implementation is a key
lever in keeping the attention of the staff. Although ongoing conversations during staff
meetings are not enough, their absence may be perceived as a sign that implementation is
not a high priority. Indeed, it might be the informal, ongoing conversations that matter
more than grand, public proclamations.

Scholars in post-secondary organizations consistently cite senior administrative
support as the most important factor during change and implementation efforts (Collins,
2005; Furst-Bowe & Bauer, 2007; Kezar, 2003) and the data across the cases partly

supported that assertion. For example, the Health Center Director shared that

186

 

implementing Learning Reconsidered simply would not have even been attempted at
ESU without Pippen taking the lead. The Director believed that change could only occur
from the top-down in the division because of the culture of the organization. On the other
hand, it was also apparent that senior administrative support was simply not enough and
in some situations, such as the initial effort at HPU, may have been detrimental.
Following the initial introduction and adoption of Learning Reconsidered, as
implementation efforts were delegated to clusters or departments, the role of the senior
student affairs officer became increasingly symbolic and behind-the-scenes. Successful
strategies incorporated by the senior student affairs officers to move their divisions
forward included ongoing communication of the vision and the utility of Learning
Reconsidered in achieving it, listening to the needs of staff and responding by marshaling
appropriate resources, publicly and privately celebrating successes, allowing directors
ample autonomy to implement, and serving as coach and mentor to mid-level
professionals as they led efforts at the department level. Vice President Van Galder at
Pioneer State recognized clearly that when implementation lagged in areas of the
organization, it was a responsibility he shared with his senior staff to provide one-on-one
coaching to the director of that unit. At High Plains, where trust was already established
and competition was being deemphasized, mentoring often occurred during staff
meetings and retreats and less often, one-on-one. The implications are that coaching and
mentoring should be rooted in the culture of the organization and then strive to
sufficiently meet the needs of individual staff. Consequently, change leaders should focus
attention prior to and throughout implementation on knowing their staff in order to

respond effectively to their needs throughout the process, as Sandeen (2001) advises.

187

As the process moved fiom division-wide adoption to department-level
implementation, mid-level professionals took on increasingly prominent leadership roles.
Because of the cascading nature of implementation, the challenges that accompanied
centralized adoption emerged time and again within each department. Consequently, as
the process unfolded in each unit, many mid-level professionals were called on to frame
the utility of Learning Reconsidered in their local context and then moving to put it into
practice. Examples of mid-level professionals’ influence on department-level
implementation included the early adopting Registrar and Ted Dewey at HPU, the
Directors of the Union and Multicultural Center at PSU, and the Directors of the Student
Success Center and Recreation Center at ESU. When mid-level processionals were
committed to the endeavor, possessed sufficient technical competence related to the
innovation, had the time and space to operate effectively, and were capable of leading
department-level implementation, they were more liker to be successfirl in their efforts.
The importance of the preparation of mid-level professionals to lead implementation will
be examined in the next section.

The finding that mid-level professionals were highly influential in the process
supports those who found that the presence of leaders and champions throughout the
organization increased the likelihood of successful implementation (Bringle & Hatch,

' 1996; Creamer & Creamer, 1986; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Smith & Rogers, 2005; Ward &
Warner, 1996). However, whereas many scholars noted that mid-level professionals are
important supporters of the process; my study suggests that department-level directors
were at the center of implementation — not on the periphery. This aligns with Katzenbach

(1996) who coined the term “real change leaders” (p. 149) to describe middle and front-

188

line managers in the business sector whom he believed were essential in connecting the
vision of senior management to the realities of the market and workplace.

There are a number of additional implications for practice that stem from these
findings. First, the significant role of mid-level professionals during implementation
amplifies the importance of the earlier finding that the commitment of student affairs
professionals was enhanced when the adoption decision happened with them, rather than
to them. Additionally, it sharpens the previous recommendation for change leaders to
focus early on ensuring an inclusive initiation phase and adoption decision by including
mid-level professionals fiom the outset whenever possible. When student affairs
divisions operate as professional bureaucracies (Mintzberg, 1979), mid-level
professionals have significant autonomy in how they lead departments, and without a
high degree of commitment to initiatives on their part, it is unlikely implementation will
be successful. Change leaders simply must attend early to ensuring the commitment of
mid-level professionals.

How change leaders promoted comrrritrnent among mid-level professionals beyond
involvement in the adoption decision also suggests implications for moving
implementation forward. The data indicated that directors are more likely to champion
and guide the effort in their department when change leaders involve them in the initial
adoption decision, communicate persistent messages that implementation is a priority,
provide appropriate support and resources when needed, make available the time and
space to put Learning Reconsidered into practice, and ensure quality coaching on how to
lead the implementation process. Because of the high variation in cultures across and

Within student affairs divisions, using this list as a blueprint or'checklist would be

189

inappropriate. Instead, change leaders should think about how to apply these findings in
the unique context of their organization’s culture and significant subcultures. Phrasing
these findings as questions may be most appropriate. For example, change leaders can
ask: Does my staff have the resources they need to be successful? How do I know? If I
am not sure, how can I find out?

Because implementation unfolds in multiple departments with different cultures,
change leaders and mid-level professionals charged with leading department-level efforts
must have a deft understanding of the context in which they are operating. Taking time as
a team early on to engage in a cultural audit might provide a more complete
understanding of the multiple contexts in which implementation will occur.
Understanding the multiple subcultures and developing an appreciation for the impact of
context on implementation might also lower fi'ustration that often arises between
directors when they observe one another moving at different paces or in different
directions with their efforts.

Additionally, because of the likely presence of multiple cultures existing in their
division, senior student affairs officers must be comfortable providing mid-level
professionals significant freedom to implement innovative ideas in ways that make sense
for their departments. The focus of the senior student affairs officer should be on
developing a common vision and outcomes that have utility across departments and
providing ample autonomy to director-level staff. Therefore, the mindset of change
leaders should not be focused on implementing a specific innovative idea, but on

improving practice within the division using innovative ideas to achieve this goal.

190

Organizational Capacity Matters

A third overarching finding that emerged across the three cases was the
importance of each organization’s technical and leadership capacity to put Learning
Reconsidered into practice. Although the process each division employed to bolster
capacity varied, all focused the majority of their attention on developing technical rather
than leadership skills among their staff. In this section I examine the influence of the
preparation of staff to implement Learning Reconsidered, discuss how the technical and
leadership capacities of professionals were or were not developed, review how resources
were used to fuel the effort, and discuss implications for research and practice.

Technical capacity. During conversations across the three divisions I rarely
sensed that anyone intentionally impeded implementation. This finding complicates the
perspective of scholars who believed that change efforts in student affairs were often
stymied by active opposition (Creamer, Creamer, & Ford, 1991). Instead, I believe the
majority of staff operated with good intentions to put Learning Reconsidered into
practice. Consequently, I concur with the perspective of the education faculty member at
Pioneer State who believed that nearly everyone at PSU was doing the very best they
knew how to do. However, what constituted professionals’ very best differed
significantly within and between institutions. For example, the best effort of the Director
of the Multicultural Center at PSU was to enhance an already well-regarded retention
initiative into a program touted as a best practice by national organizations. Conversely,
the best effort of the Admissions Director at High Plains was spending time thinking

about how his department might support student learning but making little head-way.

191

One explanation for the variation in professionals’ ability to implement was
identified by the Director of the Multicultural Center at PSU. He shared that his doctoral
education provided the foundational knowledge and skill-set he needed to move forward.
Examples of professionals with the required technical capacity to implement as a result of
previous educational or professional experiences existed in each division. Frequently it
was these technically advanced professionals, such as the directors of the Student Success
Center at ESU and TRIO Programs at HPU, who led the early adopting and
implementing units.

Even though technically adept professionals existed across the cases, data
indicated significant variation between each division’s organization-wide preparation and
capacity to put Learning Reconsidered into practice. For example, at High Plains the
professional staff was on-average highly educated, aware of current trends, previously
involved in strategic planning, maintained a comnritrnent to collaborating with colleagues
in academic affairs, and possessed a moderate comfort level with student assessment. In
other words, a sizable number of the professional staff possessed a value for and the
technical capacity to implement the document’s recommendations. In contrast, the
majority of professionals at ESU rarely collaborated, viewed themselves as service rather
than learning oriented, and generally lacked the ability to write or assess learning
outcomes. When comparing staff preparedness to implement across the two divisions, the
variation in technical capacity is apparent. In sum, at the point of adoption, the average
student affairs professional at ESU had a lot more learning to do than did their
counterpart at HPU before they would be capable of implementing Learning

Reconsidered.

192

Regardless of the baseline technical capacity of each organization, change leaders
across the cases worked to bolster the knowledge and skill of their staff. At ESU, Vice
President Pippen allocated twenty-thousand dollars to bring experts from the NASPA
national office to provide foundational knowledge on Learning Reconsidered and
guidance on the writing of learning outcomes. She followed this up by contracting with
the Keeling Group to conduct program reviews and create department-level strategic f
plans. While on campus the consultants also conducted workshops to provide one-on-one
coaching for senior and mid-level professionals charged with learning outcome

development.

 

At Pioneer State, Dean Svenson and Vice President Van Galder focused attention
on ramping up professionals’ ability to use the recommendations to enhance existing
programs and advance their assessment of co curricular student learning. To achieve
these goals, Svenson and Van Galder funded staff attendance at national and regional
conferences, developed a Dean’s Seminar that frequently focused on assessment,
contracted a faculty member to support department-level implementation, and
encouraged staff to reach out to on campus experts in the Office of the Provost to work
one-on-one to develop assessment plans.

Change leaders at HPU used similar tactics to Pioneer State such as funding staff
to attend assessment conferences, seeking support from faculty at the institution to
develop learning outcomes, and charging the existing Assessment Committee to provide
one-on-one technical consulting to support assessment initiatives. They also applied two
additional strategies. First, the small group of self-selected directors charged with

supporting implementation surveyed the staff to determine what resources were needed to

193

put Learning Reconsidered into practice. The data were then used to guide decision-
making concerning what resources were provided and how and when they were
employed. Second, the relational nature of campus led to informal conversations between
change leaders and mid- and entry-level staff as the process unfolded. For example,
Burton met monthly with the residence life coordinators and encouraged them to share
their frustrations and needs. When the coordinators shared with her that they lacked the ' -
time and expertise to adequately assess student learning in the residence halls, Burton
responded by contracting with Student Voice, a consulting company specializing in co

curricular learning assessment, to augment their efforts.

 

it" -

In comparing the three strategies used to bolster the technical capacity of each
organization, it is interesting to note that what was done across the cases was relatively
similar. For instance, change leaders in each division purchased the document for staff to
read, provided or supported professional development opportunities within and beyond
campus, and contracted with consultants to work one-on-one with departments. On the
other hand, significant variation across divisions existed in how and when resources were
deployed. At ESU, Pippen worked relatively autonomously to plan the NASPA Institute
and then brought in external consultants to review selected programs. The results of each
were mixed. Although the institute was exciting for some staff, the amount of new
information presented and its timing just prior to the beginning of the spring semester
resulted in many professionals feeling overwhelmed. Furthermore, infrequent
communication between Pippen and mid- and entry-level professionals about what they
needed to implement led to increased frustration with the Vice President and a loss of

agency related to implementation among professionals.

194

In contrast, Van Galder and Svenson at PSU placed a greater focus on
individualized interventions such as the use of an education faculty member and the
Associate Provost to consult with staff to support department-level efforts. The Associate
Provost believed three factors enhanced her ability to support implementation: 1) she has
a previous relationship with the directors rooted in trust and respect; 2) directors viewed
her as a useful tool, but not the hammer setting the expectation for implementation; and
3) staff came to her of their own volition and most fi'equently in the midst of
implementation when technical challenges emerged that they needed help to overcome.
Similar to PSU, change leaders at High Plains provided resources throughout the process
to promote technical competence, but also spent ample time reaching out to mid- and
entry-level professionals to ascertain their needs. One result of open communication was
a growing perception among mid- and entry-level professionals that their perspectives
were valued and the leadership was responsive to their suggestions.

A number of implications stem from these findings. First, change leaders should
carefully consider the pacing and timing of resource allocation in relation to the level of
staff preparedness to implement. It is conceivable that because the staff at Eastern State
was so ill-prepared to implement Learning Reconsidered that any initial effort to develop
their technical capacity would have felt overwhelming. On the other hand, it is likely that
building in a few incremental steps to scaffold their knowledge and skills as the process
unfolded would have caused less stress than front-loading training and staff development.
The data indicate that if professionals are not ready for the information and training they
receive, its intended impact is minimized. This implication reinforces the advice of

Diamond (2002), Eckel and Kezar (2003), and Keller (2004) who advised change leaders

195

to leverage organization resources with care to prepare their staff for organizational
change efforts.

Second, time must be taken early in the effort to develop organizationally
appropriate communication systems that allow change leaders and mid- and entry-level
professionals to share information in either direction. Although communication is
frequently mentioned as a key strategy when leading change efforts (e. g., Hunter, 2006;
Kuh, 1994; Ward & Warner, 1996), unidirectional communication is not enough.
Consequently, leaders are encouraged to develop communication systems that encourage
— not merely allow - the multidirectional exchange of ideas throughout the organization.
When open communication is infrequent, mid- and entry-level prOfessionals are likely to
lose their sense of agency related to implementation due to their inability to communicate
emergent challenges or articulate the resources or training they need to overcome them.
Likewise, without mid- and entry-level professionals’ insight into implementation,
change leaders will continue to be ill-equipped to make wise decisions about how and
when to marshal the necessary resources to support the effort.

Third, once foundational knowledge and skills are developed and a workable
communication system is established, change leaders are encouraged to incorporate a
just-in-time resource allocation strategy. This recommendation stems fiom the finding
that resources were most effective in enhancing technical capacity when they were
deployed in response to emergent problems. Additionally, interventions were particularly
successful when tailored to the needs of individual departments, delivered one-on-one or

in small groups, and performed by trusted individuals nested within the institution that

196

understood the organizational context. Change leaders would be wise to consider how
they might incorporate such tactics into their own just-in-time interventions.

Fourth, professionals benefit from being granted permission to try new things and
take reasonable risks during implementation. Encouraging a culture of reasonable risk-
taking was specifically noted by Burton and Van Galder as being central to their ability to
implement Learning Reconsidered and is consistent with a number of scholar’s
recommendations (Heifitz, 1994; Kezar, 2001; Ward & Warner, 1996). Such a tone is
important because when innovative ideas are initially put into practice, the likelihood of
success right out of the gate is quite small (ACPA & NASPA, 2004). Consequently, if the
professional staff is hesitant to try new things until they feel adequately prepared, the
organization will likely be waiting a long time to begin implementing. Instead, change
leaders should frame early implementation efforts as a first and best attempt, that
mistakes will be made, things will be learned, and that rrrid- and entry-level professionals
should do their best with the capacity they possess, communicate challenges as they
emerge, and request the resources they need to overcome difficulties as they arise. For
many mid- and entry-level student affairs professionals, taking on the role of active
problem solver may initially stretch their abilities. Consequently, staff training and '
ongoing professional development is essential. Focusing efforts on problem-based
learning such as table-top exercises in which current issues are examined and dissected in
a learning-focused environment can model the desired mindset and over time develop
professionals’ technical capacity to implement.

Leadership capacity. Unlike the significant attention change leaders across the

cases devoted to ramping up the technical capacity of professionals to implement, less

197

time was committed to developing leadership capacity in each organization. This finding
was surprising because of the number of times champions and senior student affairs
officers commented on the importance of leadership in the process. In this section I
compare how each organization bolstered its leadership capacity and discuss implications
that stem from the findings.

At Eastern State, Pippen was blunt in her assessment of the inability of the staff
she inherited to lead implementation efforts. Her response was to adjust the titles of
directors she believed were capable of moving the division forward and then hire two
external candidates to fill the associate vice president positions. At Pioneer, Van Galder
commented that his management philosophy was to hire outstanding professionals into
senior positions and then provide them ample autonomy to lead their units. He had great
confidence in his current senior leadership team and believed it was their good work that
fueled the implementation effort. Perhaps it was because of his already high level of
confidence in his senior staff that minimal concerted effort Was made to further develop
the organization’s leadership capacity among mid- and entry-level professionals to put
Learning Reconsidered into practice.

I At High Plains modest attention was paid to developing the leadership ability of
professional staff. One example was the work of Ted Dewey in Residence Life. Dewey
shared in detail his efforts to build upon the residence life coordinators’ collective ability
to generate a vision, assess the needs of their staff, and develop strategies to build
momentum. Dewey focused the majority of his attention on sharing resources and leading
conversations to deepen the coordinators’ thinking about the change process and their

role within it. Additionally, although not intended to bolster leadership capacity, the

198

process of developing division-wide learning outcomes at HPU provided a venue for
directors to practice how to introduce and implement Learning Reconsidered in their own
departments.

Looking within and across the cases, is it noteworthy that although early unit-
level implementation was often related to innovation/unit fit, it was also apparent that
when highly capable directors led the effort, implementation was more likely. Two
examples of outstanding leaders in mid-level leadership roles were Ted Dewey at HPU
and the recreation center director at ESU. Each recognized fiom the outset that if
implementation was going to lead to transformative change - a goal of Learning
Reconsidered (ACPA & NASPA, 2004) — each needed to give much of the work back to
their staff. They did so by creating the time and. space for entry-level professionals in
their unit to participate fully in the implementation process. Dewey’s goal was to
facilitate a setting in which the coordinators took ownership of implementation.
Similarly, entry-level staff in the Recreation Center initially viewed implementation as an
initiative to check off an already long list of projects. Recognizing this emerging mindset,
the director slowed the process and encouraged them to begin to reassess what
implementation might mean to the totality of their efforts in the department, if done in a
manner consistent with the document’s recommendations. In both cases, the entry-level
professionals in each department shared that their strong commitment to move forward
resulted from the leadership of the directors.

Although neither of these mid-level professionals mentioned using a particular
model or framework, the description of how they led the process within their unit made it

apparent that each operated with a keen understanding of organizational change. It was

199

because these two professionals were committed to the effort, possessed significant
leadership experience, and understood how organizational change occurs that they
refiained from just doing the work themselves. This stands in stark contrast to other mid-
level professionals across the cases that moved quickly and achieved a fair amount in
their implementation efforts but did so without including their staff in the process. In
these latter situations, such as in the Union at Pioneer State, it remains to be seen whether
removing the director - the primary driving force in that unit — will significantly impact
the momentum or outcome of the initiative.

A number of implications emanate from these findings. First, champions and
senior student affairs officers must balance their desire to implement rapidly with the
reality that transformational change in higher education is rarely quick to occur (Eckel &
Kezar, 2002). Therefore, when transformation is desired and in light of the central role of
mid-level professionals in the process, it behooves senior student affairs officers to focus
increased attention on bolstering the leadership capacity of directors throughout their
organization. There are many ways to do this such as encouraging staff to pursue
professional develop experiences, developing coaching and mentoring experiences,
encouraging further educational pursuits, and when appropriate, hiring staff to build
capacity. Staff meetings should not be overlooked as opportunities to increase leadership
capacity in the organization. Rather than meetings being used only to convey
information, a better use might be to incorporate ongoing reflection and critical
discussions about mission, values, goals and strategic planning that can enhance the

organization’s ability to learn (Senge, 1990). Deciding which tactics to use should be

200

done in conjunction with the immediacy of the challenges, the pressure to implement,
availability of resources, needs of the staff, and the culture of the organization.

Second, although professional associations sponsor a number of programs to
firrther the development of mid-level professionals, relatively few opportunities exist in

relation to the size of the profession. Simply stated, more needs to be done profession-

‘1

wide to increase the leadership capacity of mid-level professionals.
Third, the data in this study repeatedly called attention to the significant influence
of mid-level professionals during implementation. Yet, little is known about who these

mid-level professionals are, how they are educated and trained, what competencies they

 

need to be successful in their roles, or what professional development experiences might
support their ability to be successfirl in their positions generally or their ability to lead
implementation efforts specifically. Each of these areas is ripe for research.
Capturing Implementation in Metaphor

In this section I introduce a metaphor that captures the complex and non-linear
nature of implementation across the three cases. The metaphor ties together a number of
the findings discussed in the previous section. Using the metaphor of a river delta to
capture the implementation process is appropriate because of the finding that when
divisions of student affairs put Learning Reconsidered into practice, the components of
the process (e.g., introduction; adoption; implementation) were rarely distinct or entirely
linear. Rather, they flowed from and into one another influencing how each transpired as
the process unfolded. In sum, the metaphor serves as an overarching framework and

includes many of the key findings that surfaced across the cases.

201

Implementation as River Delta

Peter Vaill described change in contemporary organizations as permanent
whitewater (1995). The image he conjured up was the ever quickening pace of change
and the need for those navigating the change process to respond as best they could while
acknowledging their relative lack of control. On the one hand, the idea of a raging river
and a kayaker navigating myriad obstacles does indeed capture the challenges many of

the change leaders in this study articulated experiencing at some points during

 

implementation. Dr. Charlotte Pippen, the Vice President at Eastern State University,
exemplified the conceptualization of Vaill’s permanent whitewater metaphor when she
shared that she felt like “a lone wolf” in the wilderness during much of her first year as
she tried to put Learning Reconsidered into practice. Her feelings of loneliness, by her
own admission, led to her desire to hire “mini-mes” to help her implement Learning
Reconsidered in the “virtual wasteland” of ESU.

On the other hand, when Vaill’s (1995) metaphor is applied to the cases of this
study it insinuates that each student affairs division and the professionals within it were
obstacles that needed to be navigated by change leaders rather than partners in the
process of putting a new idea into practice. Elmore (1980) commented that the use of
forward mapping in implementation studies often resulted in scholars and change leaders
viewing the organization in this way.

When analyzing implementation only from the perspective of a change agent, it is
easy to perceive the process as permanent whitewater (V aill, 1995). However, when
implementation is examined from the vantage points of a wide range of student affairs

professionals across the division, the process resembles less a scenario in which a

202

champion or senior student affairs officer is battling resistant components of his or her
environment and more a complex interaction between new and existing ideas and ways of
operating. For example, Ted Dewey, the Director of Residence Life at High Plains
University, viewed his live-in staff as an indispensable instrument in implementing
Learning Reconsidered. Consequently, Dewey refiained from prescribing the outcomes
of their effort and instead provided staff the time and space they needed to make sense of Hi
the new ideas in relation to their work, implement the recommendations, and then
redesign various components of the residence life program to align with and support

implementation. In short, Dewey focused the live-in staff’s attention, coached them,

 

 

marshaled resources, and encouraged them to use their education, training, knowledge of
the organization, and creativity to implement Learning Reconsidered. He viewed his staff
as partners, not obstacles, and himself as a guide through the process of putting a new
idea into practice. This conceptualization of implementation is congruent with the process
that occurred across the three divisions in which multiple individuals simultaneously
served as guides as Learning Reconsidered was introduced, adopted, and implemented.
Even at ESU, where Pippen often perceived her staff as an obstacle, many others such as
the Directors or the Recreation Center and Student Success Center viewed the colleagues
in their units as the primary mechanism to be employed to put the ideas into practice and
that it was their responsibility to lead the effort.

As a result, I conclude that the metaphor of a single, fast-paced river being
navigated by change leaders forwarded by Vaill (1995) is only partially useful in
capturing the implementation of Learning Reconsidered in these three divisions. Yes,

there were multiple challenges and numerous obstacles to implementation that were

203

detailed in each of the cases, but implementation was much more complicated than a
single leader taking charge, bringing an idea to campus, and shepherding the idea through
the organization until it was successfully implemented. Rather, the image that I find best
captures how implementation occurred across the three divisions is that of a large river as
it flows from a single stream to a complex and slower paced delta before it spills into a
large body of water. In this metaphor, the river’s water and current symbolize the F“
continuous flow of new ideas that mix with existing ideas in the delta area and other new
ideas flowing from various tributaries. The delta is the student affairs division and its

multiple, loosely-coupled departments (W eick, 1976). The water’s pathway through the I i

 

delta is the implementation process as the innovative idea, in this case Learning
Reconsidered, cascades its way through the organization along multiple, interconnected
routes.

As ideas move further from the push of the central current, they spread out and
interact with myriad existing ideas and ways of operating. This results in the adaptation
of the ideas and the alteration of the organization itself. Similar to the metaphor where
water flows through the delta along various routes and is constantly changing its flow in
response to shifts in the sediment, river bottom, rocks and root structures, divisions of
student affairs include numerous individuals situated throughout the organization that
influence the implementation of new ideas. During the implementation of Learning
Reconsidered, the individuals who were most likely to guide the idea through the student
affairs divisions were those in mid-level positions such as department-level directors or
those responsible for the leadership of a cluster of departments. The importance of having

adequately prepared guides is essential in supporting the implementation effort.

204

Another overarching finding that emerged across the three cases captured by the
river delta metaphor was the non-discrete and interconnected nature of the
implementation process as it unfolded over time and throughout each organization. In
each division, the various components of the implementation process of Learning
Reconsidered influenced one another vertically and horizontally fi'om initial awareness,
to adoption, to putting the embedded recommendations into practice. An example of 1,.
horizontal influence was the early adoption and implementation efforts of the Registrar at
High Plains University. The quick pace of this department’s successful efforts resulted in

other departments and the division as a whole believing that, if the Registrar could put

 

Learning Reconsidered into practice, then they could as well. In addition to the horizontal *
interconnectedness, there was a similar vertical relationship in each organization. An
example was the significant influence of how the adoption decision was made at Eastern
State University on department-level implementation efforts. Taking the interconnected
nature of the process into account and using this awareness to their advantage when
making decisions is essential for change leaders.

An additional finding that emerged was the influence of organizational culture
and context on implementation. Returning to the metaphor, the river delta is a highly
interconnected ecosystem in which each component — river, environment, flora, and
fauna - interacts with and affects the others in obvious and subtle ways. The complexity
of the delta ecosystem makes understanding cause and effect when changes occur in the
environment difficult to foresee. In addition, the context of each river delta is unique and

is not static. Understanding how components of a delta interact and influence one another

205

at a given point in time does not predict their relationship over time, or transfer to
understanding other deltas.

Similarly, as Learning Reconsidered was implemented in each of the three student
affairs divisions, it became apparent that nearly everything affected the effort; it all
mattered. It just all mattered differently in each organizational context and even at
different times within a single context (i.e., the first and second implementation efforts at
High Plains University). Influential factors included the history and culture of the
division, the degree of education of the professional staff, the level of awareness of
national trends and best practices within the division, accreditation, the use of various
levers to focus staff attention on the effort, the technical and leadership capacity of the
organization, the availability of timely professional development, and the leadership style
of the senior student affairs officer. An example of how similar levers used in separate
divisions resulted in different outcomes was the adaptation of annual reports to encourage
implementation. At Pioneer State and High Plains, incorporating progress in
implementing and assessing learning outcomes into each department’s annual report was
viewed as relatively non-threatening. However, a similar change at Eastern State
University provoked significant anxiety and resentment toward the vice president from a
number of staff members. Although each lever was meant to focus attention of the staff
on implementation, how each was enacted and the organizational culture and context in
which it was employed led to significant variations in the end result of its use.

The conclusion that I draw from an analysis across the three divisions is that there
was no single lever that was universally effective. Instead, successful implementation

was dependent upon leaders throughout the organization being aware of the culture and

206

 

context of the organization, the shifting needs of their staff members, and then
responding appropriately to support and bolster their efforts. This finding is consistent
with earlier research on change strategies by Sandeen (2001), Eckel and Kezar (2003),
and Locke and Guglielrrrino (2006). But, rather than agreeing with Diamond (2002) who
viewed culture as a barrier, I contend that culture should be used by change leaders as a
road map to guide decision-making broadly, and how and when to use levers to further rm
implementation, specifically.

Using the metaphor of a river delta to capture implementation builds upon Vaill’s

(1995) belief of the constancy of change and borrows fiom Wheatley’s (1994) view that

 

ideas are the “creative energy of the universe” that drives organizations and innovation
forward. The broader ecosystem of the river delta that symbolizes the interconnectedness
of the organizational context, multiple subcultures and their shifting influence on the
irriplementation of Learning Reconsidered is consistent calls for leaders to incorporate a
systems perspective (Kuh, 1994; Scott, 2002; Morgan, 1999) and use multiple lenses
when leading change efforts (Bohnan & Deal, 1997).

The metaphor also challenges earlier research on the importance of administrators
located at the pinnacle of the organization on implementation (Creamer & Creamer,
1986; Furst-Bowe & Bauer, 2007; Hunter, 2006; Keller, 2004; Kezar, 2005; Manning et
al., 2006; Sandeen, 2001). Instead, I suggest that the influence of the senior student
affairs officer or primary change agent is transferred in part after the initial introduction
to mid-level professionals. These mid-level professionals take on increasingly influential

roles as they guide implementation efforts in the loosely-coupled departments (W eick,

207

1976). The essential role of mid-level professionals during implementation builds upon
the findings of Srrrith and Rogers (2005).
Applying the Metaphor to Practice

The river delta metaphor is not presented as a model to be followed by leaders
hoping to implement innovations in their organizations. Rather, it is shared to capture the
complexity and nature of the process by which innovative ideas are put into practice.
Conceptualizing implementation as a river delta falls short of providing a step-by-step
manual of how to enact an innovation; its utility is in the framework it provides and the

mindset it encourages. Applying the river delta metaphor to their own organization can

 

help change leaders and others make sense of the process, understand their shifting role
as implementation unfolds, recognize the importance of senior leaders, mid-level
professionals and others, and employ levers in ways and at times that move the effort
forward. Ideally, incorporating the metaphor will encourage patience and persistence
among change agents and champions by helping them understand why change is often
slow to spread and the importance of sustaining the effort over time as noted by Collins
(2001,2005)

One of the resounding implications fiom the study is the importance of possessing
an appropriate mindset when implementing an innovation. Consequently, I provide the
three proceeding recommendations. First, I implore change leaders to recognize their
limitations and the opportunities they have to influence the process. Doing so allows
them to focus attention on key points in the process such as the initiation phase and
adoption decision (Rogers, 1983) where their influence is significant. Additionally, as the

process moves beyond centralized adoption and into decentralized implementation, senior

208

leaders and champions must recognize and embrace their symbolic and behind-the-scenes
role. Although they may be called upon to encourage risk-taking, communicate
consistently, listen carefully, respond appropriately, marshal resources when necessary,
coach and mentor, celebrate successes, and continuously frame the utility of the
innovation, it is how and when they act that is of utmost importance. In short, their
behaviors must be congruent with the environment in which they operate. As such, I
agree with Fullan (2001) that employing a checklist is to be avoided and add that leaders
who use the river delta metaphor to make sense of the complexity are better equipped to
respond appropriately.

Second, change leaders should refiain from conceptualizing successfirl
implementation as putting a specific idea into practice in a certain way. Rarely do
administrations have the necessary influence to ensure such an outcome (Cohen &
March, 1986; Mintzberg, 1979; Elmore, 1980). Instead, innovative ideas should be
viewed as tools to help the organization achieve its mission and goals. In most
organizations, how the innovation is perceived will shift over time as the process
cascades through the organization into departments with different cultures and priorities
(Locke & Gugliehnino, 2006). Change leaders need to provide mid-level professionals — .
the guides — with significant autonomy and adequate time and space to move forward in
ways that makes sense in the context of their specific unit. Of all the resources and levers
noted in the cases, availability of time and space emerged as the most significant in
supporting implementation. Furthermore, enhancing the organizational leadership
capacity by preparing mid-level professionals adequately for their role as guides

increases the likelihood of implementation.

209

 

Third, leaders should strive to View themselves as part of, not apart fiom, their
organization. When leaders believe they are doing battle against resistive colleagues
rather than perceiving them as partners, it is quite difficult to lead a collaborative,
inclusive, and team-based effort as called for by scholars (Bensimon & Neumann, 1994;
Bringle & Hatch, 1996; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Reiser & Roper, 1999; Ward & Warner,
1996). Implementation is too hard, student affairs are organizations too loosely-coupled
(Weick, 1976), and professionals operate with too much autonomy (Kuh, 2003; Keeling,
Underhile, & Wall, 2007) for a change leader to ensure implementation on their own.
Embracing the metaphor leads individuals in the organization to understand their unique
and essential role in the process. Leaders and champions must recognize that
implementation is most effective when it happens with, not to professionals. The mantra
of Vice President Van Galder at Pioneer State University is worth noting, “People don’t
resist change; they resist being changed.” The key point is that how leaders view the role
of their staff in the effort - as guide or impediment - will likely determine their approach
throughout the process.

Summary of Theoretical Implications

As previously noted, a number of theoretical implications emerged from this
study. In this section I briefly summarize a few of the key ideas. First, the introduction of
the river delta metaphor to describe the implementation process is a new way of
conceptualizing how innovations are put into practice in postsecondary organizations.
The metaphor provides a flexible framework for making sense of the iterative, complex,
and fi'equently non-linear nature of the precess. The inclusion of the broader environment

of the delta in the metaphor forwards the perspective that organizational context and

210

culture should be viewed as a roadmap, not a barrier. Second, because the river delta
captures the repetitive process by which innovations are implemented as they cascade
through organizations, it encourages a reevaluation of the role of senior leaders and mid-
level professionals in the process. Although senior leaders remain important, their
influence appears greater at the outset and increasingly transitioned to being more
symbolic and behind the scenes as implementation preceded. Simultaneous to the shifting
roles of senior leaders was the growing influence of mid-level professionals as they
guided implementation efforts within individual units.

Third, although leaders and champions used many of the same levers as they tried
to propel implementation forward in their organization; it was how and when levers were
employed that was particularly important. The implication is that although it is quite
common in the leadership and organizational change literature for scholars to recommend
a series of steps to be taken (e.g., Fullan, 2001; Kotter, 1996; Kuh, 1996), more time I
should be spent on exploring how and when to do so for maximum impact within the
specific organizational contexts in which the implementation will occur. Furthermore,
although many of the commonly noted levers and resources discussed in the literature
were employed by change leaders across the cases, the key resource that emerged in this
study was the availability of time and space for mid-level professionals to put innovative
ideas into practice in their units.

Fourth, possibly because of the use of backward mapping as the analytical
technique to provide a ground view perspective of the process, resistance to
implementation among mid- and entry-level professionals did not emerge as a significant

issue across the cases. The implication is that resistance may be in the eye of the beholder

211

 

and the use of different research methods may provide different perspectives on how and
why individuals respond to implementation and change as they do. It seems likely that
when implementation is examined primarily from the perspective of those leading the
effort, the presence of slow and non-adopters can easily be viewed as being the result of
resistant individuals. In this study, what was perceived as resistance by some change
leaders was instead a very rational response by professionals to unclear expectations or a
lack of capacity to implement. Resistance was therefore less an intentional response to
impede implementation on the part of staff and more an outcome of the process
happening to them rather than including them as partners in putting the new idea into
practice.
Summary of Recommendations for Practice

Throughout this chapter, I provided recommendations for practice that emerged
from the data. In this section, I briefly summarize these recommendations with the intent
of providing areas of focus for those aspiring to implement innovative ideas. As
previously noted, because of the unique culture and context of each organization, what is
done by champions and leaders is likely to be less important than how and when various
actions are taken. Consequently, change leaders are encouraged from the outset to focus
ample time and attention on understanding the unique needs of professionals in their
organization and the culture and context in which implementation will occur. Performing
an organizational audit early on will provide a roadrnap to guide implementation efforts.
Once an audit is completed, the following areas should be attended to. -

First, change leaders are encouraged to begin by leading their organization in a

period of collective stock-taking that is inclusive of the ideas and perspectives of all

212

 

personnel. They might begin by asking questions such as, who are we? Where are we
going? How are we going to get there? Such questions can begin the often difficult
process of focusing the attention of the organization inward by reflecting on collective
purpose and mission. The final component of this reflective process is the adoption of
innovative ideas that might be used as tools to support the achievement of these agreed

upon goals. By first taking-stock of the mission and goals will lead to the innovation

- ..‘r-‘J-i- m1

being viewed not as the outcome itself, but instead as a useful tool to support the
organization’s achievement of its mission and goals.

Second, throughout the process, senior leaders and champions must recognize the

 

‘tr... m

symbolic impact of their language and actions on the energy and attention given to the
effort by mid- and entry-level staff. In short, if implementation is not perceived as a
priority of key leaders, it is not likely to be a focus of professionals throughout the
organization. Therefore, change leaders should provide persistent and consistent
communication that goes beyond grand proclamations to include everyday conversations ,
and ongoing discussions of the effort during staff meetings, as an example. The key point
is that maintaining the dialogue in formal and informal settings is essential to preserving
momentum.

Third, beyond communicating that implementation is indeed a priority, senior
leaders would be wise to foster an environment that encourages and supports creativity in
putting innovative ideas into practice. This can be achieved by granting permission to
staff to try new things, promoting a culture of reasonable risk-taking, creating the time

and space for staff to plan for and then engage in the implementation process, and

213

publicly recognizing that implementation is likely to occur in different ways across
different units.

Fourth, attention must be given to the development of communication systems
that encourage, not merely allow, multi-directional information sharing throughout the
organization. As implementation unfolds, senior leaders benefit from maintaining a
ground view perspective that informs where they direct their attention and how they
might adjust their allocation of resources. Likewise, mid- and entry-level professionals
are more apt to maintain a sense of agency and engagement in the effort if they are able
to communicate emergent challenges, provide recommendations for resource allocation,
and receive timely responses to their requests.

Fifth, the technical and leadership capacity of professionals in the organization
must be bolstered. In regards to technical capacity, senior leaders must carefirlly consider
the appropriate timing and pacing of professional development. For instance, too much,
too early without appropriately scaffolding the interventions can quickly overwhelm
staff. However, insufficient attention to developing the technical capacity initially may
lead to heightened fi'ustration among professionals ill prepared to put the innovation into
practice. Consequently, incorporating a just-in-time training and development strategy
that is responsive to emergent staff needs is encouraged.

Finally, in regards to leadership capacity, because of the significant role of mid-
level professionals in guiding implementation in individual units, incorporating strategies
for enhancing their understanding of and ability to lead implementation is absolutely
essential. Ideally, the effort to enhance leadership capacity should be ongoing,

responsive, tailored to the specific needs of the staff, appropriate for the organizational

214

context and culture, occur one-on-one or in small groups, and be developed and carried
out by experts from within the institution.
Conclusion

My goal at the outset of this study was to provide change leaders and post
secondary administrations a nuanced understanding of the implementation process and
offer recommendations to enhance their efforts. With this goal in mind, I examined the
implementation of Learning Reconsidered in three divisions of student affairs. How
implementation unfolded in the three cases was presented in chapters four, five, and six.
Each case provided a vivid picture of thecomplicated and messy nature of
implementation and organizational change that practitioners no doubt recognized and
scholars have previously noted (Collins, 2001 ; Creamer, Creamer, & Ford, 1991; Eckel &
Kezar, 2002; Heifitz, 1994; Kotter, 1996). Because of significant variations across the
cases, each was included in its entirety using the research questions to fiarne their I
presentation. This was done so that administrators and change leaders who recognize
components of their own organization, its culture, or implementation process in the cases
might use them to reflect on their own experience and guide future decision-making and
behaviors. Although each case provided a unique story of how implementation occurred,
common findings did emerge across sites. _,_

In this final chapter I provided an analysis across the cases and shared a number
of findings and implications for research and practice that stemmed from them. I also
presented a metaphor that tied together many of the findings while taking into account the
complexity of the process and the mediating influence of the culture of each organization.

Like many earlier scholars (e.g., Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Kuh, 1994; Lick, 2002), I believe

215

that change leaders are wise to develop a nuanced understanding of their organization’s
culture in advance of implementation. However, I extend this recommendation in two
ways. First, I argue that change leaders should view culture as a road map, not a barrier.
By attending early to understanding how and why their organization and its myriad
components operate as they do, change leaders will be increasingly likely to successfully

We the utility of the innovation in a manner that makes good sense throughout the

organization. Second, because of the cascading nature of implementation and the
significant role of mid-level professionals in the effort, ample attention must be paid to

furthering their understanding of the culture and prominent subcultures in the

 

w _ my .m‘a....r_ .1...-

organization. Once this occurs, mid-levels professionals’ capacity to lead implementation
must be enhanced. Likewise, the technical capacity of professionals throughout the
organization must be bolstered in ways that connect to the ongoing effort and are

I appropriately timed.

The implementation of innovation is hard. It is messy, complicated, exciting, fun,
exhausting, and invigorating. It is also necessary in an era in which calls for reform are
persistent and postsecondary institutions are expected to do more with less (Bok, 2006;
Collins, 2005; Diamond, 2002; Duderstadt, 2000; Friedman, 2005; Gensheirner, 2009).
Although scholars differ on the utility of engaging in planned change in postsecondary
organizations (Birnbaum, 2000; Collins, 1998; Dooris, Kelley, & Trainer, 2004;
Woodward, Love, and Konrives, 2000), leaving organizational improvement to chance
seems foolish. While it may be true that the complexity of implementation and change
are too great to be captured by a single model (Kezar, 2003), change leaders can benefit

fiom developing an increasingly nuanced understanding of how implementation unfolds.

216

 

The metaphor of the river delta captures the complexity of the implementation process,
provides a framework to help individuals throughout organizations make sense of it, and
suggests useful mindsets for change leaders and champions to help them move their

organization forward.

 

217 i

APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Thank you for being willing to participate in my study of the implementation of Learning
Reconsidered at your institution.

Purpose: 1 am interested in learning more about how “program X” was planned and
implemented. In particular, I want to understand what factors affected its implementation,
how they were handled, and who played what role in getting the initiative off the ground.

Procedures: I will be asking a number of open-ended questions. As I indicated in the initial
invitation letter, I would like to audio-tape these interviews so that I am able to recreate
accurately what you say. If you would like to say something and prefer for it not to be
recorded, please tell me, and I will turn off the tape recorder. All tapes, transcriptions,
forms, and other documents will be coded, with pseudonyms used in place of names and
institutions to safeguard the participants and institutions’ identities to the greatest extent

possible.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

Consent: Review and sign two consent forms; give one form to the participant.

Make sure that digital recorder is ready. Start interviewing.

Background

As you know, I am interested in understanding how Learning Reconsidered was
implemented here at [X University]. Specifically, I’m interested in understanding how
you implemented [program X].

1. Can you begin by sharing with me a bit about yourself and your role and work
here at [X University].

2. How would you describe your division of student affairs to a colleague at a
different institution?

3. Now, thinking back to when the decision was made to adopt Learning

Reconsidered. Can you share what you remember about some of the key events
that led up to that decision?

It is my understanding that [program X] was developed/redeveloped as a result of the
divisions decision to adopt Learning Reconsidered. I want to spend some time talking
how that all happened.

4. Please begin by telling me a bit about [program X].

218

. a." 'a‘.-‘I‘.

 

5. Now, can you share with me a bit about how [program X] was developed and
implemented?

6. So, overall, what do you think explains why things happened as they did with the
implementation of [program x] after the division decided to adopt Learning
Reconsidered?

7. Who else do you believe I should speak with to understand how the program was
implemented? 5

Closing Statement
Thank you for spending time with me and sharing your insights. I will be sending you a

transcript of the interview and my initial impressions of this interview as soon as
possible. You will have an opportunity to read and revise your responses. k

 

219

APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM

Research Participant Information and Consent Form

You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to
provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is
voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an
informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may
have.

Study Title: Backward Mapping the Implementation of an Irmovative Idea in

Higher Education: The Case of Learning Reconsidered

Researcher and Title: Eric R. Jessup-Anger, Doctoral Candidate

Department and Institution: Educational Administration, Michigan State University
Address and Contact Information: 411 N. Clemens Ave., Lansing, MI 48912;
303.547.2924; jessupa2@msu.edu

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

You are being asked to participate in a research study seeking to understand the
implementation of Learning Reconsidered at your institution. Learning Reconsidered was
a national report that reconceptualized the role of student affairs in higher education
released in 2004. You have been selected as a participant in this study because of your
position or association with the institution being studied and your unique vantage point
during the implementation and organizational change process. From this study, the
researchers hope to gain a deeper understanding of how divisions of student affairs
implement innovative ideas and the organizational change process associated with their
implementation. Data analysis will follow standard qualitative procedures and will be
conducted by Eric J essup-Anger, a doctoral student in the Department of Education
Administration at Michigan State University.

In the entire study, it is expected that approximately 30 people at three separate
institutions are being asked to participate. Your participation in this study will take about
60 minutes for the initial interview with a possible follow-up interview either in person,
on the phone, or via email. If you are under 18, you cannot be in this study without
parental permission.

WHAT YOU WILL DO

You will be interviewed by Eric J essup-Anger, a doctoral student in Educational
Administration at Michigan State University. You will answer a series of questions
concerning your experiences and perceptions of the implementation of Learning
Reconsidered and the associated organizational change process at your institution.

220

 

Please indicate on the information form if you would like me to provide you with a copy
of the findings of the research study, a bibliography of resources for further reading on
the topic, or both.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

Benefits which might be gained by participating in the research study include a forum for
reflecting on your experiences with the implementation process with an interested
interviewer and insights into student affairs, your division of student affairs, or yourself
as a result of the process.

POTENTIAL RISKS

It is possible that you may become uncomfortable discussing your experiences. Potential
psychological risks include becoming emotionally distraught while being interviewed
because of a difficulty encountered in your position in general or with the implementation
process or organizational change in particular. As a reminder, you may, at any time and
without penalty, elect not to answer a question or terminate the interview. Appropriate
referrals may be made during the interview for support services.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

Your identity will remain confidential in all transcribing, analyzing, and reporting of
data. Because the study involves face-to-face interviews, participants cannot remain "
anonymous. However, your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable
by law. A pseudonym will be used in transcribing, analyzing, and reporting data. The
researchers, members of the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board, and
the faculty advisor overseeing the dissertation are the only individuals that will have
access to participant information.

With your consent, the interview will be audio recorded. If you agree that I may do so,
you may request at any time that recorder be turned off. Digital recordings will be kept in
a secure location until the study is completed, at which time they will be erased.

I agree to allow audio taping of the interview.

a Yes :1 No Initials

 

The information form, on which you indicate your name, contact information, and chosen
pseudonym, will be maintained by the researcher in a secure location until the end of the
study, when it will be destroyed. The contact information will be kept until the end of the
study in case there is need for you to clarify information originally provided or in case the
researcher would like to obtain your feedback on how the data was documented or
interpreted. The contact information form will be kept in a separate secure location than
that of the digital recordings. The results of this study may be published or presented at

221

professional meetings, but the identity of the research setting and the identities of all
research participants will remain anonymous.

YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY N 0, OR WITHDRAW

Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say
no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw with no penalty for doing so.
You may also choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time.

COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY

You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this
study.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS

 

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the primary investigator Dr.
Marilyn Amey, Professor in the Department of Education Administration, 427 Erickson
Hall, Michigan State University, (517)432-1056; amey@msu.edu or Eric Jessup-Anger,
411 N. Clemens Ave, Lansing, MI, 48912, (303)547-2924; jessupa2@msu.edu.

“ESQ-5.4L:

If you have any questions about your role and rights as a research participant, or would
like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish,
the Director of MSU’s Human Research Protection Programs, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, at
517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at: 202 Olds
Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT

Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research
study.

 

 

Participant Signature Date

 

 

Investigator Signature Date

222

REFERENCES

ABET. (1997). Engineering Criteria 2000: Criteria for accrediting programs in
engineering in the United States (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology.

Aery, S. & Moore, N. (1976, April). Affecting organizational change in student services.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Personnel and
Guidance Association, Chicago, IL.

Allen, K. E. & Cherrey, C. (2003). Student affairs as change agents. NASPA Journal, LL
40(2), 29-42.

Allen, K. E. & Garb, E. L. (1993). Reinventing student affairs: Something old and
something new. NASPA Journal, 30(2), 93-100.

i-:I-."

 

American Association of Higher Education, American College Personnel Association,
and National Association for Student Personnel Administrators. (1998). Powerful '
partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. Washington DC: Author.

American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view.
Washington, DC: Author.

American Council on Education. (1949). The student personnel point of view.
Washington, DC: Author.

American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative:
Implications for student aflairs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators. (1996). 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
Intramural-Recreation Sports Association. (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: A
practical guide to implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience.
Washington, DC: Author.

223

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
Intramural-Recreation Sports Association. (2007). Learning reconsidered
[Interactive website]. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from
http://www.learningreconsidered.org/

Annirrio, J. L., & Hultgren, F. H. (2002). Breaking out from the shadow: The question of
criteria in qualitative research. Journal of College Student DeveIOpment, 43, 446-
460.

Appleton, J. R, Briggs, C. M., & Rhatigan, J. J. (1978). Pieces of eight. Portland, OR:
NASPA.

Appleton, J. R., Moore, P. L., & Vinton, J. C. (1978). A model for the effective delivery
of student services in academic schools and departments. Journal of Higher
Education, 49(4), 372-381.

Asera, R. (2003). Another F lexner Report? Pondering F lexner ’s role in reforming
education. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from:
http://www.aacte.org/Research/flexnerrpt.pdf

Ausiello, K., & Wells, B. (1997). Information technology and student affairs: Planning
for the 21St century. In C. McHugh Engstrom & K. W Kruger (Eds), Using
technology to promote student learning (New Directions for Student Services No.
78, pp. 71-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations.
Washington DC: Author.

Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Enhancing learning. In R.B. Winston, Jr., D. G. Creamer, T.
K. Miller and Associate, The professional student affairs administrator:
Educator, leader, and manager (p. 287-308). New York: Routledge.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: The United States
Department of Education.

Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1994). Redesigning collegiate leadership: Teams and
teamwork in higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Birnbaurn, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

224

 

Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they came fi'om,
what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blirnling, G. S., & Whitt, E. J. (Eds.) (1999). Good practice in student affairs: Principles
to foster student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bloland, P. A., Stamatakos, L. C., & Rogers, R R (1996). Redirecting the role of student
affairs to focus on student learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37,
217-226.

Bok, D. Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why
they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Boyce, M. E. (2003). Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining
change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 119-136.

Bolrnan, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1997). Refiaming organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York:
Harper and Row. ‘

Boyer, E. L. (1990a). Campus life: In search of community. Lawrenceville, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.

Boyer, E. L. (1990b). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, N.J.: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Braxton, J.M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. In J .M. Braxton (Ed),
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 1-9). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University Press.

Bringle, R G. & Hatch, J. A. (1996). Implementing service-leaming in higher education.
Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221-39.

Carpenter, D. S. (2001). Staff student affairs divisions. In RB. Winston, Jr., D. G.
Creamer, T. K. Miller and Associate (Eds), The professional student affairs

administrator: Educator, leader, and manager (p. 211-244). New York:
Routledge.

Cherry Commission. (2004). Final report of the Lt. Governor ’s Commission on Higher
Education and Economic Growth. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of
Education.

Chronical of Higher Education (2008). Almanac. Retrieved April 9, 2008, from
http://chronicle.com/weekly/almanac/2007/nation/O1 03501 .htrn

225

Creamer, D. G., & Creamer, E. G. (1986). Applying a model of planned change to
program innovation in student affairs. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27,
19-26.

Creamer, E. G., & Creamer, D. G (1988). Predicting successful organizational change:
Case studies. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 4—11.

Creamer, E. G., & Creamer, D. G (1989). Testing a model of planned change across
student affairs and curriculum reform projects. Journal of College Student
Development, 30, 27-34.

Creamer, E. G., Creamer, D. G., & Ford, R. H. (1991). Construct reliability of the
probability of change (PAC) model. Journal of College Student Development,
32(1), 31-38.

Creamer, D. G., Winston, M. J., & Miller, T. K. (2001). The professional student affairs
administrator: Roles and functions. In RB. Winston, Jr., D. G. Creamer, T. K.
Miller and Associate (Eds.), The professional student affairs administrator:
Educator, leader, and manager (p. 3-28). New York: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2“‘1 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

Claar, J ., & Cuyjet, M. (2000). Program planning and implementation. In Barr, Desler, &
Associations (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (p. 311-326).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-
national perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Clark, M. P., & Mason, T. W. (2001). Implementation of a Comprehensive System of
Program Evaluation: The Iowa State University Experience. Journal of College
Student Development, 42(1), 28— 38.

Clement, L. M., & Rickard, S. T. (1992). Eflective leadership in student services. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ‘

Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership in an organized anarchy. In M. C.
Brown (Ed. ), Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed.) (pp. 16 —
35). Boston: Pearson.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, M. K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of
reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3-15.

226

 

Collins, D. (1998). Organizational change: Sociological perspectives. London:
Routledge.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others
don ’t. New York: HarperCollins.

Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany
good to great. Boulder, CO: Author.

Dalton, J. C., & Gardner, D. I. (2002). Managing change in student affairs leadership
roles. New Directions for Student Services, No. 98. San Francisco, CA: Wiley
Periodicals.

Diamond, R. M. (2002). Some final observations. In R. M. Diamond (Ed.), Field guide to
academic leadership (p. 471-490). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dooris, M., Kelley, J ., & Trainer, J. F. (2004). Successful strategic planning,(New
Directions for Institutional Research, No. 123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Doyle, J. (2004). Student Affairs Division’s Integration of Student Learning Principles.
NASPA Journal, 41(2), 375-394.

Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). A university for the 21‘" century. Ann Arbor, MI: The University
of Michigan Press.

Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reigns: Institutional transformation in
higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Elmore, R. F. (1980). Backward mapping: Using implementation analysis to structure
policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94, 601-616.

Elmore, R F. (1982). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions.
In Walter Williams (ed.) Studying Implementation: Methodological and
administrative issues, p. 18-35. New York: Chatham House.

Fenske, R H. (1990). Evolution of the student services profession. In U. Delworth, G. R
Hanson, and Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

F lexner A. (1910). Medical Education in the United States and Canada. New York:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

F ley, J. (1977). LeBaron Russel Briggs: He meant Harvard. Journal of the National
Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 41, 21-24.

227

Fley, J. (1978). Marion Talbot and the great adventure at Chicago. Journal of the
National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 41, 81-
83.

Fried, J. (2007). Higher education’s new playbook: Learning Reconsidered. About
Campus, March-April, 2—7.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21" century. New York:
Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Bauer, R. A. (2007). Application of the Baldridge Model for
Innovation in higher education. In [add editors and title] (New Directions for
Higher Education No. 137, pp. 5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gallant, T. B., & Drinan, P. (2006). Institutionalizing Academic Integrity: Administrator
Perceptions and Institutional Actions. NASPA Journal, 43(4), 61-81.

Gensheimer, L. (2009). America ’s new principal. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=weeklyreport-000003 07523 1

Handy, C. (2002). Elephants and fleas: Is your organization prepared for change? Leader to
Leader, 24, 1-5.

Heifitz, R (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Boston: Belknap.

Hiatt, M. D., & Stockton, C. G. (2003). The Impact of the F l'exner Report on the fate of
medical schools in North America after 1909. Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons, 8, 37-40.

Hirt, J. B. (2006). Where you work matters: Student aflairs administrators at difi'erent
types of institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Hock, D. (1999). Birth of the chaordic age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Hunter, M. S. (2006). Lessons learning: Achieving institutional change in support of
students in transition. In F. S. Laanan (Ed.) Students in transition: Trends and
issues (New Directions for Student Services No. 114, pp. 7-15). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Hutcheson, P. A. (2007). Setting the nation's agenda for higher education: A review

of selected national commission reports, 1947 - 2006. History of Education
Quarterly, 47(3), 359—367.

228

 

Jaschik, S. (2007). Scholarship reconsidered as tenure policy. Retrieved October 7, 2007,
from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/ 10/02/wcu

Johnson, W. F. (1970). Student personnel work in higher education: Philosophy and
fiamework. In College student personnel: Readings and bibliographies, (Eds. )
L.E. Fitzgerald, W.F. Johnson, and W. Norris, p. 6-10. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Katzenbach, J .R. (1996). Real change leaders. The McKinsey Quarterly, Number 1, 148-
163.

Keeling, R. P., Underhile, R, & Wall, A. F. (2007, Fall). Horizontal and vertical
structures: The dynarrrics of organization in higher education. Liberal Education,
22-3 1.

Keller, G. (2004). Transforming a college: The story of a little-known college ’s strategic
climb to national distinction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating change in the 21”t century: Research and
conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A. (2003). Enhancing innovative partnerships: Creating a change model for
academic and student affairs collaboration. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2).

Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we. Change, 37(6), 50—57.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies
in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The
Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460.

Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, M. L. (1995). Restructuring student services: A philosophical framework. New
Directions for Student Services, no. 70. San Francisco: Wiley.

Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for
undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 135-148.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. A, Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J ., & Associates. (2005). Student success
in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

229

 

Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., Andrea, R, Lyons, J., Strange, C. C., Krehbiel, L.
E., & Mackay, K. A. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to
fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). Organizational theory. In S.R Komives, D. B. Woodward, Jr., &
Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (p. 269-296).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuk, L. (2004). Learning Reconsidered: Implications for senior student affairs officers.
Leadership exchange. NASPA: Washington, DC.

Lick, D. W. (2002). Leadership and change. In R. M. Diamond (Ed.), Field guide to
academic leadership (p. 27-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lloyd-Jones, E. M., & Smith, M. R. (1938). A student personnel program for higher
education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Locke, M. G., & Gugliehnino, L. (2006). The influences of subcultures on planned
change in a community college. Community College Review, 34(2), 108-127.

Love, P. G., & Kestanek, S. M. (2004). Rethinking student afi'airs practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Manning, K. (2001). Infusing soul into student affairs: Organizational theory and models.
In M. A. Jablonski (Ed.), The Implications of Student Spirituality for Student
Affairs Practice (New Directions for Student Services No. 95, pp. 27-35). San
Francisco: Wiley.

Manning, K., Kinzie, J ., & Schuh, J. (2006). One size does not fit all: Traditional and
innovative models of student aflairs practice. New York: Routledge.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods (2“(1 ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The professional bureaucracy. In M.C. Brown (Ed.), Organization
and governance in higher education (5th ed.) (p. 50 — 70). Boston: Pearson.

Morgan, G. (1999). Images oforganizations (2ml ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Murray, F. B. (2000). The role of accreditation reform in teacher education. Educational
Policy, 14(1), 40-59.

230

 

Nuss, E. M. (1996) The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D. B.
Woodard, Jr. and Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the
profession (3rd ed.) (p. 22-42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Oshry, B. (1995). Seeing systems: Unblocking the mysteries of organizational life. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, RT. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade
of research, Volume 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousands
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pope, R L. (1993). Multicultural-organization development in student affairs: An
introduction. Journal of College Student Development, 34(3).

Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. W. & Lattuca, L. R (2005, January). Quality assurance of
engineering education through accreditation: The impact of engineering criteria
2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education, 165-184.

Priest, D. M. (1980). Long-range planning: Implications and applications for the chief
student personnel administrator. NASPA Journal, 18(1), 2-7.

Reisser, L., & Roper, L. D. (1999). Using resources to achieve institutional missions and
goals. In G. S. Blirnling, E. J. Whitt, & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in
student affairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 113-132). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Rhatigan, J. J. (2000). The history and philosophy of student affairs. In M.J. Barr, M.J.
Desler, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student afi'airs administration (pp.
3-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rice, R. E. (2002). Beyond Scholarship Reconsidered: Toward an enlarged vision of the
scholarly work of faculty members. In K. J. Zahorski (Bd.), Scholarship in the
Postmodern Era: New Venues, New Values, New Visions (New Directions for
Teaching and Learning No. 90, pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Difi‘itsion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rooney, P.M., & Shaw, RC. (1996). New paradigms in student affairs. In A. Kendrick
(Ed.), Organizational paradigm shifts (pp. 67-72). Washington, DC: National

Association of College and University Business Officers.

Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university: A history. New York: Knopf.

231

 

Sandeen, A. (1991). The chief student aflairs oflicer: Leader, manager, mediator,
educator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sandeen, A. (1996). Organization, functions, and standards of practice. In S.R Komives,
D. B. Woodward, Jr. & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the
profession (3rd ed.) (p. 435—457). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sandeen, A. (2001). Organizing student affairs divisions. In R. B. Winston, Jr., D. G.
Creamer, T. K. Miller, & Associates (Eds.), The professional student afi‘airs
administrator (p. 181-209). New York: Routledge.

Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schuman, S. (2005). Old main: Small colleges in the twenty-first century. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Senge, P. M (2000). Building learning organizations. In M.C. Brown (Ed.), Organization
and governance in higher education (5th ed.) (p. 287-305). Boston: Pearson.

Scott, W.R. (2002). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (5th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Smith, S. F ., & Rodgers, R. F. (2005). Student learning community of practice: Making

meaning of the student learning imperative and principles of good practice in
student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 46(5), 472—486.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R (1997). Shaping the college cun'iculum: Academic plans in
action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stone, G. L., & Archer, J. (1990). College and university counseling centers in the 19905:
Challenges and limits. The Counseling Psychologist, 18(4), 539-607.

Thelin, J. R (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2Ind ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

232

 

Tomatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

US. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the fitture of (1.5.
higher education. Washington, DC: US. Department of Education.

Vaill, P. (1996). Learning as a way of being. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ward, L., & Warner, M. (1996, March). Creating environments for change: Strategies
for transcending fear. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
College Personnel Association, Baltimore, MD.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. In M.C.
Brown (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (5’11 ed.) (p. 36 —
49). Boston: Pearson.

Westfall, S. B. (2007). Charting the territory: The small college dean. In S. B. Westfall
(Ed.), The small college dean (New Directions for Student Services No. 116, pp.
5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wheatley, M. J. (1994). The creative energy of the universe - Information. In M. J.
Wheatley, Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an
orderly universe. (pp. 101-120). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic
world (2ud ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

White, S. C., & Glickrnan, T. S. (2007). Innovation in higher education: Implications for
the future. Managing for innovation (New Directions for Higher Education No.
137, pp. 97-104). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher
expectations for higher education. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation.

Woodward, D. B., Love, P., & Komives, S. R. (2000). Leadership and management
issues for a new century (New Directions for Student Services, No 92). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods, (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

233